Conservation science: a 20-year report card

Abstract

We conducted an intensive review of conservation science to find out whether the field has tracked priorities over the past 20 years. A total of 628 papers from the literature, for the years 1984, 1994, and 2004, were surveyed. For each paper, we recorded where conservation research was done and what was studied. We found geographic gaps in conservation research, with marine, tundra, and desert biomes being studied less than other systems. We also found taxonomic gaps, with amphibians being understudied as compared to other, less threatened, taxonomic groups. Finally, we discovered that studies of invasive species are still lacking, despite the magnitude of the threat they pose to global biodiversity. Although there was a weak trend towards filling these gaps between 1984 and 2004, progress has been slow. To be more effective, the research community must quickly redirect research to better match conservation priorities.

Ecological traps: current evidence and future directions

“…The geographical and ecosystem distributions we observed are consistent with other similar assessments [31,32]. Other than the compelling evidence of the attraction of insects to artificial structures, only three studies have demonstrated a trap in freshwater ecosystems, and none in marine environments.…”

Geographical and taxonomic biases in research on biodiversity in human‐modified landscapes

“…However, science-based decision-making relies on a solid foundation of relevant evidence, often an assemblage of peerreviewed studies (Sutherland 2004, Pullin andKnight 2009). Scientists, funding agencies, and publishers hold sway over the composition of the evidence base through their influence on which studies are conducted and published (Lawler et al 2006). If research interests are misaligned with research needs, gaps in the evidence base could compromise conservation efforts.…”

“…If research interests are misaligned with research needs, gaps in the evidence base could compromise conservation efforts. Thus, it is important to monitor the distribution of published research in comparison to emerging research requirements (Lawler et al 2006).…”

“…For example, the distribution of research output among species is uneven (Bonnet et al 2002, Clark and May 2002, Fazey et al 2005a, Lawler et al 2006, Pyšek et al 2008, Felton et al 2009, Trimble and van Aarde 2010, Griffiths and Dos Santos 2012. Threatened status, economic importance, or ecological impact drive biases somewhat, but so too, and apparently more so, do personal affinities of scientists, funders, and reviewers toward certain species characteristics that may be unrelated to research needs (Bonnet et al 2002, Lawler et al 2006, Trimble and van Aarde 2010.…”

“…There are also clear v www.esajournals.org geographical biases in ecological research. For instance, the study of invasive species is concentrated in the Americas and Europe with little research conducted in Africa and Asia (Pyšek et al 2008), a pattern that holds for landscape research, climate change ecology, and conservation biology as a whole (Lawler et al 2006, Felton et al 2009, Conrad et al 2011. If studies of biogeography of human-modified landscapes are biased towards certain topics, scientists and funding agencies may wish to refocus their efforts to ensure sufficient science is available to support conservation in human-modified landscapes where it is most needed.…”