ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025
Call for new criteria for monitoring and registering Natura 2000 species data.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging Conservation Gaps: Evaluating Habitat Mapping Methods for Alpine River Ecosystems.Environmental management · 2026Article
- Call for new criteria for monitoring and registering Natura 2000 species data.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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The European Union's Birds and Habitats Directives are intended to guarantee the persistence of species and natural habitats across member states. To achieve this laudable aim, the Natura 2000 network of protected areas was established in 1992. Since then, member states are required to regularly monitor species and habitats and report findings to the European Commission, which requires substantial investment from all countries. The Natura 2000 network is an invaluable example of a large-scale coordinated network developed to address major conservation issues. Based on our analysis of the 2020 Species Natura 2000 database and on expert opinions by Natura 2000 executives, we found that the network is failing to adequately show biodiversity status and guide conservation because it does not allow cross-border comparisons of species' and populations' conservation status. The main contributing factor to this failure is that member states frequently fail to follow reporting EU guidelines, resulting in heterogeneity in criteria for monitoring and registering species among Natura 2000 areas. We advocate developing new unified and realistic criteria for monitoring and reporting species data that correctly allow cross-border comparisons and conservation diagnosis. We propose that monitoring protocols and current criteria be modified slightly by considering species' life-history strategies, distribution, and conservation status. We do not suggest a major overhaul of the directives; rather, we propose debate on how relatively small changes in guidelines could improve the utility of the huge amount of data collected from the Natura 2000 network.
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.