ArticlePloS one2022
Assessment and spatial partitioning of ecosystem services importance in Giant Panda National Park: To provide targeted ecological protection.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Giant Panda National Park is crucial for China's ecological security strategic pattern known as "two screens and three belts." The importance assessment and classification of ecosystem services in giant panda national parks has an important guiding role in the protection of giant panda national park ecosystems. In this study, we examined four indicators of habitat quality: carbon storage, water conservation, and soil and water conservation. Combined with data analysis were used to evaluate and classify the importance of ecosystem services in the study area. The results showed that: (1) the overall habitat quality index in the study area was relatively high, and the index was generally greater than 0.5. The total carbon storage was 60.5 × 106 t, and the highest carbon storage in the region was 16.9533 t. The area with the highest water conservation reached 715.275 mm. The total soil conservation was 2555.7 × 107 t. (2) From the perspective of spatial characteristics, the habitat quality in the study area presented a spatial distribution pattern of high-low from west to east. The carbon storage presented a spatial distribution pattern of high-low from east to west. The soil conservation presented a spatial pattern of decreasing from west to east, and the water conservation increased from west to east. (3) We divided the research into four levels of importance: The area of general importance in the study site accounted for 1017.58 km2 and was distributed in the northwest of the study site. The moderately important areas were distributed in the east of the study site, with an area of 1142.40 km2. The highly important areas were distributed in the west of the study site, totaling 2647.84 km2. Extremely important areas were distributed in the middle, with an area of 1451.32 km2. (4) The grid cell scale of the study area was used as the dataset to determine the weighting. This makes the weighting more objective and ensures that the spatial distribution of areas with different degrees of importance will be more accurate.
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.