Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40100918›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2025

Past conservation efforts reveal which actions lead to positive outcomes for species.

Ashley T Simkins, William J Sutherland, Lynn V Dicks, Craig Hilton-Taylor, Molly K Grace, Stuart H M Butchart, Rebecca A Senior, Silviu O Petrovan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

8 authors.

Ashley T SimkinsDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0190-3960
William J SutherlandDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6498-0437
Lynn V DicksDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8304-4468
Craig Hilton-TaylorInternational Union for Conservation of Nature Red List Unit, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1163-1425
Molly K GraceDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1978-615X
Stuart H M ButchartDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1140-4049
Rebecca A SeniorConservation Ecology Group, Department of Biosciences, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8208-736X
Silviu O PetrovanDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3984-2403

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the consequences of past conservation efforts is essential to inform the means of maintaining and restoring species. Data from the IUCN Red List for 67,217 animal species were reviewed and analyzed to determine (i) which conservation actions have been implemented for different species, (ii) which types of species have improved in status and (iii) which actions are likely to have driven the improvements. At least 51.8% (34,847) of assessed species have actions reported, mostly comprising protected areas (82.7%). Proportionately more actions were reported for tetrapods and warm-water reef-building corals, and fewer for fish, dragonflies and damselflies and crustaceans. Species at greater risk of extinction have a wider range of species-targeted actions reported compared with less threatened species, reflecting differences in documentation and conservation efforts. Six times more species have deteriorated than improved in status, as reflected in their IUCN Red List category. Almost all species that improved have conservation actions in place, and typically were previously at high risk of extinction, have smaller ranges and were less likely to be documented as threatened by hunting and habitat loss or degradation. Improvements in status were driven by a wide range of actions, especially reintroductions; for amphibians and birds, area management was also important. While conservation interventions have reduced the extinction risk of some of the most threatened species, in very few cases has full recovery been achieved. Scaling up the extent and intensity of conservation interventions, particularly landscape-scale actions that benefit broadly distributed species, is urgently needed to assist the recovery of biodiversity.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesEndangered SpeciesAnimalsBiodiversityEcosystemExtinction, Biological

Identifiers

PMID40100918
PMCPMC12135918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.