Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40450537›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025

Call for new criteria for monitoring and registering Natura 2000 species data.

Meritxell Genovart, Roberto Salguero-Gomez, Fernando Colchero, Francisco Guil, Joan Rabassa-Juvanteny, Julia Uriach-Dasca, Dalia Amor Conde, Jean Michel Gaillard, Tim Coulson

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Call for new criteria for monitoring and registering Natura 2000 species data.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

9 authors.

Meritxell GenovartDepartment of Ecology and Complexity, CEAB (CSIC), Blanes, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2919-1288
Roberto Salguero-GomezDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Fernando ColcheroDepartment of Primate Behavior and Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany.
Francisco GuilSpanish Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge, Madrid, Spain.
Joan Rabassa-JuvantenyDepartment of Ecology and Complexity, CEAB (CSIC), Blanes, Spain.
Julia Uriach-DascaDepartment of Ecology and Complexity, CEAB (CSIC), Blanes, Spain.
Dalia Amor CondeDepartment of Biology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Jean Michel GaillardUnité de Recherche Mixte 5558 «Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive», Université Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France.
Tim CoulsonDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BiodiversityBirdsConservation of Natural ResourcesAnimalsEuropean Unionbiodiversidadbiodiversitybiología de la conservaciónconservation biologyconservation policyestrategias de historias de vidagestiónlife‐history strategiesmanagementmonitoreomonitoringNatura 2000políticas de conservación

Identifiers

PMID40450537
PMCPMC12451482

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.