探索爬行动物保护行动证据中的差距、偏见和研究重点。

IF 5.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Oliver Speight, William H Morgan, Thomas B White, Katie A Sainsbury, Amos Bouskila, Guy Rotem, Rebecca K Smith, William J Sutherland, Maggie J Watson, Alec P Christie
{"title":"探索爬行动物保护行动证据中的差距、偏见和研究重点。","authors":"Oliver Speight, William H Morgan, Thomas B White, Katie A Sainsbury, Amos Bouskila, Guy Rotem, Rebecca K Smith, William J Sutherland, Maggie J Watson, Alec P Christie","doi":"10.1111/cobi.70073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>With over 21% of reptile species threatened with extinction, there is an urgent need to ensure conservation actions to protect and restore populations are informed by relevant, reliable evidence. We examined the geographic and taxonomic distribution of 707 studies that tested the effects of actions to conserve reptiles synthesized in Conservation Evidence's Reptile Conservation synopsis. More studies were conducted in countries with higher gross domestic product per capita, more reptile species, and higher proportions of threatened reptile species. Studies were clustered in the United States (43%) and Australia (15%), and no studies were conducted in large parts of Southeast Asia, South America, and sub-Saharan Africa. Taxonomically, 47% of 90 reptile families (mostly Squamata) were not studied at all. Although Squamata and Testudines species featured in approximately 50% of studies, 7 of the 10 most-studied reptiles (constituting 36% of studies) were turtles or tortoises, and there were significantly more studies per species on Testudines than Squamata. There were also significantly more studies on species: classified as least concern (as opposed to all other International Union for Conservation of Nature categories apart from near threatened); not categorized as endemic or insular; with more Wikipedia page views; and lacking data on venomousness. There was no significant relationship between the number of studies and the evolutionary distinctiveness or body mass of species. Our results highlight pressing evidence needs, particularly for underrepresented regions and threatened and data-deficient species (e.g., evolutionarily distinct and globally endangered reptiles in South America, sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia). To overcome evidence gaps and a lack of basic ecological data, future work should explore how the effects of actions transfer across taxa and regions. We call for greater efforts to coordinate and increase testing and reporting in a strategic manner to inform more effective and efficient conservation actions globally.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e70073"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring gaps, biases, and research priorities in the evidence for reptile conservation actions.\",\"authors\":\"Oliver Speight, William H Morgan, Thomas B White, Katie A Sainsbury, Amos Bouskila, Guy Rotem, Rebecca K Smith, William J Sutherland, Maggie J Watson, Alec P Christie\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cobi.70073\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>With over 21% of reptile species threatened with extinction, there is an urgent need to ensure conservation actions to protect and restore populations are informed by relevant, reliable evidence. We examined the geographic and taxonomic distribution of 707 studies that tested the effects of actions to conserve reptiles synthesized in Conservation Evidence's Reptile Conservation synopsis. More studies were conducted in countries with higher gross domestic product per capita, more reptile species, and higher proportions of threatened reptile species. Studies were clustered in the United States (43%) and Australia (15%), and no studies were conducted in large parts of Southeast Asia, South America, and sub-Saharan Africa. Taxonomically, 47% of 90 reptile families (mostly Squamata) were not studied at all. Although Squamata and Testudines species featured in approximately 50% of studies, 7 of the 10 most-studied reptiles (constituting 36% of studies) were turtles or tortoises, and there were significantly more studies per species on Testudines than Squamata. There were also significantly more studies on species: classified as least concern (as opposed to all other International Union for Conservation of Nature categories apart from near threatened); not categorized as endemic or insular; with more Wikipedia page views; and lacking data on venomousness. There was no significant relationship between the number of studies and the evolutionary distinctiveness or body mass of species. Our results highlight pressing evidence needs, particularly for underrepresented regions and threatened and data-deficient species (e.g., evolutionarily distinct and globally endangered reptiles in South America, sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia). To overcome evidence gaps and a lack of basic ecological data, future work should explore how the effects of actions transfer across taxa and regions. We call for greater efforts to coordinate and increase testing and reporting in a strategic manner to inform more effective and efficient conservation actions globally.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10689,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Conservation Biology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e70073\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Conservation Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70073\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Biology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70073","RegionNum":1,"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

摘要

超过21%的爬行动物物种面临灭绝的威胁,迫切需要确保保护和恢复种群的保护行动有相关的、可靠的证据。本文分析了707项研究的地理和分类分布,这些研究对保护爬行动物的行动效果进行了测试,这些研究合成在Conservation Evidence的爬行动物保护概要中。在人均国内生产总值较高、爬行动物种类较多、受威胁爬行动物种类比例较高的国家进行了更多的研究。研究集中在美国(43%)和澳大利亚(15%),在东南亚、南美洲和撒哈拉以南非洲的大部分地区没有进行研究。在分类学上,90个爬行动物科中有47%(主要是鳞片目)未被研究。尽管Squamata和Testudines物种出现在大约50%的研究中,但10种研究最多的爬行动物中有7种是海龟或陆龟(占研究的36%),并且每种关于Testudines的研究明显多于Squamata。对物种的研究也明显增多:分类为最不受关注(与国际自然保护联盟除近受威胁外的所有其他类别相反);未归类为地方性的或孤立的;维基百科页面浏览量增加;缺乏关于毒性的数据。研究的数量与物种的进化特征或体重之间没有显著的关系。我们的研究结果强调了迫切的证据需求,特别是对于代表性不足的地区和受威胁的和数据缺乏的物种(例如,进化上独特的和全球濒危的爬行动物在南美洲,撒哈拉以南非洲和东南亚)。为了克服证据差距和基础生态数据的缺乏,未来的工作应探讨行动的影响如何在不同的分类群和区域之间转移。我们呼吁以战略方式加强协调和增加检测和报告,为全球更有效和高效的保护行动提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring gaps, biases, and research priorities in the evidence for reptile conservation actions.

With over 21% of reptile species threatened with extinction, there is an urgent need to ensure conservation actions to protect and restore populations are informed by relevant, reliable evidence. We examined the geographic and taxonomic distribution of 707 studies that tested the effects of actions to conserve reptiles synthesized in Conservation Evidence's Reptile Conservation synopsis. More studies were conducted in countries with higher gross domestic product per capita, more reptile species, and higher proportions of threatened reptile species. Studies were clustered in the United States (43%) and Australia (15%), and no studies were conducted in large parts of Southeast Asia, South America, and sub-Saharan Africa. Taxonomically, 47% of 90 reptile families (mostly Squamata) were not studied at all. Although Squamata and Testudines species featured in approximately 50% of studies, 7 of the 10 most-studied reptiles (constituting 36% of studies) were turtles or tortoises, and there were significantly more studies per species on Testudines than Squamata. There were also significantly more studies on species: classified as least concern (as opposed to all other International Union for Conservation of Nature categories apart from near threatened); not categorized as endemic or insular; with more Wikipedia page views; and lacking data on venomousness. There was no significant relationship between the number of studies and the evolutionary distinctiveness or body mass of species. Our results highlight pressing evidence needs, particularly for underrepresented regions and threatened and data-deficient species (e.g., evolutionarily distinct and globally endangered reptiles in South America, sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia). To overcome evidence gaps and a lack of basic ecological data, future work should explore how the effects of actions transfer across taxa and regions. We call for greater efforts to coordinate and increase testing and reporting in a strategic manner to inform more effective and efficient conservation actions globally.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Conservation Biology
Conservation Biology 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
3.20%
发文量
175
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Conservation Biology welcomes submissions that address the science and practice of conserving Earth's biological diversity. We encourage submissions that emphasize issues germane to any of Earth''s ecosystems or geographic regions and that apply diverse approaches to analyses and problem solving. Nevertheless, manuscripts with relevance to conservation that transcend the particular ecosystem, species, or situation described will be prioritized for publication.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信