ArticleScientific reports2025
Understanding rangeland desertification through pastoralist perspectives using a grounded theory approach.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rangeland desertification risk has significantly increased due to the fragility of these ecosystems and the severity of degradation caused by climate instability and human activities over the last decade. This research focuses on identifying indicators of rangeland desertification risk using a qualitative grounded theory approach based on the perspectives of pastoralists in Kolijah and Qolaq-Borte, Golestan Province, Iran. The study population comprised regional pastoralists, with 15 experts selected through snowball sampling. Data collection was conducted through in-depth, semi-structured interviews, with thematic analysis carried out via open, axial, and selective coding. Results revealed three primary categories of desertification indicators: "vegetation," "employment and income sources," and "climate and natural hazards," scoring 3.08, 3.00, and 2.80, respectively. Meanwhile, "water and water resources," "animal health and diseases," and "participation and social capital" were identified as less significant. Key findings emphasize the importance of vegetation decline, with reduced forage quality and increased prevalence of unpalatable plants serving as prominent signs of desertification. Additionally, socio-economic impacts, including increased animal husbandry costs and reduced livelihood resilience, highlight the multifaceted nature of desertification risk. The study underscores the critical need for targeted conservation policies, incorporating local knowledge to enhance restoration and sustainable management practices. By identifying the key indicators and their impacts, this research provides valuable insights for mitigating desertification and promoting the resilience of rangelands and pastoralist communities.
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.