Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40450531›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025

Identifying priority areas for conservation to promote connectivity and mitigate the impacts of anthropogenic disturbance.

Edmond Sacre, Ulf Bergström, Charlotte Berkström

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Identifying priority areas for conservation to promote connectivity and mitigate the impacts of anthropogenic disturbance.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
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

3 authors.

Edmond SacreDepartment of Aquatic Resources, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Öregrund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2218-431X
Ulf BergströmDepartment of Aquatic Resources, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Charlotte BerkströmDepartment of Aquatic Resources, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

HORIZON EUROPESwedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As nations seek to expand protected area (PA) networks to cover 30% of land and seas by 2030 (30×30), there is an urgent need for systematic conservation planning and spatial prioritization that considers the broad range of ecological and socioeconomic factors influencing the persistence of biodiversity. A remaining challenge in spatial prioritization is identifying areas that not only contribute to ecological connectivity but also are vulnerable to isolation and connectivity decline caused by anthropogenic disturbance. We devised an approach to assess PA networks and prioritize areas for conservation action and applied it to the Swedish coastal Baltic Sea area as an example. We developed connectivity models for 16 key fish species to identify habitats that provide the greatest contributions to maintaining network connectivity. We then incorporated spatial data on anthropogenic disturbance into the connectivity models to identify habitats for which human activities may hinder dispersal and recruitment, making them vulnerable to local population declines. We assessed the adequacy of the marine protected area (MPA) network in protecting these biodiversity features. Using spatial prioritization with explicit objectives to protect these biodiversity features, we then identified important areas for future protection. Although the Swedish MPA network provided a reasonable level of protection for these key habitats, their protection in stricter MPA categories (International Union for Conservation of Nature categories Ia, Ib, and II) was poor. Expanding the MPA network from its current coverage (10.5% of the study area) to 11%, the mean protection level across features increased from 25% to 48%. Expanding to 15% coverage increased mean protection across features to over 90%. Our approach to conservation planning incorporated not only biodiversity data (e.g., habitats and connectivity) but also the pressures these elements of biodiversity are susceptible to from human activities.

Indexed as

Anthropogenic EffectsBiodiversityConservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemFishesAnimalsSwedenanthropogenic disturbanceáreas marinas protegidascoherencia ecológicaconectividad ecológicaecological coherenceecological connectivitymarine protected areasperturbación antropogénicaplaneación sistemática de la conservaciónpresionespressurespriorización espacialprotected area networksredes de áreas protegidasspatial prioritizationsystematic conservation planning人为干扰保护区网络压力海洋保护区生态连贯性生态连通性空间优先保护系统性保护规划

Identifiers

PMID40450531
PMCPMC12658951

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.