ORCID Profile
0000-0002-3984-2403
Current Organisation
University of Cambridge
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 07-10-2021
DOI: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PBIO.3001296
Abstract: 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 bio ersity 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 bio ersity 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 bio erse 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.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 07-07-2021
DOI: 10.1111/BRV.12774
Abstract: The crisis generated by the emergence and pandemic spread of COVID‐19 has thrown into the global spotlight the dangers associated with novel diseases, as well as the key role of animals, especially wild animals, as potential sources of pathogens to humans. There is a widespread demand for a new relationship with wild and domestic animals, including suggested bans on hunting, wildlife trade, wet markets or consumption of wild animals. However, such policies risk ignoring essential elements of the problem as well as alienating and increasing hardship for local communities across the world, and might be unachievable at scale. There is thus a need for a more complex package of policy and practical responses. We undertook a solution scan to identify and collate 161 possible options for reducing the risks of further epidemic disease transmission from animals to humans, including potential further SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission (original or variants). We include all categories of animals in our responses (i.e. wildlife, captive, unmanaged/feral and domestic livestock and pets) and focus on pathogens (especially viruses) that, once transmitted from animals to humans, could acquire epidemic potential through high rates of human‐to‐human transmission. This excludes measures to prevent well‐known zoonotic diseases, such as rabies, that cannot readily transmit between humans. We focused solutions on societal measures, excluding the development of vaccines and other preventive therapeutic medicine and veterinary medicine options that are discussed elsewhere. We derived our solutions through reading the scientific literature, NGO position papers, and industry guidelines, collating our own experiences, and consulting experts in different fields. Herein, we review the major zoonotic transmission pathways and present an extensive list of options. The potential solutions are organised according to the key stages of the trade chain and encompass solutions that can be applied at the local, regional and international scales. This is a set of options targeted at practitioners and policy makers to encourage careful examination of possible courses of action, validating their impact and documenting outcomes.
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 26-05-2021
DOI: 10.1101/2021.05.24.445520
Abstract: 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 bio ersity conservation. By screening 419,680 peer-reviewed papers in 16 languages, we identified 1,234 non-English-language studies providing evidence on the effectiveness of bio ersity 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, and can expand the geographical (by 12-25%) and taxonomic (by 5-32%) coverage of English-language evidence, especially in bio erse regions, albeit often 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.
Publisher: The Royal Society
Date: 06-2022
DOI: 10.1098/RSOS.211573
Abstract: It has been argued that intensive livestock farming increases the risk of pandemics of zoonotic origin because of long-distance livestock movements, high livestock densities, poor animal health and welfare, low disease resistance and low genetic ersity. However, data on many of these factors are limited, and analyses to date typically ignore how land use affects emerging infectious disease (EID) risks, and how these risks might vary across systems with different yields (production per unit area). Extensive, lower yielding practices typically involve larger livestock populations, poorer biosecurity, more workers and more area under farming, resulting in different, but not necessarily lower, EID risks than higher yielding systems producing the same amount of food. To move this discussion forward, we review the evidence for each of the factors that potentially link livestock production practices to EID risk. We explore how each factor might vary with yield and consider how overall risks might differ across a mix of production systems chosen to reflect in broad terms the current livestock sector at a global level and in hypothetical low- and high-yield systems matched by overall level of production. We identify significant knowledge gaps for all potential risk factors and argue these shortfalls in understanding mean we cannot currently determine whether lower or higher yielding systems would better limit the risk of future pandemics.
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 09-10-2019
DOI: 10.1101/797639
Abstract: Conservation efforts to tackle the current bio ersity crisis need to be as efficient and effective as possible. 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 assessed the state of this global literature base using the Conservation Evidence database, a comprehensive collection of quantitative tests of conservation actions (interventions) from the published literature. For hibians and birds, we investigated the nature of Conservation Evidence spatially and taxonomically, as well as by biome, effectiveness metrics, and study design. Studies were heavily concentrated in Western Europe and North America for birds and particularly hibians. Studies that used the most robust study designs - Before-After Control-Impact and Randomized Controlled Trials - were also the most geographically restricted. Furthermore, there was no relationship between the number of studies in each 1×1 degree grid cell and the number of species, threatened species or data-deficient species. Taxonomic biases and gaps were apparent for hibians and birds - some orders were absent from the evidence base and others were poorly represented relative to the proportion of threatened species they contained. Temperate forest and grassland biomes were highly represented, which reinforced observed geographic biases. Various metrics were used to evaluate the effectiveness of a given conservation action, potentially making studies less directly comparable and evidence synthesis more difficult. We also found that the least robust study designs were the most commonly used studies using robust designs were scarce. Future research should prioritize testing conservation actions on threatened species outside of Western Europe and North America. Standardizing metrics and improving the robustness of study designs used to test conservation actions would also improve the quality of the evidence base for synthesis and decision-making.
Publisher: Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge
Date: 2022
Abstract: It is now clear that the routine embedding of experiments into conservation practice is essential for creating reasonably comprehensive evidence of the effectiveness of actions. However, an important barrier is the stage of identifying testable questions that are both useful but also realistic to carry out without a major research project. We identified approaches for generating such suitable questions. A team of 24 participants crowdsourced suggestions, resulting in a list of a hundred possible tests of actions.
Publisher: Open Book Publishers
Date: 06-12-2022
DOI: 10.11647/OBP.0321.12
Abstract: Delivering a revolution in evidence use requires a cultural change across society. For a wide range of groups (practitioners, knowledge brokers, organisations, organisational leaders, policy makers, funders, researchers, journal publishers, the wider conservation community, educators, writers, and journalists), options are described to facilitate a change in practice, and a series of downloadable checklists are provided.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2021
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 07-2023
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 13-02-2020
DOI: 10.1101/2020.02.13.946954
Abstract: Evidence-based conservation relies on robust and relevant evidence. Practitioners often prefer locally relevant studies whose results are more likely to be transferable to the context of planned conservation interventions. To quantify the availability of relevant evidence for hibian and bird conservation we reviewed Conservation Evidence, a database of quantitative tests of conservation interventions. Studies were geographically clustered and found at extremely low densities - fewer than one study was present within a 2,000 km radius of a given location. The availability of relevant evidence was extremely low when we restricted studies to those studying biomes or taxonomic orders containing high percentages of threatened species, compared to the most frequently studied biomes and taxonomic orders. Further constraining the evidence by study design showed that only 17-20% of hibian and bird studies used robust designs. Our results highlight the paucity of evidence on the effectiveness of conservation interventions, and the disparity in evidence for local contexts that are frequently studied and those where conservation needs are greatest. Addressing the serious global shortfall in context-specific evidence requires a step change in the frequency of testing conservation interventions, greater use of robust study designs and standardized metrics, and methodological advances to analyze patchy evidence bases.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 05-09-2021
DOI: 10.1111/COBI.13577
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 23-06-2023
DOI: 10.1111/CSP2.12985
Abstract: Conservation guidance—an authoritative source of information and recommendations explicitly supporting decision‐making and action regarding nature conservation—represents an important tool to communicate evidence‐based advice to conservation actors. Given the rapidly increasing pressure that climate change poses to bio ersity, producing accessible, well‐informed guidance on how to best manage the impacts and risks of changing climatic conditions is particularly urgent. Guidance documents should ideally be produced with multistage input from stakeholders who are likely to use and implement such advice however, this step can be complicated and costly, and remains largely unformalized. Moreover, there is currently little direct evidence synthesized for actions that specifically target climate change and guidance remains largely absent. Here, we introduce a process for co‐developing guidance for species conservation in the face of climate change, using seabirds in the North‐East Atlantic as a case study. Specifically, we collated evidence on climate change vulnerability and possible conservation actions using literature synthesis, stakeholder surveys, and ecological modeling. This evidence base was then discussed, refined, and expanded using structured stakeholder workshops. We summarize the knowledge gained through stakeholder engagement and provide recommendations for future international efforts to co‐produce conservation guidance for managing wildlife, in the context of a rapidly changing climate.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Silviu Petrovan.