Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40450543›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025

Exploring gaps, biases, and research priorities in the evidence for reptile conservation actions.

Oliver Speight, William H Morgan, Thomas B White, Katie A Sainsbury, Amos Bouskila, Guy Rotem, Rebecca K Smith, William J Sutherland, Maggie J Watson, Alec P Christie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Nine changes needed to deliver a radical transformation in biodiversity measurement.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Exploring gaps, biases, and research priorities in the evidence for reptile conservation actions.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    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

10 authors.

Oliver SpeightDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0009-0003-6026-2213
William H MorganDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7594-6453
Thomas B WhiteDepartment of Biology & Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0536-6162
Katie A SainsburyFaculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5087-3892
Amos BouskilaDepartment of Life Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-6995-5070
Guy RotemDepartment of Life Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-8364-8448
Rebecca K SmithDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3294-7592
William J SutherlandDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6498-0437
Maggie J WatsonDepartment of Life Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba, Israel.ORCID 0000-0001-6021-9686
Alec P ChristieDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8465-8410

Funding

Arcadia FundCambridge Philosophical SocietyImperial College LondonMAVA Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With over 21% of reptile species threatened with extinction, there is an urgent need to ensure conservation actions to protect and restore populations are informed by relevant, reliable evidence. We examined the geographic and taxonomic distribution of 707 studies that tested the effects of actions to conserve reptiles synthesized in Conservation Evidence's Reptile Conservation synopsis. More studies were conducted in countries with higher gross domestic product per capita, more reptile species, and higher proportions of threatened reptile species. Studies were clustered in the United States (43%) and Australia (15%), and no studies were conducted in large parts of Southeast Asia, South America, and sub-Saharan Africa. Taxonomically, 47% of 90 reptile families (mostly Squamata) were not studied at all. Although Squamata and Testudines species featured in approximately 50% of studies, 7 of the 10 most-studied reptiles (constituting 36% of studies) were turtles or tortoises, and there were significantly more studies per species on Testudines than Squamata. There were also significantly more studies on species: classified as least concern (as opposed to all other International Union for Conservation of Nature categories apart from near threatened); not categorized as endemic or insular; with more Wikipedia page views; and lacking data on venomousness. There was no significant relationship between the number of studies and the evolutionary distinctiveness or body mass of species. Our results highlight pressing evidence needs, particularly for underrepresented regions and threatened and data-deficient species (e.g., evolutionarily distinct and globally endangered reptiles in South America, sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia). To overcome evidence gaps and a lack of basic ecological data, future work should explore how the effects of actions transfer across taxa and regions. We call for greater efforts to coordinate and increase testing and reporting in a strategic manner to inform more effective and efficient conservation actions globally.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesEndangered SpeciesReptilesAnimalsacción de conservaciónbiodiversidadbiodiversityconservación basada en evidenciasconservación de reptilesconservación informada por evidenciasconservationevidence‐basedevidence gapsevidence‐informedliterature biasprácticas basadas en evidenciasreptilesresearch biasresearch gapsvacíos en la investigación保护行动关键词: 基于证据的保护基于证据的实践有实证依据的保护爬行动物保护生物多样性研究空缺

Identifiers

PMID40450543
PMCPMC12451487

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.