Articlenpj biodiversity2025
Towards positive net outcomes for biodiversity, and developing safeguards to accompany headline biodiversity indicators.
Article in npj biodiversity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Defining the nature-positive economy: key concepts, challenges, and ways forward.npj biodiversity · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Achieving the Global Biodiversity Framework will necessitate whole production systems contributing towards 'halting and reversing' net biodiversity loss, counterbalancing negative impacts with comparable gains. Here, we report on an illustrative quantitative exploration into the feasibility of monitoring for positive net biodiversity outcomes for the Dutch dairy production sector, using a composite metric. We analysed performance data from 8,950 dairy farms across the Netherlands, combining these data into an integrated biodiversity index. Usefully, this index allowed us to calculate sectoral baseline biodiversity impacts, and explore possible biodiversity strategies. We show that the largest overall source of impacts is imported feed; interestingly, nutrient loads contribute little to the footprint, despite representing an important political issue nationally. This highlights a general risk in using single indices to track net biodiversity outcomes: that they could result in an exclusionary focus, and perverse outcomes. Consequently, we develop safeguards to accompany the index; showing the necessity of incorporating safeguards, but also that meeting them could reduce sectoral biodiversity impacts by ~94%. Our proposed strategies vary in feasibility, all requiring trade-offs between biodiversity, land availability, and production.
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.