ArticleAmbio2022
Ecological integrity and conservation challenges in a rapidly changing Arctic: A call for new approaches in large intact landscapes.
Article in Ambio, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intactness is a commonly used measure of ecological integrity, especially when evaluating conservation status at the landscape scale. We argue that in the large and relatively unfragmented landscapes of the Arctic and sub-Arctic, intactness provides only partial insight for managers charged with maintaining ecological integrity. A recent landscape assessment suggests that 95% of Alaska shows no measured direct or indirect impacts of human development on the landscape. However, the current exceptionally high levels of intactness in Alaska, and throughout the Arctic and sub-Arctic, do not adequately reflect impacts to the region's ecological integrity caused by indirect stressors, such as a rapidly changing climate and the subsequent loss of the cryosphere. Thus, it can be difficult to measure, and manage, some of the conservation challenges presented by the ecological context of these systems. The dominant drivers of change, and their associated ecological and socioeconomic impacts, vary as systems decline in ecological integrity from very high to high, and to intermediate levels, but this is not well understood in the literature. Arctic and sub-Arctic systems, as well as other large intact areas, provide unique opportunities for conservation planning, but require tools and approaches appropriate to unfragmented landscapes undergoing rapid climate-driven ecological transformation. We conclude with possible directions for developing more appropriate metrics for measuring ecological integrity in these systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.