ArticleScientific reports2025
Challenges in expert ratings of marine habitat and species sensitivity to anthropogenic pressures.
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.
- Towards the Establishment of a Sea Urchin Sperm Biobank: Key Challenges and Opportunities for the Conservation and Sustainable Aquaculture ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Expert knowledge can help fill gaps in quantitative empirical information about complex ecological phenomena. We examined the level of agreement between 21 studies that collected expert ratings of the sensitivity of species and habitats to human activities and their pressures as input data for mapping the human impact on marine ecosystems. Our analyses revealed broad agreement about which human activities and pressures many species and habitats are sensitive to. These agreements reflect a common view of the main threats to ocean ecosystems. In contrast, scores provided by individual experts varied both within and across studies. Sensitivity scores collected with the same method for different regions were often more similar than scores collected for the same region but with different methods. These results highlight how inconsistencies in the design of many expert surveys can lead to variable outcomes. It is important to employ more consistent and theoretically grounded methods and protocols when eliciting expert ratings of species' sensitivity to pressures, to ensure compatibility across studies and maintain rigour in analyses supporting effective ocean management.
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.