ArticlePloS one2025
Effect of canal blocking on biodiversity of degraded peatlands: Insight from West Kalimantan.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large-scale disturbance in peatland areas causes many wildlife species to suffer due to limited resources or habitat loss. Following the high attention to peatlands, some restoration efforts, such as canal blocking, have been undertaken to restore the hydrological condition of peatlands. Nonetheless, our understanding of peatland biodiversity post-canal blocking is still limited. Thus, we conducted a study in West Kalimantan to assess wildlife diversity in peatland rewetting areas and understand the canal blocking's impact on peatland biodiversity. Surveys were conducted during both the wet and dry seasons using line transects and point counts, along with deploying autonomous recording units in four habitat types: less disturbed peat forest, disturbed peat forest, estate crop, and disturbed wet shrub. Shannon and Simpson diversity indices suggest that habitats with complex structures (i.e., forested habitat) support higher diversity compared to those with open and uniform vegetation (i.e., non-forested habitat). This notion is also supported by acoustic indices calculations, which indicate that forested areas show higher acoustic diversity (biophony), and thus higher biodiversity compared to non-forested areas. However, our results indicate that there is insufficient evidence to suggest the effect of canal blocking on wildlife diversity in all rewetting sites. Aligning biodiversity conservation efforts with the natural climate solutions hierarchy, which is part of nature-based solutions and consists of protect, manage, and restore, could offer promising solutions for recovering the sites.
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.