ArticlePloS one2025
A distance-based framework for assessing the ex-situ conservation status of plants.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present a framework to assess the ex-situ conservation status of plant species, by estimating the fraction of extant genetic diversity that has been conserved as seeds or other living material outside their natural habitat. We use a species distribution model to predict the area that is suitable for a species, and use inclusion and exclusion buffers to estimate its range. The range is divided into a number of zones that is proportional to the square root of its size. The geographic and environmental distance between zones is combined into a single distance metric that is used as to set weights on the links of a network connecting neighboring zones. An adjusted network is created by setting the distance between zones with seed samples to zero and halving the distance to neighboring zones for which there is no seed sample. The ex-situ conservation score (XC, between 0 and 1) is then computed as the reduction in the sum of the weights of the shortest paths between the nodes in the adjusted network relative to the sum the weights of the shortest paths in the original network. We adjust XC for small seed sample sizes and for the number of seed samples with unknown geographic origin. We illustrate our framework for 61 wild Vigna species in Africa. Twenty-three species were not conserved ex-situ (XC = 0), and 42 species had very low conservation scores (XC < 0.2). Range sizes were very different from the suitable area sizes predicted with the species distribution model (r = 0.09). The geographic and environmental distances were weakly correlated (r = 0.29), illustrating the importance of considering both. The Pearson correlation coefficient between XC and seed sample size for each species was 0.94, suggesting that seed sample size can be useful for quickly evaluating ex-situ conservation status.
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.