Abstract Relative to other subdisciplines of conservation science, conservation physiology remains somewhat nascent. Although there is a growing number of successes where physiological concepts, knowledge and tools have informed conservation decisions and management actions, there also remain a number of challenges. We argue that there is a set of misconceptions that serve as de facto barriers to realizing the full potential of conservation physiology as a mission-oriented area of scholarly inquiry and practice. However, we also suggest that those misconceptions can be easily dispelled. In this paper, we identify and dispel 10 ‘myths’ in conservation physiology: (i) conservation physiology subsumes other disciplines and has no unique goals; (ii) the toolbox is too invasive; (iii) tools are too specialized; (iv) the field relies too heavily on surrogates and captive studies; (v) physiological information cannot be scaled from the individual level to the population level; (vi) baseline (i.e. control) data are too sparse; (vii) conservation physiology is too speculative; (viii) managers do not care about physiology; (ix) conservation physiology cannot engage fundamental scientists; and (x) conservation physiology cannot solve conservation problems. Given that some of these misconceptions represent ongoing barriers, we also identify opportunities for further overcoming them. In particular, embracing co-production and engaging in effective knowledge exchange are fundamental to generating relevant and actionable knowledge. Similarly, we submit that the tension between fundamental and applied science is not inherently disruptive and ensures that there is a strong foundation for evidence-based decisions. This paper is intended to open the eyes and minds of ecologists, physiologists and end-users about what conservation physiology has to offer and how to realize those opportunities. Working collectively and collaboratively to achieve the common mission of conservation physiology will not only benefit conservation science but will also benefit biodiversity and society.
Madliger et al. (Thu,) studied this question.