ArticlePloS one2025
Scoping review of the literature on outcomes of the conservation reserve program.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), one of the largest private lands conservation programs in the U.S., has played a critical role in soil erosion reduction, water quality improvement, wildlife habitat enhancement, and carbon sequestration since its inception in 1985. This paper contributes to the extensive research illustrating the benefits of the program by providing a scoping review of the peer-reviewed CRP literature. We conduct a broad-scale examination of the literature on CRP, identifying the gaps and trends in this literature to inform future research on this program. Through systematic analysis of 577 studies, we examined spatial and temporal trends in the literature, categorized CRP research into five major categories-including studies of wildlife, vegetation, air/soil/water, productivity, and social aspects-and conducted a detailed evaluation of the CRP outcomes in the wildlife and vegetation categories. For studies of wildlife-related outcomes of CRP we found studies of birds to dominate the literature, while research on other taxa such as fish, reptiles, and amphibians remains sparse. Geographically, most studies are concentrated in the Great Plains, leaving regions such as the Pacific Northwest underrepresented relative to CRP land share. This review highlights the need for long-term studies and additional research, including less-studied taxa and underrepresented regions, to better understand CRP's potential for enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem services.
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.