• Email Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Reddit Whatsapp X Your Editorial rightly highlights the need for better evidence in biodiversity conservation (seeNature650, 7-8; 2026). • But evidence does not guarantee implementation. • Access options Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription 27,99 €/ 30 days cancel any time Subscribe to this journal Receive 51 print issues and online access 185,98 € per year only 3,65 € per issue Rent or buy this article Prices vary by article type from$1.95 to$39.95 Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout Nature650, 1070 (2026) doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00593-x Competing Interests The authors declare no competing interests. • Related Articles Scientists are building giant ’evidence banks’ to create policies that actually work Scientists are building giant ’evidence banks’ to create policies that actually work How to get science back into policymaking How to get science back into policymaking The global plastics treaty can be saved - here’s how to break the deadlock The global plastics treaty can be saved - here’s how to break the deadlock Subjects Biodiversity Sustainability Policy Latest on: Biodiversity Sustainability Policy Oxygen metabolism in descendants of the archaeal-eukaryotic ancestorArticle18 FEB 26 Oxygen metabolism in descendants of the archaeal-eukaryotic ancestor Article18 FEB 26 Biodiversity conservation has an evidence problem - it’s time to fix itEditorial04 FEB 26 Biodiversity conservation has an evidence problem - it’s time to fix it Editorial04 FEB 26 Pesticide residues alter taxonomic and functional biodiversity in soilsArticle28 JAN 26 Pesticide residues alter taxonomic and functional biodiversity in soils Article28 JAN 26 Account for AI in the environmental footprint of scientific publishingCorrespondence24 FEB 26 Account for AI in the environmental footprint of scientific publishing Correspondence24 FEB 26 Support p

Article Summaries:

  • Summary

A recent correspondence in Nature argues that scientific evidence alone cannot secure biodiversity conservation. Using the invasive golden apple snail as a case study, the authors highlight a critical implementation gap: despite extensive research on the species’ ecological impact, effective control measures remain largely unexecuted. They contend that policy, enforcement, and stakeholder engagement are essential complements to research. The piece calls for integrated strategies that translate evidence into actionable management, stressing that without such implementation, even robust data will fail to curb biodiversity loss.

    • CORRESPONDENCE Evidence alone won’t save biodiversity: the golden apple snail reveals an implementation gap Access options Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription 27,99 € / 30 days cancel any time Subscribe to this journal Receive 51 print issues and online access 185,98 € per year only 3,65 € per issue Rent or buy this article Prices vary by article type from$1.95 to$39.95 Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout Nature 650, 1070 (2026) doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00593-x Competi

Sources: