Prioritizing research gaps for national conservation management and policy: the managers’ perspective in Estonia

A review and meta-analysis of collaborative research prioritization studies in ecology, biodiversity conservation and environmental science

“…These studies demonstrate a wide range in scope from studies prioritizing research on single species in a given region [38,43], to those identifying research priorities for the conservation of global biodiversity as a whole [6], and have focused on a wide diversity of topics (table 1). Some studies focused on issues that were a subset of issues covered in other CRP studies, for example Kaiser et al [43] prioritized knowledge needs Antarctic and Southern Ocean [12] afforested peatlands [13] animal behaviour [14] bark beetles [15] Canada [16] agricultural landscapes [17] conservation biology [4] cetaceans [18] Estonia [19] coral reefs [20,21] drought research [22] microbes [23] Europe [24] coupled human and natural systems [25] fundamental ecology [26] northern quoll [27] European Alps [28] forests [29] historical ecology [30] Pilbara leaf-nosed bats [31] Hungary [32] freshwater [33,34] hydrology [35] weeds [36] India [37] marine [38,39] Island biogeography [40] wild insect pollinators [41] Israel [42] seabeds [43] palaeoecology [44] New Zealand [39] soil science [45] North America…”

“…Unfortunately, most studies provided limited information related to the selection and composition of their participant groups which hindered the quantification of professional diversity ( figure 2b). In the 19 papers for which we were able to extract comparable information, participants from academia (19 out of 19), government agencies (18 out of 19) and non-governmental organizations (16 out of 19) were typically involved in at least one component of the study. Relatively fewer studies involved resource users (7 out of 19), and Indigenous organizations were rarely included (1 out of 19).…”

“…In the 19 papers for which we were able to extract comparable information, participants from academia (19 out of 19), government agencies (18 out of 19) and non-governmental organizations (16 out of 19) were typically involved in at least one component of the study. Relatively fewer studies involved resource users (7 out of 19), and Indigenous organizations were rarely included (1 out of 19). The median number of sectors represented per study was 3, with a range of 2-5.…”

“…Antarctic and Southern Ocean [12] afforested peatlands [13] animal behaviour [14] bark beetles [15] Canada [16] agricultural landscapes [17] conservation biology [4] cetaceans [18] Estonia [19] coral reefs [20,21] drought research [22] microbes [23] Europe [24] coupled human and natural systems [25] fundamental ecology [26] northern quoll [27] European Alps [28] forests [29] historical ecology [30] Pilbara leaf-nosed bats [31] Hungary [32] freshwater [33,34] hydrology [35] weeds [36] India [37] marine [38,39] Island biogeography [40] wild insect pollinators [41] Israel [42] seabeds [43] palaeoecology [44] New Zealand [39] soil science [45] North America [46] Oceania [47] Southeast Asia [48] Switzerland [49] UK [5,13,17,29,33] USA [50] royalsocietypublis...…”

Framework for assessing land‐management effects on at‐risk species: Example ofSE USAwood pellet production and gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus)

“…Hartley (2002) identified a broad array of management recommendations that can strongly affect biodiversity in multiple regions of the world such as leaving snags, planting polycultures, thinning forests earlier, and using longer rotations. However, a recent study of research gaps in conservation management found that “land‐use planning decisions (notably in forests) were most frequently perceived to lack critical knowledge” (Lõhmus, Fridolin, Leivits, Tõnisson, & Rannap, 2019). Likewise, Golladay et al (2016) have called for new landscape‐based approaches “focused on anticipating and guiding ecological responses to change…to ensure the full value of forest ecosystem services for future generations.”…”