ArticleMovement ecology2025
Identification and conservation of critical nodes for shorebirds based on migration network perspective.
Article in Movement ecology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe degradation and loss of critical nodes in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway (EAAF) migration network could have implications for the migration of shorebirds. The conservation of critical nodes along the EAAF is important for maintaining the stability of migratory networks. However, identifying these nodes remains a major challenge.
methodsWe used a network method that integrates GPS tracking data and remote sensing data to identify critical nodes for three shorebird species (Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa), Eurasian Curlew (Numenius arquata), and Pied Avocet (Recurvirostra avosetta)) in migratory networks along the EAAF and priority conservation areas to facilitate the development of conservation and management plans.
resultsA total of 111, 37, and 81 nodes in the migratory networks were identified for the Black-tailed Godwit, Eurasian Curlew, and Pied Avocet, respectively; these included 25, 13, and 16 critical nodes, respectively. Node importance (node betweenness) was higher in the migration period than in the breeding and wintering periods. Habitat loss was observed in most stopover nodes. A total of 23 unprotected critical nodes were identified as priority conservation areas.
conclusionsHabitat loss was observed in most of the unprotected critical nodes in stopover regions for all three species. The inclusion of these sites such as Haoyao sumu forest farm and Tianjin coast, into flyway site networks (the East Asian-Australasian Flyway Partnership (EAAFP)) should be prioritized, and the habitat quality of nearby alternative nodes should be improved. Future studies should focus on developing new node indexes that integrate ecological variables with each node's role in maintaining network connectivity using data from a larger number of tracked individuals and birdwatching data. Such studies could help identify currently unknown regions with critical habitats.
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.