One key aspect of the Anthropocene is the inherent disparities between the Global North and the Global South. These differences manifest in the causes and impacts of pollution, climate change, and species extinctions, but are they also present in the ways we write about the Anthropocene? We examine 77 peer-reviewed papers spanning 2009-2019 that explicitly feature conservation in an Anthropocene context. We compare these papers to a control group of papers that feature conservation but do not engage specifically with the Anthropocene literature. We found that both "Anthropocene" and "conservation" papers include a disproportionately large number of authors with affiliations in the Global North, despite half of the research taking place in the Global South. Moreover, this overrepresentation occurs regardless of author position or journal impact factor. We find that 84% of Anthropocene articles and 91% of conservation articles occurring in the Global North had a first author from the country of study, as opposed to only 55% of Anthropocene articles and 62% of conservation articles from the Global South. Studies occurring in the Global North almost always had at least one coauthor from the country of study (96% of Anthropocene articles and 97% of conservation articles). In contrast, only 81% of Anthropocene articles and 83% of conservation articles occurring in the Global South had any local coauthors. We used two text-mining algorithms to characterize the authorship networks and topics occurring in Anthropocene and conservation papers. These analyses showed that while both groups are interdisciplinary, Anthropocene papers had more distributed authorship networks and greater linkages across topics, and therefore have a flatter "topic surface" than the conservation papers. Our work suggests that conservation research programs that are explicitly grounded in the Anthropocene as a theoretical framework are more likely to reach across disciplinary lines.