The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A systematic survey of the integration of animal behavior into conservation
Open accessAbstract
The role of behavioral ecology in improving wildlife conservation and management has been the subject of much recent debate. We sought to answer 2 foundational questions about the current use of behavioral knowledge in conservation: To what extent is behavioral knowledge used in wildlife conservation and management, and how does the use of animal behavior differ among conservation fields in both frequency and types of use? We searched the literature for intersections between key fields of animal behavior and conservation and created a systematic heat map (i.e., graphical representation of data where values are represented as colors) to visualize relative efforts. Some behaviors, such as dispersal and foraging, were commonly considered (mean [SE] of 1147.38 [353.11] and 439.44 [108.85] papers per cell, respectively). In contrast, other behaviors, such as learning, social, and antipredatory behaviors were rarely considered (mean [SE] of 33.88 [7.62], 44.81 [10.65], and 22.69 [6.37] papers per cell, respectively). In many cases, awareness of the importance of behavior did not translate into applicable management tools. Our results challenge previous suggestions that there is little association between the fields of behavioral ecology and conservation and reveals tremendous variation in the use of different behaviors in conservation. We recommend that researchers focus on examining underutilized intersections of behavior and conservation themes for which preliminary work shows a potential for improving conservation and management, translating behavioral theory into applicable and testable predictions, and creating systematic reviews to summarize the behavioral evidence within the behavior‐conservation intersections for which many studies exist.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Behavioral flexibility as a mechanism for coping with climate change
Beever, E. A., Hall, L. E., Varner, J., Loosen, A. E., Dunham, J. B., Gahl, M. K., Smith, F. A., & Lawler, J. J. (2017) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1002/fee.1502 · Cited by 437
Conservation translocations: a review of common difficulties and promising directions.
Berger‐Tal, O., Blumstein, D. T., & Swaisgood, R. R. (2020) · Animal Conservation · doi:10.1111/acv.12534 · Cited by 415
Self-citationConservation and the Genomics of Populations
Allendorf, F. W., Funk, W. C., Aitken, S. N., Byrne, M., Luikart, G., & Antunes, A. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198856566.001.0001 · Cited by 207
Pillay, R., Fletcher, R. J., Sieving, K. E., Udell, B. J., & Bernard, H. (2019) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13492 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Berger‐Tal, O., Blumstein, D. T., Carroll, S., Fisher, R. N., Mesnick, S. L., Owen, M. A., Saltz, D., St. Claire, C. C., & Swaisgood, R. R.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-02-03
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 744-753
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W2478379925
- Cited by
- 191
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A systematic survey of the integration of animal behavior into conservation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/cobi.12654
- The paper
- Berger‐Tal, O., Blumstein, D. T., Carroll, S., Fisher, R. N., Mesnick, S. L., Owen, M. A., Saltz, D., St. Claire, C. C., & Swaisgood, R. R. (2016). A systematic survey of the integration of animal behavior into conservation. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12654
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.