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 Conservation Science and Practice Pub Date : 2025-01-13 DOI:10.1111/csp2.13304
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://conbio.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

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
濒危物种缺乏保护行动结果的研究
鉴于生物多样性普遍下降,迫切需要确保保护干预措施发挥作用。然而,关于保护行动的有效性的证据往往缺乏。本文以加拿大209种濒危陆生物种为研究对象,对保护行动的证据基础进行了文献综述,以:(1)探讨每个物种的保护行动的结果;(2)确定知识空白。行动导向的研究仅占目标物种所有同行评议文献的2%,61%的物种没有研究保护行动结果的文献。保护区、栖息地创造、人工庇护所和替代耕作方式对大多数被评估的物种总体上是有益的。栖息地恢复行动是最常被研究的,但这些行动中有38%是有害的、无效的或表现出混合的结果。对大量物种进行了规定焚烧、替代木材采伐方法和植被控制的有效性检查,但其中17%-30%的措施显示出负面影响。我们的综合研究表明,许多针对濒危物种恢复的行动缺乏公开的证据,这突出了保护文献中令人担忧的差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
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
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Introduced mona monkey Cercopithecus mona is a key predator of bird nests in the endemic-rich Príncipe Island Habitat use and diel activity of insectivorous bats across land-cover types on an Afrotropical oceanic island Participatory approaches to improving recreational fisheries management in a remote island system Island-restricted reptiles are more threatened but less studied than their mainland counterparts
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1