Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40663578›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Using multiple criteria for redesigning habitat corridor plans for Giant Pandas.

Yixin Diao, Yue Weng, Qianqian Zhao, Xiangxue Hu, Xiaofeng Zhang, Bojian Gu, Yihan Wang, Zhuojin Zhang, Fang Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Yixin DiaoMinistry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, Coastal Ecosystems Research Station of the Yangtze River Estuary, Institute of Biodiversity Science, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6090-5683
Yue WengMinistry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, Coastal Ecosystems Research Station of the Yangtze River Estuary, Institute of Biodiversity Science, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Qianqian ZhaoMinistry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, Coastal Ecosystems Research Station of the Yangtze River Estuary, Institute of Biodiversity Science, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Xiangxue HuCollege of Forestry, Guizhou University, Guiyang, China.
Xiaofeng ZhangShaanxi Provincial Administration of Giant Panda National Park, Xian, China.
Bojian GuMinistry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, Coastal Ecosystems Research Station of the Yangtze River Estuary, Institute of Biodiversity Science, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yihan WangMinistry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, Coastal Ecosystems Research Station of the Yangtze River Estuary, Institute of Biodiversity Science, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Zhuojin ZhangMinistry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, Coastal Ecosystems Research Station of the Yangtze River Estuary, Institute of Biodiversity Science, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Fang WangMinistry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, Coastal Ecosystems Research Station of the Yangtze River Estuary, Institute of Biodiversity Science, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One key factor to long-term success in conservation planning is to allocate limited resources to the most critical locations and ensure the effectiveness of contemporary management plans under future conditions. Here, we proposed an innovative framework to quantitatively prioritize conservation actions for a vulnerable species, giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca), and use it to identify Priority Habitat Corridors (PHCs) to address the threat of habitat fragmentation. We focused on the newly established Giant Panda National Park (GPNP), and combined field data with remotely-sensed landscape and anthropogenic metrics to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of potential habitat corridors. We first conducted habitat and corridor modeling and identified 72 candidate corridors. We then conducted gap analysis and applied multiple criteria to prioritize candidate habitat corridors. We identified 34,486 km2 of suitable habitat for giant pandas inside the GPNP and six PHCs that merit the highest priority because they were located at optimal elevation range with adequate forest coverage, had the capacity to connect multiple habitat patches, and were relatively feasible based on their conservation and anthropogenic interference status. Using an integrated modeling approach with biophysical, biotic, and anthropogenic criteria, our work provides a generic methodology to prioritize conservation actions which support future management for giant pandas and other wildlife species.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemUrsidaeAnimals

Identifiers

PMID40663578
PMCPMC12262836

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.