Figures, Tables & Maps (conbio-figures-and-tables)
Exhibits are where an expert reviewer checks whether the result is real, and in Conservation Biology
they are also rationed: the Style Guide asks for roughly one supporting element (table or figure)
per four pages of text from the Abstract through Literature Cited. So every exhibit must earn its
space. (Word counts exclude tables and figure legends, but exhibit count is constrained.)
When to trigger
- Designing the main results figure/table, a study-area map, or a key descriptive exhibit
- Deciding what belongs in the article vs. Supporting Information
- A reviewer found an exhibit unclear, mislabeled, or non-self-contained
- Trimming to the exhibit budget by moving material online
Principles
-
Self-contained. A reader should understand each exhibit from its title/caption, axis and column
labels, and note alone — without hunting through the text. State units, sample, N, and what the
estimate is.
-
Figures over dense tables for effects. Effect/forest plots, predicted-probability and
partial-dependence plots, occupancy/abundance and survival curves communicate magnitude and
uncertainty better than a wall of coefficients. Show intervals.
-
Maps done right. Study-area and result maps need a scale bar, north arrow, stated projection,
and a locator/inset. Don't let a map decorate without informing.
-
Accessible. Colorblind-safe palettes; legible in grayscale; no chartjunk, no 3D, no needless
color. Reviewers and readers must parse it quickly.
-
Article vs. Supporting Information. Keep the few exhibits that carry the argument in the article;
move balance tables, full model output, and robustness grids to Supporting Information.
-
Reproducible. Each exhibit is generated by the master script; values match the deposited
data/code package exactly (see
conbio-reporting-and-data-policy).
Sensitive-data caution (distinctive to conservation)
-
Mask or coarsen precise locations of threatened, exploited, or trafficked taxa, nests, dens, or
roosts so a map cannot aid poaching or disturbance. State in the caption that locations were masked.
Anti-patterns
- Tables that require the prose to be intelligible (not self-contained)
- Significance stars with no effect size or interval
- Cramming every robustness check into the main text (blows the exhibit budget — use SI)
- Maps with no scale bar/projection, or that expose sensitive locations
- Color-only encoding that fails in grayscale or for colorblind readers
- Exhibit numbers/values that don't match the deposited code output
Figure pass for Conservation Biology
Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the species/system threat, conservation decision, and uncertainty relevant to action; then test whether the manuscript addresses conservation-science reviewers who ask whether evidence changes biodiversity, management, or policy action.
-
Primary move: Make each figure prove one claim: object, contrast, uncertainty, and failure case must be legible without relying on caption-only interpretation.
-
Decision ledger: return
claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
-
Neighbor test: compare against Biological Conservation for applied conservation breadth, Global Change Biology for climate/ecosystem process, Ecology Letters for theory-forward ecology; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
-
Submission-ready gate: before final advice, re-open
resources/official-source-map.md for upload-week rules and name the one live-check item that could change the recommendation.
Output format
【Main exhibit】what it shows + why a figure/table/map
【Self-contained?】title + labels + note + N/units present? [Y/N]
【Accessible?】grayscale-legible + colorblind-safe? [Y/N]
【Sensitive locations masked?】[Y/N/NA]
【Article vs SI】split decided, exhibit-budget impact noted
【Reproducible?】generated by master script, matches package? [Y/N]
【Next】conbio-reporting-and-data-policy
Supplementary resources
