Four decades of wildlife conservation research: A bibliometric mapping and thematic evolution study (1980–2025)

Öz

Wildlife conservation has emerged as a central scientific and policy priority in response to accelerating biodiversity loss and global environmental change. Although research in this field has expanded rapidly, its structural organization and thematic evolution remain insufficiently synthesized. This study provides a comprehensive bibliometric and thematic analysis of wildlife conservation research indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) between 1980 and 2025. Following systematic screening and refinement procedures, a total of 8,455 publications were analyzed. To examine the intellectual structure and temporal dynamics of the field, descriptive performance indicators, citation metrics, country-level collaboration networks, keyword co-occurrence analysis, and thematic evolution mapping were employed. The results reveal a strong and sustained increase in publication output (R² = 0.9726), indicating continuous growth and consolidation of the research domain. Scientific production is geographically concentrated, with the United States acting as the dominant global hub of collaboration, while European countries form a densely interconnected regional cluster. Keyword analysis identifies conservation and biodiversity as the core conceptual pillars of the field, complemented by applied themes such as wildlife management and endangered species, policy-oriented topics including human–wildlife conflict, and threat-related research areas such as wildlife trade and poaching. An emerging emphasis on sustainability further points to a gradual shift toward more integrative and policy-relevant research perspectives. Thematic evolution analysis demonstrates a clear transition from wildlife-centered research in the 1980s to management- and habitat-oriented approaches after the early 1990s, followed by the dominance of biodiversity as an integrative framework in the most recent period. Overall, the findings highlight increasing conceptual diversification, methodological advancement, and global interconnectedness in wildlife conservation research, reflecting its maturation into an interdisciplinary, policy-relevant, and socio-ecologically grounded scientific domain.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bibliometric analysis
• Biblioshiny
• Biodiversity
• Wildlife conservation
• Wildlife management

Yaban hayatı koruma araştırmaları (1980–2025): Bir bibliyometrik haritalama ve tematik evrim çalışması

Öz

Hızlanan biyolojik çeşitlilik kaybı ve küresel çevresel değişime bir yanıt olarak yaban hayatının korunması, bilimsel ve politik açıdan merkezi bir öncelik hâline gelmiştir. Bu alandaki araştırmalar hızla genişlemiş olmakla birlikte, alanın yapısal örgütlenmesi ve tematik evrimi henüz yeterince sentezlenmemiştir. Bu çalışma, 1980–2025 yılları arasında Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) veri tabanında dizinlenen yaban hayatı koruma araştırmalarının kapsamlı bir bibliyometrik ve tematik analizini sunmaktadır. Sistematik tarama ve eleme işlemlerinin ardından toplam 8.455 yayın analiz edilmiştir. Alanın entelektüel yapısını ve zamansal dinamiklerini incelemek amacıyla tanımlayıcı performans göstergeleri, atıf metrikleri, ülke düzeyinde iş birliği ağları, anahtar kelime birlikte görülme analizi ve tematik evrim haritalaması kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, yayın üretiminde güçlü ve istikrarlı bir artış (R² = 0,9726) ortaya koymakta; bu durum, araştırma alanının kesintisiz biçimde büyüdüğüne ve pekiştiğine işaret etmektedir. Bilimsel üretim coğrafi olarak yoğunlaşmış durumdadır; Amerika Birleşik Devletleri küresel iş birliğinin baskın merkezi olarak öne çıkarken, Avrupa ülkeleri yoğun biçimde birbirine bağlı bölgesel bir küme oluşturmaktadır. Anahtar kelime analizi, koruma ve biyolojik çeşitlilik kavramlarını alanın temel kavramsal eksenleri olarak belirlemekte; bu eksenler yaban hayatı yönetimi ve nesli tehlike altındaki türler gibi uygulamalı temalar, insan–yaban hayatı çatışması gibi politika odaklı konular ve yaban hayatı ticareti ile kaçak avcılık gibi tehditle ilişkili araştırma alanlarıyla tamamlanmaktadır. Sürdürülebilirlik etrafında beliren bir vurgu ise daha bütünleştirici ve politikayla ilişkili araştırma yaklaşımlarına doğru kademeli bir geçişe işaret etmektedir. Tematik evrim analizi, alanın belirgin bir dönüşüm geçirdiğini göstermektedir: 1980'lerde yaban hayatı merkezli olan araştırmalar, 1990'ların başından itibaren yönetim ve habitat odaklı yaklaşımlara yönelmiş; en güncel dönemde ise biyolojik çeşitlilik, bütünleştirici bir çerçeve olarak öne çıkmıştır. Genel olarak bulgular, yaban hayatı koruma araştırmalarında artan kavramsal çeşitlenmeyi, metodolojik ilerlemeyi ve küresel ölçekte karşılıklı bağlılığı vurgulamakta; bu durum, alanın disiplinler arası, politikayla ilişkili ve sosyo-ekolojik temellere dayanan olgun bir bilimsel disipline doğru evrildiğini yansıtmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bibliyometrik analiz
• Biblioshiny
• Biyolojik çeşitlilik
• Yaban hayatı koruma
• Yaban hayatı yönetimi

Kaynakça

1. Adams, J. (2012). Collaborations: The rise of research networks. Nature, 490(7420), 335–336. https://doi.org/10.1038/490335a
2. Addis Ababa (2004). Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity (Guidelines) Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/addis-gdl-en.pdf
3. Amano, T., & Sutherland, W.J. (2013). Four barriers to the global understanding of biodiversity conservation: wealth, language, geographical location and security. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 280(1756), 20122649. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2649
4. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
5. Beram, A. (2024). Bibliometric analysis of academic studies on particleboard. Düzce University Faculty of Forestry Journal of Forestry, 20(1), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.58816/duzceod.1436461
6. Berk, Ş., Özdemir, S., & Pektaş, A.N. (2024). Visualization of scientific production in Caenorhabditis elegans: a bibliometric analysis (1980–2023). Genomics and Informatics, 22(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44342-024-00002-7
7. Bodin, Ö., & Crona, B.I. (2009). The role of social networks in natural resource governance. Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 366–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.002
8. Callon, M., Courtial, J.P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research. Scientometrics, 22(1), 155–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019280

9. CBD, U. (2022). Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. In 15th meeting of the CoP to the Convention on Biological Diversity (Part Two) Decision, 15(4), (7-19 December, Montreal, Canada, p.15).
10. Edelblutte, É., Krithivasan, R., & Hayek, M.N. (2023). Animal agency in wildlife conservation and management. Conservation Biology, 37(1), e13853. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13853
11. Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J.A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics, 105,1809–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z
12. Ertuğrul, E., Akdemir, D., & Özdemir, S. (2025). Predicting spatial patterns of Cuculus canorus under climate change in Türkiye. Turkish Journal of Forestry, 26(4), 588-594. https://doi.org/10.18182/tjf.1793959
13. Evcin, Ö. (2024). Unexpected expansion: Climate change-induced movement of the Cream-colored Courser (Cursorius cursor) into Central Anatolia. Turkish Journal of Forestry, 25(3), 258-266. https://doi.org/10.18182/tjf.1533024
14. Gadgil, M. (1993). Biodiversity and India's degraded lands. Ambio, 22(2/3), 167-172. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4314063
15. Gmür, M. (2003). Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: A methodological evaluation. Scientometrics, 57(1), 27-57. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023619503005
16. Goddard, M.A., Dougill, A.J., & Benton, T.G. (2010). Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 25(2), 90-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
17. Hoekstra, J.M., Boucher, T.M., Ricketts, T.H., & Roberts, C. (2005). Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecology Letters, 8(1), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00686.x
18. Hughes, A.C., & Grumbine, R.E. (2023). The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: what it does and does not do, and how to improve it. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11, 1281536. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1281536
19. İlemin, Y., Özdemir, S., & Ürker, O. (2026). Effects of post-fire silvicultural practices on medium and large-sized mammal communities in Mediterranean forests. Fire, 9(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire9010037
20. Johnson, C.N., Balmford, A., Brook, B.W., Buettel, J.C., Galetti, M., Guangchun, L., & Wilmshurst, J.M. (2017). Biodiversity losses and conservation responses in the Anthropocene. Science, 356(6335), 270–275. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9317
21. Kalleci, B., & Evcin, Ö. (2025). Using circuit theory to identify important ecological corridors for large mammals between wildlife refuges. Diversity, 17(8), 542. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17080542
22. Kessler, M.M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14(1), 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090140103
23. Kleijn, D., & Sutherland, W. J. (2003). How effective are European agri‐environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity?. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40(6), 947-969. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2003.00868.x
24. Kleijn, D., Baquero, R.A., Clough, Y., Díaz, M., De Esteban, J., Fernández, F., Gabriel, D., Herzog, F., Holzschuh, A., Jöhl, R., Knop, E., Kruess, A., Marshall, E.J.P., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Tscharntke, T., Verhulst, J., West, T.M., & Yela, J. L. (2006). Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri‐environment schemes in five European countries. Ecology Letters, 9(3), 243-254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00869.x
25. Kowarik, I. (2011). Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environmental Pollution, 159(8-9), 1974-1983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.02.022
26. Kuussaari, M., Bommarco, R., Heikkinen, R.K., Helm, A., Krauss, J., Lindborg, R., Öckinger, E., Pärtel, M., Pino, J., Rodà, F., Stefanescu, C., Teder, T., Zobel, M., & Steffan-Dewenter, I.(2009). Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(10), 564-571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.04.011
27. Langridge, J., Sordello, R., & Reyjol, Y. (2021). Existing evidence on the outcomes of wildlife translocations in protected areas: a systematic map. Environmental Evidence, 10(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-021-00236-w
28. Mace, G.M., Barrett, M., Burgess, N.D., Cornell, S.E., Freeman, R., Grooten, M., & Purvis, A. (2018). Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nature Sustainability, 1(9),448–451. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0130-0 Mcdonald, R.I., Kareiva, P., & Forman, R.T. (2008). The implications of current and future urbanization for global protected areas and biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation, 141(6), 1695-1703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.04.025
29. Mejia, C., Wu, M., Zhang, Y., & Kajikawa, Y. (2021). Exploring topics in bibliometric research through citation networks and semantic analysis. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 6,742311. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2021.742311
30. Michán, L., Castañeda Sortibrán, A., Rodríguez-Arnaiz, R., & Ayala, F.J. (2010). Global Drosophila Research: a bibliometric analysis. Drosophila Information Service, 93,232–43.
31. Mittermeier, R.A., Myers, N., Thomsen, J.B., Da Fonseca, G.A., & Olivieri, S. (1998). Biodiversity hotspots and major tropical wilderness areas: approaches to setting conservation priorities. Conservation Biology, 12(3), 516-520. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.012003516.x
32. Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D.R., Chan, K.M.A., Daily, G.C., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Lonsdorf, E., Naidoo, R., Ricketts, T.H., & Shaw, M. (2009). Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1890/080023
33. Nyhus, P.J. (2016). Human–wildlife conflict and coexistence. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41(1), 143-171. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085634
34. Nyumba, T.O., Wilson, K., Derrick, C.J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12860
35. Oğurlu, İ. (2008). About Wildlife Resources Management. Turkish Journal of Forestry, 9(2), 35-88.
36. Oldekop, J.A., Holmes, G., Harris, W.E., & Evans, K.L. (2016). A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conservation Biology, 30(1), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12568
37. Özdemir, S. (2024). A brief history of species distribution modeling: bibliometric study on the Web of Science. Düzce University Faculty of Forestry Journal of Forestry, 20(2), 334–351. https://doi.org/10.58816/duzceod.1523682
38. R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.r-project.org
39. Redford, K.H., Adams, W., & Mace, G.M. (2011). Conservation and the Anthropocene. Conservation Biology, 27(1), 1–3.
40. Ritchie, E.G., & Johnson, C.N. (2009). Predator interactions, mesopredator release and biodiversity conservation. Ecology Letters, 12(9), 982-998. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01347.x
41. Rodríguez-Estival, J., Acevedo, P., Ferreras, P., Gortázar, C., Mateo, R., Vicente, J., Arroyo, B., & 171 Researchers on Hunting and Wildlife Management. (2025). The challenge of science in the face of polarization around recreational hunting and wildlife management. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 71, 96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-025-01983-8
42. Sandifer, P.A., Sutton-Grier, A.E., & Ward, B.P. (2015). Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosystem Services, 12, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.007
43. Schelhas, J., & Lassoie, J.P. (2001). Learning conservation and sustainable development: an interdisciplinary approach. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 30(1), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.2134/jnrlse.2001.0111
44. Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406 Socolar, J.B., Gilroy, J.J., Kunin, W.E., & Edwards, D.P. (2016). How should beta-diversity inform biodiversity conservation? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 31(1), 67-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.11.005
45. Soulé, M.E. (1985). What is conservation biology? BioScience, 35(11), 727–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310054
46. Stephens, T. (2023). The Kunming–Montreal global biodiversity framework. International Legal Materials, 62(5), 868-887. https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2023.16
47. Strayer, D.L., & Dudgeon, D. (2010). Freshwater biodiversity conservation: recent progress and future challenges. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 29(1), 344–358. https://doi.org/10.1899/08-171.1
48. Süel, H., Ünal, Y., Özdemir, S., & Koca, A. (2021). Hunting tourism map of Wild goat: Antalya district. Bilge International Journal of Science and Technology Research, 3(1), 77-86. https://doi.org/10.30516/bilgesci.536101
49. Thomsen, P.F., Kielgast, J., Iversen, L.L., Wiuf, C., Rasmussen, M., Gilbert, M.T.P., Orlando, L., & Willerslev, E. (2012). Monitoring endangered freshwater biodiversity using environmental DNA. Molecular Ecology, 21(11), 2565-2573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05418.x
50. Thomsen, P.F., & Willerslev, E. (2015). Environmental DNA – An emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity. Biological Conservation, 183, 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.019
51. Tscharntke, T., Clough, Y., Wanger, T.C., Jackson, L., Motzke, I., Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J., & Whitbread, A. (2012). Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biological Conservation, 151(1),53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.068 Turner, W., Spector, S., Gardiner, N., Fladeland, M., Sterling, E., & Steininger, M. (2003). Remote sensing for biodiversity science and conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(6), 306-314. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00070-3
52. Uyar, Ç. (2025). Evaluation of the European scientific authority structure in the control of wildlife trade under CITES. Anadolu Orman Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11(2), 302-312. https://doi.org/10.53516/ajfr.1803851
53. Uyar, Ç., & Elvan, O. D. (2024). Legal analysis of the CITES convention in terms of Turkish administrative and judicial processes. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 24(4), 515-538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-024-09650-0
54. Uyar, Ç., Perkumienė, D., Škėma, M., & Aleinikovas, M. (2024). An International Perspective on the Status of Wildlife in Türkiye’s Sustainable Forest Management Processes. Forests, 15(12), 2195. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15122195
55. Uyar, Ç., Özdemir, S., Perkumienė, D., Aleinikovas, M., Šilinskas, B., & Škėma, M. (2025). Spatiotemporal patterns of avian species richness across climatic regions. Diversity, 17(8), 557. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17080557
56. WOSCC (2025). Web of Science Core Collection, Advanced Search. Clarivate, Philadelphia, PA, USA. https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/basic-search
57. Zenbilci, M., Özdemir, S., Çıvğa, A., Ünal, Y., & Oğurlu, İ. (2024). Habitat suitability modeling of wild goat (Capra aegagrus Erxleben, 1777) in different periods. Šumarski list, 148(5-6), 273-284. https://doi.org/10.31298/sl.148.5-6.5