Reducing publication delay to improve the efficiency and impact of conservation science.

Evidence-based decision-making is most effective with comprehensive access to scientific studies. If studies face significant publication delays or barriers, the useful information they contain may not reach decision-makers in a timely manner. This represents a potential problem for mission-oriented disciplines where access to the latest data is required to ensure effective actions are undertaken. We sought to analyse the severity of publication delay in conservation science-a field that requires urgent action to prevent the loss of biodiversity. We used the Conservation Evidence database to assess the length of publication delay (time from finishing data collection to publication) in the literature that tests the effectiveness of conservation interventions. From 7,447 peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed studies of conservation interventions published over eleven decades, we find that the raw mean publication delay was 3.2 years (±2SD = 0.1) and varied by conservation subject. A significantly shorter delay was observed for studies focused on Bee Conservation, Sustainable Aquaculture, Management of Captive Animals, Amphibian Conservation, and Control of Freshwater Invasive Species (Estimated Marginal Mean range from 1.4-1.9 years). Publication delay was significantly shorter for the non-peer-reviewed literature (Estimated Marginal Mean delay of 1.9 years ± 0.2) compared to the peer-reviewed literature (i.e., scientific journals; Estimated Marginal Mean delay of 3.0 years ± 0.1). We found publication delay has significantly increased over time (an increase of ~1.2 years from 1912 (1.4 years ± 0.2) to 2020 (2.6 years ± 0.1)), but this change was much weaker and non-significant post-2000s; we found no evidence for any decline. There was also no evidence that studies on more threatened species were subject to a shorter delay-indeed, the contrary was true for mammals, and to a lesser extent for birds. We suggest a range of possible ways in which scientists, funders, publishers, and practitioners can work together to reduce delays at each stage of the publication process.

A solution scan of societal options to reduce transmission and spread of respiratory viruses: SARS-CoV-2 as a case study.

Societal biosecurity - measures built into everyday society to minimize risks from pests and diseases - is an important aspect of managing epidemics and pandemics. We aimed to identify societal options for reducing the transmission and spread of respiratory viruses. We used SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) as a case study to meet the immediate need to manage the COVID-19 pandemic and eventually transition to more normal societal conditions, and to catalog options for managing similar pandemics in the future. We used a 'solution scanning' approach. We read the literature; consulted psychology, public health, medical, and solution scanning experts; crowd-sourced options using social media; and collated comments on a preprint. Here, we present a list of 519 possible measures to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission and spread. We provide a long list of options for policymakers and businesses to consider when designing biosecurity plans to combat SARS-CoV-2 and similar pathogens in the future. We also developed an online application to help with this process. We encourage testing of actions, documentation of outcomes, revisions to the current list, and the addition of further options.

Corrigendum: A Severe Lack of Evidence Limits Effective Conservation of the World's Primates.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biaa082.].

The challenge of biased evidence in conservation.

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.

El Desafío de la Evidencia Sesgada en la Conservación Resumen Los esfuerzos para lidiar con la actual crisis de la biodiversidad necesitan ser tan eficientes y efectivos como sea posible dado el crónico subfinanciamiento. Para informar a los órganos de decisión sobre las acciones de conservación más efectivas, es importante identificar los sesgos y las brechas en la literatura de la conservación para priorizar generación de evidencias en el futuro. Usamos la base de datos Conservation Evidence para evaluar el estado de la literatura mundial que analiza las acciones para la conservación de anfibios y aves. Para los estudios dentro de la base de datos, investigamos su extensión espacial y taxonómica y su distribución a lo largo de biomas, medidas de efectividad y diseños de estudio. Los estudios se concentraron principalmente en Europa Occidental y en América del Norte en el caso de las aves y particularmente para los anfibios. Los biomas con mayor representación en relación con su porcentaje de cobertura de suelo fueron el bosque templado y los pastizales. Los estudios que utilizaron el diseño más confiable - impacto del control antes- después y ensayos controlados al azar - fueron los que presentaron mayor restricción geográfica y menor presencia dentro de la base de evidencias. También encontramos relaciones espaciales negativas entre el número de estudios y el número de especies amenazadas o con pocos datos a nivel mundial. Los sesgos y las brechas taxonómicas fueron evidentes para los anfibios y las aves - hubo órdenes enteros ausentes en la base de evidencias - mientras que otros taxones estuvieron representados pobremente en relación con la proporción de especies amenazadas que albergan. Las medidas utilizadas para evaluar la efectividad de las acciones de conservación con frecuencia fueron incompatibles entre los estudios, lo que las hace potencialmente menos comparables directamente y también dificulta la síntesis de las evidencias. Se debe priorizar el análisis de las acciones para la conservación de las especies que se encuentran fuera de Europa Occidental, América del Norte y Australasia. La estandarización de las medidas y el mejoramiento del rigor de los diseños de estudio que se usan para evaluar las acciones de conservación también mejoraría la calidad de la base de evidencias para la síntesis y la toma de decisiones.

A Severe Lack of Evidence Limits Effective Conservation of the World's Primates.

Threats to biodiversity are well documented. However, to effectively conserve species and their habitats, we need to know which conservation interventions do (or do not) work. Evidence-based conservation evaluates interventions within a scientific framework. The Conservation Evidence project has summarized thousands of studies testing conservation interventions and compiled these as synopses for various habitats and taxa. In the present article, we analyzed the interventions assessed in the primate synopsis and compared these with other taxa. We found that despite intensive efforts to study primates and the extensive threats they face, less than 1% of primate studies evaluated conservation effectiveness. The studies often lacked quantitative data, failed to undertake postimplementation monitoring of populations or individuals, or implemented several interventions at once. Furthermore, the studies were biased toward specific taxa, geographic regions, and interventions. We describe barriers for testing primate conservation interventions and propose actions to improve the conservation evidence base to protect this endangered and globally important taxon.

A Two-Step Process of Nitrous Oxide before Carbon Dioxide for Humanely Euthanizing Piglets: On-Farm Trials.

Current methods of euthanizing piglets are raising animal welfare concerns. Our experiment used a novel two-step euthanasia method, using nitrous oxide (N2O) for six minutes and then carbon dioxide (CO2) on compromised 0- to 7-day-old piglets. A commercial euthanasia chamber was modified to deliver two euthanasia treatments: the two-step method using N2O then CO2 (N2O treatment) or only CO2 (CO2 treatment). In Experiment 1, 18 piglets were individually euthanized. In Experiment 2, 18 groups of four to six piglets were euthanized. In the N2O treatment, piglets lost posture, indicating the onset of losing consciousness, before going into CO2 where they showed heavy breathing and open-mouth breathing; whereas piglets in the CO2 treatment did not lose posture until after exhibiting these behaviors (p ≤ 0.004). However, piglets in the N2O treatment took longer to lose posture compared to the CO2 treatment (p < 0.001). Piglets in the N2O treatment displayed more behavioral signs of stress and aversion: squeals/minute (p = 0.004), escape attempts per pig (p = 0.021), and righting responses per pig (p = 0.084) in a group setting. In these regards, it cannot be concluded that euthanizing piglets for 6 min with N2O and then CO2 is more humane than euthanizing with CO2 alone.

A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2014.

This paper presents the output of our fifth annual horizon-scanning exercise, which aims to identify topics that increasingly may affect conservation of biological diversity, but have yet to be widely considered. A team of professional horizon scanners, researchers, practitioners, and a journalist identified 15 topics which were identified via an iterative, Delphi-like process. The 15 topics include a carbon market induced financial crash, rapid geographic expansion of macroalgal cultivation, genetic control of invasive species, probiotic therapy for amphibians, and an emerging snake fungal disease.

Effectiveness of predator removal for enhancing bird populations.

Predation pressure on vulnerable bird species has made predator control an important issue for international nature conservation. Predator removal by culling or translocation is controversial, expensive, and time-consuming, and results are often temporary. Thus, it is important to assess its effectiveness from all available evidence. We used explicit systematic review methodology to determine the impact of predator removal on four measurable responses in birds: breeding performance (hatching success and fledging success) and population size (breeding and postbreeding). We used meta-analysis to summarize results from 83 predator removal studies from six continents. We also investigated whether characteristics of the prey, predator species, location, and study methodology explained heterogeneity in effect sizes. Removing predators increased hatching success, fledging success, and breeding populations. Removing all predator species achieved a significantly larger increase in breeding population than removing only a subset. Postbreeding population size was not improved on islands, or overall, but did increase on mainlands. Heterogeneity in effect sizes for the four population parameters was not explained by whether predators were native or introduced; prey were declining, migratory, or game species; or by the study methodology. Effect sizes for fledging success were smaller for ground-nesting birds than those that nest elsewhere, but the difference was not significant. We conclude that current evidence indicates that predator removal is an effective strategy for the conservation of vulnerable bird populations. Nevertheless, the ethical and practical problems associated with predator removal may lead managers to favor alternative, nonlethal solutions. Research is needed to provide and synthesize data to determine whether these are effective management practices for future policies on bird conservation.