Cited by 11Amphibian and Reptile BiologyConservation, Ecology, Wildlife EducationTurtle Biology and Conservation

Exploring gaps, biases, and research priorities in the evidence for reptile conservation actions

Open access
Speight, Oliver, Morgan, William H., White, Thomas B., Sainsbury, Katie A., Bouskila, Amos, Rotem, Guy, Smith, Rebecca K., Sutherland, William J. +2 more·2025·Conservation Biology

Abstract

With over 21% of reptile species threatened with extinction, there is an urgent need to ensure conservation actions to protect and restore populations are informed by relevant, reliable evidence. We examined the geographic and taxonomic distribution of 707 studies that tested the effects of actions to conserve reptiles synthesized in Conservation Evidence's Reptile Conservation synopsis. More studies were conducted in countries with higher gross domestic product per capita, more reptile species, and higher proportions of threatened reptile species. Studies were clustered in the United States (43%) and Australia (15%), and no studies were conducted in large parts of Southeast Asia, South America, and sub‐Saharan Africa. Taxonomically, 47% of 90 reptile families (mostly Squamata) were not studied at all. Although Squamata and Testudines species featured in approximately 50% of studies, 7 of the 10 most‐studied reptiles (constituting 36% of studies) were turtles or tortoises, and there were significantly more studies per species on Testudines than Squamata. There were also significantly more studies on species: classified as least concern (as opposed to all other International Union for Conservation of Nature categories apart from near threatened); not categorized as endemic or insular; with more Wikipedia page views; and lacking data on venomousness. There was no significant relationship between the number of studies and the evolutionary distinctiveness or body mass of species. Our results highlight pressing evidence needs, particularly for underrepresented regions and threatened and data‐deficient species (e.g., evolutionarily distinct and globally endangered reptiles in South America, sub‐Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia). To overcome evidence gaps and a lack of basic ecological data, future work should explore how the effects of actions transfer across taxa and regions. We call for greater efforts to coordinate and increase testing and reporting in a strategic manner to inform more effective and efficient conservation actions globally.

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.70073

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Speight et al. (2025) demonstrate an uneven distribution of studies based on IUCN threat status, gross domestic product per capita, and taxonomic group, with notable biases toward 'Least Concern' species, studies conducted in the United States and a general neglect of reptile groups.

    “For example, Speight et al. (2025) demonstrate an uneven distribution of studies based on IUCN threat status, gross domestic product per capita, and taxonomic group, with notable biases toward ‘Least Concern’ species, studies conducted in the United States and a general neglect of reptile groups.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Sainsbury, K. A., Morgan, W. H., Watson, M., Rotem, G., Bouskila, A., Smith, R. K., & Sutherland, W. J. (2021). Conservation Evidence Series Synopses: Reptile conservation: Global evidence for the effects of interventions for reptiles. University of Cambridge.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Speight, O., Morgan, W. H., White, T. B., Sainsbury, K. A., Bouskila, A., Rotem, G., Smith, R. K., Sutherland, W. J., Watson, M. J., & Christie, A. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Faculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation University of Alberta Edmonton Alberta Canada
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
Corresponding author
Christie, Alec P.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2025-05-31
Volume
39
Issue
5
Pages
e70073-e70073
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W4410929767
Cited by
11
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 2
FWCI
4.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Conservation Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
  • Arcadia Fund
  • MAVA Foundation
  • Imperial College London
  • Cambridge Philosophical Society
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Amphibian and Reptile Biology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Conservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Turtle Biology and Conservation
Keywords
reptile conservation, conservation evidence, evidence gaps, research priorities, endangered reptiles, Squamata, turtles, geographic bias in research, taxonomic bias, data deficient species, evolutionary distinctiveness, conservation effectiveness
MeSH terms
Animals, Conservation of Natural Resources, Reptiles, Endangered Species

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