ReviewPeerJ2026
A critical analysis of the global oases mapping.
Review in PeerJ, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oases are receiving particular attention for their capacity to provide different ecosystem services, and as examples of adaptation and resilience in the context of climate change. A 2025 study focusing on the global distribution of oases has been published by Hernández-Agüero et al. (DOI 10.7717/peerj.18884) reporting quantitative and spatial data about the global distribution of oases. An in-depth review of this global oases mapping found significantly inconsistent data with the risk of misinforming the scientific community and other relevant stakeholders about the global distribution of oases. The main critical issues are related to: (i) the oasis definition, (ii) not distinguishing between traditional and modern oases, (iii) methodological inconsistencies in the performed spatial analysis, and inadequate spatial resolution. While most common definitions of oases agree regarding the key role of (traditional) agricultural activities and practices for the oases' origin, shaping, and preservation, the Hernández-Agüero et al. global oases mapping includes among the oases large portions of areas only characterized by natural vegetation of different types in arid areas. In addition, the global oases mapping includes intensive and, in the long term, unsustainable cultivations, and even urban areas. Traditional oases should be considered separately from intensive cultivation systems in arid areas, as only traditional oases are strictly related to high levels of agrobiodiversity, cultural values, traditional ecological knowledge, cultural landscapes, and sustainability. Oases, especially traditional ones, are characterized by different and complex characteristics with local high variability in terms of cultivated varieties, vertical and horizontal structure, and complexity of the landscape mosaic structure. An inaccurate mapping, together with the absence of a differentiation between modern and traditional oases, can lead to a misallocation of conservation resources or to misguided policy strategies. More research and training of automatic classification at a local/national level are needed due to the local/regional pattern variability, while the development of a shared oasis definition is essential for studies related to their mapping and knowledge, as well as for an effective strategy for the protection of these agroecosystems with important ecological and cultural values.
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.