2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.12.019
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The importance of non-academic coauthors in bridging the conservation genetics gap

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
52
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
1
52
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A gap has emerged between genetic studies and on-the-ground conservation and management needs (Shafer et al 2015, Taylor et al 2017. While there are a plethora of reasons for this gap (see Taylor et al 2017, Britt et al 2018, Mair et al 2018, part of the problem stems from the abstract and relative nature of many genetic parameters making them difficult to interpret and implement. General convention describes that F ST < 0.05 constitutes little genetic difference, F ST = 0.05-0.15 as moderate genetic difference, F ST = 0.15-0.25 as large genetic differentiation, and F ST > 0.25 as significant genetic difference (Hartl and Clark 1997).…”
Section: Interpreting Genetic Parameters For Managementmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A gap has emerged between genetic studies and on-the-ground conservation and management needs (Shafer et al 2015, Taylor et al 2017. While there are a plethora of reasons for this gap (see Taylor et al 2017, Britt et al 2018, Mair et al 2018, part of the problem stems from the abstract and relative nature of many genetic parameters making them difficult to interpret and implement. General convention describes that F ST < 0.05 constitutes little genetic difference, F ST = 0.05-0.15 as moderate genetic difference, F ST = 0.15-0.25 as large genetic differentiation, and F ST > 0.25 as significant genetic difference (Hartl and Clark 1997).…”
Section: Interpreting Genetic Parameters For Managementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Vernesi et al (2008) observed that few researchers used their data or methods to suggest practical solutions, and subsequent essays raised similar concerns and argued for more collaboration between academics and conservation practitioners (Hoban et al 2013). Metaanalyses have revealed a positive relationship between the inclusion of non-academic co-authors and linking data to policy or management recommendations (Britt et al 2018), notwithstanding a general long-term decline in implementation of research to management and conservation (Mair et al 2018). Despite the gap between geneticists and on-the-ground practitioners (Shafer et al 2015, Haig et al 2016, headway for genetically-informed management can be achieved via academic partnering with non-academics and non-biologists (Britt et al 2018, Mair et al 2018.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this study, we assumed an intermediate MU definition between those of Moritz () and PalsbĂžll et al (). Both academic and nonacademic partners were involved in this work to guarantee that the results would directly inform conservation and management action (Britt, Haworth, Johnson, Martchenko, & Shafer, ). More broadly, this study illustrates how population genetics may bring important information to delineate bat management units and to design conservation programs of bat species at relevant geographical scales.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both academic and nonacademic partners were involved in this work to guarantee that the results would directly inform conservation and management action (Britt, Haworth, Johnson, Martchenko, & Shafer, 2018…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…5 ; 6]. Although challenges remain for bridging the gap between generating genomic data and applying this information to species management, this gap continues to close [for detailed discussions, see 3,[7][8][9][10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%