Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42893156›Full record

ArticleiScience2026

Where to improve the European protected areas network to represent threatened fungi?

Ovidiu Copoț, Kadri Runnel, Asko Lõhmus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in iScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ovidiu CopoțInstitute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Kadri RunnelInstitute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Asko LõhmusInstitute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To set a global example in biodiversity conservation, the European Union aims to protect 30% and strictly protect 10% of its land by 2030 and to invest in ecosystem restoration. Yet, the megadiverse fungal kingdom remains largely excluded from conservation planning and evaluation. We compiled occurrence data and developed species distribution models for 33 threatened macrofungi identified for potential inclusion under the Bern Convention across Europe. Comparing distributions of predicted habitats with existing protected-area networks provided robust evidence of large, uneven protection gaps among species and countries. We show that regionally coordinated improvements in protection and targeted habitat restoration would be more effective than addressing gaps independently within each country. By developing habitat models into tools for conservation management, spatial planning and monitoring, and by explicitly allocating those efforts across Member States, protection of neglected but threatened and functionally important taxa such as fungi can be systematically improved.

Indexed as

biodiversityenvironmental policyEuropean UnionfungiMaxentNatura 2000protected area networkspecies distribution modelingsystematic conservation planningthreatened species

Identifiers

PMID42893156
PMCPMC13676013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.