ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025
Evaluating protected areas' coverage of threats to terrestrial 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Changes in Potential Suitable Habitats, Species Turnover, and Conservation Gaps of Wild Plants in the Tarim Basin, China.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Trait-Associated Gaps in IUCN Assessment and Conservation Prioritization for Echolocating Mammals.Integrative zoology · 2026Article
- Global mining has undermined forest conservation within and beyond protected areas.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Evaluating protected areas' coverage of threats to terrestrial 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Protected areas (PAs) are vital for biodiversity conservation and have expanded globally. However, increasing pressures on biodiversity make it difficult to achieve conservation goals. Using threat probability maps based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List and the World Database of Protected Areas, we analyzed the relationship between PA coverage and the major threats to amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles-agriculture, hunting, logging, pollution, invasive species, and urbanization. We included data on 33,379 species and 255,848 protected sites. We analyzed the relationship between threat probabilities and PA coverage with generalized additive models. Then, we grouped grid cells into discrete threat-protection categories and examined global spatial patterns. We focused three types of areas: areas with a high probability of threat that coincided with inadequate PA coverage; areas that had simultaneous threats; and areas with a high concentration of threatened species. We found a potential disconnect between global PAs and threat coverage. Twenty-one percent of areas had a high probability of threat, of which 76% were insufficiently protected. Over half of amphibian and mammal habitat was highly threatened and was insufficiently covered by PAs. Amphibians were subject to the highest proportion of simultaneous threats. Underprotected areas harbored the largest proportion of threatened species across all taxonomic groups. Our results provide crucial insights into the spatial relationship between threats and PA coverage and can be used to inform conservation planning at large scales.
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.