Table S1: Classification scheme for research articles included in this study Ecosystem Multiple Freshwater 1 Marine Terrestrial N/A (i.e, study is not place based) Taxa 2 Birds Fishes Invertebrate Mammals Plants (includes lichen, fungi, algae) Herpetofauna Multiple N/A (i.e., land cover types, model organisms) Latitude Both Temperate/polar Tropical N/A (i.e, study is not place based) Threats Climate change Disease Harvest Geological events Habitat change, loss, or disturbance Invasive species Pollution Small population size Multiple None identified Topics 3 Biodiversity (includes richness and species interactions) Ecosystem processes (includes ecosystem services and fire) Methods (includes monitoring or evaluation) Socioeconomics Planning (includes systematic land/sea conservation planning, restoration, connectivity) Vulnerable species First Author affiliation US Foreign Joint
Funding Sources Foreign (includes foreign foundations, NGOs, governments, universities, and global governing bodies such as the UN) Private (industries, individual donors) US Federal government -non-nsf US Federal government NSF US NGO US foundations (includes private and public charities whose primary focus is grant-making) US State/local governments US University 1 A small number of articles (n = 4) focusing on anadromous fishes were classified as freshwater 2 Taxonomic groupings taken from IUCN's Global species assessment (http://data.iucn.org/dbtwwpd/html/red%20list%202004/completed/cover.html) 3 Up to 2 topics were selected.
Table S2: Cross classification of lead author affiliations and the frequency of funding by different funding entities Funding entity Author affiliation US Fed. government NSF US NGO US foundation US university US state and local government Foreign Other Total funding acknowledgements Total articles authored US Fed. 59% 8% 11% 5% 4% 3% 3% 7% 92 (6%) 39 (8%) government US NGO 18% 11% 24% 21% 4% 5% 12% 5% 150 (10%) 42 (9%) US foundation 6% 6% 25% 6% 6% 0% 44% 6% 16 (1%) 2 (0.4%) US university 21% 16% 16% 11% 16% 7% 8% 4% 1187 (77%) 369 (77%) US state/local 20% 2% 7% 2% 9% 9% 30% 20% 44 (3%) 9 (2%) government Foreign 16% 6% 6% 16% 6% 10% 39% 0% 31 (2%) 11 (2%) Private 20% 25% 30% 10% 5% 0% 5% 5% 20 (1%) 10 (2%)
Supplement 2: Web-based survey distributed to the North American Section of the Society for Conservation Biology 1. Which of the following best describes the type of institution where you work? A) College or university B) Federal government C) State, local, or other non-federal government D) Non-profit organization E) Private industry 2. Which of the following best describes your position? A) Permanent employee or tenure-track faculty B) Temporary employee or grant-funded position (e.g., post-doc or research associate) C) Independent contractor D) Graduate Student E) Undergraduate Student 3. Which of the following best describes the location of the institution where you work? A) Canada B) United States C) Mexico D) Outside of North America 4. Which of the following best describes your primary research location (where your research is based, not necessarily where you live)? A) Canada B) United States C) Mexico D) Outside of North America 5. Which of the following environments do you study (please select all that apply)? A) Terrestrial B) Freshwater (lakes, rivers, streams) C) Marine or estuarine (including intertidal) D) Atmosphere E) Temperate F) Tropical G) Polar 6. For how many years have you been applying for research funding for conservation science? [Drop down menu with values from 1 to 40 and never applied for research funding at head of list] 7. Over the time that you have been applying for research funding, roughly what percent of your total funding has come from each of the following sources? University
US state or local government US federal government Foreign (i.e., non-us) government or international governmental body (e.g., United Nations, GEF, World Bank) Private industry Non-governmental organization or private foundation 8. Over the time that you have been applying for research funding, roughly what proportion of your research proposals have been funded? 9. Prior to the current economic crisis (mid-2008), how had the amount of funding for conservation research changed over the time you have been applying for funding?
C) No overall trend 10. Have these changes in the amount of research funding for conservation science affected the type of research that you do? A) Substantially B) Moderately C) Not at all 11. For each of the following categories of sources, how has the availability of funds for conservation research changed over the entire period that you have been applying for funding (please answer based on your own experience rather than your perception of general trends)? University US state or local government US federal government Foreign (i.e., non-us) government or international governmental body (e.g., United Nations, GEF, World Bank) Private industry Non-governmental organization or private foundation
12. Have changes in the sources of funding for conservation research affected the type of research that you do? D) Substantially E) Moderately F) Not at all 13. What effect do you expect the recent economic crisis will have on the amount of funding for conservation research during the next 5 years? A) Increase the amount of funding B) Decrease the amount of funding C) No effect on the amount of funding 14. What effect do you expect the Obama administration will have on the amount of funding for conservation research during the next 5 years? A) Increase the amount of funding B) Decrease the amount of funding C) No effect on the amount of funding 15. Overall, how do you expect the amount of funding for conservation research to change during the next 5 years? A) Increase B) Decrease C) Remain the same 16. Are you a member of the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB)? A) Yes B) No
Supplement 3: Estimating federal spending on conservation We obtained basic and applied research and development obligations by federal agencies overall and disbursed to academia (available online at the National Science Foundation s Integrated Science and Engineering Resources Data System at webcaspar.nsf.gov). We considered spending in environmental and agricultural biology, which captures most conservation-relevant spending, but also includes unrelated spending. Within these disciplines we tracked spending for 12 federal agencies. Environmental biology is defined as: ecosystem sciences; evolutionary biology; limnology; physiological ecology; population biology; population and biotic community ecology; systematics; other environmental biology. Agricultural biology is defined as: agronomy, animal sciences, food science and technology, fish and wildlife, forestry, horticulture, plant sciences, soils and soil science, phytopathology, phytoproduction, general agriculture, other agriculture. Federal agencies included in analysis: Department of Agriculture: -Cooperative State Research Service Education and Extension Service -Forest Service; Department of Commerce: -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Department of the Interior -Bureau of Land Management -Geological Survey -National Biological Service -National Park Service -Fish and Wildlife Service US Agency for International Development Environmental Protection Agency National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Science Foundation Smithsonian Institution
Supplement 4 We explored whether the proportion of spending in the environment and animals category has varied systematically through time. To do so, we recorded grants to academic and research institutions made on topics relating to the environment and wild animals by members of the Consultative Group on Biological Diversity and by the top 20 environmental grantmakers (The Foundation Center 2000). We selected the top grantmakers from 1998 because this year fell near the midpoint of the funding time interval examined in this study (1981 2003). We then compared this to overall grants to environment and animals from the same organizations. We used only data from foundations providing information online for 3 years from 1981 through 2003 (corresponding to articles published from 1987 to 2009 after accounting for a 6-year publication delay). Specifically, we recorded data from the following foundations: Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (7 yrs) The Ford Foundation (4 yrs) William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (23 yrs) The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (22 yrs) Charles Stewart Mott Foundation (3 yrs) Curtis & Edith Munson Foundation (5 yrs) Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation (3 yrs) Pew Charitable Trusts (3 yrs) Howard Heinz and Vira I. Heinz Endowments (3 yrs) Henry P. Kendall Foundation (4 yrs) Rockefeller Brothers Fund (5 yrs) Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund (4 yrs) The Joyce Foundation (6 yrs) The George Gund Foundation (6 yrs) We adjusted all spending data to 2008 dollars using inflation conversion factors provided by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2009). Literature cited The Foundation Center (2000). Top 50 U.S. Foundations Awarding Grants for Environment, circa 1998. Foundation Center Statistical Services, online at: http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/pdf/04_fund_sub/1998/50_found_sub/sub_c_8.pdf. US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009). Consumer Price Index inflation calculator. Online: http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm [Accessed October 23, 2009].