SynthesisNature communications2026
Assessing the effectiveness of riparian buffers in protecting biodiversity: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Assessing the effectiveness of riparian buffers in protecting biodiversity: a meta-analysis.Nature communications · 2026Pooled it
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
Riparian buffers - vegetation strips retained or established along waterways - are mandated in many countries for water and soil protection, yet their role in biodiversity conservation remains unclear. Our global meta-analysis compares forested riparian buffers with converted riparian zones in human-modified landscapes across forest biomes. We find that forested riparian buffers support higher animal biodiversity than converted riparian zones at both local and landscape scales, particularly in agricultural areas. This pattern is consistent across most freshwater and riparian taxa, in both tropical and temperate regions. Forested riparian buffers also harbor, on average, 32% more reference species (i.e., species found in continuous riparian forests) than do converted riparian zones. Optimum forested buffer width estimates for species conservation are roughly an order of magnitude wider for birds and mammals (200-380 m on each river side), than for amphibians (20-50 m) and invertebrates (6-50 m). Our findings support forested riparian buffers as an important global strategy for conserving biodiversity in forest biomes.
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.