Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31949318›Full record

ArticleBioscience2020

Coproducing Science to Inform Working Lands: The Next Frontier in Nature Conservation.

David E Naugle, Brady W Allred, Matthew O Jones, Dirac Twidwell, Jeremy D Maestas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Scaling up private land conservation to meet recovery goals for grassland birds.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2021
    Article
  6. Panarchy: opportunities and challenges for ecosystem management.Frontiers in ecology and the environment · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

David E NaugleWildlife biology, the University of Montana (UM), Missoula, and is the national science advisor for Working Lands for Wildlife, part of the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service. Also at UM.
Brady W AllredRangeland Analysis Platform in the W. A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation.
Matthew O JonesEcologist in UM's Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group.
Dirac TwidwellRangeland resiliency, Center for Resilience in Agricultural Working Lands and the Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Jeremy D MaestasSagebrush ecosystem specialist with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Portland, Oregon.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conservationists are increasingly convinced that coproduction of science enhances its utility in policy, decision-making, and practice. Concomitant is a renewed reliance on privately owned working lands to sustain nature and people. We propose a coupling of these emerging trends as a better recipe for conservation. To illustrate this, we present five elements of coproduction, contrast how they differ from traditional approaches, and describe the role of scientists in successful partnerships. Readers will find coproduction more demanding than the loading dock approach to science delivery but will also find greater rewards, relevance, and impact. Because coproduction is novel and examples of it are rare, we draw on our roles as scientists within the US Department of Agriculture-led Sage Grouse Initiative, North America's largest effort to conserve the sagebrush ecosystem. As coproduction and working lands evolve, traditional approaches will be replaced in order to more holistically meet the needs of nature and people.

Indexed as

Conservation outcomescoproductionFarm Billpartnershipsprivate lands

Identifiers

PMID31949318
PMCPMC6956880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.