Explore the vast range of titles available.

It is widely accepted that there is a considerable gap between the science of conservation biology and the design and execution of biodiversity conservation projects in the field and science is failing to inform the practice of conservation. There are many reasons why this implementation gap exists. A high proportion of papers published in scientific journals by conservation biologists are seldom read outside of the academic world and there are few incentives for academics to convert their science into practice. In turn, field practitioners rarely document their field experiences and experiments in a manner that can meaningfully inform conservation scientists. Issues related to access to scientific literature, scientific relevance in multidisciplinary environments, donor expectations and a lack of critical analysis at all levels of conservation theory and practice are factors that exacerbate the divide. The contexts in which conservation biologists and field practitioners operate are also often highly dissimilar, and each has differing professional responsibilities and expectations that compromise the ability to learn from each other's expertise. Building on recent debate in the literature, and using case studies to illustrate the issues that characterize the divide, this paper draws on the authors' experiences of project management as well as academic research. We identify five key issues related to information exchange: access to scientific literature, levels of scientific literacy, lack of interdisciplinarity, questions of relevance and lack of sharing of conservation-related experiences and suggest new ways of working that could assist in bridging the gap between conservation scientists and field practitioners.

Recent scholarship in conservation biology has pointed to the existence of a “research‐implementation” gap and has proposed various solutions for overcoming it. Some of these solutions, such as evidence‐based conservation, are based on the assumption that the gap exists primarily because of a communication problem in getting reliable and needed technical information to decision makers. First, we identify conceptual weaknesses with this framing, supporting our arguments with decades of research in other fields of study. We then reconceptualize the gap as a series of crucial, productive spaces in which shared interests, value conflicts, and complex relations between scientists and publics can interact. Whereas synonyms for “gap” include words such as “chasm,” “rift,” or “breach,” the word “space” is connected with words such as “arena,” “capacity,” and “place” and points to who and what already exists in a specific context. Finally, we offer ways forward for applying this new understanding in practice.

Spatial conservation prioritization is used globally to guide decision making with the aim of delivering the best conservation gain per unit investment. However, despite many publications on the topic, the extent to which this approach is used by decision makers has been unclear. To investigate the degree to which prioritization has been adopted by practitioners to guide conservation implementation, we conducted an online survey, collecting data on the approaches used to develop prioritizations and the reported extent of translation to on‐the‐ground action. Using a cluster analysis, we identified two categories of prioritizations, those developed to advance the field (42% of responses) and those intended for implementation (58% of responses). Respondents reported 74% of the prioritizations intended for implementation had translated to on‐the‐ground action. Additionally, we identified strong collaboration between academics and practitioners in prioritization development, suggesting a bridging of the theory‐practice gap. We recommend continued collaboration and research into the effectiveness of prioritizations in delivering conservation impacts.

Making decisions about natural resource conservation is often difficult because of a lack of longer‐term data, which are needed to provide a frame of reference for identifying and choosing appropriate responses to threats impacting species, ecosystems, and the benefits they provide to people. Despite the promise the field of conservation paleobiology holds for using geohistorical data and insights to provide this longer‐term perspective, examples of successful implementation are uncommon. Over the past decade, many conservation biology researchers and practitioners have turned to knowledge co‐production to overcome this same challenge. Co‐production prioritizes collaboration between academic and non‐academic partners to produce actionable knowledge that better aligns with conservation practitioners' needs and concerns. We argue that the conservation paleobiology community must similarly build collective competence to engage more effectively in shared “learning spaces” where actionable knowledge is co‐produced. We draw from our experiences with the Historical Oyster Body Size project and lessons learned from other fields to identify key attributes of actionable geohistorical knowledge and the meaningful co‐production processes that produced it. Familiarity with these concepts will benefit conservation paleobiologists and all researchers who aspire to help develop longer‐lasting, defensible and more equitable solutions to complex conservation problems presented by a changing world. We draw from our experiences with the Historical Oyster Body Size project and lessons learned from other fields to identify key attributes of actionable geohistorical knowledge and the meaningful co‐production processes that produced it. Familiarity with these concepts will benefit conservation paleobiologists and all researchers who aspire to help develop longer‐lasting and more equitable solutions to complex conservation problems presented by a changing world.

Researchers and practitioners often exist symbiotically, but this relationship does not always benefit both parties. We here discuss a mutualistic research symbiosis that our organizations have developed over the last decade, the challenges which we have experienced as part of this process, and how our experiences may help others intending to develop such mutualisms. The defining characteristic of our model is that conservation implementers, not investigators, lead the research. This power balance has promoted synergies between researchers and practitioners and has resulted in one of the first ever Randomized Control Trials of a conservation intervention. We have shortened the distance between basic research and field practices by ensuring that the people who will use the results of an investigation play a lead role in designing and implementing it. Local conservation practitioners have been trained in cutting edge scientific methodologies, while university researchers have had an unparalleled role in designing the conservation and development intervention. Our research model is not perfect, however. Although we have facilitated tight relationships between implementers and researchers, such partnerships take significant resources to develop. Moreover, shortening the traditional “arm's length” distance between implementers and investigators is a double‐edged sword: some donors are uncomfortable that our researchers and practitioners comprise a mutually dependent team. Nevertheless, we believe that our model's benefits outweigh its costs. When our researchers undertake their investigations, they do so in ways that do not simply meet their publication needs. Rather, the integration of partners into a mutualistic research team ensures that our investigations are both scientifically cutting edge and that they can improve our conservation initiatives on the ground in real time. Researchers and practitioners often exist symbiotically, but this relationship does not always benefit both parties. Perhaps the most usual researcher–practitioner symbiosis is a commensal co‐existence with little value‐added for either. At one extreme though, the interaction can be parasitic, in which one organization benefits while the other loses. In this paper we examine the mutualistic research symbiosis that our organizations have developed over the last decade, the challenges which we have experienced as part of this process, and how our experiences may help others intending to develop such research mutualisms.

Knowledge sharing between scientists and nonscientist stakeholders is necessary to implement research findings in an appropriate and effective manner within the context of the environment and conservation sectors. Yet scientific ecological knowledge is rarely shared and transferred effectively. This special section has addressed a number of opportunities and barriers to the improvement of scientific communication and knowledge transfer with respect to environmental management in tropical settings. A main challenge is seen in creating a research 'impact-metric' system, which is fundamental to foster knowledge sharing with institutional research incentives. Partnering with local institutions and research centers as well as participatory research methods will promote effective knowledge exchange. Research relevance and impact will be improved by matching interdisciplinary research with local capacity building and support through research activities. We conclude that training the next generation of tropical biologists through more effective knowledge sharing will be crucial to the long term success of scientifically based environmental management in tropical regions.

We compared the published research on exotic invasive plants with research needs identified by practitioners who manage wildland invasions in California. We filtered the 2007–2011 contents of 20 journals to find 347 relevant articles, then classified them in four areas: topical relevance, spatial/temporal scale, management usefulness, and accessibility and timeliness. We found basic research to be heavily overrepresented compared to applied research, but authors of basic research papers typically gave at least some consideration to management implications of the work. The taxonomic coverage of the database was uneven, with four invaders accounting for nearly half the published work, and several high‐priority species being absent. Small temporal and spatial scales, lack of information on management costs, and a long lag time before publication also hinder the usefulness of invasions research to managers. However, articles were widely available for free download, suggesting that access to research should not be among managers’ concerns.

The field of biodiversity conservation is in the midst of a cultural and practical transformation around evidence use, but the necessary institutional and technical support is still emerging. Over the past decade, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has invested in building institutional capacity for evidence use in its biodiversity conservation projects through technical assistance. We interviewed 34 technical assistance staff supporting biodiversity programming at USAID to explore how technical assistance is used to support evidence use and the extent to which technical assistance can fulfill the functions of “evidence bridges”—intermediaries who help practitioners access and use bodies of evidence for decision‐making. We found that the current technical assistance model supporting evidence employs varied strategies to support evidence use, some of which are more closely aligned with the functions of evidence bridges than others. We conclude that the current technical assistance model could strengthen support for evidence use through engagement with evidence bridges to promote uptake of synthesized evidence. We suggest that technical assistance and evidence bridges are needed to facilitate high‐quality evidence use at the scale necessary to achieve conservation impact, and more collaborative spaces at the boundary between research and practice are needed. Biodiversity conservation is undergoing a cultural transformation around evidence use, but necessary technical support is still emerging. We explored biodiversity programming at USAID to understand how technical assistance supports evidence use and how well it fulfills the role of evidence bridges. The current technical assistance model employs varied strategies, some of which more closely align with the functions of evidence bridges. This suggests that enhancing collaboration between technical assistance and evidence bridges will improve evidence uptake and strengthen conservation efforts.

The view that conservation is a linear exchange of knowledge between scientists and practitioners has led to the conceptualization of a “research‐implementation gap”. However, conservation is not only about translating science into action but also includes the interplay of values, cultural norms, social interactions, and political consequences. In response, an alternative conceptualization is one where research and implementation exist in a “space”, where conservation partners interact. Here, we argue that post‐normal science (PNS) can fill this space. PNS is used when information is incomplete, values are pluralistic, stakes are high, and decisions are urgent. It relies on an extended community of practice that aims to produce knowledge fit for end‐users, without the constraints of settled scientific paradigms. We advocate for the wider use of PNS in conservation by showing how aspects of PNS have been useful in mainstreaming conservation planning in South Africa. By following an approach typical of PNS, South Africa has made considerable progress in creating an implementation space for conserving biodiversity despite its limited resources, cultural heterogeneity, and controversial history. We outline the interventions used in South Africa to facilitate PNS and, based on this, propose an operating model that can be applied elsewhere.

Open access is often contentious in the scientific community, but its implications for conservation are under‐discussed or omitted entirely from scientific discourse. Access to literature is a key factor impeding implementation of conservation research, and many open access models and concepts that are little‐known by most conservation researchers may facilitate implementation. Conservation professionals working outside academic institutions should have more access to research so that conservation is better supported by current science. In this perspective, I present elements missing from current discussions of open access and suggest potential pathways for journal publishers and researchers to make conservation publications more open. There are many promising avenues for open access to play a larger role in conservation research, including archiving pre‐prints and post‐prints, more permissive “green” open access policies, and increasing access to older articles. Collectively supporting open access practices will benefit our profession and the species we are working to protect.