Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 191

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A systematic survey of the integration of animal behavior into conservation

Open access
Berger‐Tal, Oded, Blumstein, Daniel T., Carroll, Scott, Fisher, Robert N., Mesnick, Sarah L., Owen, Megan A., Saltz, David, St. Claire, Colleen Cassady, Swaisgood, Ronald R.·2016·Conservation Biology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/cobi.12654

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 191

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.