Endangered species lack research on the outcomes of conservation action

IF 2.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
A. D. Binley, L. Haddaway, R. Buxton, K. M. Lalla, D. Lesbarreres, P. A. Smith, J. R. Bennett
{"title":"Endangered species lack research on the outcomes of conservation action","authors":"A. D. Binley,&nbsp;L. Haddaway,&nbsp;R. Buxton,&nbsp;K. M. Lalla,&nbsp;D. Lesbarreres,&nbsp;P. A. Smith,&nbsp;J. R. Bennett","doi":"10.1111/csp2.13304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Given widespread biodiversity declines, there is an urgent need to ensure that conservation interventions are working. Yet, evidence regarding the effectiveness of conservation actions is often lacking. Using a case study of 209 terrestrial species listed as Endangered in Canada, we conducted a literature review to collate the evidence base on conservation actions to: (1) explore the outcomes of actions documented for each species and (2) identify knowledge gaps. Action-oriented research constituted only 2% of all peer-reviewed literature across target species, and for 61% of species, we found no literature investigating outcomes of conservation actions. Protected areas, habitat creation, artificial shelter, and alternative farming practices were broadly beneficial for most species for which these actions were assessed. Habitat restoration actions were most frequently studied, but 38% of these actions were harmful, ineffective, or demonstrated mixed results. The effectiveness of prescribed burns, alternative timber harvesting approaches, and vegetation control was examined for the greatest number of species, yet 17%–30% of these actions demonstrated negative effects. Our synthesis demonstrates a lack of published evidence for many actions implemented for the recovery of species at risk of extinction, highlighting an alarming gap in the conservation literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":51337,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Science and Practice","volume":"7 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/csp2.13304","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.13304","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Given widespread biodiversity declines, there is an urgent need to ensure that conservation interventions are working. Yet, evidence regarding the effectiveness of conservation actions is often lacking. Using a case study of 209 terrestrial species listed as Endangered in Canada, we conducted a literature review to collate the evidence base on conservation actions to: (1) explore the outcomes of actions documented for each species and (2) identify knowledge gaps. Action-oriented research constituted only 2% of all peer-reviewed literature across target species, and for 61% of species, we found no literature investigating outcomes of conservation actions. Protected areas, habitat creation, artificial shelter, and alternative farming practices were broadly beneficial for most species for which these actions were assessed. Habitat restoration actions were most frequently studied, but 38% of these actions were harmful, ineffective, or demonstrated mixed results. The effectiveness of prescribed burns, alternative timber harvesting approaches, and vegetation control was examined for the greatest number of species, yet 17%–30% of these actions demonstrated negative effects. Our synthesis demonstrates a lack of published evidence for many actions implemented for the recovery of species at risk of extinction, highlighting an alarming gap in the conservation literature.

Abstract Image

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Conservation Science and Practice
Conservation Science and Practice BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
240
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信