CNRS, Université de Nantes, UMR LETG, B.P. 81223, 44312 Nantes Cedex 3, France; Both authors contributed equally to this work.
CNRS, ISEM, Université de Montpellier, IRD, EPHE, 34095 Montpellier Cedex 05, France; Both authors contributed equally to this work.
Trends Ecol Evol. 2018 Oct;33(10):720-730. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2018.07.004. Epub 2018 Sep 9.
New agendas for conservation are regularly proposed based on the ground that existing strategies are overly pessimistic, restricted to biodiversity hotspots, and inappropriate to halt biodiversity loss. However, little empirical evidence supports such claims. Here we review the 12971 papers published in the leading conservation journals during the last 15 years to assess what conservation actually does. Although conservation research is affected by specific bias, conservation is playing a major role in providing empirical evidence of human impacts on biodiversity. Encouraging biodiversity comebacks are also published and a wide range of conservation tools, beyond the development of protected areas in wilderness areas, are promoted. We argue that finding new routes to conservation is neither necessary nor sufficient to halt biodiversity loss.
新的保护议程经常被提出,理由是现有的保护策略过于悲观,仅限于生物多样性热点地区,不适合阻止生物多样性的丧失。然而,很少有经验证据支持这些说法。在这里,我们回顾了过去 15 年中在主要保护期刊上发表的 12971 篇论文,以评估保护实际上在做什么。尽管保护研究受到特定偏见的影响,但保护在提供人类对生物多样性影响的经验证据方面发挥着重要作用。鼓励生物多样性回归的研究也有发表,并且提倡使用各种保护工具,而不仅仅是在荒野地区开发保护区。我们认为,寻找新的保护途径既不是必要的,也不是阻止生物多样性丧失的充分条件。