ArticleNature communications2026
Synergies and trade-offs for reaching global biodiversity and climate commitments.
Article in Nature communications, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework strives to expand high-quality protected areas globally, yet faces economic constraints, climate change and human pressures. This requires integrating biological and socio-economic complexity while ensuring equity. We explore multi-target '30 by 30' and '50 by 50' (the 'Half Earth') protected area expansion strategies that combine species diversity with carbon storage, quantifying their effectiveness (the represented proportion of global species richness and carbon stocks), connectivity and cost-efficiency. Under near-current and future climates, single-criterion strategies - based on five taxonomic groups (plants, amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles) or carbon alone - achieve effectiveness of 42.3 ± 4.10% and 68.8 ± 8.39% for both targets, whereas multi-goal strategies reach 44.1 ± 0.42% and 67.0 ± 0.89%. Multi-goal strategies reduce connectivity by 2.35% but slightly improve cost-efficiency (2.06% lower cost) and individual-metric effectiveness (mean rise 0.76%). Moving from single- to multi-target strategies increases conserved-area coverage in high-latitude, higher-income countries (by 3.14% and 5.59%), with a corresponding decline in low-income countries (7.31% and 12.6%); single-goal strategies targeting threatened species allocate more coverage to the Global South. By rebalancing North-South responsibilities and easing burdens on low-income nations needing financial support or compensation mechanisms, these findings improve conservation affordability and provide equity insights for implementing Global Biodiversity Framework and Paris Agreement.
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.