The journal, Conservation Evidence
Our online journal publishes research, monitoring results and case studies on the effects of conservation interventions. All papers include some monitoring of the effects of the intervention and are written by, or in partnership with, those who did the conservation work. It includes interventions such as habitat creation, habitat restoration, translocations, reintroductions, invasive species control, and education or integrated conservation development programmes, from anywhere around the world.
A volume is created each year with peer-reviewed papers published throughout the year. We now accept Short Communications as well as standard papers.
Special issues contain new papers on a specific topic.
Virtual collections collate papers published in the journal on specific topics such as management of particular groups of species.
Sutherland W.J., Smith R.K., Mitchell R. & Dicks L.V. (2014), 11, 1-1
Following a review of the journal we have decided to introduce Short Communications as an option within the journal. We want to make it even less arduous for practitioners to share their experiences.
We have the same criteria for Short communications as for the standard papers – they must include a conservation intervention with appropriate monitoring to evaluate the consequences of the intervention. The short format provides the opportunity for documenting simple interventions, such as straight forward treatment of an invasive plant, or a comparison of use for two designs of nest boxes.
Short communications will cover a maximum of one printed page (1,000 words or fewer with a figure/table/photo). They will have the same sections as the standard papers, as shown below.
The guidelines for authors have been modified to describe the required format for Short Communications in addition to the standard papers.
Smith R.K., Dicks L.V., Mitchell R. & Sutherland W.J. (2014), 11, 2-6
This editorial highlights the deficit of studies that directly compare different conservation interventions for the same threat. Most studies test a single intervention (86% in Conservation Evidence), comparing it against a control that lacks the intervention. Such studies can provide evidence that a particular intervention is effective, but do not inform a practitioner whether that intervention is the best option relative to others. Comparing results from different studies is difficult, as outcomes depend on factors such as the site, species and method of measurement. We suggest that a key step to understanding the effectiveness of conservation interventions is to compare different interventions in the same context within studies. If widely adopted this could transform global conservation practice. We provide some guidance on how to design and conduct comparative studies.
Bernardo C.S.S. & Locke N. (2014), 11, 7-7
Fifty-three captive-bred, sub-adult red-billed curassow Crax blumenbachii were reintroduced to the Guapiaçu Ecological Reserve, Brazil, from 2006 to 2008. Post-reintroduction movements were monitored for 25 months, but little information on breeding was collected during this period as few of the birds had reached sexual maturity. However, in the period 2009-2014, six observations of probable breeding were made. This positive outcome will help inform the feasibility of further reintroductions.