ArticleScientific reports2024
Exploring the effect of different typical plant community on human stress reduction: a field experiment.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Restorative effects of plant landscapes under different weather and phenology conditions: evidence from EEG and psychological responses.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Forest Bathing (Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Urban green spaces and resident health: an empirical analysis from data across 30 provinces in China.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Research has demonstrated the positive effect of natural environment on human restoration and well-being. Time spent in nature can often alleviate both physiological and psychological stress. However, few studies have discussed the environmental health effects of the nature's components and characteristics. Sixty volunteers were recruited and one manufactured environment and five different natural environments were randomly assigned to them, including coniferous forests (pure coniferous forest-PC and mixed coniferous forest-MC), broad-leaved forests (pure broad-leaved forest-PB and mixed broad-leaved forest-MB), and mixed forest (mixed coniferous and broad-leaved forest-MCB). Each volunteer sat in a built or natural environment and looked around the environment for 15 min. Physiological (HR, HRV, BP, pulse rate and salivary cortisol) and psychological indicators (POMS and STAI) were used to evaluate the changes in their stress level. Results indicated a strong difference in HR, HRV, POMS and STAI between the built and natural environment, which showed that natural environment can lower the stress level. MC had the best effect on relieving physiological stress, whereas MCB is most successful in improving emotional state and reducing anxiety. Broad-leaved forest and mixed forest significantly affected the DBP and vigor level of the subjects, respectively. While coniferous forest did significantly increase the concentration of salivary cortisol in subjects. The study confirmed that compared to the built environment, the natural environment can relieve the human body's physical and psychological stress and negative emotions, while significantly increasing vitality. And different plant communities also have different effects on the physiological and psychological indicators of the subjects. These results will provide scientific basis for the construction and improvement of urban green space environment.
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.