The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Important Plant Areas: revised selection criteria for a global approach to plant conservation
Open accessAbstract
Despite the severe threats to plant habitats and high levels of extinction risk for plant species in many parts of the world, plant conservation priorities are often poorly represented in national and global frameworks because of a lack of data in an accessible and consistent format to inform conservation decision making. The Important Plant Areas (IPAs) criteria system offers a pragmatic yet scientifically rigorous means of delivering these datasets, enabling informed national- or regional-scale conservation prioritisation, and contributing significantly towards global prioritisation systems including the International Union for Conservation of Nature Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) Standard. In this paper, we review the IPA rationale and progress on IPA identification to date, including the perceived limitations of the process and how these may be overcome. We then present a revised set of criteria for use globally, developed through the combined experiences of IPA identification over the past decade and a half and through a recent global consultation process. An overview of how the revised IPA criteria can work alongside the newly published KBA Standard is also provided. IPA criteria are based around a sound, scientific, global framework which acknowledges the practical problems of gathering plant and habitat data in many regions of the world, and recognises the role of peer reviewed expert opinion in the selection process. National and sub-national engagement in IPA identification is essential, providing a primary route towards long term conservation of key sites for plant diversity. The IPA criteria can be applied to the conservation of all organism groups within the plant and fungal kingdoms.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Food security: why is biodiversity important?
Sunderland, T. C. H. (2011) · International Forestry Review · doi:10.1505/146554811798293908 · Cited by 225
Cited by
Extinction risk and threats to plants and fungi
Nic Lughadha, E., Bachman, S. P., Leão, T. C. C., Forest, F., Halley, J. M., Moat, J., Acedo, C., Bacon, K. L., Brewer, R. F. A., Gâteblé, G., et al. (2020) · PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET · doi:10.1002/ppp3.10146 · Cited by 451
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Darbyshire, I., Anderson, S., Asatryan, A., Byfield, A., Cheek, M., Clubbe, C., Ghrabi, Z., Harris, T., Heatubun, C. D., Kalema, J., Magassouba, S., McCarthy, B., Milliken, W., de Montmollin, B., Lughadha, E. N., Onana, J.-M., Saïdou, D., Sârbu, A., Shrestha, K., & Radford, E. A.
- Venue
- Biodiversity and Conservation
- Published
- 2017-03-29
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1767-1800
- ISSN
- 0960-3115 (ISSN-L)
- 1572-9710
- OpenAlex
- W2603747411
- Cited by
- 263
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 20.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Important Plant Areas: revised selection criteria for a global approach to plant conservation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10531-017-1336-6
- The paper
- Darbyshire, I., Anderson, S., Asatryan, A., Byfield, A., Cheek, M., Clubbe, C., Ghrabi, Z., Harris, T., Heatubun, C. D., Kalema, J., Magassouba, S., McCarthy, B., Milliken, W., de Montmollin, B., Lughadha, E. N., Onana, J.-M., Saïdou, D., Sârbu, A., Shrestha, K., & Radford, E. A. (2017). Important Plant Areas: revised selection criteria for a global approach to plant conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1336-6
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.