ArticleEnvironmental management2026
A Coast-to-Coast Assessment of Cumulative Impacts and Protection Potential in Canadian Marine Conservation Networks.
Article in Environmental management, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effectiveness of marine conservation networks depends on their ability to manage and safeguard against the many overlapping human activities and stressors influencing marine ecosystems. Cumulative impact mapping (CIM) combines information on the intensity and location of stressors with the spatial extent and vulnerability of marine habitats to generate a single, relative cumulative impact (CI) score. Despite its potential benefits to inform management and conservation efforts, CIM is not commonly incorporated into conservation network planning. Here, we combine published CIMs from the Canadian Atlantic and Pacific bioregions with existing marine conservation areas (MCAs) to compare impacts inside each MCA against regional impacts. We then conduct a scenario analysis to quantify potential reduction in cumulative impacts in two bioregion's proposed marine conservation networks by modeling the removal of prohibited activities (bottom contact fishing, dredging, disposal at sea) in alignment with the Canadian Marine Protection Standard. Both regions exhibited similar distributions in current CI scores, with approximately half of MCAs scoring significantly above the regional mean, and the other half below. The scenario analysis predicted a 7% mean decrease (range 0-36%) in cumulative impacts across the Scotian Shelf and 2% mean decrease (range 0-17%) across the Northern Shelf networks. We identified 17 MCAs in the Scotian Shelf and 8 in the Northern Shelf as having high protection potential, which can be a valuable decision support tool for conservation planners. We discuss how CIM can be operationalized for conservation network planning and management.
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.