Who studies where? Boosting tropical conservation research where it is most needed

Segovia, Ana L. Reboredo; Romano, Donato; Armsworth, Paul R.

doi:10.1002/fee.2146

Cited by 26 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This pattern has not been found previously in studies of the wider conservation literature, which instead report positive relationships with the number of threatened species in the tropics (Reboredo Segovia et al. 2020). Such patterns clearly suggest that greater research effort needs to be targeted at testing conservation actions in regions with large numbers of threatened species that urgently require effective conservation (Junker et al 2020; Christie et al 2020).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 44%

The challenge of biased evidence in conservation

Christie

Amano

Martin

et al. 2020

Conservation Biology

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efforts to tackle the current biodiversity crisis need to be as efficient and effective as possible given chronic underfunding. To inform decision‐makers of the most effective conservation actions, it is important to identify biases and gaps in the conservation literature to prioritize future evidence generation. We used the Conservation Evidence database to assess the state of the global literature that tests conservation actions for amphibians and birds. For the studies in the database, we investigated their spatial and taxonomic extent and distribution across biomes, effectiveness metrics, and study designs. Studies were heavily concentrated in Western Europe and North America for birds and particularly for amphibians, and temperate forest and grassland biomes were highly represented relative to their percentage of land coverage. Studies that used the most reliable study designs—before‐after control‐impact and randomized controlled trials—were the most geographically restricted and scarce in the evidence base. There were negative spatial relationships between the numbers of studies and the numbers of threatened and data‐deficient species worldwide. Taxonomic biases and gaps were apparent for amphibians and birds—some entire orders were absent from the evidence base—whereas others were poorly represented relative to the proportion of threatened species they contained. Metrics used to evaluate effectiveness of conservation actions were often inconsistent between studies, potentially making them less directly comparable and evidence synthesis more difficult. Testing conservation actions on threatened species outside Western Europe, North America, and Australasia should be prioritized. Standardizing metrics and improving the rigor of study designs used to test conservation actions would also improve the quality of the evidence base for synthesis and decision‐making.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 44%

The challenge of biased evidence in conservation

Christie

Amano

Martin

et al. 2020

Conservation Biology

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rigorous evaluations of protected area performance remain relatively sparse, especially in the tropical zone 8 . Evidence depicting why some protected areas perform well, while others do not, is even scarcer 9 , yet this knowledge is crucial to improve the effectiveness of the protected area network.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Southeast Asian protected areas are effective in conserving forest cover and forest carbon stocks compared to unprotected areas

Graham

Geldmann

Adams

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protected areas aim to conserve nature, ecosystem services, and cultural values; however, they have variable success in doing so under high development pressure. Southeast Asian protected areas faced the highest level of human pressure at the turn of the twenty-first century. To estimate their effectiveness in conserving forest cover and forest carbon stocks for 2000–2018, we used statistical matching methods to control for the non-random location of protected areas, to compare protection against a matched counterfactual. We found Southeast Asian protected areas had three times less forest cover loss than similar landscapes without protection. Protected areas that had completed management reporting using the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) conserved significantly more forest cover and forest carbon stocks than those that had not. Management scores were positively associated with the level of carbon emissions avoided, but not the level of forest cover loss avoided. Our study is the first to find that METT scores could predict the level of carbon emissions avoided in protected areas. Given that only 11% of protected areas in Southeast Asia had completed METT surveys, our results illustrate the need to scale-up protected area management effectiveness reporting programs to improve their effectiveness for conserving forests, and for storing and sequestering carbon.

show abstract

“…In most study systems in temperate and polar areas, and where most seabird research has been performed (Ballance and Pitman 1999;Reboredo-Segovia et al 2020), birds breed synchronously and there is only little temporal overlap between incubating and chick-rearing birds (Hamer et al 2002). Since both stages happen consecutively in such study systems, one can thus never know if differences in foraging area use between incubating and chick-rearing birds are due to temporal shifts in prey availability, prey depletion in areas used during incubation, or due to the need of parents to provision the chicks with food regularly which forced them to forage near colonies (Navarro et al 2009;Ito et al 2010;Hedd et al 2014;Besel et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breeding stage, not sex, affects foraging characteristics in masked boobies at Rapa Nui

Lerma¹,

Dehnhard

Luna‐Jorquera

et al. 2020

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sexual segregation in foraging occurs in some species and populations of boobies (Sulidae), but it is not a general pattern. Sexual segregation in foraging may occur to avoid competition for food, and this competition may intensify during specific stages of breeding. We examined sexual segregation in foraging in relation to breeding stage in masked boobies Sula dactylatra at Rapa Nui by tracking simultaneously incubating and chick-rearing birds using GPS recorders (n = 18) and collected a total of 11 regurgitate samples. Stable isotope analyses (δ13C and δ15N) of whole blood samples were carried out in 20 birds. There were no differences in foraging trip parameters or diet between females and males. Both sexes traveled farther and for longer while incubating than while rearing chicks. Isotopic niches (δ13C and δ15N) overlapped to some degree among all groups at all times, but the lowest overlap between sexes occurred during incubation. While preying on ephemerally distributed flying fish, vertical or horizontal competition avoidance may be almost impossible, and thus females and males share their foraging grounds. Since birds were tracked simultaneously, shorter foraging trips of chick-rearing birds must be an effect of the constraints of provisioning the chick. Differences observed in δ15N and δ13C values between sexes may be caused by subtle differences in their foraging behaviors, or by differences in physiology linked to breeding. Our findings suggest that local oceanography and its inherent food distribution are determinants for sexual segregation in foraging patterns in masked boobies and possibly also other booby species. Significance statement In some animals, females and males forage on different areas or prey on different species to avoid competition for food resources. In boobies (Sula sp.), some studies show evidence of sexual segregation in foraging and others do not. Here, we tested if sexual segregation in foraging occurred in masked boobies on the Pacific island of Rapa Nui by studying simultaneously incubating and chick-rearing birds. We found no evidence of sexual segregation on foraging behavior or diet. We discuss that the difference between this and other studies in boobies may be an effect of the local prey availability. When the prey community is more diverse and heterogeneously distributed, each sex may access different resources and thus sexual foraging segregation will occur. In contrast, in areas like Rapa Nui where prey resources are distributed ephemerally, sexual segregation in foraging will not be useful and is thus less likely to occur.

show abstract

Who studies where? Boosting tropical conservation research where it is most needed

Cited by 26 publications

References 15 publications

The challenge of biased evidence in conservation

The challenge of biased evidence in conservation

Southeast Asian protected areas are effective in conserving forest cover and forest carbon stocks compared to unprotected areas

Breeding stage, not sex, affects foraging characteristics in masked boobies at Rapa Nui

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About