Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 237–241 | Cite as

More topics from the tropics: additional thoughts to Mammides et al.

  • Jan Christian HabelEmail author
  • Luc Lens
  • Hilde Eggermont
  • Mwangi Githiru
  • Ronald K. Mulwa
  • Halimu Suleiman Shauri
  • Thomas M. Lewinsohn
  • Wolfgang W. Weisser
  • Thomas Schmitt
Commentary

Abstract

Most studies on tropical conservation questions are conducted by researchers of developed countries from the north. This geographic disconnection was recently criticised by Mammides et al. Here, we reflect on their findings and add further views from scientist’s and journal editor’s perspectives. We argue that journals are, a priori, most strongly interested in research questions and approaches that will likely increase their scientific impact and prestige. This is rarely compatible with publishing articles on questions with restricted global impact or based on single taxa. We question whether small changes in the editorial policy of international conservation journals will considerably improve the geographic diversity in key conservation publications. Rather, thematic scopes of the leading conservation journals should be modified, preferably in close collaboration with leading conservationists from the south. We are convinced that long-term investments in the tropics will create a stronger local scientific community, thus bolstering academic morale, and finally may lead to an increase in the submission and acceptance rate of articles written from scientists from these regions.

Keywords

Drone Editorial Policy International Conservation Conservation Agenda Joint Research Activity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Arlettaz R, Schaub M, Fournier J, Reichlin TS, Sierro A, Watson JEM, Braunisch V (2010) From publications to public actions: when conservation biologists bridge the gap between research and implementation. BioScience 60:835–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brancalion PHS, Garcia LC, Loyola R, Rodrigues RR, Pillar VD, Lewinsohn TM (2016a) A critical analysis of the Native Vegetation Protection Law of Brazil (2012): updates and ongoing initiatives. Nat Conserv 14:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brancalion PHS, Garcia LC, Loyola R, Rodrigues RR, Pillar VD, Lewinsohn TM (2016b) Análise crítica da Lei de Proteção da Vegetação Nativa (2012), que substituiu o antigo Código Florestal: atualizações e ações em curso. Nat Conserv 14:e1–e16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Githiru M, Lens L (2007) Application of fragmentation research to conservation planning for multiple stakeholders: an example from the Taita Hills, southeast Kenya. Biol Conserv 134:271–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Githiru M, Lens L, Adriaensen F, Mwang’ombe J, E Matthysen (2011) Using science to guide conservation: from landscape modelling to increased connectivity in the Taita Hills, SE Kenya. J Nat Conserv 19:263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Habel JC, Gossner MM, Meyer ST, Eggermont H, Lens L, Dengler J, Weisser WW (2013) Mind the gaps when using science to address conservation concerns. Biodivers Conserv 22:2413–2427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mammides C, Goodale UM, Corlett RT, Chena J, Bawa KS, Hariya H, Jarrad F, Primack RB, Ewing H, Xia X, Goodale E (2016) Increasing geographic diversity in the international conservation literature: a stalled process? Biol Conserv 198:78–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Christian Habel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Luc Lens
    • 2
  • Hilde Eggermont
    • 3
  • Mwangi Githiru
    • 4
    • 5
  • Ronald K. Mulwa
    • 5
  • Halimu Suleiman Shauri
    • 6
  • Thomas M. Lewinsohn
    • 7
  • Wolfgang W. Weisser
    • 1
  • Thomas Schmitt
    • 8
    • 9
  1. 1.Terrestrial Ecology Research Group, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, School of Life Sciences WeihenstephanTechnische Universität MünchenFreisingGermany
  2. 2.Terrestrial Ecology Unit, Department of BiologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  3. 3.Belgian Biodiversity Platform, OD NatureRoyal Belgian Institute of Natural SciencesBrusselsBelgium
  4. 4.Wildlife WorksVoiKenya
  5. 5.Ornithology Section, Zoology DepartmentNational Museums of KenyaNairobiKenya
  6. 6.Department of Social SciencesPwani UniversityKilifiKenya
  7. 7.Department of Animal Biology, Instituteof BiologyUniversityof CampinasCampinasBrazil
  8. 8.Senckenberg German Entomological InstituteMünchebergGermany
  9. 9.Zoology, Institute of Biology, Faculty of Natural Sciences IMartin Luther University Halle-WittenbergHalleGermany

Personalised recommendations