ArticlePloS one2023
Carbonated tiger-high above-ground biomass carbon stock in protected areas and corridors and its observed negative relationship with tiger population density and occupancy in the Terai Arc Landscape, Nepal.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revival of Tigers: Long-Term Trends (2009-2022) in the Relative Abundance Index of Tigers, Prey, and Anthropogenic Disturbance in Parsa National Park, Nepal.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- From science to impact: Conserving ecological connectivity in large conservation landscapes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Healthy natural forests maintain and/or enhances carbon stock while also providing potential habitat and an array of services to wildlife including large carnivores such as the tiger. This study is the first of its kind in assessing relationships between above-ground biomass carbon stock, tiger density and occupancy probability and its status in protected areas, corridors, and forest connectivity blocks. The dataset used to assess the relationship were: (1) Converged posterior tiger density estimates from camera trap data derived from Bayesian- Spatially Explicit Capture-Recapture model from Chitwan National Park; (2) Site wise probability of tiger occupancy estimated across the Terai Arc Landscape and (3) Habitat wise above-ground biomass carbon stock estimated across the Terai Arc Landscape. Carbon stock maps were derived based on eight habitat classes and conservation units linking satellite (Landsat 7 ETM+) images and field collected sampling data. A significant negative relationship (r = -0.20, p<0.01) was observed between above-ground biomass carbon stock and tiger density in Chitwan National Park and with tiger occupancy (r = -0.24, p = 0.023) in the landscape. Within protected areas, we found highest mean above-ground biomass carbon stock in high density mixed forest (~223 tC/ha) and low in degraded scrubland (~73.2 tC/ha). Similarly, we found: (1) highest tiger density ~ 0.06 individuals per 0.33 km2 in the riverine forest and lowest estimates (~0.00) in degraded scrubland; and (2) predictive tiger density of 0.0135 individuals per 0.33 km2 is equivalent to mean total of 43.7 tC/ha in Chitwan National Park. Comparatively, we found similar above-ground biomass carbon stock among corridors, large forest connectivity blocks (~117 tC/ha), and within in tiger bearing protected areas (~119 tC/ha). Carbon conservation through forest restoration particularly in riverine habitats (forest and grassland) and low transitional state forests (degraded scrubland) provides immense opportunities to generate win-win solutions, sequester more carbon and maintain habitat integrity for tigers and other large predators.
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.