Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33738830›Full record

ReviewConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2021

Bridging research and practice in conservation.

Andrew N Kadykalo, Rachel T Buxton, Peter Morrison, Christine M Anderson, Holly Bickerton, Charles M Francis, Adam C Smith, Lenore Fahrig

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Towards evidence-based conservation of subterranean ecosystems.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Scientist engagement and the knowledge-action gap.Nature ecology & evolution · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Bridging research and practice in conservation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2021
    Review
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

8 authors.

Andrew N KadykaloDepartment of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7359-0967
Rachel T BuxtonDepartment of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2772-8435
Peter MorrisonEcoEcoAnalysis, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Christine M AndersonDepartment of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Holly BickertonParks Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Charles M FrancisDepartment of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Adam C SmithDepartment of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Lenore FahrigDepartment of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3841-0342

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Calls for biodiversity conservation practice to be more evidence based are growing, and we agree evidence use in conservation practice needs improvement. However, evidence-based conservation will not be realized without improved access to evidence. In medicine, unlike in conservation, a well-established and well-funded layer of intermediary individuals and organizations engage with medical practitioners, synthesize primary research relevant to decision making, and make evidence easily accessible. These intermediaries prepare targeted evidence summaries and distribute them to practitioners faced with time-sensitive and value-laden decisions. To be effective, these intermediaries, who we refer to as evidence bridges, should identify research topics based on the priorities of practitioners; synthesize evidence; prepare and distribute easy-to-find and easy-to-use evidence summaries; and develop and maintain networks of connections with researchers and practitioners. Based on a review of the literature regarding evidence intermediaries in conservation and environmental management, as well as an anonymous questionnaire searching for such organizations, we found few intermediaries that met all these criteria. Few evidence bridges that do exist are unable to reach most conservation practitioners, which include resource managers in government and industry, conservation organizations, and farmers and other private landowners. We argue that the lack of evidence bridges from research to practitioners contributes to evidence complacency and limits the use of evidence in conservation action. Nevertheless, several existing organizations help reduce the gap between evidence and practice and could serve as a foundation for building additional components of evidence bridges in conservation. Although evidence bridges need expertise in research and evidence synthesis, they also require expertise in identifying and communicating with the community of practitioners most in need of clear and concise syntheses of evidence. Article Impact Statement: Evidence-based conservation will not be realized without improved access to evidence. We call for intermediary evidence bridges.

Indexed as

BiodiversityConservation of Natural ResourcesHumansOrganizationsResearch Personnelbrecha en la implementación de la investigaciónconservación basada en la evidenciaenvironmental evidenceevidence-based conservationevidence-informed decision makingevidencia ambientalintercambio de conocimientointermediario de conocimientoknowledge brokerknowledge exchangeknowledge translationmanejo de recursos naturalesnatural resource managementresearch-implementation gaptoma de decisiones guiada por la evidenciatraducción del conocimiento基于证据的保护循证决策环境证据知识中介知识交流知识转化研究与实施的差距自然资源管理

Identifiers

PMID33738830
PMCPMC9291548

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.