ArticleScientific reports2025
Spatial risk patches of the Indian crested porcupine crop damage in southeastern Iran.
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.
- A Semi-Automated RGB-Based Method for Wildlife Crop Damage Detection Using QGIS-Integrated UAV Workflow.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) represent a significant global issue, leading to economic losses for humans due to the destruction of agricultural products and livestock. This study was conducted in southeastern Iran with two primary objectives: to identify the major environmental variables influencing spatial risk modeling and to pinpoint spatial risk patches and hotspots of agricultural damage caused by the Indian crested porcupine (ICP) in this region. An ensemble modeling technique was used to evaluate the spatial risk of agricultural damage caused by the ICP, drawing on 111 independent conflict records and nine environmental factors. The findings indicated that the distance to villages, orchard density, cropland density, and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index emerged as the most significant variables in modeling the spatial risk of crop damage from the ICP in the study region. Nine spatial risk patches, comprising approximately 8% of the study area, were identified for crop damage attributed to the ICP. The three largest spatial risk patches, located in the west of the study area, accounted for 80% of all predicted crop damage patches caused by the ICP. Additionally, hotspots of agricultural damage were clustered in the western part of the study area. Conservation areas covered about 8% of the predicted spatial risk patches and 2.4% of the hotspots of agricultural damage, respectively. Urgent attention is needed to reduce human-ICP conflicts in the identified risk patches. We strongly recommend implementing fencing around cultivated lands and individual tree trunks, as well as enhancing local knowledge and insurance for agricultural products, to mitigate human-ICP conflicts in the study area.
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.