Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38162572›Full record

ArticleBioscience2023

The role of governance in rewilding the United States to stem the biodiversity crisis.

Shelby C Carlson, John A Vucetich, L Mark Elbroch, Shelby Perry, Lydia A Roe, Tom Butler, Jeremy T Bruskotter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. The place for people in rewilding.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2024
    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

7 authors.

Shelby C CarlsonTerrestrial Wildlife Ecology Lab, in the School of Environment and Natural Resources at the Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1908-2849
John A VucetichCollege of Forest Resources and Environmental Science at Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8400-7415
L Mark ElbrochPanthera, New York, New York, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0429-4179
Shelby PerryNortheast Wilderness Trust, Montpelier, Vermont, United States.
Lydia A RoeNortheast Wilderness Trust, Montpelier, Vermont, United States.
Tom ButlerNortheast Wilderness Trust, Montpelier, Vermont, United States.
Jeremy T BruskotterTerrestrial Wildlife Ecology Lab, in the School of Environment and Natural Resources at the Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1782-7835

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A critical but underattended feature of the biodiversity crisis is the contraction of geographic range experienced by most studied terrestrial vertebrates. In the United States, the primary policy tool for mitigating the biodiversity crisis is a federal law, the Endangered Species Act (ESA). For the past two decades, the federal agencies that administer the ESA have interpreted the act in a manner that precludes treating this geographic element of the crisis. Therefore, the burden of mitigating the biodiversity crisis largely falls on wildlife agencies within state government, which are obligated to operate on behalf of the interests of their constituents. We present survey research indicating that most constituents expect state agencies to prioritize species restoration over other activities, including hunting. This prioritization holds even among self-identified hunters, which is significant because state agencies often take the provisioning of hunting opportunity as their top priority. By prioritizing rewilding efforts that restore native species throughout portions of their historic range, state agencies could unify hunting and nonhunting constituents while simultaneously stemming the biodiversity crisis.

Indexed as

biodiversityEndangered Species Actwildlife restoration

Identifiers

PMID38162572
PMCPMC10755707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.