BIODIVERSITY

Received: 28 August 2019 Revised: 21 March 2020 Accepted: 24 March 2020
DOI: 10.1111/conl.12720
POLICY PERSPECTIVE
The past and future role of conservation science in saving

biodiversity
David R Williams1,2 Andrew Balmford3 David S Wilcove4
1 Sustainability
Research Institute, School of
Abstract
Earth and Environment, University of Leeds,
Leeds, UK Global biodiversity losses continue despite tremendous growth in the volume of con-
2 BrenSchool of Environmental Science and servation science and many local successes. Research that can achieve conserva-
Management, University of California Santa tion science’s aims—arresting declines in biodiversity and preventing extinctions—
Barbara, California
3 Conservation
is therefore of ever greater importance. Here, we ask whether conservation science,
Science Group, Department of
Zoology, University of Cambridge, as currently performed, is progressing in such a way as to maximize its impact. We
Cambridge, UK present a simple framework for how effective conservation research could progress,
4 Woodrow Wilson School of Public and from identifying problems to diagnosing their proximate and ultimate causes, and
International Affairs and Department of
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton
from proposing, to designing, implementing, and testing responses. We then demon-
University, Princeton, New Jersey strate that for three well-known examples—South Asian vultures, whooping cranes,
and bycatch of procellariform seabirds—published studies appear to follow this
Correspondence
David R Williams, Sustainability Research sequence, with considerable benefits. However, for a representative sample of the
Institute, School of Earth and Environment, wider conservation literature, we find no evidence of such a progression. Instead,
University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT. UK.
the vast majority of papers remain focused on describing the state of nature or on
Email: [email protected]
mechanisms directly causing changes, with very little research on designing or imple-
menting conservation responses. This lack of research on the sorts of questions that
might most help conservation science deliver its stated mission strongly suggests we
will struggle to translate the huge increase in research activity into real-world benefits.
KEYWORDS
albatross, bycatch, conservation action, conservation responses, effectiveness, literature review, research
policy, research priorities, threats, vultures, whooping crane
1 I N T RO D U C T I O N of the great challenges of the 21st century and at the heart of

the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) Aichi targets
As human populations and per capita consumption continue (UNEP CBD 2010) and of Sustainable Development Goal 15
to grow (Tilman et al., 2017; United Nations, Department of (General Assembly of the United Nations 2015).
Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division 2019), the Since its inception, conservation biology (now more explic-
loss of wild nature and the benefits we derive from it are itly interdisciplinary and increasingly labeled “conservation
accelerating (Brondizio, Settele, J., Díaz, & Ngo, 2019; Rip- science”) has been characterized as a mission-oriented disci-
ple et al., 2017; Tittensor et al., 2014). Conserving biodiver- pline aiming to provide the scientific underpinnings to address
sity in the face of these increasing human pressures is one this challenge (Soulé & Wilcox 1980). In the landmark 1986
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly cited.
© 2020 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Conservation Letters. 2020;13:e12720. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/conl 1 of 7

https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12720
1755263x, 2020, 4, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12720 by Cochrane Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 of 7 WILLIAMS ET AL.
book Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and sequence) proposing, designing, implementing, and testing
Diversity, Michael Soulé (Soulé, 1986) warned that if con- a range of interventions, including captive breeding, the pro-
servation biology “becomes isolated in the mental world of vision of uncontaminated carcasses in “vulture restaurants,”
academia, it will be of little use. Its prescriptions will not the identification of a safe alternative to diclofenac, and the
be informed by the real-world problems of … the people establishment of diclofenac-free vulture safe zones. Contin-
who are most involved and affected.” Three decades on, the ued monitoring suggests declines have now slowed, and some
enterprise of conservation science (measured by publication populations are beginning to recover (Prakash et al., 2019).
rates—Figure S1 in the Supporting Information) is an order of These broad trends—with studies becoming progressively
magnitude larger, and we are approaching the reassessment more focused on the sources and underlying drivers of threats;
of the CBD’s targets. It therefore seems reasonable to ask, and shifting towards designing, implementing, and testing
as action becomes ever more urgent, how well conservation potential responses—are also characteristic of publications
science research is contributing to the development of “pre- that underpinned the successful conservation of whooping
scriptions” that can address the “real-world problems” facing cranes (Grus americana) and of procellariform seabirds
biodiversity. (Figure 2b, c). The global whooping crane population fell to
We examine this question by mapping the field’s develop- 15 individuals in a single population by 1938 due to hunting
ment against a simple framework, whereby solution-oriented and habitat loss (French, John, Converse, & Austin, 2019).
conservation science emerges from a progressively deeper Intensive conservation interventions were implemented,
understanding of the dynamics of threatening processes includingthe creation of protected areas, protection from
and towards the design and testing of interventions to hunting and human disturbance, captive propagation, and the
address them (Figure 1). Research might start by describing establishment of new populations (French et al., 2019). In
the changing state of nature (say, a change in a species’ each case, conservation actions were supported by intensive
population size) and then move on (upwards sloping arrow monitoring and the testing of new interventions (Figure 2b;
in Figure 1) to identify the proximate mechanism (sensu Data S1 in the Supporting Information). By the winter of
Balmford et al., 2009) underpinning that change. But problem 2016–2017, the wild population had grown to 483 individuals
diagnosis alone is insufficient: to be useful, conservation across three populations, although one reintroduction pro-
science needs to support action (Caughley, 1994; Gibbons, gram has been halted due to low levels of success (BirdLife
Wilson, & Green, 2011). Research should therefore—in International 2019). Although some procellariform seabirds
collaboration with conservation practitioners and other have long been imperiled by persecution, invasive predators,
stakeholders—propose and design responses to undesirable or intrinsically small ranges, major declines throughout the
changes, report on their implementation, and test their effec- family were noted in the 1990s (Brothers, 1991). These
tiveness (lower sloping arrow), while continuing to refine declines were traced to extensive mortality caused by birds
our understanding of the threatening mechanism (lower following commercial longlining boats and either grabbing
horizontal arrow). However, if targeting the mechanism of the baited hooks, or being “foul hooked”—with hooks catch-
change is unlikely to be effective or efficient, research should ing the birds’ wings or bodies (Brothers, 1991). Intensive
progress to identifying and understanding the source and ulti- research identified the interventions most likely to prevent
mate driver of the threat (upper horizontal arrows), and then this bycatch, including using bird-scaring lines behind boats,
proposing and designing driver-focused interventions which setting lines underwater, setting lines at night, and using
can be undertaken, monitored, and refined (dashed arrows). redesigned hooks, and concerted efforts were then made
To see if this framework reflects reality, we reviewed the to engage fishers and their management organizations to
peer-reviewed literature (i.e., excluding non peer-reviewed encourage the use of the most effective interventions, with the
reports and management documents) pertaining to three most effective measures reducing bycatch by up to 80–100%
well-known examples where targeted research unequivocally (Figure 2c; Cox et al., 2007).
helped address real-world problems. In the case of the mas- In striking contrast to these case studies, we found little
sive decline of South Asian vulture populations, we found evidence that conservation science as a whole is developing
that successful mission-oriented conservation science did a deeper understanding of high-level threats and of conser-
indeed follow this pattern. Early papers concentrated on quan- vation responses, or altering its research priorities over time.
tifying dramatic population declines in vulture populations When we classified a representative sample of 959 articles
(Figure 2a). Establishing the threatening mechanism (inciden- published over the past 20 years in 20 conservation jour-
tal poisoning by diclofenac, an anti-inflammatory veterinary nals (details in the Supporting Information), we found that
drug) took several years, and research has since refined our nearly half (43%) of the studies merely described the state
understanding of how and where this drug enters the vulture of nature without linking changes to a threatening mecha-
food chain. Response-focused work, meanwhile, started nism at all, and only 10% linked a mechanism to the source
once sources of poisoning were identified, and involved (in or driver of changes (Figure 3). Moreover, 70% of studies
WILLIAMS ET AL. 3 of 7
(a)
(b)
F I G U R E 1 A research framework for conservation science. A simple framework suggesting how conservation research might progress if it is to
deliver prescriptions for addressing real-world problems. Initial characterization of the changed state of a population, community, or ecosystem needs
to be followed by diagnosing the mechanism responsible (upwards sloping arrow). This then enables research proposing, designing, implementing,
and testing responses to this threat mechanism (lower sloping arrow) and improving our understanding of it (lower horizontal arrow). However,
depending on the nature and urgency of the threat, it is often desirable to establish the source of the threat and quickly develop and test responses to
it, or to identify, and in due course respond to, the underlying driver(s) (dashed arrows)
did not even propose a response to observed changes. We 2 I S CON S E RVAT I O N S C I E NC E

also found very little evidence that this pattern was chang- ADDRESSING ITS A IMS?
ing over time. There were no significant trends in the propor-
tion of studies investigating different levels of threat across Unlike the literature on South Asian vultures, whooping
years (see the Supporting Information for details). The propor- cranes or bycatch of procellariform seabirds, our wider sam-
tion of studies that failed to describe a response did decrease ple is not a longitudinal assessment of research on a specific
(from 0.83 to 0.67, chi-squared test for trend in proportions: issue. We would therefore expect new work on the early stages
𝜒 2 (1, N = 959) = 13.62, p = 0.002) and there were slight, of threat identification, characterization, and mitigation, to be
although nonsignificant, increases in the proportion of studies initiated over time, as new threats are discovered and explored.
designing and testing responses (from 0.01 to 0.05, and 0.09 to Nevertheless, if the overall field of conservation science was
0.17, respectively; see the Supporting Information for details). progressing as proposed in Figure 1, we would still expect to
The overall proportion of studies examining different levels see a growing proportion of research investigating underly-
of threats or responses did not vary across years (chi-squared ing drivers and implementing and testing solutions. The rar-
test of threat category vs. year: 𝜒 2 (12, N = 959) = 15.84, p = ity of studies examining the sources and drivers of change
0.20; response category vs. year: 𝜒 2 (16, N = 959) = 23.11, implies conservation scientists are not developing an incre-
p = 0.11). mentally deeper understanding of the threats affecting wild
(a) South Asian vultures (b) Whooping crane (c) Procellariform bycatch
100 20 100 70 100 70
75 15 75 75
50 10 50 35 50 35
Percentage of Studies
Number of Studies
25 5 25 25
0 0 0 0 0 0
100 20 100 70 100 70
75 15 75 75
50 10 50 35 50 35
25 5 25 25
0 0 0 0 0 0
3
07
86
93
4
00
01
01
01
98
99
00
01
00
00
01
0
9
−2
−2
−2
−2
−2
−1
−1
−2
−2
−1
−1
−2
−2
−2
99
03
07
10
14
70
82
95
07
79
86
93
00
07
19
20
20
20
20
19
19
19
20
19
19
19
20
20
Research on threats Research on responses
Establish underlying driver of issue Test effectiveness
Establish source of mechanism Implement
Understand threatening mechanism Design
Describe state of conservation target Propose
No response
FIGURE 2 Research topics in selected case studies. The number of papers investigating (a) the South Asian vulture crisis, (b) whooping crane
conservation, and (c) the bycatch of procellariform seabirds over time (black lines) and the percentage investigating different levels of threat and
response (shaded bars). Image credits: Birgit Lang, Lauren Anderson and Ferran Sayol.
nature. Moreover, very few studies reached the second step complex and difficult to research. The state of nature and
in our response hierarchy of designing workable, socioeco- the mechanisms threatening it can be investigated through
nomically realistic interventions—the minimum requirement ecology—often the field most familiar to conservation
if conservation science is going to effect change in the real researchers (Fisher, Balmford, Green, & Trevelyan, 2009). In
world. Even fewer actually reported on the implementation of contrast, exploring the sources and drivers of those threats,
conservation actions—the point at which actual conservation and designing responses to them, requires interdisciplinary
can begin. research, potentially including economics, political science,
So why is conservation science seemingly failing to per- human geography, psychology, and many other disciplines.
form the research most likely to safeguard nature? Perhaps Much has been written on the need for such interdisciplinary
the simplest explanation is that these issues are extremely research and training (Fisher et al., 2009), and its challenges
impact factor of publishing journals, or the number of cita-

100
tions received (see the Supporting Information, Figures S2–
S4 for details).
Percentage of Studies
These results tentatively suggest fears over the publication

75
payoffs of tackling the drivers of threats or developing
effective solutions are misplaced. Nonetheless, the small
number of studies that investigated these topics means our
50 findings are preliminary, and there remains the possibility
that the most effective conservation studies are inadequately
rewarded. We also have no information on papers that are
25 rejected from journals, and it is possible that editorial boards
and reviewers are less likely to accept interdisciplinary
papers, or those designing and implementing interventions
at local scales. However, some journals are actively encour-
0
aging studies of this kind (e.g., Conservation Biology, Teel
1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017
et al., 2018), and indeed entire journals are now dedicated to
Research on threats Research on responses testing the effectiveness of conservation interventions (e.g.,
Establish underlying driver of issue Test effectiveness Conservation Evidence, Conservation Science and Practice;
Establish source of mechanism Implement
Hopkins, Ockendon, & Sutherland, 2015; Schwartz et al.,
Understand threatening mechanism Design
Describe state of conservation target Propose 2019; Sutherland, Mitchell, & Prior, 2012). We also note that
No response our sampling may have failed to capture studies that examine
higher level threats and solutions if they are predominantly
F I G U R E 3 Research topics in the wider conservation literature.
published in interdisciplinary journals we did not sample
The percentage of 959 conservation papers sampled from 20
(e.g., in environmental economics or industrial ecology).
conservation journals that examined different levels of threat and
conservation responses, over a 20-year period
However, we found no evidence of this from reviewing
literature on the three conservation case studies we reviewed:
studies investigating the sources of threatening mechanisms,
(e.g., Pooley, Mendelsohn, & Milner-Gulland, 2014), but our and those designing, implementing, and testing responses,
data suggest that conservation science still has considerable were no less likely to be included in the journals we sampled
progress to make. in our wider review than were other studies (chi-squared test
Another, non-exclusive, possibility is that the research with of threat category vs. inclusion or not in wider sample: 𝜒 2 (2,
the greatest potential benefits for biodiversity may not be N = 57) = 0.037, p = 0.98; response category vs. inclusion:
well rewarded in academia. There is evidence that the inter- 𝜒 2 (3, N = 57) = 0.20, p = 0.98).
disciplinary work this research demands is less likely to be
funded (Bromham, Dinnage, & Hua, 2016) and in compet-
itive, single-discipline departments, it may be perceived as 3 ACH I E V I NG T H E A I M S OF
less likely to secure promotion and accolades compared to CONS ERVATIO N S CIENC E
purely ecological studies (Roy et al., 2013). Moreover, inter-
disciplinary teams are often formed at the behest of govern- Not every study can, or should, investigate every step in the
ment agencies that are focused on solving particular prob- framework we describe. Monitoring the state of nature is,
lems, but not necessarily on the peer-reviewed publication of on its own, an essential activity for revealing changes (Lin-
such interventions. The design and implementation of on-the- denmayer & Gibbons 2012; Woinarski, Garnett, Legge, &
ground conservation responses are also likely to be locally Lindenmayer, 2017), and system-specific studies can reveal
focused, and hence hard to generalize from, as solutions are very different mechanisms or sources for superficially sim-
dependent on specific socioeconomic and environmental con- ilar changes. For example, the catastrophic declines in East
ditions (Waylen, Fischer, McGowan, Thirgood, & Milner- African vulture populations are, as in South Asia, caused
Gulland, 2010). This may reduce the number of citations such by contaminated carcasses, but linked to retaliatory killing
research receives, reducing its “impact” in the scientific liter- of predators and to ivory poaching (Ogada, Botha, & Shaw,
ature. However, when we tested this idea using our sample of 2016), rather than to veterinary care of livestock. More-
the wider conservation science literature, we found no clear over, conservation intervention may be needed before the full
support for the hypothesis that articles investigating higher causal chain of threats is understood: swift action established
level threats, or proposing and implementing responses had a captive breeding program for California condors (Gymno-
lower “impact” than other studies—measured either by the gyps californianus) in the 1980s and likely saved the species
(Walters et al., 2010), while the failure to quickly initiate cap- ral world in the face of unprecedented pressures and frequent
tive breeding may well have contributed to recent Australian governmental indifference (e.g., Hoffmann et al., 2010), but
extinctions of a bat, a rodent, and a reptile (Woinarski et al., we believe it can and must do much more if we are to safe-
2017). guard biodiversity for future generations.
That said, we nevertheless encourage conservation scien-
tists to critically examine their research priorities. Studies ACKNOW LEDGMENTS
have noted that much conservation science is not focused on
the most threatened species (Murray, Green, Williams, Bur- We thank three anonymous reviewers for helping to improve
field, & de L. Brooke, 2015) or serious threats (Di Marco this manuscript. DRW, AB, and DSW conceived and designed
et al., 2017), but we highlight the additional need to think care- the study; DRW collected data and performed analyses; DRW,
fully about engaging in research at the right point of the threat AB, and DSW wrote the paper. Authors declare no competing
and response framework, at the right time. A recent study interests. All data are available in the main text or the supple-
(Garnett et al., 2019) provides metrics to help researchers mentary materials.
understand the state of knowledge of threats and responses.
Combining these metrics with our framework could allow O RC I D
conservation researchers to quickly pinpoint where additional
David R Williams https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0379-1800
research effort could make the most difference.
Ultimately, biodiversity declines are the result of increas-
ing anthropogenic pressures on the environment (Ripple et al., REFERENCES
2017; Tilman et al., 2017; Tittensor et al., 2014), frequently Balmford, A., Carey, P., Kapos, V., Manica, A., Rodrigues, A. S. L.,
coupled with a lack of decisive governmental action, even Scharlemann, J. P. W., & Green, R. E. (2009). Capturing the many
when the path forward is clear (Woinarski et al., 2017). The dimensions of threat: Comment on Salafsky et al. Conservation Biol-
urgency and severity of such pressures accentuate the need ogy, 23, 482–487.
for conservation researchers to be as effective and efficient as BirdLife International. (2019). Grubs americana (amended version of
possible: for many species, there simply is not the luxury of 2017 assessment). In: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
2019. E.T22692156A155547970.
time to edge incrementally towards solutions. Conservation
Bromham, L., Dinnage, R., & Hua, X. (2016). Interdisciplinary research
science’s response to the South Asian vulture crisis in partic- has consistently lower funding success. Nature, 534, 684–687.
ular illustrates how a rapid progression of research from iden- Brondizio, E. S., Settele, J., Díaz, S., & Ngo, H. T. (Eds.). (2019). Global
tifying changes, to understanding their causes, to designing, assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the inter-
implementing, and testing solutions can result in real benefits governmental science—Policy platform on biodiversity and ecosys-
to biodiversity. We suggest such targeted progressions seem tem services. Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat.
lacking across much of the conservation science enterprise. Brothers, N. (1991). Albatross mortality and associated bait loss in the
Japanese longline fishery in the Southern Ocean. Biological Conser-
We therefore close by offering a challenge to conser-
vation, 55, 255–268.
vation funders and journals: be more supportive of the
Caughley, G. (1994). Directions in conservation biology. Journal of Ani-
interdisciplinary and location- and system-specific research mal Ecology, 63, 215–244.
required to produce breakthroughs in our understanding of Cox, T. M., Lewison, R. L., Žydelis, R., Crowder, L. B., Safina, C., &
higher level threats, and in our ability to design and exe- Read, A. J. (2007). Comparing effectiveness of experimental and
cute effective responses. This could involve institutionally implemented bycatch reduction measures: The ideal and the real.
supported sabbaticals and leaves-of-absence at institutions Conservation Biology, 21, 1155–1164.
actively involved in conservation responses (e.g., NGOs and Di Marco, M., Chapman, S., Althor, G., Kearney, S., Besançon, C., Butt,
N., … Watson, J. E. M. (2017). Changing trends and persisting biases
government departments), to bridge the gap between research
in three decades of conservation science. Global Ecology and Con-
and practice, with researchers supporting practitioners to pub-
servation, 10, 32–42.
lish details of interventions, as well as monitoring and evalu- Fisher, B., Balmford, A., Green, R. E., & Trevelyan, R. (2009). Conser-
ating progress. Such efforts and their outputs should also be vation science training: The need for an extra dimension. Oryx, 43,
recognized in applications for tenure, promotion, and fund- 361–363.
ing, in a similar way to programs in some U.S. universities French, John, B., Jr., Converse, S. J., & Austin, J. E. (2019). Whoop-
that allow tenured faculty to take leaves-of-absence to serve ing cranes past and present. In P. J. Nyhus, J. B. French, S. J. Con-
in government posts for 2–4 years without loss of seniority. verse, J. E. Austin, & J. h. Delap (Eds.), Whooping cranes: Biology
and conservation (Chapt. 1, pp. 3–16). New York, NY: Academic
To conservation researchers, we offer another challenge:
Press.
focus on the ultimate goals of conservation science— Garnett, S. T., Butchart, S. H. M., Baker, G. B., Bayraktarov, E.,
improving the prospects of wild creatures, the benefits they Buchanan, K. L., Burbidge, A. A., … Geyle, H. M. (2019). Metrics
bestow on people, and the natural habitats they depend on. of progress in the understanding and management of threats to Aus-
Conservation science has done much to preserve the natu- tralian birds. Conservation Biology, 33, 456–468.
General Assembly of the United Nations. (2015). Transforming our Sutherland, W. J., Mitchell, R., & Prior, S. V. (2012). The role of “con-
world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York, servation evidence” in improving conservation management, 3.
NY: United Nations. Teel, T. L., Anderson, C. B., Burgman, M. A., Cinner, J., Clark, D.,
Gibbons, D. W., Wilson, J. D., & Green, R. E. (2011). Using conservation Estévez, R. A., … John, F. A. V. S. (2018). Publishing social science
science to solve conservation problems. Journal of Applied Ecology, research in conservation biology to move beyond biology. Conserva-
48, 505–508. tion Biology, 32, 6–8.
Hoffmann, M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Angulo, A., Böhm, M., Brooks, T. M., Tilman, D., Clark, M., Williams, D. R., Kimmel, K., Polasky, S., &
Butchart, S. H. M., … Stuart, S. N. (2010). The impact of conserva- Packer, C. (2017). Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their
tion on the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science, 330, 1503–1509. prevention. Nature, 546, 73–81.
Hopkins, J., Ockendon, N., & Sutherland, W. J. (2015). Our mission to Tittensor, D. P., Walpole, M., Hill, S. L. L., Boyce, D. G., Britten, G. L.,
transform conservation practice. Conservation Evidence, 12, 1. Burgess, N. D., … Ye, Y. (2014). A mid-term analysis of progress
Lindenmayer, D., & Gibbons, P. (2012). Biodiversity monitoring in Aus- toward international biodiversity targets. Science, 346, 241–244.
tralia. Canberra, Australia: CSIRO Publishing. UNEP CBD. (2010). Decision adopted by the conference of the parties
Murray, H. J., Green, E. J., Williams, D. R., Burfield, I. J., & de L.bib31 to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its tenth meeting.
Brooke, M. (2015). Is research effort associated with the conservation United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population
status of European bird species? Endangered Species Research, 27, Division. (2019). World Population Prospects 2019.
193–206. Walters, J. R., Derrickson, S. R., Michael Fry, D., Haig, S. M., Mar-
Ogada, D., Botha, A., & Shaw, P. (2016). Ivory poachers and poison: zluff, J. M., & Wunderle, J. M. (2010). Status of the California condor
Drivers of Africa’s declining vulture populations. Oryx, 50, 593–596. (Gymnogyps californianus) and efforts to achieve its recovery. Auk,
Pooley, S. P., Mendelsohn, J. A., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2014). Hunting 127, 969–1001.
down the chimera of multiple disciplinarity in conservation science. Waylen, K. A., Fischer, A., Mcgowan, P. J. K., Thirgood, S. J., & Milner-
Conservation Biology, 28, 22–32. Gulland, E. J. (2010). Effect of local cultural context on the success of
Prakash, V., Galligan, T. H., Chakraborty, S. S., Dave, R., Kulkarni, M. community-based conservation interventions. Conservation Biology,
D., Prakash, N., … Green, R. E. (2019). Recent changes in popula- 24, 1119–1129.
tions of critically endangered Gyps vultures in India. Bird Conserva- Woinarski, J. C. Z., Garnett, S. T., Legge, S. M., & Lindenmayer, D.
tion International, 29, 55–70. B. (2017). The contribution of policy, law, management, research,
Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Galetti, M., Alamgir, M., Crist, and advocacy failings to the recent extinctions of three Australian
E., … Laurance, W. F. (2017). World scientists’ warning to humanity: vertebrate species. Conservation Biology, 31, 13–23.
A second notice. BioScience, 67, 1026–1028.
Roy, E. D., Morzillo, A. T., Seijo, F., Reddy, S. M. W., Rhemtulla, J. M.,
Milder, J. C., … Martin, S. L. (2013). The elusive pursuit of inter-
S U P P O RT I NG IN FO R M AT I O N
disciplinarity at the human—Environment interface. BioScience, 63,
745–753. Additional supporting information may be found online in the
Schwartz, M. W., Belhabib, D., Biggs, D., Cook, C., Fitzsimons, J., Gior- Supporting Information section at the end of the article.
dano, A. J., … Runge, M. C. (2019). A vision for documenting and
sharing knowledge in conservation. Conservation Science and Prac-
tice, 1, e1.
Soulé, M. E. (1986). Conservation biology and the “real world.” In M. How to cite this article: Williams DR, Balmford A,
E. Soulé (Ed.), Conservation biology: The science of scarcity and
Wilcove DS. The past and future role of conservation
diversity (pp. 1–12). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
science in saving biodiversity. Conservation Letters.
Soulé, M. E., & Wilcox, B. A. (1980). Conservation biology: Its scope
and its challenge. In M. E. Soulé & B. A. Wilcox (Eds.), Conservation 2020;13:e12720. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12720
biology: An evolutionary-ecological perspective. (pp. 1–8). Sunder-
land, MA: Sinauer Associates.

BIODIVERSITY

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BIODIVERSITY

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BIODIVERSITY

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 28 August 2019 Revised: 21 March 2020 Accepted: 24 March 2020

The past and future role of conservation science in saving

David R Williams1,2 Andrew Balmford3 David S Wilcove4

1 I N T RO D U C T I O N of the great challenges of the 21st century and at the heart of

© 2020 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Conservation Letters. 2020;13:e12720. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/conl 1 of 7

did not even propose a response to observed changes. We 2 I S CON S E RVAT I O N S C I E NC E

100 20 100 70 100 70

impact factor of publishing journals, or the number of cita-

These results tentatively suggest fears over the publication

You might also like