The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cost-effective global conservation spending is robust to taxonomic group
Open accessAbstract
Priorities for conservation investment at a global scale that are based on a single taxon have been criticized because geographic richness patterns vary taxonomically. However, these concerns focused only on biodiversity patterns and did not consider the importance of socioeconomic factors, which must also be included if conservation funding is to be allocated efficiently. In this article, we create efficient global funding schedules that use information about conservation costs, predicted habitat loss rates, and the endemicity of seven different taxonomic groups. We discover that these funding allocation schedules are less sensitive to variation in taxon assessed than to variation in cost and threat. Two-thirds of funding is allocated to the same regions regardless of the taxon, compared with only one-fifth if threat and cost are not included in allocation decisions. Hence, if socioeconomic factors are considered, we can be more confident about global-scale decisions guided by single taxonomic groups.
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
Global distribution and conservation of rare and threatened vertebrates
Grenyer, R., Orme, C. D. L., Jackson, S. F., Thomas, G. H., Davies, R. G., Davies, T. J., Jones, K. E., Olson, V. A., Ridgely, R. S., Rasmussen, P. C., et al. (2006) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature05237 · Cited by 569
Cited by
Is conservation triage just smart decision making?
Bottrill, M. C., Joseph, L. N., Carwardine, J., Bode, M., Cook, C., Game, E. T., Grantham, H., Kark, S., Linke, S., McDonald-Madden, E., et al. (2008) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.07.007 · Cited by 639
Self-citationSetting Conservation Priorities
Wilson, K. A., Carwardine, J., & Possingham, H. P. (2009) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04149.x · Cited by 324
Self-citationOptimal Conservation Outcomes Require Both Restoration and Protection
Possingham, H. P., Bode, M., & Klein, C. J. (2015) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002052 · Cited by 274
Self-citationEnhancing ecosystem restoration efficiency through spatial and temporal coordination
Neeson, T. M., Ferris, M. C., Diebel, M. W., Doran, P. J., O’Hanley, J. R., & McIntyre, P. B. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1423812112 · Cited by 172
Prioritization of public and private land to protect species at risk habitat
Proctor, C. A., Schuster, R., Buxton, R. T., & Bennett, J. R. (2022) · Conservation Science and Practice · doi:10.1111/csp2.12771 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Bode, M., Wilson, K. A., Brooks, T. M., Turner, W. R., Mittermeier, R. A., McBride, M. F., Underwood, E. C., & Possingham, H. P.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2008-04-29
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 6498-6501
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2010491526
- Cited by
- 190
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 15.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Cost-effective global conservation spending is robust to taxonomic group. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0710705105
- The paper
- Bode, M., Wilson, K. A., Brooks, T. M., Turner, W. R., Mittermeier, R. A., McBride, M. F., Underwood, E. C., & Possingham, H. P. (2008). Cost-effective global conservation spending is robust to taxonomic group. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0710705105
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.