Abstract
AbstractBiodiversity conservation continually presents new challenges, yet conservation resources are limited, and funding for applied conservation research projects more so. Recently, many have reported on the “research–implementation gap,” whereby conservation research findings are infrequently translated into conservation actions. In this perspective, we describe our experiences working in a large multi‐institutional, multi‐disciplinary team as we attempt to bridge the research–implementation gap by developing conservation tools needed to address the conservation challenges faced by Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus harrisii). We discuss our project's history, lessons learnt, outcomes, and future plans to provide insights that may help others develop multi‐institutional projects, designed to target rapid and direct implementation of conservation research into management action. Key to our success is the needs‐based prioritization of research measured against the management team's questions, recognition of the different needs of academia, industry and government, a collegiate approach, and willingness to embrace adaptive management. Challenges include developing a project which meets all strategic targets of different institutions, in addition to sourcing funds. Overall, our goal has been to establish an enduring research‐management framework, to facilitate improved integration of scientific research into the management needs of Tasmanian devil conservation, and serve as a template for other species management projects.
Highlights
Introduction: the conservation research–implementation gap Preserving our planet’s biodiversity has been described as a “wicked” problem characterized by a myriad of complexities and challenges (Game et al 2014)
Some reviewers have attributed this gap to a lack of implementation planning from researchers (Cook et al 2013), while others highlight the challenges of translating technical and fundamental findings into direct management actions (Shafer et al 2015)
More recently it has been argued that conservation researchers and management practitioners need to work together better from the outset (e.g., Susskind et al 2012; Hoban et al 2013; Wood et al 2015)
Summary
ConservaƟon outcomes Figure 1 Differences between the tradtional conservation research approach and the Devil Tools & Tech approach, where there is full integration between research/practice/policy, with the final conclusion being a beneficial conservation outcome for the species. There are a number of direct management outcomes which have already been implemented as a result of the “tools & tech” project These include identification of parentage of individuals held in group enclosures; determination of founder relationships to better inform breeding recommendations (Hogg et al 2015); development of a new SNP-assay to assist with genomic analyses (Wright et al 2015); and development of contraceptive tools to ensure even genetic representation across founding animals in fenced/island populations. Other additional outcomes include raising the public profile of the “tools & tech” project and the broader plight of the Tasmanian devil, via the STDP newsletter, social media, print media, visitors/members to participating zoos and fauna parks and on-line presence (e.g., a documentary video about the project, produced by San Diego Zoo Global; http://bcove.me/t61imr6t [accessed 15 July 2015])
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
