ArticlePloS one2024
Mapping climate adaptation corridors for biodiversity-A regional-scale case study in Central America.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It carries an expression of concern. 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.
Corrections and comments
- Expression of concern
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Climate adaptation corridors are widely recognized as important for promoting biodiversity resilience under climate change. Central America is part of the Mesoamerican biodiversity hotspot, but there have been no regional-scale analyses of potential climate adaptation corridors in Central America. We identified 2375 potential corridors throughout Central America that link lowland protected areas (≤ 500 m) with intact, high-elevation forests (≥ 1500 m) that represent potential climate change refugia. Whereas we found potential corridors in all Central American countries, potential corridors in Panama, Belize, and Honduras were most protected (medians = 64%, 49%, and 47%, respectively) and potential corridors in El Salvador were least protected (median = 10%). We also developed a corridor priority index based on the ecological characteristics and protected status of potential corridors and their associated start and end points. Compared to low- and medium-priority corridors, high-priority corridors (n = 160; top 7% of all corridors) were generally more protected, forested, and distributed across wider elevational gradients and more Key Biodiversity Areas, but also generally linked larger lowland protected areas to target areas that were larger, more protected, and spanned wider elevational gradients. For example, based on median values, high-priority corridors were 9% more protected and overlapped with 2-3 more Key Biodiversity Areas than low- and medium-priority corridors. Although high-elevation targets spanned considerably wider elevational gradients than lowland protected areas (medians = 695 vs. 142 m, respectively) and thus may be more likely to support refugia, they were considerably smaller than lowland protected areas (medians = 11 vs. 50 km2 respectively) and mostly unprotected (median = 4% protection). This initial, regional assessment can help prioritize locations for finer-scale research, conservation, and restoration activities in support of climate adaptation corridors throughout Central America and highlights the need for greater conservation of potential high-elevation refugia.
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.