ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025
Effect of reserve protection level and governance on tree cover loss and gain.
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 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.
- Effect of reserve protection level and governance on tree cover loss and gain.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 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
Terrestrial protected areas are essential for biodiversity conservation, yet it is not fully understood when and how different types of protected areas are most effective in achieving specific conservation objectives. We assessed the impact of reserves on tree cover loss and gain through a case study in Tasmania, Australia. We considered varying protection levels (strict, where human activities are restricted, and multiple use) and governance types (public and private). We used a counterfactual matching approach to compare tree cover loss and gain between reserves and matched unprotected areas from 2004 to 2021. We accounted for forest policy changes, environmental covariates, and human pressures to reduce placement bias. We also characterized reserves by size, governance, management, and vegetation and compared covariates inside and outside reserves to define baseline conditions. Reserves established from 2004 to 2016 were overall 75.4% less likely to have lost tree cover and 16.0% more likely to have had tree cover gain compared with controls. Patterns of loss and gain varied by protection level and governance type. Multiple-use reserves were as effective as reserves in which human activities were more restricted. Privately managed reserves contributed to tree cover growth, and public reserves helped avoid loss. This highlights reserves' distinct contributions to conservation targets, with private reserves allowing for growth and restoration and public reserves acting as stable anchor points. Our results emphasize the importance of having a diverse array of protected areas to enhance the resilience of reserve networks. We advocate for adaptive regional measures and robust monitoring to achieve global ecological targets.
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.