Cargando…

Taxonomic and Geographic Bias in Conservation Biology Research: A Systematic Review of Wildfowl Demography Studies

Demographic data are important to wildlife managers to gauge population health, to allow populations to be utilised sustainably, and to inform conservation efforts. We analysed published demographic data on the world’s wildfowl to examine taxonomic and geographic biases in study, and to identify gap...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Roberts, Beth E. I., Harris, W. Edwin, Hilton, Geoff M., Marsden, Stuart J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4864074/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27166624
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153908
_version_ 1782431574456795136
author Roberts, Beth E. I.
Harris, W. Edwin
Hilton, Geoff M.
Marsden, Stuart J.
author_facet Roberts, Beth E. I.
Harris, W. Edwin
Hilton, Geoff M.
Marsden, Stuart J.
author_sort Roberts, Beth E. I.
collection PubMed
description Demographic data are important to wildlife managers to gauge population health, to allow populations to be utilised sustainably, and to inform conservation efforts. We analysed published demographic data on the world’s wildfowl to examine taxonomic and geographic biases in study, and to identify gaps in knowledge. Wildfowl (order: Anseriformes) are a comparatively well studied bird group which includes 169 species of duck, goose and swan. In all, 1,586 wildfowl research papers published between 1911 and 2010 were found using Web of Knowledge (WoK) and Google Scholar. Over half of the research output involved just 15 species from seven genera. Research output was strongly biased towards ‘high income’ countries, common wildfowl species, and measures of productivity, rather than survival and movement patterns. There were significantly fewer demographic data for the world’s 31 threatened wildfowl species than for non-threatened species. Since 1994, the volume of demographic work on threatened species has increased more than for non-threatened species, but still makes up only 2.7% of total research output. As an aid to research prioritisation, a metric was created to reflect demographic knowledge gaps for each species related to research output for the species, its threat status, and availability of potentially useful surrogate data from congeneric species. According to the metric, the 25 highest priority species include thirteen threatened taxa and nine species each from Asia and South America, and six from Africa.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4864074
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48640742016-05-18 Taxonomic and Geographic Bias in Conservation Biology Research: A Systematic Review of Wildfowl Demography Studies Roberts, Beth E. I. Harris, W. Edwin Hilton, Geoff M. Marsden, Stuart J. PLoS One Research Article Demographic data are important to wildlife managers to gauge population health, to allow populations to be utilised sustainably, and to inform conservation efforts. We analysed published demographic data on the world’s wildfowl to examine taxonomic and geographic biases in study, and to identify gaps in knowledge. Wildfowl (order: Anseriformes) are a comparatively well studied bird group which includes 169 species of duck, goose and swan. In all, 1,586 wildfowl research papers published between 1911 and 2010 were found using Web of Knowledge (WoK) and Google Scholar. Over half of the research output involved just 15 species from seven genera. Research output was strongly biased towards ‘high income’ countries, common wildfowl species, and measures of productivity, rather than survival and movement patterns. There were significantly fewer demographic data for the world’s 31 threatened wildfowl species than for non-threatened species. Since 1994, the volume of demographic work on threatened species has increased more than for non-threatened species, but still makes up only 2.7% of total research output. As an aid to research prioritisation, a metric was created to reflect demographic knowledge gaps for each species related to research output for the species, its threat status, and availability of potentially useful surrogate data from congeneric species. According to the metric, the 25 highest priority species include thirteen threatened taxa and nine species each from Asia and South America, and six from Africa. Public Library of Science 2016-05-11 /pmc/articles/PMC4864074/ /pubmed/27166624 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153908 Text en © 2016 Roberts et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Roberts, Beth E. I.
Harris, W. Edwin
Hilton, Geoff M.
Marsden, Stuart J.
Taxonomic and Geographic Bias in Conservation Biology Research: A Systematic Review of Wildfowl Demography Studies
title Taxonomic and Geographic Bias in Conservation Biology Research: A Systematic Review of Wildfowl Demography Studies
title_full Taxonomic and Geographic Bias in Conservation Biology Research: A Systematic Review of Wildfowl Demography Studies
title_fullStr Taxonomic and Geographic Bias in Conservation Biology Research: A Systematic Review of Wildfowl Demography Studies
title_full_unstemmed Taxonomic and Geographic Bias in Conservation Biology Research: A Systematic Review of Wildfowl Demography Studies
title_short Taxonomic and Geographic Bias in Conservation Biology Research: A Systematic Review of Wildfowl Demography Studies
title_sort taxonomic and geographic bias in conservation biology research: a systematic review of wildfowl demography studies
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4864074/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27166624
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153908
work_keys_str_mv AT robertsbethei taxonomicandgeographicbiasinconservationbiologyresearchasystematicreviewofwildfowldemographystudies
AT harriswedwin taxonomicandgeographicbiasinconservationbiologyresearchasystematicreviewofwildfowldemographystudies
AT hiltongeoffm taxonomicandgeographicbiasinconservationbiologyresearchasystematicreviewofwildfowldemographystudies
AT marsdenstuartj taxonomicandgeographicbiasinconservationbiologyresearchasystematicreviewofwildfowldemographystudies