Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39530486›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025

Effectiveness of protected areas in the Caucasus Mountains in preventing rangeland degradation.

Arash Ghoddousi, Marie Pratzer, Katarzyna E Lewinska, Juliana Eggers, Benjamin Bleyhl, Hüseyin Ambarli, Marine Arakelyan, Elshad Askerov, Van Butsic, Astghik Ghazaryan and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Effectiveness of protected areas in the Caucasus Mountains in preventing rangeland degradation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    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

13 authors.

Arash GhoddousiGeography Department, Humboldt-University Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9605-3091
Marie PratzerGeography Department, Humboldt-University Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Katarzyna E LewinskaGeography Department, Humboldt-University Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Juliana EggersGeography Department, Humboldt-University Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Benjamin BleyhlGeography Department, Humboldt-University Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Hüseyin AmbarliDepartment of Wildlife Ecology and Management, Düzce University, Düzce, Turkey.
Marine ArakelyanDepartment of Zoology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia.
Elshad AskerovWWF-Azerbaijan, Baku, Azerbaijan.
Van ButsicDepartment of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkley, Berkley, California, USA.
Astghik GhazaryanDepartment of Zoology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia.
Bejan LortkipanidzeNACRES - Centre for Biodiversity Conservation and Research, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Volker C RadeloffDepartment of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Tobias KuemmerleGeography Department, Humboldt-University Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9775-142X

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01DK21003Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung SoMo projectDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft GH 149/1-1Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft PArCS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As land use intensifies globally, it increasingly exerts pressure on protected areas. Despite open, nonforested landscapes comprising up to 40% of protected areas globally, assessments have predominately focused on forests, overlooking the major pressures on rangelands from livestock overgrazing and land conversion. Across the southern Caucasus, a biodiversity hotspot extending over 5 countries, we conducted a broadscale assessment of the extent to which protected areas mitigate land-use pressure on rangelands in them. Using satellite-based indicators of rangeland vegetation greenness from 1988 to 2019, we assessed the effectiveness of 52 protected areas. This period encompassed the collapse of the Soviet Union, economic crises, armed conflicts, and a major expansion of the protected area network. We applied matching statistics combined with fixed-effects panel regressions to quantify the effectiveness of protected areas in curbing degradation as indicated by green vegetation loss. Protected areas were, overall, largely ineffective. Green vegetation loss was higher inside than outside protected areas in most countries, except for Georgia and Turkey. Multiple-use protected areas (IUCN categories IV-VI) were even more ineffective in reducing vegetation loss than strictly protected areas (I & II), highlighting the need for better aligning conservation and development targets in these areas. Mapping >10,000 livestock corrals from satellite images showed that protected areas with a relatively high density of livestock corrals had markedly high green vegetation loss. Ineffectiveness appeared driven by livestock overgrazing. Our key finding was that protected areas did not curb rangeland degradation in the Caucasus. This situation is likely emblematic of many regions worldwide, which highlights the need to incorporate degradation and nonforest ecosystems into effectiveness assessments.

Indexed as

BiodiversityConservation of Natural ResourcesGeorgia (Republic)biodiversity hotspotsdegradación del sueloestadística de concordanciaestepasevaluación de impactograsslandsgrazing pressureimpact evaluationland degradationlivestock grazingmatching statisticspastizalespastoreo de ganadopresión de pastoreopuntos calientes de biodiversidadsteppes关键词: 草原匹配统计土地退化干草原影响评估放牧放牧压力生物多样性热点地区

Identifiers

PMID39530486
PMCPMC12124178

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.