Search

A protocol to do meta-analysis of invasive Spartina species management

This work is a collaboration between BioRISC (the Biosecurity Research Initiative at St Catharine’s College, Cambridge), Conservation Evidence based in the Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge and the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk. It was created by documenting our experience of options, consulting guidance, contacting people working in different countries to explore the range of options and crowd-sourcing ideas through social media. We welcome suggestions for options missed (especially those implemented outside of the UK), innovations for novel options or means of improving existing options. Please contact biorisc@caths.cam.ac.uk. You can also view the list of options on the BioRISC website (https://covid-19.biorisc.com/) or customise the list yourself using this app we developed (https://alecchristie888.shinyapps.io/Covid_19_options/).

1. In Christie et al. (2019), we used simulations to quantitatively compare the bias of commonly used study designs in ecology and conservation. Based on these simulations, we proposed ‘accuracy weights’ as a potential way to account for study design validity in meta-analytic weighting methods. Pescott & Stewart (2021) raised concerns that these weights may not be generalisable and still lead to biased meta-estimates. Here we respond to their concerns and demonstrate why developing alternative weighting methods is key to the future of evidence synthesis. 2. We acknowledge that our simple simulation unfairly penalised Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) relative to Before-After Control-Impact (BACI) designs as we assumed that the parallel trends assumption held for BACI designs. We point to an empirical follow-up study in which we more fairly quantify differences in biases between different study designs. However, we stand by our main findings that Before-After (BA), Control-Impact (CI), and After designs are quantifiably more biased than BACI and RCT designs. We also emphasise that our 'accuracy weighting’ method was preliminary and welcome future research to incorporate more dimensions of study quality. 3. We further show that over a decade of advances in quality effect modelling, which Pescott & Stewart (2021) omit, highlights the importance of research such as ours in better understanding how to quantitatively integrate data on study quality directly into meta-analyses. We further argue that the traditional methods advocated for by Pescott & Stewart (2021) (e.g., manual risk-of-bias assessments and inverse-variance weighting) are subjective, wasteful, and potentially biased themselves. They also lack scalability for use in large syntheses that keep up-to-date with the rapidly growing scientific literature. 4. Synthesis and applications. We suggest, contrary to Pescott & Stewart’s narrative, that moving towards alternative weighting methods is key to future-proofing evidence synthesis through greater automation, flexibility, and updating to respond to decision-makers needs – particularly in crisis disciplines in conservation science where problematic biases and variability exist in study designs, contexts, and metrics used. Whilst we must be cautious to avoid misinforming decision-makers, this should not stop us investigating alternative weighting methods that integrate study quality data directly into meta-analyses. To reliably and pragmatically inform decision-makers with science, we need efficient, scalable, readily automated, and feasible methods to appraise and weight studies to produce large-scale living syntheses of the future.

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.

Funder: Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100011310, Small mammals, such as small rodents (Rodentia: Muroidea) and shrews (Insectivora: Soricidae), present particular challenges in camera trap surveys. Their size is often insufficient to trigger infra-red sensors, whilst resultant images may be of inadequate quality for species identification. The conventional survey method for small mammals, live-trapping, can be both labour-intensive and detrimental to animal welfare. Here, we describe a method for using camera traps for monitoring small mammals. We show that by attaching the camera trap to a baited tunnel, fixing a close-focus lens over the camera trap lens, and reducing the flash intensity, pictures or videos can be obtained of sufficient quality for identifying species. We demonstrate the use of the method by comparing occurrences of small mammals in a peatland landscape containing (i) plantation forestry (planted on drained former blanket bog), (ii) ex-forestry areas undergoing bog restoration, and (iii) unmodified blanket bog habitat. Rodents were detected only in forestry and restoration areas, whilst shrews were detected across all habitat. The odds of detecting small mammals were 7.6 times higher on camera traps set in plantation forestry than in unmodified bog, and 3.7 times higher on camera traps in restoration areas than in bog. When absolute abundance estimates are not required, and camera traps are available, this technique provides a low-cost survey method that is labour-efficient and has minimal animal welfare implications.

Additional file 3. Classification of outcomes.

Conservation and development projects typically involve collaboration with local communities. It has been suggested that these collaborations should include the co-production of knowledge (e.g. Pohl et al., 2010; Wyborn, 2015; Nel et al., 2016), in which local communities work with researchers to produce new knowledge. Co-production is, however, expensive and we suggest here that co-assessment of existing knowledge is more cost-effective. We suggest the following three stages of using knowledge: collation, co-assessment, and then (rarely) co-production. We agree that other ways of knowing—including local, experience-based, and indigenous knowledges, as well as incorporating local values—have an important role in solving environmental problems (Collins & Evans, 2007; Sutherland et al., 2014), but we question whether it is effective to generate new knowledge with individual communities.

In 2008, a group of conservation scientists compiled a list of 100 priority questions for the conservation of the world's biodiversity [Sutherland et al. (2009) Conservation Biology, 23, 557–567]. However, now almost a decade later, no one has yet published a study gauging how much progress has been made in addressing these 100 high-priority questions in the peer-reviewed literature. Here we take a first step toward re-examining the 100 questions and identify key knowledge gaps that still remain. Through a combination of a questionnaire and a literature review, we evaluated each of the 100 questions on the basis of two criteria: relevance and effort. We defined highly-relevant questions as those which – if answered – would have the greatest impact on global biodiversity conservation, while effort was quantified based on the number of review publications addressing a particular question, which we used as a proxy for research effort. Using this approach we identified a set of questions that, despite being perceived as highly relevant, have been the focus of relatively few review publications over the past ten years. These questions covered a broad range of topics but predominantly tackled three major themes: the conservation and management of freshwater ecosystems, the role of societal structures in shaping interactions between people and the environment, and the impacts of conservation interventions. We see these questions as important knowledge gaps that have so far received insufficient attention and may need to be prioritised in future research. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Additional file 3. Classification of agricultural and environmental outcomes to be included in the systematic map.

Additional file 1. Scoping search conducted in January 2015.

In our original editorial (Sutherland et al., 2017), we argued that co-assessment of evidence with a range of stakeholders, including local communities, would typically represent the most cost-effective way of doing conservation science. Co-assessment involves considering what works, and what does not, based on a systematic collation of global and regional datasets alongside other forms of knowledge, such as the experience of local communities. Under circumstances where there is good evidence of what is likely to work in a particular place, it does not seem efficient to co-produce new knowledge in the form of field-based scientific experiments involving local stakeholders. Where there is more limited evidence of conservation effectiveness, the issue is of sufficient societal importance, and the resources are available, then we stated it may make sense to co-produce new knowledge alongside local stakeholders.

The widely held assumption that any important scientific information would be available in English underlies the underuse of non-English-language science across disciplines. However, non-English-language science is expected to bring unique and valuable scientific information, especially in disciplines where the evidence is patchy, and for emergent issues where synthesising available evidence is an urgent challenge. Yet such contribution of non-English-language science to scientific communities and the application of science is rarely quantified. Here, we show that non-English-language studies provide crucial evidence for informing global biodiversity conservation. By screening 419,679 peer-reviewed papers in 16 languages, we identified 1,234 non-English-language studies providing evidence on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation interventions, compared to 4,412 English-language studies identified with the same criteria. Relevant non-English-language studies are being published at an increasing rate in 6 out of the 12 languages where there were a sufficient number of relevant studies. Incorporating non-English-language studies can expand the geographical coverage (i.e., the number of 2° × 2° grid cells with relevant studies) of English-language evidence by 12% to 25%, especially in biodiverse regions, and taxonomic coverage (i.e., the number of species covered by the relevant studies) by 5% to 32%, although they do tend to be based on less robust study designs. Our results show that synthesising non-English-language studies is key to overcoming the widespread lack of local, context-dependent evidence and facilitating evidence-based conservation globally. We urge wider disciplines to rigorously reassess the untapped potential of non-English-language science in informing decisions to address other global challenges. Please see the Supporting information files for Alternative Language Abstracts.

Funder: The University of Queensland strategic funding, Funder: University of Turin, local research grant, Funder: Colombian Administrative Department of Science, Technology and Innovation, Funder: University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, Funder: Arcadia Fund; funder-id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100012088, Funder: MAVA Foundation; funder-id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100013324, Funder: David and Claudia Harding Foundation, The widely held assumption that any important scientific information would be available in English underlies the underuse of non-English-language science across disciplines. However, non-English-language science is expected to bring unique and valuable scientific information, especially in disciplines where the evidence is patchy, and for emergent issues where synthesising available evidence is an urgent challenge. Yet such contribution of non-English-language science to scientific communities and the application of science is rarely quantified. Here, we show that non-English-language studies provide crucial evidence for informing global biodiversity conservation. By screening 419,679 peer-reviewed papers in 16 languages, we identified 1,234 non-English-language studies providing evidence on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation interventions, compared to 4,412 English-language studies identified with the same criteria. Relevant non-English-language studies are being published at an increasing rate in 6 out of the 12 languages where there were a sufficient number of relevant studies. Incorporating non-English-language studies can expand the geographical coverage (i.e., the number of 2° × 2° grid cells with relevant studies) of English-language evidence by 12% to 25%, especially in biodiverse regions, and taxonomic coverage (i.e., the number of species covered by the relevant studies) by 5% to 32%, although they do tend to be based on less robust study designs. Our results show that synthesising non-English-language studies is key to overcoming the widespread lack of local, context-dependent evidence and facilitating evidence-based conservation globally. We urge wider disciplines to rigorously reassess the untapped potential of non-English-language science in informing decisions to address other global challenges. Please see the Supporting information files for Alternative Language Abstracts.