The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Local Scale Comparisons of Biodiversity as a Test for Global Protected Area Ecological Performance: A Meta-Analysis
Open accessAbstract
Terrestrial protected areas (PAs) are cornerstones of global biodiversity conservation. Their efficacy in terms of maintaining biodiversity is, however, much debated. Studies to date have been unable to provide a general answer as to PA conservation efficacy because of their typically restricted geographic and/or taxonomic focus, or qualitative approaches focusing on proxies for biodiversity, such as deforestation. Given the rarity of historical data to enable comparisons of biodiversity before/after PA establishment, many smaller scale studies over the past 30 years have directly compared biodiversity inside PAs to that of surrounding areas, which provides one measure of PA ecological performance. Here we use a meta-analysis of such studies (N = 86) to test if PAs contain higher biodiversity values than surrounding areas, and so assess their contribution to determining PA efficacy. We find that PAs generally have higher abundances of individual species, higher assemblage abundances, and higher species richness values compared with alternative land uses. Local scale studies in combination thus show that PAs retain more biodiversity than alternative land use areas. Nonetheless, much variation is present in the effect sizes, which underscores the context-specificity of PA efficacy.
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
Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach.
Guthery, F. S., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2003) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3802723 · Cited by 41,495
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Global Consequences of Land Use
Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S. R., Chapin, F. S., Coe, M. T., Daily, G. C., Gibbs, H. K., et al. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1111772 · Cited by 13,272
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
Species Diversity in Space and Time
Rosenzweig, M. L. (1995) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511623387 · Cited by 3,690
Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity
Gibson, L., Lee, T. M., Koh, L. P., Brook, B. W., Gardner, T. A., Barlow, J., Peres, C. A., Bradshaw, C. J. A., Laurance, W. F., Lovejoy, T. E., et al. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature10425 · Cited by 2,147
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
Self-citationAssemblage Time Series Reveal Biodiversity Change but Not Systematic Loss
Dornelas, M., Gotelli, N. J., McGill, B., Shimadzu, H., Moyes, F., Sievers, C., & Magurran, A. E. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1248484 · Cited by 1,412
Ecological models and data in R
Bolker, B. M. (2008) · doi:10.2307/j.ctvcm4g37 · Cited by 1,297 · cited 4×
“We selected the highest ranked model based on the lowest Akaike Information Criterion value [39,40], and repeated this procedure 1000 times, to calculate the proportionally highest ranked model for each candidate dataset.”
MethodInfluential
Cited by
An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm
Dinerstein, E., Olson, D., Joshi, A., Vynne, C., Burgess, N. D., Wikramanayake, E., Hahn, N., Palminteri, S., Hedao, P., Noss, R., et al. (2017) · BioScience · doi:10.1093/biosci/bix014 · Cited by 2,460
One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure
Jones, K. R., Venter, O., Fuller, R. A., Allan, J. R., Maxwell, S. L., Negret, P. J., & Watson, J. E. M. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aap9565 · Cited by 954
Conservation of birds in fragmented landscapes requires protected areas
Timmers, R., van Kuijk, M., Verweij, P. A., Ghazoul, J., Hautier, Y., Laurance, W. F., Arriaga‐Weiss, S. L., Askins, R. A., Battisti, C., Berg, Å., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1002/fee.2485 · Cited by 79
Eastern national parks protect greater tree species diversity than unprotected matrix forests
Miller, K. M., McGill, B. J., Mitchell, B. R., Comiskey, J., Dieffenbach, F. W., Matthews, E. R., Perles, S. J., Paul Schmit, J., & Weed, A. S. (2018) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2018.02.018 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Coetzee, B. W. T., Gaston, K. J., & Chown, S. L.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2014-08-27
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- e105824
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1969396215
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 2.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Local Scale Comparisons of Biodiversity as a Test for Global Protected Area Ecological Performance: A Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0105824
- The paper
- Coetzee, B. W. T., Gaston, K. J., & Chown, S. L. (2014). Local Scale Comparisons of Biodiversity as a Test for Global Protected Area Ecological Performance: A Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105824
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.
