Protecting 1.2% of land on Earth could save most-threatened species

Question

Protecting just 1.2% of the Earth’s surface for nature would be enough to prevent the extinction of the world’s most threatened species, according to a new study.Analysis published in the journal Frontiers in Science has found that the targeted expansion of protected areas on land would be enough to prevent the loss of thousands of the mammals, birds, amphibians and plants that are closest to disappearing.From Argentina to Papua New Guinea, the team of researchers identified 16,825 sites that sh

Comments

This claim could be correct but there is no link to an article you found and no specifics. How could protecting 1.2% of land save "most" threatened species? The description doesn't explain what animals would be saved and what part of land would protect these animals. It needs more of a description and evidence to prove this claim is true. Also the percentage is so specific, but there is no explanation to why that amount and how that little amount of land could save these animals.

Answer 1

The claim that protecting just 1.2% of Earth's land could save most-threatened species is based on research suggesting that targeted conservation efforts could have a significant impact on biodiversity. A study published in Nature in 2018 indicated that conserving specific areas could effectively protect a large percentage of threatened species, especially if those areas are chosen strategically.

However, the actual percentage needed can vary greatly depending on factors like the types of species, their habitats, and the level of protection implemented. While 1.2% might be an optimistic figure in some contexts, comprehensive conservation strategies typically require more extensive protection efforts to ensure ecosystem stability and resilience.

Comments

This factcheck is good because there is evidence proving the general claim. It says that conserving land should help endangered animals. It would be great to include the specific areas mentioned to know why these area would be the best to save versus others. I think this is a good start but there needs to be more detail to truly prove the claim. The percentage was directly proven to be true so more evidence towards that or against it would be helpful and what exact conservation strategies would make this possible.

---

This is a well rounded fact check as  you included specific facts, but it would be better if you backed up these facts with the sources you used to support the information. Giving specific information why the fact would be true or false could be beneficial to the reader.

---

I think this is a good fact check, but I think something that would make it even better would be linking the sources you used for the fact check. Instead of just saying a study shows, providing a link could help readers further understand and believe your fact check.