What managers want from invasive species research versus what they get
Matzek, V., Pujalet, M., & Cresci, S. (2015). What managers want from invasive species research versus what they get. Conservation Letters, 8(1), 33-40. PDF.
Summary
Scientists and resource managers approach invasive species from different perspectives, resulting in an apparent "knowing-doing" gap: the management implications of research results are rarely actionable, and managers often do not use scientific literature to inform their management decisions. This knowing-doing gap might be due to inability to access research, lack of applicability of the research, or poor presentation of the research, but the reasons remain poorly understood. Therefore, to clarify how research and management fit together, Matzek et al. (2015) identified managers' needs through a survey and compared these results to scientific literature on invasive species using California as a case study. They found that published research from 2007-2011 contained 70% basic science, 27% applied science, and 3% interdisciplinary science. Some research areas were over-represented (e.g. plant-soil feedbacks, assessing resistance of the native community, biocontrol efficacy) while others of interest to managers (e.g. longevity of invasive species seedbanks, measuring impacts, when to abandon management) were under-represented in the literature. Consequently, Matzek et al. (2015) conclude that scientific research is not always relevant to managers, and that the gap is partially due to different emphases of research vs. management. However, they also note that managers tended to report lack of accessibility of research when in fact studies about desired topics had been published, including in open-access journals. Thus, a key challenge might be a lack of clear communication about management-relevant results rather than a lack of results per se.
Take home points
Although basic research frequently discusses specific management implications, the research is not often on a topic or scale that is useful for management.
Research on soils, resistance of the native community, biocontrol, and impact on resources was overrepresented in the invasion literature.
California managers wanted more research on seedbanks, impacts, herbicide efficacy, early detection, and when to abandon management.
Management implications
Increasingly, scientific literature is becoming freely available through open-source publishing (e.g., https://danieljhocking.wordpress.com/links/oa-journals/). There might be more science available than many managers tend to think.
Increasing communication with scientists about the knowing-doing gap can guide applied research to be more useful and informative for both parties, and can also enable scientists to synthesize existing information in a management-relevant way.
This study stimulated the RISCC team to ask 'what kind of information does our network most need, and how could we best synthesize and deliver that information?' We need your help to answer those questions! Next week, keep an eye out for a survey that will help us to better understand (and hopefully meet!) your needs on the emerging challenges of invasive species + climate change.
Keywords
Management Efficacy; Risk Assessment