The challenge of heterogeneous evidence in conservation
The challenge of heterogeneous evidence in conservation
复制标题
保护中异质证据的挑战
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
W. Sutherland
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Alec P. Christie;Tatsuya Amano;Philip A. Martin;S. Petrovan;Gorm E. Shackelford;Benno I. Simmons;Rebecca K. Smith;David R Williams;C. Wordley;W. Sutherland
应对当前生物多样性危机的保护工作需要尽可能高效和有效。为了让决策者了解最有效的保护行动，重要的是要确定保护文献中的偏见和差距，以优先考虑未来的证据生成。我们使用保护证据数据库评估了这一全球文献基础的状态，该数据库是从已发表文献中收集的保护行动（干预措施）的定量测试的综合集合。对于两栖动物和鸟类，我们调查了保护证据的性质空间和分类，以及生物群系，有效性指标和研究设计。研究主要集中在西欧和北美的鸟类，特别是两栖动物。使用最稳健的研究设计的研究--前后对照影响和随机对照试验--也是地理限制最多的。此外，每个1×1度网格单元中的研究数量与物种、受威胁物种或数据缺失物种的数量之间没有关系。两栖动物和鸟类的分类偏见和差距是明显的-一些订单是缺乏的证据基础和其他代表相对于它们所包含的受威胁物种的比例。温带森林和草原生物群系的代表性很高，这加强了观察到的地理偏见。使用各种指标来评估给定保护行动的有效性，这可能会使研究不太直接可比，并且证据合成更加困难。我们还发现，最不稳健的研究设计是最常用的;使用稳健设计的研究很少。未来的研究应优先考虑对西欧和北美以外的受威胁物种采取保护行动。标准化衡量标准和提高用于测试保护行动的研究设计的稳健性也将提高综合和决策的证据基础的质量。
Conservation efforts to tackle the current biodiversity crisis need to be as efficient and effective as possible. To inform decision-makers of the most effective conservation actions, it is important to identify biases and gaps in the conservation literature to prioritize future evidence generation. We assessed the state of this global literature base using the Conservation Evidence database, a comprehensive collection of quantitative tests of conservation actions (interventions) from the published literature. For amphibians and birds, we investigated the nature of Conservation Evidence spatially and taxonomically, as well as by biome, effectiveness metrics, and study design. Studies were heavily concentrated in Western Europe and North America for birds and particularly amphibians. Studies that used the most robust study designs - Before-After Control-Impact and Randomized Controlled Trials - were also the most geographically restricted. Furthermore, there was no relationship between the number of studies in each 1×1 degree grid cell and the number of species, threatened species or data-deficient species. Taxonomic biases and gaps were apparent for amphibians and birds - some orders were absent from the evidence base and others were poorly represented relative to the proportion of threatened species they contained. Temperate forest and grassland biomes were highly represented, which reinforced observed geographic biases. Various metrics were used to evaluate the effectiveness of a given conservation action, potentially making studies less directly comparable and evidence synthesis more difficult. We also found that the least robust study designs were the most commonly used; studies using robust designs were scarce. Future research should prioritize testing conservation actions on threatened species outside of Western Europe and North America. Standardizing metrics and improving the robustness of study designs used to test conservation actions would also improve the quality of the evidence base for synthesis and decision-making.
鸟类保护：干预措施效果的全球证据
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
--
影响因子：
--
作者：
Williams David R.
通讯作者：
Williams David R.
影响因子：
56.9
作者：
Rosenberg, Kenneth V.;Dokter, Adriaan M.;Marra, Peter P.
通讯作者：
Marra, Peter P.