ArticleAgriculture, ecosystems & environment2023
Limited evidence for quantitative contribution of rare and endangered species to agricultural production.
Article in Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 2023. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biodiversity underpins ecosystem functions that provide benefits to people, yet the role of rare and endangered species (RES) in supporting ecosystem services is unclear. Thus, it remains controversial whether arguments for conservation that focus on ecosystem services align with the protection of RES. We designed a systematic review protocol to critically assess the evidence for quantitative contributions of RES to terrestrial agricultural production, which is a key driver of biodiversity change and, simultaneously, could suffer from the loss of ecosystem services provided by biodiversity. Our review search criteria required that studies: 1) provide information on RES, 2) focus on an ecosystem service relevant for agriculture; and 3) include a quantitative measure of agricultural production. Surprisingly, we found only four studies that fulfilled these criteria, which was insufficient to perform a meta-analysis of results. Thus, we highlight here the gap in quantitative research, discuss the implications of this knowledge gap for the conservation of RES, and suggest future research directions. We conclude that further quantitative research is urgently needed to better inform conservation and agricultural policies, including research that focuses specifically on RES, incorporates more ecosystem services, and covers a wider range of climatic and socioeconomic contexts.
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.