ArticleLandscape ecology2024
The importance of different forest management systems for people's dietary quality in Tanzania.
Article in Landscape ecology, 2024. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: A large body of literature has shown that forests provide nutritious foods in many low- and middle-income countries. Yet, there is limited evidence on the contributions from different types of forest and tree systems. Objectives: Here, we focus on individual trees and smaller forest patches outside established forest reserves as well as different forest management systems. Methods: We do so by combining novel high-resolution data on tree cover with 24-h dietary recall surveys from 465 women in Tanzania. Results: We show that people with more unclassified tree cover (i.e., individual trees and small forest patches) in their nearby surroundings have more adequate protein, iron, zinc, and vitamin A intakes. We also find that having a nearby forest under Participatory Forest Management (PFM) system is associated with higher adequacy levels of energy, iron, zinc and vitamin A. By contrast, tree cover within other types of forest (e.g., Government Forest Reserves and Government Forest Plantations) is not positively associated with people's dietary quality. Conclusions: Our key finding is that having individual trees, smaller forest patches and/or forest under PFM in close proximity is more beneficial for people's diets than other types of established forests. Our results highlight the nutritional importance of trees outside established forests and question the often-assumed benefits of forests if these are made inaccessible by social barriers (e.g., legislation). Finally, our results emphasize the need to distinguish between different forest management systems when studying forest-diet linkages. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10980-024-01961-6.
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.