- Conservation Evidence (CE) has published a comprehensive new synopsis of global interventions in forests summarizing the results of more than 120 conservation actions that have been undertaken, such as changing fire regimes, legal and community protection, prescribed burning, or encouraging seed-dispersing birds to take up residence in degraded areas.
- Scientists publish thousands of research papers every year that could help improve conservation, but the knowledge they impart and the changes they recommend are implemented on the ground all too infrequently.
- Essentially, the CE team has summarized the findings of hundreds of those unread scientific papers and grouped them by the interventions that they evaluate — providing a database of evidence for the effectiveness of various management techniques in temperate, tropical, and boreal forests.
Forests are vital ecosystems that provide crucial habitat to wildlife and help regulate everything from regional hydrological cycles to the global climate. But conservationists, forestry officials, and other decisionmakers often must rely on scattered or incomplete information about the various actions they can take to conserve, manage, and restore the world’s forests.
The Conservation Evidence (CE) group at the University of Cambridge in the UK aims to change that with the publication of a comprehensive new synopsis of global interventions in forests summarizing the results of more than 120 conservation actions, such as changing fire regimes, legal and community protection, prescribed burning, or encouraging seed-dispersing birds to take up residence in degraded areas.
Scientists publish thousands of research papers every year that could help improve conservation, but the knowledge they impart and the changes they recommend are implemented on the ground all too infrequently. According to a statement CE sent to Mongabay, recent PhD and Master’s theses from the University of Cambridge identify a lack of time to read scientific papers, paywalls that block access to journals, and overly technical language as some of the reasons decision makers aren’t reading the scientific literature.
That’s why CE is providing its synopsis of forest conservation actions for free and making it easily accessible online. Essentially, the CE team has summarized the findings of hundreds of those unread scientific papers and grouped them by the interventions that they evaluate — providing a database of evidence for the effectiveness of various management techniques in temperate, tropical, and boreal forests.
Having all the evidence in one place can help decision makers to weigh the pros and cons of any action they might consider taking, CE argues.
As an example, according to the synopsis there have been six studies examining the effect on young trees of removing woody debris after timber harvesting. One found that that action increased young tree density, while another study found the opposite. At the same time, there were three studies that found mixed effects or no effect, and yet another that found no effect of woody debris removal on young tree survival whatsoever.
Reading just one of those studies might make it seem that woody debris removal will yield a specific result, but having access to all available evidence in one place gives conservationists the information they need to properly consider taking that action in the unique ecosystem they’re working in. (CE ended up categorizing the removal of woody debris as “unlikely to be beneficial.”)
“We hear a lot about how important it is to do evidence-based conservation,” Professor Bill Sutherland of the University of Cambridge said in the statement sent to Mongabay, “but in reality getting a handle on what works is not easy. That’s why we set up Conservation Evidence, to break down the barriers between conservationists and the scientific evidence that they need to do their jobs.”
CE provides “Key Messages” about each action, summarizing the evidence it has collected in order to help decision makers deal with the confusion that can often result when reading conflicting results on the same topic. When it comes to different soil preparation treatments that are used before restoration planting, for instance, CE writes that “Six of seven studies (including five replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Canada and Sweden found that ground preparation treatments increased the survival and growth rate of planted trees. One study found no effect of creating mounds on frost damage of planted Norway spruce seedlings.”
The group has already published synopses on the conservation of amphibians, bats, bees, birds, and farmland conservation in Western Europe, as well as on natural pest control, soil fertility, and sustainable aquaculture. Over the next couple years, Conservation Evidence plans to publish synopses on biodiversity and ecosystem services in Mediterranean farmland, carnivores, primates, reptiles, and wetlands.
The goal is to have all of the synopses updated every few years, as the evidence base grows. To that end, CE also provides a free, open-access journal where conservationists and other practitioners can publish the results of their work.
“We want Conservation Evidence to be the first port of call for people involved in implementing conservation actions,” Sutherland said.
“People can check and see what the evidence shows, then assess how applicable it is to the system they work on. The next step is for them to monitor the effects of the intervention that they’ve decided to take, and publish it, feeding into a system where we can do more informed and evidence-based conservation.”