Estimating Effects of Tidal Power Projects and Climate Change on Threatened and Endangered Marine Species and Their Food Web

Marine hydrokinetic power projects will operate as marine environments change in response to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. We considered how tidal power development and stressors resulting from climate change may affect Puget Sound species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) and their food web. We used risk tables to assess the singular and combined effects of tidal power development and climate change. Tidal power development and climate change posed risks to ESA‐listed species, and risk increased with incorporation of the effects of these stressors on predators and prey of ESA‐listed species. In contrast, results of a model of strikes on ESA‐listed species from turbine blades suggested that few ESA‐listed species are likely to be killed by a commercial‐scale tidal turbine array. We applied scenarios to a food web model of Puget Sound to explore the effects of tidal power and climate change on ESA‐listed species using more quantitative analytical techniques. To simulate development of tidal power, we applied results of the blade strike model. To simulate environmental changes over the next 50 years, we applied scenarios of change in primary production, plankton community structure, dissolved oxygen, ocean acidification, and freshwater flooding events. No effects of tidal power development on ESA‐listed species were detected from the food web model output, but the effects of climate change on them and other members of the food web were large. Our analyses exemplify how natural resource managers might assess environmental effects of marine technologies in ways that explicitly incorporate climate change and consider multiple ESA‐listed species in the context of their ecological community. Estimación de los Efectos de Proyectos de Energía de las Mareas y el Cambio Climático sobre Especies Marinas Amenazadas y en Peligro y su Red Alimentaria     

Climate Change,Marine Environments,and the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Climate change is expected to be a top driver of global biodiversity loss in the 21st century. It poses new challenges to conserving and managing imperiled species, particularly in marine and estuarine ecosystems. The use of climate‐related science in statutorily driven species management, such as under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), is in its early stages. This article provides an overview of ESA processes, with emphasis on the mandate to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to manage listed marine, estuarine, and anadromous species. Although the ESA is specific to the United States, its requirements are broadly relevant to conservation planning. Under the ESA, species, subspecies, and “distinct population segments” may be listed as either endangered or threatened, and taking of most listed species (harassing, harming, pursuing, wounding, killing, or capturing) is prohibited unless specifically authorized via a case‐by‐case permit process. Government agencies, in addition to avoiding take, must ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or conduct are not likely to jeopardize a listed species’ continued existence or adversely affect designated critical habitat. Decisions for which climate change is likely to be a key factor include: determining whether a species should be listed under the ESA, designating critical habitat areas, developing species recovery plans, and predicting whether effects of proposed human activities will be compatible with ESA‐listed species’ survival and recovery. Scientific analyses that underlie these critical conservation decisions include risk assessment, long‐term recovery planning, defining environmental baselines, predicting distribution, and defining appropriate temporal and spatial scales. Although specific guidance is still evolving, it is clear that the unprecedented changes in global ecosystems brought about by climate change necessitate new information and approaches to conservation of imperiled species. El Cambio Climático, los Ecosistemas Marinos y el Acta Estadunidense de Especies en Peligro     

Biodiversity Conservation and Indigenous Land Management in the Era of Self‐Determination

Abstract: Indigenous people inhabit approximately 85% of areas designated for biodiversity conservation worldwide. They also continue to struggle for recognition and preservation of cultural identities, lifestyles, and livelihoods—a struggle contingent on control and protection of traditional lands and associated natural resources (hereafter, self‐determination). Indigenous lands and the biodiversity they support are increasingly threatened because of human population growth and per capita consumption. Application of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to tribal lands in the United States provides a rich example of the articulation between biodiversity conservation and indigenous peoples' struggle for self‐determination. We found a paradoxical relationship whereby tribal governments are simultaneously and contradictorily sovereign nations; yet their communities depend on the U.S. government for protection through the federal‐trust doctrine. The unique legal status of tribal lands, their importance for conserving federally protected species, and federal environmental regulations' failure to define applicability to tribal lands creates conflict between tribal sovereignty, self‐determination, and constitutional authority. We reviewed Secretarial Order 3206, the U.S. policy on “American Indian tribal rights, federal–tribal trust responsibilities, and the ESA,” and evaluated how it influences ESA implementation on tribal lands. We found improved biodiversity conservation and tribal self‐determination requires revision of the fiduciary relationship between the federal government and the tribes to establish clear, legal definitions regarding land rights, applicability of environmental laws, and financial responsibilities. Such actions will allow provision of adequate funding and training to tribal leaders and resource managers, government agency personnel responsible for biodiversity conservation and land management, and environmental policy makers. Increased capacity, cooperation, and knowledge transfer among tribes and conservationists will improve biodiversity conservation and indigenous self‐determination.     

Factors associated with preemptive conservation under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

In recent decades, there has been an increasing emphasis on proactive efforts to conserve species being considered for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) before they are listed (i.e., preemptive conservation). These efforts, which depend on voluntary actions by public and private land managers across the species’ range, aim to conserve species while avoiding regulatory costs associated with ESA listing. We collected data for a set of social, economic, environmental, and institutional factors that we hypothesized would influence voluntary decisions to promote or inhibit preemptive conservation of species under consideration for ESA listing. We used logistic regression to estimate the association of these factors with preemptive conservation outcomes based on data for a set of species that entered the ESA listing process and were either officially listed (n = 314) or preemptively conserved (n = 73) from 1996 to 2018. Factors significantly associated with precluded listing due to preemptive conservation included high baseline conservation status, low proportion of private land across the species’ range, small total range size, exposure to specific types of threats, and species’ range extending over several states. These results highlight strategies that can help improve conservation outcomes, such as allocating resources for imperiled species earlier in the listing process, addressing specific threats, and expanding incentives and coordination mechanisms for conservation on private lands.     

Impacts of phylogenetic nomenclature on the efficacy of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Cataloging biodiversity is critical to conservation efforts because accurate taxonomy is often a precondition for protection under laws designed for species conservation, such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). Traditional nomenclatural codes governing the taxonomic process have recently come under scrutiny because taxon names are more closely linked to hierarchical ranks than to the taxa themselves. A new approach to naming biological groups, called phylogenetic nomenclature (PN), explicitly names taxa by defining their names in terms of ancestry and descent. PN has the potential to increase nomenclatural stability and decrease confusion induced by the rank‐based codes. But proponents of PN have struggled with whether species and infraspecific taxa should be governed by the same rules as other taxa or should have special rules. Some proponents advocate the wholesale abandonment of rank labels (including species); this could have consequences for the implementation of taxon‐based conservation legislation. I examined the principles of PN as embodied in the PhyloCode (an alternative to traditional rank‐based nomenclature that names biological groups based on the results of phylogenetic analyses and does not associate taxa with ranks) and assessed how this novel approach to naming taxa might affect the implementation of species‐based legislation by providing a case study of the ESA. The latest version of the PhyloCode relies on the traditional rank‐based codes to name species and infraspecific taxa; thus, little will change regarding the main targets of the ESA because they will retain rank labels. For this reason, and because knowledge of evolutionary relationships is of greater importance than nomenclatural procedures for initial protection of endangered taxa under the ESA, I conclude that PN under the PhyloCode will have little impact on implementation of the ESA. Impactos de la Nomenclatura Filogenética sobre la Eficiencia del Acta Estadunidense para las Especies en Peligro     

Geography and Recovery under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Abstract: The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) defines an endangered species as one “at risk of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The prevailing interpretation of this phrase, which focuses exclusively on the overall viability of listed species without regard to their geographic distribution, has led to development of listing and recovery criteria with fundamental conceptual, legal, and practical shortcomings. The ESA's concept of endangerment is broader than the biological concept of extinction risk in that the “esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific” values provided by species are not necessarily furthered by a species mere existence, but rather by a species presence across much of its former range. The concept of “significant portion of range” thus implies an additional geographic component to recovery that may enhance viability, but also offers independent benefits that Congress intended the act to achieve. Although the ESA differs from other major endangered‐species protection laws because it acknowledges the distinct contribution of geography to recovery, it resembles the “representation, resiliency, and redundancy” conservation‐planning framework commonly referenced in recovery plans. To address representation, listing and recovery standards should consider not only what proportion of its former range a species inhabits, but the types of habitats a species occupies and the ecological role it plays there. Recovery planning for formerly widely distributed species (e.g., the gray wolf [Canis lupus]) exemplifies how the geographic component implicit in the ESA's definition of endangerment should be considered in determining recovery goals through identification of ecologically significant types or niche variation within the extent of listed species, subspecies, or “distinct population segments.” By linking listing and recovery standards to niche and ecosystem concepts, the concept of ecologically significant type offers a scientific framework that promotes more coherent dialogue concerning the societal decisions surrounding recovery of endangered species.     

Hybridization,agency discretion,and implementation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that the “best available scientific and commercial data” be used to protect imperiled species from extinction and preserve biodiversity. However, it does not provide specific guidance on how to apply this mandate. Scientific data can be uncertain and controversial, particularly regarding species delineation and hybridization issues. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had an evolving hybrid policy to guide protection decisions for individuals of hybrid origin. Currently, this policy is in limbo because it resulted in several controversial conservation decisions in the past. Biologists from FWS must interpret and apply the best available science to their recommendations and likely use considerable discretion in making recommendations for what species to list, how to define those species, and how to recover them. We used semistructured interviews to collect data on FWS biologists’ use of discretion to make recommendations for listed species with hybridization issues. These biologists had a large amount of discretion to determine the best available science and how to interpret it but generally deferred to the scientific consensus on the taxonomic status of an organism. Respondents viewed hybridization primarily as a problem in the context of the ESA, although biologists who had experience with hybridization issues were more likely to describe it in more nuanced terms. Many interviewees expressed a desire to continue the current case‐by‐case approach for handling hybridization issues, but some wanted more guidance on procedures (i.e., a “flexible” hybrid policy). Field‐level information can provide critical insight into which policies are working (or not working) and why. The FWS biologists’ we interviewed had a high level of discretion, which greatly influenced ESA implementation, particularly in the context of hybridization.     

Expert judgment and uncertainty regarding the protection of imperiled species

Decisions concerning the appropriate listing status of species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) can be controversial even among conservationists. These decisions may determine whether a species persists in the near term and have long‐lasting social and political ramifications. Given the ESA's mandate that such decisions be based on the best available science, it is important to examine what factors contribute to experts’ judgments concerning the listing of species. We examined how a variety of factors (such as risk perception, value orientations, and norms) influenced experts’ judgments concerning the appropriate listing status of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Experts were invited to complete an online survey examining their perceptions of the threats grizzly bears face and their listing recommendation. Although experts’ assessments of the threats to this species were strongly correlated with their recommendations for listing status, this relationship did not exist when other cognitive factors were included in the model. Specifically, values related to human use of wildlife and norms (i.e., a respondent's expectation of peers’ assessments) were most influential in listing status recommendations. These results suggest that experts’ decisions about listing, like all human decisions, are subject to the use of heuristics (i.e., decision shortcuts). An understanding of how heuristics and related biases affect decisions under uncertainty can help inform decision making about threatened and endangered species and may be useful in designing effective processes for protection of imperiled species.     

The role of agri‐environment schemes in conservation and environmental management

Over half of the European landscape is under agricultural management and has been for millennia. Many species and ecosystems of conservation concern in Europe depend on agricultural management and are showing ongoing declines. Agri‐environment schemes (AES) are designed partly to address this. They are a major source of nature conservation funding within the European Union (EU) and the highest conservation expenditure in Europe. We reviewed the structure of current AES across Europe. Since a 2003 review questioned the overall effectiveness of AES for biodiversity, there has been a plethora of case studies and meta‐analyses examining their effectiveness. Most syntheses demonstrate general increases in farmland biodiversity in response to AES, with the size of the effect depending on the structure and management of the surrounding landscape. This is important in the light of successive EU enlargement and ongoing reforms of AES. We examined the change in effect size over time by merging the data sets of 3 recent meta‐analyses and found that schemes implemented after revision of the EU's agri‐environmental programs in 2007 were not more effective than schemes implemented before revision. Furthermore, schemes aimed at areas out of production (such as field margins and hedgerows) are more effective at enhancing species richness than those aimed at productive areas (such as arable crops or grasslands). Outstanding research questions include whether AES enhance ecosystem services, whether they are more effective in agriculturally marginal areas than in intensively farmed areas, whether they are more or less cost‐effective for farmland biodiversity than protected areas, and how much their effectiveness is influenced by farmer training and advice? The general lesson from the European experience is that AES can be effective for conserving wildlife on farmland, but they are expensive and need to be carefully designed and targeted.     

Taxonomic Considerations in Listing Subspecies Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Abstract:  The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) allows listing of subspecies and other groupings below the rank of species. This provides the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service with a means to target the most critical unit in need of conservation. Although roughly one-quarter of listed taxa are subspecies, these management agencies are hindered by uncertainties about taxonomic standards during listing or delisting activities. In a review of taxonomic publications and societies, we found few subspecies lists and none that stated standardized criteria for determining subspecific taxa. Lack of criteria is attributed to a centuries-old debate over species and subspecies concepts. Nevertheless, the critical need to resolve this debate for ESA listings led us to propose that minimal biological criteria to define disjunct subspecies (legally or taxonomically) should include the discreteness and significance criteria of distinct population segments (as defined under the ESA). Our subspecies criteria are in stark contrast to that proposed by supporters of the phylogenetic species concept and provide a clear distinction between species and subspecies. Efforts to eliminate or reduce ambiguity associated with subspecies-level classifications will assist with ESA listing decisions. Thus, we urge professional taxonomic societies to publish and periodically update peer-reviewed species and subspecies lists. This effort must be paralleled throughout the world for efficient taxonomic conservation to take place.     

The difference conservation makes to extinction risk of the world's ungulates

Previous studies show that conservation actions have prevented extinctions, recovered populations, and reduced declining trends in global biodiversity. However, all studies to date have substantially underestimated the difference conservation action makes because they failed to account fully for what would have happened in the absence thereof. We undertook a scenario‐based thought experiment to better quantify the effect conservation actions have had on the extinction risk of the world's 235 recognized ungulate species. We did so by comparing species’ observed conservation status in 2008 with their estimated status under counterfactual scenarios in which conservation efforts ceased in 1996. We estimated that without conservation at least 148 species would have deteriorated by one International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List category, including 6 species that now would be listed as extinct or extinct in the wild. The overall decline in the conservation status of ungulates would have been nearly 8 times worse than observed. This trend would have been greater still if not for conservation on private lands. While some species have benefited from highly targeted interventions, such as reintroduction, most benefited collaterally from conservation such as habitat protection. We found that the difference conservation action makes to the conservation status of the world's ungulate species is likely to be higher than previously estimated. Increased, and sustained, investment could help achieve further improvements.     

Genetic Identification of Spotted Owls, Barred Owls, and Their Hybrids: Legal Implications of Hybrid Identity

Abstract:  Recent population expansion of Barred Owls (  Strix varia ) into western North America has led to concern that they may compete with and further harm the Northern Spotted Owl (  S. occidentalis caurina ), which is already listed as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). Because they hybridize, there is a legal need under the ESA for forensic identification of both species and their hybrids. We used mitochondrial control-region DNA and amplified fragment-length polymorphism (AFLP) analyses to assess maternal and biparental gene flow in this hybridization process. Mitochondrial DNA sequences (524 base pairs) indicated large divergence between Barred and Spotted Owls (13.9%). Further, the species formed two distinct clades with no signs of previous introgression. Fourteen diagnostic AFLP bands also indicated extensive divergence between the species, including markers differentiating them. Principal coordinate analyses and assignment tests clearly supported this differentiation. We found that hybrids had unique genetic combinations, including AFLP markers from both parental species, and identified known hybrids as well as potential hybrids with unclear taxonomic status. Our analyses corroborated the findings of extensive field studies that most hybrids genetically sampled resulted from crosses between female Barred Owls and male Spotted Owls. These genetic markers make it possible to clearly identify these species as well as hybrids and can now be used for research, conservation, and law enforcement. Several legal avenues may facilitate future conservation of Spotted Owls and other ESA-listed species that hybridize, including the ESA similarity-of-appearance clause (section 4[e]) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act appears to be the most useful route at this time.     

Control of invasive rats on islands and priorities for future action

Invasive rats are one of the world's most successful animal groups that cause native species extinctions and ecosystem change, particularly on islands. On large islands, rat eradication is often impossible and population control, defined as the local limitation of rat abundance, is now routinely performed on many of the world's islands as an alternative management tool. However, a synthesis of the motivations, techniques, costs, and outcomes of such rat‐control projects is lacking. We reviewed the literature, searched relevant websites, and conducted a survey via a questionnaire to synthesize the available information on rat‐control projects in island natural areas worldwide to improve rat management and native species conservation. Data were collected from 136 projects conducted over the last 40 years; most were located in Australasia (46%) and the tropical Pacific (25%) in forest ecosystems (65%) and coastal strands (22%). Most of the projects targeted Rattus rattus and most (82%) were aimed at protecting birds and endangered ecosystems. Poisoning (35%) and a combination of trapping and poisoning (42%) were the most common methods. Poisoning allows for treatment of larger areas, and poison projects generally last longer than trapping projects. Second‐generation anticoagulants (mainly brodifacoum and bromadiolone) were used most often. The median annual cost for rat‐control projects was US$17,262 or US$227/ha. Median project duration was 4 years. For 58% of the projects, rat population reduction was reported, and 51% of projects showed evidence of positive effects on biodiversity. Our data were from few countries, revealing the need to expand rat‐control distribution especially in some biodiversity hotspots. Improvement in control methods is needed as is regular monitoring to assess short‐ and long‐term effectiveness of rat‐control.     

Social values and biodiversity conservation in a dynamic world

Understanding what shape values (which ultimately shape human behavior) will help improve the effectiveness of conservation solutions that depend on public support. To contribute to this understanding, we investigated the influence of societal‐level changes, such as modernization, on values in a multilevel framework. We collected survey responses (n = 4183) to questionnaires mailed to a random selection of households within each county in Washington (U.S.A.) (response rate 32%). We used multilevel modeling to determine the relationship between modernization (e.g., county‐level urbanization, wealth, and education) and wildlife value orientations (values that shape thought about wildlife) while controlling for individual‐level sociodemographics. We then explored how values influence conservation support at different levels (e.g., individual and county) and how values explain conservation support in a case study of public responses to wolf (Canis lupis) recovery. We found positive associations between county‐level examples of modernization and mutualism (a wildlife value orientation that prioritizes the perceived needs of wildlife) independent of a respondent's sociodemographics, and negative associations between modernization and domination (a wildlife value orientation that prioritizes human needs). Our results suggest that context has an additive impact on one's values; certain locations exhibited domination values, whereas others exhibited a mix of value types. This finding is important because actions that restrict human interests to promote biodiversity were negatively associated with domination and positively associated with mutualism. In the wolf case study, mutualism was strongly correlated with less social conflict over wolf recovery in many, but not all, counties (e.g., Pearson's r correlation = 0.59 in one county and a nonsignificant correlation in another). Our findings suggest that modernization operates on values within a state with implications for biodiversity, but other factors in addition to values must be investigated to fully understand what leads to proconservation behavior.     

Selection of Multiple Umbrella Species for Functional and Taxonomic Diversity to Represent Urban Biodiversity

Surrogates, such as umbrella species, are commonly used to reduce the complexity of quantifying biodiversity for conservation purposes. The presence of umbrella species is often indicative of high taxonomic diversity; however, functional diversity is now recognized as an important metric for biodiversity and thus should be considered when choosing umbrella species. We identified umbrella species associated with high taxonomic and functional biodiversity in urban areas in Switzerland. We analyzed 39,752 individuals of 574 animal species from 96 study plots and 1397 presences of 262 plant species from 58 plots. Thirty‐one biodiversity measures of 7 taxonomic groups (plants, spiders, bees, ground beetles, lady bugs, weevils and birds) were included in within‐ and across‐taxa analyses. Sixteen measures were taxonomical (species richness and species diversity), whereas 15 were functional (species traits including mobility, resource use, and reproduction). We used indicator value analysis to identify umbrella species associated with single or multiple biodiversity measures. Many umbrella species were indicators of high biodiversity within their own taxonomic group (from 33.3% in weevils to 93.8% in birds), to a lesser extent they were indicators across taxa. Principal component analysis revealed that umbrella species for multiple measures of biodiversity represented different aspects of biodiversity, especially with respect to measures of taxonomic and functional diversity. Thus, even umbrella species for multiple measures of biodiversity were complementary in the biodiversity aspects they represented. Thus, the choice of umbrella species based solely on taxonomic diversity is questionable and may not represent biodiversity comprehensively. Our results suggest that, depending on conservation priorities, managers should choose multiple and complementary umbrella species to assess the state of biodiversity. Selección de Múltiples Especies Paraguas para la Diversidad Funcional y Taxonómica para Representar la Biodiversidad Urbana     

Cost shifting and other perverse incentives in biodiversity offsetting in India

Biodiversity offsetting aims to compensate for development‐induced biodiversity loss through commensurate conservation gains and is gaining traction among governments and businesses. However, cost shifting (i.e., diversion of offset funds to other conservation programs) and other perverse incentives can undermine the effectiveness of biodiversity offsetting. Additionality—the requirement that biodiversity offsets result in conservation outcomes that would not have been achieved otherwise—is fundamental to biodiversity offsetting. Cost shifting and violation of additionality can go hand in hand. India's national offsetting program is a case in point. Recent legislation allows the diversion of offset funds to meet the country's preexisting commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). With such diversions, no additional conservation takes place and development impacts remain uncompensated. Temporary additionality cannot be conceded in light of paucity of funds for preexisting commitments unless there is open acknowledgement that fulfillment of such commitments is contingent on offset funds. Two other examples of perverse incentives related to offsetting in India are the touting of inherently neutral offsetting outcomes as conservation gains, a tactic that breeds false complacency and results in reduced incentive for additional conservation efforts, and the clearing of native vegetation for commercial plantations in the name of compensatory afforestation, a practice that leads to biodiversity decline. The risks accompanying cost shifting and other perverse incentives, if not preempted and addressed, will result in net loss of forest cover in India. We recommend accurate baselines, transparent accounting, and open reporting of offset outcomes to ensure biodiversity offsetting achieves adequate and additional compensation for impacts of development.     

The species awareness index as a conservation culturomics metric for public biodiversity awareness

Although threats to global biodiversity are well known, slowing current rates of biodiversity loss remains a challenge. The Aichi targets set out 20 goals on which the international community should act to alleviate biodiversity decline, 1 of which (Target 1) aims to raise public awareness of the importance of biodiversity. Although conventional indicators for Target 1 are of low spatial and temporal coverage, conservation culturomics metrics show how biodiversity awareness can be quantified at the global scale. Following methods used for the Living Planet Index, we devised a species awareness index (SAI) to measure change in species awareness based on Wikipedia views. We calculated this index at the page level for 41,197 species listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) across 10 Wikipedia languages and >2 billion views from 1 July 2015 to 30 March 2020. Bootstrapped indices for the page-level SAI showed that overall awareness of biodiversity increased marginally over time, although there were differences among taxonomic classes and languages. Among taxonomic classes, overall awareness increased fastest for reptiles and slowest for amphibians. Among languages, overall species awareness increased fastest for Japanese and slowest for Chinese and German users. Although awareness of species as a whole increased and was significantly higher for traded species, from January 2016 through January 2020, change in awareness appeared not to be strongly related to whether the species is traded or is a pollinator. As a data source for public biodiversity awareness, the SAI could be integrated into the Conservation International Biodiversity Engagement Indicator.     

Resolving Critical Habitat Designation Failures: Reconciling Law, Policy, and Biology

Abstract:  The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires designation of critical habitat concurrent with species listing. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service often has not designated critical habitat, based on the legal exceptions in the ESA of "not prudent" or "not determinable." This lack of habitat designation has led to numerous lawsuits and court orders to designate critical habitat for listed species. Court-mediated implementation of critical habitat is costly and delays listing for at-risk species. Legal, policy, judicial, and biological issues all contribute to the current inability of the law as enforced to lead to timely and cost-effective critical habitat designation. Although increased appropriations and delaying critical habitat designation until recovery planning have been proposed as solutions, we find that it will be essential to change the critical-habitat guidelines to a decision-analysis framework to make critical habitat scientifically and legally workable as a conservation tool.     

Boosting freshwater fish conservation with high-resolution distribution mapping across a large territory

The lack of high-resolution distribution maps for freshwater species across large extents fundamentally challenges biodiversity conservation worldwide. We devised a simple framework to delineate the distributions of freshwater fishes in a high-resolution drainage map based on stacked species distribution models and expert information. We applied this framework to the entire Chinese freshwater fish fauna (>1600 species) to examine high-resolution biodiversity patterns and reveal potential conflicts between freshwater biodiversity and anthropogenic disturbances. The correlations between spatial patterns of biodiversity facets (species richness, endemicity, and phylogenetic diversity) were all significant (r = 0.43–0.98, p < 0.001). Areas with high values of different biodiversity facets overlapped with anthropogenic disturbances. Existing protected areas (PAs), covering 22% of China's territory, protected 25–29% of fish habitats, 16–23% of species, and 30–31% of priority conservation areas. Moreover, 6–21% of the species were completely unprotected. These results suggest the need for extending the network of PAs to ensure the conservation of China's freshwater fishes and the goods and services they provide. Specifically, middle to low reaches of large rivers and their associated lakes from northeast to southwest China hosted the most diverse species assemblages and thus should be the target of future expansions of the network of PAs. More generally, our framework, which can be used to draw high-resolution freshwater biodiversity maps combining species occurrence data and expert knowledge on species distribution, provides an efficient way to design PAs regardless of the ecosystem, taxonomic group, or region considered.     

Contribution of the Natura 2000 Network to Biodiversity Conservation in Italy

Abstract:  The Natura 2000 network is the most important conservation effort being implemented in Europe. Nevertheless, no comprehensive and systematic region—or nationwide evaluation of the effectiveness of the network has been conducted. We used habitat suitability models and extent of occurrence of 468 species of vertebrates to evaluate the contribution of the Natura 2000 network to biodiversity conservation in Italy. We also estimated the population size of 101 species inside the Natura 2000 network to assess its capacity to maintain or improve the population status of listed species. In general the Italian Natura 2000 did not seem to integrate existing protected areas well. The Natura 2000 network increased from 11% to 20% the area devoted to conservation in Italy and the coverage provided to areas with high biodiversity. Nevertheless, some areas with high numbers of species were devoid of conservation areas, and more than 50% of the highly irreplaceable areas were not considered in the system. Moreover, the Natura 2000 network cannot maintain 44–80% (depending on the taxa considered) of the species in a "favorable conservation status" under World Conservation Union Red List criteria. The Natura 2000 network is probably stronger than the results of our analyses suggest. The system is based on a site-specific expert-based strategy and is driven by direct and detailed knowledge of local diversity. Nevertheless, if Natura 2000 is taken to represent the final point of all the EU conservation policies, it will inevitably fail. Its role in conservation could be enhanced by integrating the Natura 2000 system into a more general strategy that considers natural processes and the ecological and evolutionary mechanisms underlying these processes.