The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
US protected lands mismatch biodiversity priorities
Open accessAbstract
Significance: The United States has one of the oldest and most sophisticated systems of protected areas in the world. Given the large amount of information on the country’s biodiversity, and the potential resources available, one might expect it to do well in protecting biodiversity. We find that it does not. The United States protected areas do not adequately cover the country’s unique species. To improve the coverage, we map priorities for multiple taxa and recommend specific areas for immediate conservation attention. These areas contain a mix of public and private land, meaning that major progress in conservation will require actions in both the public and private sectors, and will succeed only if done in the correct areas.
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
The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection
Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N., Abell, R., Brooks, T. M., Gittleman, J. L., Joppa, L. N., Raven, P. H., Roberts, C. M., & Sexton, J. O. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1246752 · Cited by 3,542 · cited 2×
“We focus on species, because their extinction is irreversible (9, 10).”
BackgroundSelf-citationPredicting extinction risk in declining species
Purvis, A., Gittleman, J. L., Cowlishaw, G., & Mace, G. M. (2000) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1234 · Cited by 1,768
Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity
Rodrigues, A. S. L., Andelman, S. J., Bakarr, M. I., Boitani, L., Brooks, T. M., Cowling, R. M., Fishpool, L. D. C., da Fonseca, G. A. B., Gaston, K. J., Hoffmann, M., et al. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02422 · Cited by 1,525
Global patterns of terrestrial vertebrate diversity and conservation
Jenkins, C. N., Pimm, S. L., & Joppa, L. N. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1302251110 · Cited by 1,093
Self-citationSpecies richness, hotspots, and the scale dependence of range maps in ecology and conservation
Hurlbert, A. H., & Jetz, W. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0704469104 · Cited by 710
Research works printed but not linked: 30
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0054689 · DOI
- JM Scott, A representative biological reserve system for the United States. Soc Conserv Biol Newsl 6, 1–9 (1999).
- 10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[0999:NRDTCT]2.0.CO;2 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00396-8 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.1114015 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[1092:GGAPRF]2.0.CO;2 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00827.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00457.x · DOI
- 10.1126/science.275.5299.550 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.015002475.x · DOI
- CH Flather MS Knowles J McNees Geographic patterns of at-risk species: A technical document supporting the USDA Forest Service Interim Update of the 2000 RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-211. (US Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Fort Collins CO). (2008). · doi:10.2737/rmrs-gtr-211
- 10.1641/B580409 · DOI
- 10.1093/oso/9780195125191.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00970.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00847.x · DOI
- 10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01767-X · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/S1367943001001263 · DOI
- 10.1038/20436 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1126/science.1103538 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00081.x · DOI
- 10.1017/S0030605308001014 · DOI
- 10.1023/A:1016647726583 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00114.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.04.016 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.4322/natcon.2011.021 · DOI
- 10.1098/rstb.2011.0113 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00307.x · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050157 · DOI · Paper page
- BirdLife International and NatureServe (2013) Bird Species Distribution Maps of the World. Version 3.0. (BirdLife International Cambridge UK and NatureServe Arlington VA.).
- ; IUCN IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1 (IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 2001).
Cited by
Cross-boundary human impacts compromise the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem
Veldhuis, M. P., Ritchie, M. E., Ogutu, J. O., Morrison, T. A., Beale, C. M., Estes, A. B., Mwakilema, W., Ojwang, G. O., Parr, C. L., Probert, J., et al. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aav0564 · Cited by 265
Protecting and restoring habitats to benefit freshwater biodiversity
Piczak, M. L., Perry, D., Cooke, S. J., Harrison, I., Benitez, S., Koning, A., Peng, L., Limbu, P., Smokorowski, K. E., Salinas-Rodriguez, S., et al. (2024) · Environmental Reviews · doi:10.1139/er-2023-0034 · Cited by 68
Hiatt, A. C., Hove, A. A., Ward, J. R., Ventura, L., Neufeld, H. S., Boyd, A. E., Clarke, H. D., Horton, J. L., & Murrell, Z. E. (2021) · Integrative and Comparative Biology · doi:10.1093/icb/icab089 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Jenkins, C. N., Van Houtan, K. S., Pimm, S. L., & Sexton, J. O.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2015-04-06
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 5081-5086
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W1998202068
- Cited by
- 430
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 26.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- Funders
- Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (A025_2013)
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: US protected lands mismatch biodiversity priorities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1418034112
- The paper
- Jenkins, C. N., Van Houtan, K. S., Pimm, S. L., & Sexton, J. O. (2015). US protected lands mismatch biodiversity priorities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418034112
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.
