Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35935172›Full record

ArticleConservation science and practice2022

Human impacts on mammals in and around a protected area before, during, and after COVID-19 lockdowns.

Michael Procko, Robin Naidoo, Valerie LeMay, A Cole Burton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation science and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michael ProckoDepartment of Forest Resources Management, Forest Sciences Centre University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0302-9058
Robin NaidooWWF-US Washington District of Columbia USA.
Valerie LeMayDepartment of Forest Resources Management, Forest Sciences Centre University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia Canada.
A Cole BurtonDepartment of Forest Resources Management, Forest Sciences Centre University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The dual mandate for many protected areas (PAs) to simultaneously promote recreation and conserve biodiversity may be hampered by negative effects of recreation on wildlife. However, reports of these effects are not consistent, presenting a knowledge gap that hinders evidence-based decision-making. We used camera traps to monitor human activity and terrestrial mammals in Golden Ears Provincial Park and the adjacent University of British Columbia Malcolm Knapp Research Forest near Vancouver, Canada, with the objective of discerning relative effects of various forms of recreation on cougars (

Indexed as

anthropausecoastal forestsmammal conservationmesopredator releasepredator shieldrecreation ecology

Identifiers

PMID35935172
PMCPMC9347595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.