Bias and dispersal in the animal reintroduction literature

90 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Defining reintroduction success using IUCN criteria for threatened species: a demographic assessment (2015, methodology): “Although we modeled a wide range of life-history traits, our model life cycles are clearly biased toward bird and mammal species as are reintroduction programs (Seddon, Soorae & Launay, 2005; Bajomi et al., 2010).”
Reintroduction objectives, decisions and outcomes: global perspectives from the herpetofauna (2014, background): “It is likely that the sample of projects described in the IUCN Reintroduction series suffers from the same contribution and geographic biases that are well known for the reintroduction literature (Seddon, Soorae & Launay, 2005; Bajomi et al., 2010).”
Standards for documenting and monitoring bird reintroduction projects (2010, background): “This is especially important as the monitoring of reintroductions of invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians and fish is far less complete than that for birds (mammals are the best documented) (Bajomi et al. 2010).”