ArticleConservation physiology2025
Co-production and conservation physiology: outcomes, challenges and opportunities arising from reflections on diverse co-produced projects.
Article in Conservation physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenging 10 misconceptions in conservation physiology.Conservation physiology · 2026Article
- Two years at the editor's desk: reflections on community, diversity and impact.Conservation physiology · 2026Article
- Beyond the hatchery: testing managed wetland impoundments as semi-natural rearing habitat for endangered Delta Smelt.Conservation physiology · 2026Article
- The lab-field continuum in conservation physiology research: leveraging multiple approaches to inform policy and practice.Conservation physiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
34 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As a relatively nascent discipline, conservation physiology has struggled to deliver science that is relevant to decision-makers or directly useful to practitioners. A growing body of literature has revealed that co-produced research is more likely to generate knowledge that is not only relevant, but that is also embraced and actionable. Co-production broadly involves conducting research collaboratively, inclusively, and in a respectful and engaged manner-spanning all stages from identifying research needs to study design, data collection, interpretation and application. This approach aims to create actionable science and deliver meaningful benefits to all partners involved. Knowledge can be co-produced with practitioners/managers working for regulators or stewardship bodies, Indigenous communities and governments, industry (e.g. fishers, foresters, farmers) and other relevant actors. Using diverse case studies spanning issues, taxa and regions from around the globe, we explore examples of co-produced research related to conservation physiology. In doing so, we highlight benefits and challenges while also identifying lessons for others considering such an approach. Although co-production cannot guarantee the ultimate success of a project, for applied research (such as what conservation physiology purports to deliver), embracing co-production is increasingly regarded as the single-most important approach for generating actionable science to inform conservation. In that sense, the conservation physiology community would be more impactful and relevant if it became commonplace to embrace co-production as demonstrated by the case studies presented here.
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.