ArticleAmbio2024
Mammal recovery inside and outside terrestrial protected areas.
Article in Ambio, 2024. 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.
- Biomass distribution of sympatric mammals in a European temperate forest.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Protected areas are a key component of global conservation, and the world is aiming to increase protected areas to cover 30% of land and water through the 30 × 30 Initiative under the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. However, factors affecting their success or failure in regard to promoting mammal population recovery are not well studied, particularly using quantitative approaches comparing across diverse taxa, biomes, and countries. To better understand how protected areas contribute to mammalian recovery, we conducted an analysis of 2706 mammal populations both inside and outside of protected areas worldwide. We calculated the annual percent change of mammal populations within and outside of terrestrial protected areas and examined the relationship between the percent change and a suite of human and natural characteristics including biome, region, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) protected area category, IUCN Red List classification, and taxonomic order. Our results show that overall mammal populations inside and outside of protected areas are relatively stable. It appears that Threatened mammals are doing better inside of protected areas than outside, whereas the opposite is true for species of least concern and Near Threatened species. We also found significant population increases in protected areas classified as category III and significant population decreases in protected and unprotected areas throughout Oceania. Our results demonstrate that terrestrial protected areas can be an important approach for mammalian recovery and conservation.
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.