TY - JOUR

T1 - What do conservation biologists publish?

AU - Fazey, Ioan

AU - Fischer, Jörn

AU - Lindenmayer, David B.

N1 - Funding Information: I.F. and J.F. were supported by GSS Grants from the Australian National University. We thank one anonymous reviewer and B. Davis for reviewing the manuscript and for providing constructive comments.

PY - 2005/7/1

Y1 - 2005/7/1

N2 - We provide an overview of publications from three prominent conservation journals (Biodiversity & Conservation, Biological Conservation and Conservation Biology) published in 2001 (n = 547 papers). We found a wide breadth of studies of different topics from different climates and habitats and across a range of spatial scales. Most studies were quantitative (89%) and used inferential statistics (63%). Research was biased towards vertebrates, forests, relatively pristine landscapes, and towards studies of single species and assemblages rather than communities or ecosystems. Despite assertions in the literature that conservation is synthetic, eclectic and multi-disciplinary, few studies were truly cross-disciplinary (13%). In addition, few studies investigated the loss of native vegetation (2%), or specifically studied introduced (4%) or non-threatened species (4%). 20% and 37% of studies had high relevance to policy and management, respectively. However, only 12.6% of studies actively went out to test or review conservation actions. Although many topics are covered in the literature, improvements are possible. We suggest: (1) broadening the number of habitats, taxonomic groups and scales studied and (2) providing closer and clearer links with other disciplines and research approaches, and with policy and management.

AB - We provide an overview of publications from three prominent conservation journals (Biodiversity & Conservation, Biological Conservation and Conservation Biology) published in 2001 (n = 547 papers). We found a wide breadth of studies of different topics from different climates and habitats and across a range of spatial scales. Most studies were quantitative (89%) and used inferential statistics (63%). Research was biased towards vertebrates, forests, relatively pristine landscapes, and towards studies of single species and assemblages rather than communities or ecosystems. Despite assertions in the literature that conservation is synthetic, eclectic and multi-disciplinary, few studies were truly cross-disciplinary (13%). In addition, few studies investigated the loss of native vegetation (2%), or specifically studied introduced (4%) or non-threatened species (4%). 20% and 37% of studies had high relevance to policy and management, respectively. However, only 12.6% of studies actively went out to test or review conservation actions. Although many topics are covered in the literature, improvements are possible. We suggest: (1) broadening the number of habitats, taxonomic groups and scales studied and (2) providing closer and clearer links with other disciplines and research approaches, and with policy and management.

KW - Biology

KW - Conservation biology

KW - Conservation research

KW - Conservation reviews

KW - Conservation publication

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=15744390144&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/b034b80f-dbee-3dd5-a88b-a4d182c0fd6b/

U2 - 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.01.013

DO - 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.01.013

M3 - Journal articles

VL - 124

SP - 63

EP - 73

JO - Biological Conservation

JF - Biological Conservation

SN - 0006-3207

IS - 1

ER -