ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2026
Role of funders in embedding tests in conservation practice.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Role of funders in embedding tests in conservation practice.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Effective conservation practice requires decisions based on reliable and relevant evidence, but significant gaps in the evidence base exist. Incorporating well-designed tests of the effectiveness of interventions for biodiversity in conservation projects is one of the best ways to scale up the rate of evidence generation. Funders of conservation projects are uniquely positioned to support and incentivize such tests as part of the grant-making process. Using a structured process, as 25 conservation funders and members of Conservation Evidence, we identified means of improving the effectiveness of the work funded through the support of enhanced evidence generation. We identified 11 approaches through which funders can support embedding testing, ranging from encouraging inclusion of a test in the project proposal, to designating separate funds for incorporating a test, to supporting an external testing unit to provide training and advice. The appropriate approaches vary depending on the scale, process, and type of funding. Barriers to supporting testing and potential solutions were discussed, barriers such as a lack of skills to check tests are appropriate and well designed and the additional time needed to develop, implement, and see outcomes of tests and differing types of projects. By encouraging testing of actions as part of conservation practice (where appropriate), funders will ultimately facilitate a stronger evidence base for more effective decision-making and better outcomes for nature and society.
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.