ArticleAmbio2019
Bridging conservation science and traditional knowledge of wild animals: The need for expert guidance and inclusion of local knowledge holders.
Article in Ambio, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Urban Stone Marten (Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Plastinated sectional anatomy applied in CT and MRI studies of the body of the crab-eating fox (Cerdocyon thous).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Geopolitical impacts on the description of new terrestrial mollusc species.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Healing with Risks: How Zoonotic Potential Influences the Use of Wild Mammals in Traditional Medicine.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Traditional ecological knowledge for great ape conservation in Gabon.Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine · 2025Article
- Influence of the sociodemographic profile of hunters on the knowledge and use of faunistic resources.Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many people call for strengthening knowledge co-production between academic science and indigenous and local knowledge systems. A major barrier to cooperation seems to be a lack of experience regarding where and how traditional knowledge can be found and obtained. Our key question was whether the expert judgment of academic zoologists or a feature-based linear model is better at predicting the observed level of local familiarity with wild animal species. Neither the zoologists nor the model proved sufficiently accurate (70 and 60%, respectively), with the inaccuracy probably resulting from inadequate knowledge of the local ecological and cultural specificities of the species. This indicates that more knowledge is likely to come from local knowledge than zoologists would expect. Accuracy of targeting the relevant species for knowledge co-production could be improved through specific understanding of the local culture, provided by experts who study traditional zoological knowledge and by local knowledge holders themselves.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.