Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2019, Pages 1-8

  Berger Tal, Oded ^a   Greggor, Alison L ^b   Macura, Biljana ^c   Adams, Carrie Ann ^d   Blumenthal, Arden ^e   Bouskila, Amos ^a   Candolin, Ulrika ^f   Doran, Carolina ^g   Fernández Juricic, Esteban ^e   Gotanda, Kiyoko M ^h   Price, Catherine ⁱ   Putman, Breanna J ^j,k   Segoli, Michal ^a   Snijders, Lysanne ^g,m   Wong, Bob B M ^l   Blumstein, Daniel T ^k  

^a BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

^b INSTITUTE FOR CONSERVATION RESEARCH   (United States)

^c STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^e PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^g LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE OF FRESHWATER ECOLOGY AND INLAND FISHERIES   (Germany)

^h UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^j NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY   (United States)

^k UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^l MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^m LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE FOR ZOO AND WILDLIFE RESEARCH   (Germany)

more..

Author keywords

applied animal behavior; conservation behavior; evidence based management; literature review; meta analysis; policy impact; systematic maps

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; CONSERVATION PLANNING; DECISION MAKING; LITERATURE REVIEW; META-ANALYSIS; POLICY MAKING; STAKEHOLDER;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 85058680792     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/ary130     Document Type: Review

References (69)

1. Arct A, Drobniak S, Cichoń M. 2015. Genetic similarity between mates predicts extrapair paternity-a meta-analysis of bird studies. Behav. Ecol. 26:959-968.
2. Arnqvist G, Wooster D. 1995. Meta-analysis: synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol. 10:236-240.
3. Berger-Tal O, Bar-David S. 2015. Recursive movement patterns: review and synthesis across species. Ecosphere. 6:149.
4. Berger-Tal O, Blumstein DT, Carroll S, Fisher RN, Mesnick SL, Owen MA, Saltz D, St Claire CC, Swaisgood RR. 2016. A systematic survey of the integration of animal behavior into conservation. Conserv Biol. 30:744-753.
5. Berger-Tal O, Polak T, Oron A., Lubin Y, Kotler BP, Saltz D. 2011. Integrating animal behavior and conservation biology: a conceptual framework. Behav Ecol. 22:236-239.
6. Berger-Tal O, Saltz D. 2016. Conservation behavior: applying behavioral ecology to wildlife conservation and management. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
7. Berlin JA, Golub RM. 2014. Meta-analysis as evidence: building a better pyramid. JAMA. 312:603-605.
8. Bernes C, Bullock JM, Jakobsson S, Rundlöf M, Verheyen K, Lindborg R. 2017. How are biodiversity and dispersal of species affected by the management of roadsides? A systematic map. Environ Evid. 6:1-16.
9. Besley JC, Tanner AH. 2011. What science communicators think about training scientists to communicate. Sci Commun. 33:239-263.
10. Blackhall K. 2007. Finding studies for inclusion in systematic reviews of interventions for injury prevention the importance of grey and unpublished literature. Inj Prev. 13:359.
11. Blumstein DT, Fernández-Juricic E. 2010. A Primer on conservation behaviour. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer.
12. Bowler D, Buyung-Ali L, Knight T, Pullin AS. 2010. How effective is "greening" of urban areas in reducing human exposure to ground level ozone concentrations, UV exposure and the "urban heat island effect"? CEE review 08-004 (SR41). Environ. Evid.
13. Broom D, Fraser A. 2015. Domestic animal behaviour and welfare. 5th ed. Tarxien, Malta: Gutenberg Press.
14. Buchholz R. 2007. Behavioural biology: an effective and relevant conservation tool. Trends Ecol Evol. 22:401-407.
15. Caro T. 2007. Behavior and conservation: a bridge too far? Trends Ecol Evol. 22:394-400.
16. Caro T, Sherman PW. 2013. Eighteen reasons animal behaviourists avoid involvement in conservation. Anim Behav. 85:305-312.
17. Cassey P, Ewen JG, Blackburn TM, Møller AP. 2004. A survey of publication bias within evolutionary ecology. Proc Biol Sci. 271(Suppl 6):S451-S454.
18. Cheng SH, Augustin C, Bethel A, Gill D, Anzaroot S, Brun J, DeWilde B, Minnich RC, Garside R, Masuda YJ, et al. 2018. Using machine learning to advance synthesis and use of conservation and environmental evidence. Conserv Biol. 32:762-764.
19. Campbell Collaboration. 2017. Campbell systematic reviews: policies and guidelines. In: Campbell policies and guidelines, Series No. 1.
20. Cochrane Collaboration. 2011. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. In: Higgins J, Green S, editors. Version 5.1.0.
21. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. 2013. Guidelines for systematic review and evidence synthesis in environmental management. Version 4.2. Environmental Evidence: https://www.environmentalevidence.org/Documents/Guidelines/Guidelines4.2.pdf.
22. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. 2018a. Guidelines and standards for evidence synthesis in environmental management. In: Pullin AS, Frampton GK, Livoreil B, Petrokofsky G, editors. Version 5.0. https://www.environmentalevidence.org/information-for-authors.
23. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. 2018b. About us. http://www. environmentalevidence.org/ (Accessed 27 September 2018).
24. Cottrell E, Whitlock E, Kato E, Uhl S, Belinson S, Chang C, Hoomans T, Meltzer D, Noorani H, Robinson K, et al. 2014. Defining the benefits of stakeholder engagement in systematic reviews. Research White Paper. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US).
25. Doerr ED, Doerr VAJ, Davies MJ, McGinness HM. 2014. Does structural connectivity facilitate movement of native species in Australia's fragmented landscapes? A systematic review protocol. Evironmental Evid. 3:9.
26. Dougherty LR, Shuker DM. 2015. The effect of experimental design on the measurement of mate choice: a meta-analysis. Behav Ecol. 26:311-319.
27. Fazey I, Jalisbury J, Lindenmayer D, Maindonald J, Douglas R. 2004. Can methods applied in medicine be used to summarize and disseminate conservation research? Environ Conserv. 31:190-198.
28. Fernández-Juricic E, Schulte BA. 2016. Conservation behaviour: continued application, development and expansion. Anim Behav. 120:195-196.
29. Fish RD. 2011. Environmental decision making and an ecosystem approach: Some challenges from the perspective of social science. Prog Phys Geogr. 35: 671-680.
30. Greggor AL, Berger-Tal O, Blumstein DT, Angeloni L, Bessa-Gomes C, Blackwell BF, St Clair CC, Crooks K, de Silva S, Fernández-Juricic E, et al. 2016. Research priorities from animal behaviour for maximising conservation progress. Trends Ecol Evol. 31: 953-964.
31. Greggor AL, Clayton NS, Phalan B, Thornton A. 2014. Translating cognitive insights into effective conservation programs: reply to Schakner et al. Trends Ecol Evol. 29:652-653.
32. Gurevitch J, Koricheva J, Nakagawa S, Stewart G. 2018. Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature. 555:175-182.
33. Haddaway NR, Bernes C, Jonsson BG, Hedlund K. 2016. The benefits of systematic mapping to evidence-based environmental management. Ambio. 45:613-620.
34. Haddaway NR, Kohl C, da Silva NR, Schiemann J, Spok A, Stewart R, Sweet JB, Wilhelm R. 2017. A framework for stakeholder engagement during systematic reviews and maps in environmental management. Environ Evid. 6:11.
35. Haddaway NR, Macura B, Whaley P, Pullin AS. 2018. ROSES reporting standards for systematic evidence syntheses: pro forma, flow diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environ Evid. 7:4-11.
36. Haddaway NR, Watson MJ. 2016. On the benefits of systematic reviews for wildlife parasitology. Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl. 5:184-191.
37. Haddaway NR, Woodcock P, Macura B, Collins A. 2015. Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews. Conserv Biol. 29:1596-1605.
38. Hinde K, Carpenter AJ, Clay JS, Bradford BJ. 2014. Holsteins favor heifers, not bulls: biased milk production programmed during pregnancy as a function of fetal sex. PLoS One. 9:e86169.
39. Ihle M, Winney IS, Krystalli A, Croucher M. 2017. Striving for transparent and credible research: practical guidelines for behavioral ecologists. Behav Ecol. 28:348-354.
40. James KL, Randall NP, Haddaway NR. 2016. A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environ Evid. 5:7.
41. Jennions MD, Lortie CJ, Rosenberg MS, Rothstein HR. 2013. Publication and related biases. In: Koricheva J, Gurevitch J, Mengersen K, editors. Handbook of meta-analysis in ecology and evolution, Princeton (NJ): Princton University Press.
42. Jennions MD, Møller AP. 2002. Publication bias in ecology and evolution: an empirical assessment using the 'trim and fill' method. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 77:211-222.
43. Keown K, Van Eerd D, Irvin E. 2008. Stakeholder engagement opportunities in systematic reviews: knowledge transfer for policy and practice. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 28:67-72.
44. Kohl C, McIntosh EJ, Unger S, Haddaway NR, Kecke S, Schiemann J, Wilhelm R. 2018. Online tools supporting the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and systematic maps: A case study on CADIMA and review of existing tools. Environ Evid. 7:1-17.
45. Koricheva J, Gurevitch J, Mengersen K. 2013. The handbook of metaanalysis in ecology and evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
46. Land M, Graneli W, Grimvall A, Hoffmann CC, Mitsch WJ, Tonderski KS, Verhoeven JTA. 2016. How effective are created or restored freshwater wetlands for nitrogen and phosphorus removal? A systematic review. Environ Evid. 5:9.
47. Land M, Macura B, Bernes C, Johansson S. 2017. A five-step approach for stakeholder engagement in prioritisation and planning of environmental evidence syntheses. Environ Evid. 6:25.
48. Mason GJ, Cooper J, Clarebrough C. 2001. Frustrations of fur-farmed mink. Nature. 410:35-36.
49. McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D. 2000. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 356:1228-1231.
50. McKinnon MC, Cheng SH, Garside R, Masuda YJ, Miller DC. 2015. Sustainability: Map the evidence. Nature. 528:185-187.
51. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 151:264-270.
52. Moore FR, Shuker DM, Dougherty L. 2016. Stress and sexual signaling: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Behav Ecol. 27:363-371.
53. Nakagawa S, Poulin R. 2012. Meta-analytic insights into evolutionary ecology: an introduction and synthesis. Evol Ecol. 26:1085-1099.
54. Petticrew M, Roberts H. 2006. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
55. Price-Rees SJ, Webb JK, Shine R. 2013. Reducing the impact of a toxic invader by inducing taste aversion in an imperilled native reptile predator. Anim Conserv. 16:386-394.
56. Pullin AS, Knight T. 2009. Doing more good than harm - Building an evidence-base for conservation and environmental management. Biol Conserv. 142:931-934.
57. Pullin AS, Stewart GB. 2006. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol. 20:1647-1656.
58. Quinn E, Huckel-Schneider C, Campbell D, Seale H, Milat AJ. 2014. How can knowledge exchange portals assist in knowledge management for evidence-informed decision making in public health? BMC Public Health. 14:443.
59. Rees R, Oliver SI. 2012. Stakeholder perspectives and participation in reviews. In: Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J, editors. An introduction to systematic reviews. London: Sage Publications. p. 17-34.
60. Roll U, Correia RA, Berger-Tal O. 2018. Using machine learning to disentangle homonyms in large text corpora. Conserv Biol. 32: 716-724.
61. Sackett DL. 1997. Evidence-based medicine. Semin Perinatol. 21:3-5.
62. Snijders L, Blumstein DT, Stanley CR, Franks DW. 2017. Animal social network theory can help wildlife conservation. Trends Ecol Evol. 32:567-577.
63. Sterne JA, Egger M, Smith GD. 2001. Systematic reviews in health care: Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ. 323:101-105.
64. Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM. 2004. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol Evol. 19:305-308.
65. Sutherland WJ, Wordley CFR. 2017. Evidence complacency hampers conservation. Nat Ecol Evol. 1:1215-1216.
66. Taylor JJ, Rytwinski T, Bennett JR, Cooke SJ. 2017. Lessons for introducing stakeholders to environmental evidence synthesis Neal Haddaway, Sally Crowe. Environ Evid. 6:4-7.
67. Walsh JC, Dicks LV, Sutherland WJ. 2015. The effect of scientific evidence on conservation practitioners' management decisions. Conserv Biol. 29:88-98.
68. Ward M, Schlossberg S. 2004. Conspecific attraction and the conservation of territorial songbirds. Conserv Biol. 18:519-525.
69. Yaffe J, Montgomery P, Hopewell S, Shepard LD. 2012. Empty reviews: a description and consideration of Cochrane systematic reviews with no included studies. PLoS One. 7:e36626.