ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2026
Threats to and management of Natura 2000 protected areas relative to agricultural practices.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Threats to and management of Natura 2000 protected areas relative to agricultural practices.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
8 authors.
Funding
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
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.