Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41292149›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2026

Threats to and management of Natura 2000 protected areas relative to agricultural practices.

Giorgio Zavattoni, Elie Gaget, Tyler Hallman, Ineta Kačergytė, Tomas Pärt, Diego Pavón-Jordán, Thomas Sattler, Jon E Brommer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Threats to and management of Natura 2000 protected areas relative to agricultural practices.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Giorgio ZavattoniDepartment of Biology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-5277-9891
Elie GagetTour du Valat, Research Institute for the Conservation of Mediterranean Wetlands, Arles, France.ORCID 0000-0003-3462-9686
Tyler HallmanSchool of Environmental and Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2604-0548
Ineta KačergytėDepartment of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-4756-8253
Tomas PärtDepartment of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-7388-6672
Diego Pavón-JordánBirds and Renewables Research Group, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-5105-3426
Thomas SattlerSwiss Ornithological Institute, Sempach, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-5359-6387
Jon E BrommerDepartment of Biology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-2435-2612

Funding

Agencia Estatal de Investigación PCI2022-135056-2Biodiversa+Innovationsfonden 1159-00033BNorges Forskningsråd 342927Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung 20BD21_209665Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas 2022-01752Ympäristöministeriö VN/7162/2023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Natura 2000 (N2K) network combines biodiversity protection and socioeconomic targets. Human activities, such as agricultural practices, can affect biodiversity in N2K sites in diverse ways. Limiting activities with negative impacts while enforcing land management that supports biodiversity is crucial for effective conservation. Yet, site-level information on how this is addressed in N2K sites is lacking. To fill this knowledge gap, we conducted a European Union-wide survey among N2K site managers. We aimed to assess the implemented conservation measures, their funding sources, and the extent to which different threats are addressed. Of the 341 responses, 61.8% reported the implementation of conservation measures linked to agricultural practices, such as adapting mowing and grazing at levels suitable for the conservation of grassland habitats and species. Sites with management tied to agricultural practices relied more on EU funding, such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), whereas other sites depended more on national funding. Threats not addressed by conservation measures were reported by 63.8% of respondents, suggesting that overall management funding may be insufficient or ineffectively allocated. Most of these unaddressed threats resulted from intensive agricultural practices, such as the use of agrochemicals (reported as a threat in 13% of sites). These findings provide insight into how traditional agricultural practices, mostly related to low-intensity grazing and mowing, are frequently used as conservation tools, whereas intensive agriculture is a prominent source of unmitigated threats. Thus, achieving N2K conservation goals requires avoiding intensive agricultural practices and strengthening effective conservation measures in protected areas.

Indexed as

AgricultureBiodiversityConservation of Natural ResourcesEuropean Unionagriculturaagricultureagrienvironmental schemesáreas protegidasCommon Agricultural Policyconservation practitionercuestionarioecosystem managementesquemas agroambientalesmanejo de ecosistemasNatura 2000Política Agrícola Comúnpracticante de la conservaciónprotected areasquestionnaire保护区保护工作者《共同农业政策》农业农业环境计划生态系统管理调查问卷

Identifiers

PMID41292149
PMCPMC13036295

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.