ArticlePloS one2025
Using multiple criteria for redesigning habitat corridor plans for Giant Pandas.
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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.