ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2026
Changes in Key Biodiversity Area networks following national comprehensive assessments.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethical collectomics: A guide to the responsible and fair mobilization of natural history collections.Bioscience · 2026Article
- Extent, characteristics and policy applications of Key Biodiversity Areas.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026Review
- Changes in Key Biodiversity Area networks following national comprehensive assessments.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 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
47 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) are sites of significance for the global persistence of biodiversity. Based on the Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA Standard), published in 2016, sites are currently being assessed for KBA designation in a growing number of countries across the world. For these assessments, the KBA criteria are applied to all species and ecosystems with available data. We reviewed the first comprehensive assessments of 11 countries and compared the KBA network before and after assessments. The mean (SD) number of KBAs per country increased by 69.6% (102.1), and the mean total extent of KBAs per country increased by 164.2% (150.7). More than half of the KBAs in 2024 had >50% of their area outside the 2019 KBAs, indicating a substantial increase in KBA extent (54.0% [18.8] of KBAs). The mean proportion of each KBA covered by protected or conserved areas decreased from 56.2% (20.2) to 44.5% (15.5), owing to the incorporation of unprotected sites in the KBA network. On average, 41.1% (14.0) of sites in each country (mean 44.5 [46.4] sites per country) and 47.2% (20.5) of new KBA area after the assessment were completely unprotected, indicating that many of the new sites were not recognized in national protected area networks as significant for biodiversity before the assessment. Making a comprehensive assessment of KBAs increased the combined coverage of protected and conserved area networks from 25.4% (10.6) to 32.0% (13.1) in each country and thus contributed to reducing biodiversity loss. Therefore, comprehensive assessments of KBAs led to a substantially increased number and extent of recognized sites of importance for biodiversity published in the World Database of KBAs. Where such assessments have not been made, many important areas for biodiversity may be overlooked. We therefore encourage other nations to update their KBA networks to inform efforts to meet the goals and targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
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.