ArticleBMC biology2025
Evaluating conservation gaps of China's national key protected wild plants: insights from county-level distribution data.
Article in BMC biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatial Distribution and Conservation Prioritization of Medicinal Gymnosperms in China Using an Optimal Set-Cover Approach.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- A comprehensive dated phylogeny of China's vascular plants reveals a hidden global biodiversity hotspot.Nature ecology & evolution · 2026Article
- Living Landmarks: A Review of Monumental Trees and Their Role in Ecosystems.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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
Abstract
backgroundThe National Key Protected Wild Plants (NKPWPs) list serves as China's primary legal framework for plant diversity protection, with the species categorized into Level I (critically endangered, strictly protected) and Level II (lower risk but still requiring protection). However, the geographical distribution of these species and gaps in their conservation remain elusive due to the limited availability of data on species distribution. Thus, to address these gaps and support precise conservation, we developed a county-level distribution database for the NKPWP species using information primarily sourced from literature. Using this database, we elucidated the geographical distribution patterns of NKPWPs and identified the gaps in both in situ and ex situ conservation.
resultsThe NKPWPs analyzed in the study included 1,128 plant species. We compiled a county-level distribution database for these species with 30,397 records. Detailed analysis of this data revealed that these species were concentrated in the mountainous regions of southern China, including the Eastern Himalaya-Hengduan Mountains, south Yunnan, the Yunnan-Guizhou-Guangxi border, and the Wuling Mountains. Among the 1,118 embryophyte species of the checklist, 1,060 (94.81%) were found conserved in situ, 681 (60.91%) were found conserved ex situ, and 660 (59.03%) through both approaches. Besides, species with a higher threat level and limited distribution range exhibited lower conservation coverage in both ex situ and in situ approaches; 37 species received no conservation (3.31%).
conclusionsThe county-level distribution database developed in this study comprehensively depicts the geographical distribution patterns of NKPWP in China, offering valuable data for planning species conservation and providing a foundational framework for addressing the existing gaps in their conservation across China. This database will ultimately support targeted conservation and resource allocation to protect plant diversity effectively. We also suggest adopting an integrated evaluation approach for conservation strategies in other areas, globally, or for other biological groups.
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.