Alec Christie

A selection of 25 papers. * denotes lead, senior, or corresponding author. Full list on Google Scholar.

1. 25Christie, A.P. et al. Temporal and spatial trends in the study designs used to understand what works in conservation. J Appl Ecol, Accepted (2026).
2. 24Taylor, N.T. et al. On the evidence for evidence-based conservation. Ecol Solutions Evidence 7, e70255 (2026).
3. 23Christie, A.P. et al. Evidence-based practice is spreading but still limited in conservation and environmental management. Ecol Solutions Evidence 7, e70235 (2026).
4. 22González-Suárez, M. et al. Conservation evidence is biased but can support decision-making for prevalent and severe threats in tetrapods. J Appl Ecol 63, e70337 (2026).
5. 21Webb, J.A. et al. A Standardized Definition of Rapid Evidence Assessment for Environmental Applications. Conserv Lett 19, e70005 (2026).
6. 20Jaffer, S. et al. AI-assisted Living Evidence Databases for Conservation Science. Cambridge Open Engage (2025).
7. 19Anjan, A. et al. The spatial distribution of tests of conservation interventions does not align with global conservation needs. Biol Conserv 309, 111313 (2025).
8. 18Madhavapeddy, A. et al. Steps towards an Ecology for the Internet. In Proceedings of the sixth decennial Aarhus conference (ACM, 2025).
9. 17Reynolds, S.A. et al. Will AI speed up literature reviews or derail them entirely? Nature 643, 329–331 (2025).
10. 16Christie, A.P. et al. The impact and return-on-investment of evidence-based practice in conservation and environmental management. PLOS ONE 20, e0326521 (2025).
11. 15Iyer, R. et al. Careful design of Large Language Model pipelines enables expert-level retrieval of evidence-based information. PLOS ONE 20, e0323563 (2025).
12. 14Speight, O. et al. Exploring gaps, biases, and research priorities in the evidence for reptile conservation actions. Conserv Biol 39, e70073 (2025).
13. 13Hordern, E. et al. Prioritizing future evidence needs for marine and freshwater mammal conservation action. Anim Conserv 28, 542–552 (2025).
14. 12Martin, P.A. et al. Flexible synthesis can deliver more tailored and timely evidence for research and policy. PNAS 120, e2221911120 (2023).
15. 11Christie, A.P. et al. Assessing diverse evidence to improve conservation decision-making. Conserv Sci Pract 5, e13024 (2023).
16. 10Smith, R.K. et al. Co-designing a toolkit for evidence-based decision making in conservation. Ecol Solutions Evidence 4, e12269 (2023).
17. 9Miller, J. et al. Parachute conservation: Investigating trends in international research. Conserv Lett 16, e12947 (2023).
18. 8Christie, A.P. et al. A practical conservation tool to combine diverse types of evidence for transparent evidence-based decision-making. Conserv Sci Pract 4, e579 (2022).
19. 7Christie, A.P. et al. Reducing publication delay to improve the efficiency and impact of conservation science. PeerJ 9, e12245 (2021).
20. 6Amano, T. et al. Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity. PLOS Biol 19, e3001296 (2021).
21. 5Shackelford, G.E. et al. Dynamic meta-analysis: a method of using global evidence for local decision making. BMC Biol 19, 33 (2021).
22. 4Christie, A.P. et al. The challenge of biased evidence in conservation. Conserv Biol 35, 249–262 (2021).
23. 3Christie, A.P. et al. Quantifying and addressing the prevalence and bias of study designs in the environmental and social sciences. Nat Commun 11, 6377 (2020).
24. 2Christie, A.P. et al. Poor availability of context-specific evidence hampers decision-making in conservation. Biol Conserv 248, 108666 (2020).
25. 1Christie, A.P. et al. Simple study designs in ecology produce inaccurate estimates of biodiversity responses. J Appl Ecol 56, 2742–2754 (2019).

Total funding as PI: £1,068,000 · as Co-I: £155,000.