ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025
Role of protected areas in mitigating range loss and local extinctions of terrestrial mammals.
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.
- Phylogenetic and Functional Biogeographic Approach for Rodent Conservation Across an Environmental Gradient in Chile.Journal of biogeography · 2025Article
- Role of protected areas in mitigating range loss and local extinctions of terrestrial mammals.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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Protected areas (PAs) are a major tool in biodiversity conservation, but the extent to which they mitigate species declines is often unclear. We evaluated the effectiveness of PAs in mitigating range contraction and local extinction for 483 terrestrial mammal species. We used expert-based species range maps from the 1970s and compared them with current distributions to estimate changes in range area and PA coverage over the last 5 decades. We used generalized boosted models and propensity score matching to assess the effectiveness of PAs in mitigating species declines in landscape units sharing environmental features but differing in protection status. On average, mammal species were extirpated across one third of their ranges from 1970 to 2015, and 86% of this range contraction occurred outside PAs. In areas protected continuously since the 1970s, extirpation rates were half that in matched landscape units that were never protected. Areas protected since the 1970s also had lower extirpation rates compared with matched areas that became protected later. Lower species extirpation and range contraction rates were also correlated with greater area encompassed by PAs. Although the proportion of species ranges encompassed by PAs seemingly increased by 12% from 1970 to 2015, this increase may be largely attributed to the loss of species range area outside PAs rather than the strategic expansion of PAs. Our results showed that PAs can mitigate range loss and local extinctions for mammals and highlighted that PAs need to be maintained continuously over long time frames to have positive effects on biodiversity. Our findings suggest that downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement of PAs can lead to biodiversity declines, whereas the strategic achievement of targets, such as protecting 30% of land area by 2030, could facilitate species persistence.
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.