ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025
A habitat-based approach to reporting the direct impacts of an organization on biodiversity.
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.
- A habitat-based approach to reporting the direct impacts of an organization on biodiversity.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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is a rapidly growing need for efficient but rigorous methods for organizations to assess and disclose their biodiversity impacts. We devised a habitat-based analytical approach for estimating the direct impacts of an organization on biodiversity. In our broad approach, we considered the time series of an organization's spatial footprint and assumed its biodiversity position was the accumulated positive and negative impacts over space and time. We demonstrated the approach by assessing the biodiversity position of CSIRO-Australia's national science agency, which has owned or controlled 50 sites across Australia since 1916, covering >460,000 ha. We applied 3 complementary habitat-based biodiversity indicators (effective habitat area, species extinction risk, and threatened species habitat), all with a fine resolution annual (1987-2023) time series of ecosystem condition as their basis. At the end of the most recent observation year, the CSIRO was in a negative biodiversity position in terms of all 3 biodiversity indicators. Over the time series considered, the activities of CSIRO were estimated to have led to an increase in the extinction risk for all native species by 1.0 species; a reduction in effective habitat area of 11,945 ha and a reduction in threatened species habitat of 22,307 species hectares (i.e., condition-weighted amount of habitat available to threatened species). Although the magnitude of the biodiversity position for CSIRO was strongly influenced by a single very large site (Murchison), the vast majority of the CSIRO sites were also in a negative position when considered separately. We demonstrated how future-looking scenario analysis can be linked with this biodiversity assessment approach, with a single natural regeneration action across the large Murchison site estimated to return CSIRO's biodiversity position close to neutral within 50 years.
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.