ArticleScientific reports2025
Considering human interference to prioritize spatial conservation in a transboundary river basin using zonation.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Previous studies on priority conservation areas were more focused on ecological elements with less attention to human interference, this study intends to integrate human interference for spatial conservation prioritization (SCP) using Zonation software in the Wusuli River Basin (WRB; China-Russia). Ecosystem services, landscape connectivity, and human interference using the InVEST model, Conefor, and human footprint index along with the human interference index were integrated into Zonation5. The results indicated that the mean ecosystem services of the Wusuli River basin was 0.66, with higher value in Russia (0.75) than in China (0.49). Landscape connectivity was higher in eastern part (Russia), lower in western part (China), and moderate near the boundary. Condition, represented as the inverse of the human interference, averaged 0.49, with Russia achieving a higher value (0.53) than China (0.41). Priority areas were classified into five levels, with all the highest-priority areas located in Russia (31% of its area and 21% of the basin), while over 95% of the lowest-priority areas were in China (55% of its area and 20% of the basin). This study evaluates the conservation priority of WRB at the basin-wide scale from a multi-dimensional perspective, providing a basis for transboundary cooperative management.
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.