ArticleNature ecology & evolution2026
Hidden patterns in fauna compensation values in European biodiversity legislation.
Article in Nature ecology & evolution, 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.
- European challenges.Nature ecology & evolution · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biodiversity laws in several European countries rely on official species-level price lists for fauna to enable compensation for biodiversity damage. However, the methods underlying these values are often opaque and poorly justified, raising concerns about consistency, fairness and ecological relevance. To gain insights into the revealed public regulatory patterns embedded in these mechanisms, we investigate how monetary compensation values are assigned to fauna in European biodiversity legislation and what factors influence these values. Here we show that species-level values are implicitly guided by biological traits and taxonomic biases, based on a dataset of 9,971 species across 24 countries. Our analysis reveals that mammals and birds receive disproportionately higher values, while traits such as generation length and protection status also significantly influence values. These findings reveal hidden criteria that shape regulatory decisions and enhance our understanding of conservation priorities. We recommend integrating systematic, science-based criteria into legal valuation practices, supported by collaboration between conservation scientists and legal practitioners.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42120685What 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.