Calls for biodiversity conservation practice to be more evidence based are growing, and we agree evidence use in conservation practice needs improvement. However, evidence-based conservation will not be realized without improved access to evidence. In medicine, unlike in conservation, a well-established and well-funded layer of intermediary individuals and organizations engage with medical practitioners, synthesize primary research relevant to decision making, and make evidence easily accessible. These intermediaries prepare targeted evidence summaries and distribute them to practitioners faced with time-sensitive and value-laden decisions. To be effective, these intermediaries, who we refer to as evidence bridges, should identify research topics based on the priorities of practitioners; synthesize evidence; prepare and distribute easy-to-find and easy-to-use evidence summaries; and develop and maintain networks of connections with researchers and practitioners. Based on a review of the literature regarding evidence intermediaries in conservation and environmental management, as well as an anonymous questionnaire searching for such organizations, we found few intermediaries that met all these criteria. Few evidence bridges that do exist are unable to reach most conservation practitioners, which include resource managers in government and industry, conservation organizations, and farmers and other private landowners. We argue that the lack of evidence bridges from research to practitioners contributes to evidence complacency and limits the use of evidence in conservation action. Nevertheless, several existing organizations help reduce the gap between evidence and practice and could serve as a foundation for building additional components of evidence bridges in conservation. Although evidence bridges need expertise in research and evidence synthesis, they also require expertise in identifying and communicating with the community of practitioners most in need of clear and concise syntheses of evidence.

中文翻译：

---

保护研究与实践的桥梁

要求生物多样性保护实践更加基于证据的呼声越来越高，我们同意在保护实践中使用证据需要改进。但是，如果不改进对证据的获取，就无法实现基于证据的保护。在医学领域，与保护领域不同的是，一个完善且资金充足的中介个人和组织层与医疗从业者合作，综合与决策相关的初步研究，并使证据易于获取。这些中介机构准备有针对性的证据摘要，并将其分发给面临时间敏感和充满价值的决策的从业者。为了有效，这些中间人，我们称之为证据桥梁，应根据从业者的优先事项确定研究主题；综合证据；准备和分发易于查找和易于使用的证据摘要；发展和维护与研究人员和从业者的联系网络。基于对有关保护和环境管理中的证据中介机构的文献的回顾，以及对此类组织的匿名问卷调查，我们发现很少有中介机构符合所有这些标准。大多数保护从业者，其中包括政府和工业界的资源管理者、保护组织、农民和其他私人土地所有者，几乎没有现存的证据桥梁。我们认为，缺乏从研究到从业者的证据桥梁会导致证据自满并限制证据在保护行动中的使用。尽管如此，一些现有的组织有助于缩小证据与实践之间的差距，并可以作为建立保护证据桥梁的其他组成部分的基础。尽管证据桥梁需要研究和证据综合方面的专业知识，但它们也需要在识别和与最需要清晰简洁的证据综合的从业者社区进行交流方面的专业知识。