T tropics are home to the largest concentration of the world’s species, but the destruction of tropical biodiversity and ecosystems is advancing at an alarming rate (Bradshaw et al. 2009). This is of urgent concern to the global community, which relies on tropical biodiversity for many ecosystem services (HainesYoung and Potschin 2010), including climate regulation and water resources (Lawrence and Vandecar 2015). However, conservation in tropical ecosystems is understudied as compared to temperate ecosystems. Species distribution surveys, ecological studies, and conservation research in general are skewed toward wealthier geographical locations (eg Feeley and Silman 2011; Martin et al. 2012; Wilson et al. 2016). Di Marco et al. (2017), for instance, found that 40% of the research articles published in three major conservation journals between 2011 and 2015 addressed conservation issues in the UK, the US, and Australia, whereas many African countries received no research attention at all. A lack of knowledge about what threats biodiversity and ecosystems face – and which approaches are most effective in addressing these threats – precludes conservation goal setting in places where informed action is most needed. Examining where scientists are coming from and where they choose to work is necessary for developing a better understanding of why some areas receive more research focus than others. Foreign scientists publish the majority of studies conducted in tropical locations (Fazey et al. 2005; Stocks et al. 2008). Nevertheless, researchers have generally sought to understand the amount of attention that tropical countries receive based solely on statistics about the countries being studied (Stocks et al. 2008; Wilson et al. 2016), instead of examining the relationship between the country where a study takes place and the country that the author(s) came from (ie pointtopoint interactions). Clark (1985), for example, suggested that historical (colonial) relationships, distance, and political (in)stability could either foster or reduce research activity by foreigners but did not test these claims. Discovering what drives study location preferences by authors from countries that produce large amounts of tropical research holds implications for policy recommendations that will help to improve the distribution of conservation research effort. In some areas, however, domination of publication output by foreign researchers is beginning to erode; for instance, Brazilian researchers have recently overtaken US authorship of articles concerning Amazonia (Malhado et al. 2014). Therefore, understanding what contributes to higher levels of local Who studies where? Boosting tropical conservation research where it is most needed

中文翻译：

---

谁在哪儿学习？在最需要的地方促进热带保护研究

T 热带是世界物种最集中的地方，但热带生物多样性和生态系统的破坏正以惊人的速度推进（Bradshaw 等人，2009 年）。这是全球社会迫切关注的问题，因为许多生态系统服务依赖热带生物多样性（HainesYoung 和 Potschin 2010），包括气候调节和水资源（Lawrence 和 Vandecar 2015）。然而，与温带生态系统相比，热带生态系统的保护研究不足。物种分布调查、生态研究和保护研究一般都偏向于较富裕的地理位置（例如，Feley 和 Silman，2011；Martin 等，2012；Wilson 等，2016）。迪马可等人。（2017），例如，发现在 2011 年至 2015 年期间发表在三个主要保护期刊上的研究文章中有 40% 涉及英国、美国和澳大利亚的保护问题，而许多非洲国家根本没有受到研究关注。由于对生物多样性和生态系统面临的威胁以及应对这些威胁最有效的方法缺乏了解，因此无法在最需要知情行动的地方制定保护目标。检查科学家来自哪里以及他们选择在哪里工作对于更好地理解为什么某些领域比其他领域获得更多研究重点是必要的。外国科学家发表了在热带地区进行的大部分研究（Fazey 等人，2005 年；Stocks 等人，2008 年）。尽管如此，研究人员通常试图仅根据所研究国家的统计数据来了解热带国家受到的关注程度（Stocks 等人，2008 年；Wilson 等人，2016 年），而不是检查进行研究的国家之间的关系以及作者来自的国家（即点对点交互）。例如，Clark (1985) 提出历史（殖民）关系、距离和政治（不稳定）可以促进或减少外国人的研究活动，但没有检验这些说法。发现是什么推动了来自产生大量热带研究的国家的作者对研究地点的偏好，这对有助于改善保护研究工作分布的政策建议具有重要意义。然而，在某些地区，外国研究人员在出版物产出中的主导地位开始消退；例如，巴西研究人员最近在有关亚马逊的文章中超过了美国作者（Malhado 等人，2014 年）。因此，了解什么有助于提高本地谁研究的水平？在最需要的地方促进热带保护研究