Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,193

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Developing the Science of Reintroduction Biology

SEDDON, PHILIP J., ARMSTRONG, DOUG P., MALONEY, RICHARD F.·2007·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Abstract: With recent increases in the numbers of species reintroduction projects and reintroduction‐related publications, there is now a recognizable field of reintroduction biology. Nevertheless, research thus far has been fragmented and ad hoc, rather than an organized attempt to gain reliable knowledge to improve reintroduction success. We reviewed 454 recent (1990–2005) peer‐reviewed papers dealing with wildlife reintroductions from 101 journals. Most research has been retrospective, either opportunistic evaluations of techniques or general project summaries, and most inference is gained from post hoc interpretation of monitoring results on a species‐by‐species basis. Documentation of reintroduction outcomes has improved, however, and the derivation of more general principles via meta‐analyses is expected to increase. The fragmentation of the reintroduction literature remains an obstacle. There is scope to improve reintroduction biology by greater application of the hypothetico‐deductive method, particularly through the use of modeling approaches and well‐designed experiments. Examples of fruitful approaches in reintroduction research include experimental studies to improve outcomes from the release of captive‐bred animals, use of simulation modeling to identify factors affecting the viability of reintroduced populations, and the application of spatially explicit models to plan for and evaluate reintroductions. We recommend that researchers contemplating future reintroductions carefully determine a priori the specific goals, overall ecological purpose, and inherent technical and biological limitations of a given reintroduction and that evaluation processes incorporate both experimental and modeling approaches. We suggest that the best progress will be made when multidisciplinary teams of resource managers and scientists work in close collaboration and when results from comparative analyses, experiments, and modeling are combined within and among studies.

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/j.1523-1739.2006.00627.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 1,193

Metadata

Authors
SEDDON, P. J., ARMSTRONG, D. P., & MALONEY, R. F.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-01-12
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
303-312
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W2031881865
Cited by
1,193
References
1
FWCI
34.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Developing the Science of Reintroduction Biology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00627.x
The paper
SEDDON, P. J., ARMSTRONG, D. P., & MALONEY, R. F. (2007). Developing the Science of Reintroduction Biology. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00627.x

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.