Conservation impacts of commercial cultivation of endangered and overharvested plants

Overharvesting is one of the greatest threats to species survival. Farming overharvested species is a conservation strategy that can meet growing market demand and conserve wild populations of the target species. This strategy is compatible with the international community's desire to uphold the right of local communities to use biological resources to support their livelihoods. However, studies investigating whether farming can alleviate poaching pressure have focused almost exclusively on animals. To address the shortfall in plant-focused studies, we compiled information on commercial cultivation of threatened plants to assess its conservation benefits. Because China's rising middle class has rapidly intensified demand for wildlife products, we searched the scientific literature published in Chinese (China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Baidu) and in English. We found 32 reports that contained data on 193 internationally or nationally threatened plant species that were under commercial cultivation. These reports showed that cultivations of 82% of the 193 species were sustained by collecting whole plants from the wild periodically or continuously. Although based on a small sample size, species that were maintained in cultivation only through artificial propagation or seeds collected in the wild were likely associated with a reported reduction in wild harvesting of whole plants. Even so, results of correlation analyses suggested that production system, scale, and when a species began being cultivated had little effect on conservation status of the species, either globally or in China. However, species brought into cultivation relatively recently and on a smaller scale were more likely to have undergone a reduction in collecting pressure. Farming of nonmedicinal plants was most problematic for species conservation because wild plants were laundered (i.e., sold as cultivated plants). For effective conservation, policy to guide cultivation operations based on the target species’ biological characteristics, cultural significance, market demand, and conservation status is needed.     

Building a global taxonomy of wildlife offenses

Most countries have many pieces of legislation that govern biodiversity, including a range of criminal, administrative, and civil law provisions that state how wildlife must be legally used, managed, and protected. However, related debates in conservation, such as about enforcement, often overlook the details within national legislation that define which specific acts are illegal, the conditions under which laws apply, and how they are sanctioned. Based on a review of 90 wildlife laws in 8 high-biodiversity countries with different legal systems, we developed a taxonomy that describes all types of wildlife offenses in those countries. The 511 offenses are organized into a hierarchical taxonomy that scholars and practitioners can use to help conduct legal analyses. This is significant amidst competing calls to strengthen, deregulate, and reform wildlife legislation, particularly in response to fears over zoonotic threats and large-scale biodiversity loss. It can be used to provide more nuance legal analyses and facilitate like-for-like comparisons across countries, informing processes to redraft conservation laws, review deregulation efforts, close loopholes, and harmonize legislation across jurisdictions. We applied the taxonomy in a comparison of sanctions in 8 countries for hunting a protected species. We found not only huge ranges in fines (US$0 to $200,000) and imprisonment terms (1.5 years to life imprisonment), but also fundamentally different approaches to designing sanctions for wildlife offenses. The taxonomy also illustrates how future legal taxonomies can be developed for other environmental issues (e.g., invasive species, protected areas).     

Evaluation of pay-for-release conservation incentives for unintentionally caught threatened species

In the developing world, the exploitation of threatened species jeopardizes their permanence in the wild. Because not all captures are intentional, for instance when capture methods have low selectivity, pressure on these species may be lessened by releasing living incidentally caught animals. However, it is often unrealistic to expect people to voluntarily do so because it means foregoing the benefits of resource extraction. Financial incentives for such animal release may foster conservation objectives. Reducing human–animal conflicts, protecting natural habitat, and conserving nests of threatened species are examples of conservation benefits that can be built on financial reward systems. However, incentives aiming to protect unintentionally captured threatened species are scarce. We considered pay for release, a type of ecosystem-service payment designed to foster the release of incidentally captured threatened species. We aimed to determine the best conditions to implement this scheme, its potential benefits (e.g., incentivizing the release of threatened species), and pitfalls and priority research needs (e.g., required conditions for pay for release to work) to show that its global applicability is possible. Given that approaches solely based on education and law enforcement may be ineffective under some circumstances, we argue that pay for release can protect incidentally captured endangered species if used under conditions conducive for its success. When local participants’ intrinsic motivation for conservation is weak, but the release of incidentally live-caught animals into their habitats is readily achievable, pay-for-release schemes could jump start urgently needed conservation efforts against indiscriminate animal harvesting.     

Exploring nationality and social identity to explain attitudes toward conservation actions in the United States and Australia

Understanding human attitudes toward wildlife management is critical to implementing effective conservation action and policy. Understanding the factors that shape public attitudes toward different wildlife management actions is limited, however, which can result in unpredictable public responses to interventions. We drew on comparisons between residents of 2 countries on separate continents to explore differences in attitudes toward wildlife management and determine factors important in shaping these attitudes. We surveyed representative publics via market research panels in Australia (n = 881 respondents) and the United States (n = 1287). We applied a social-identity approach and demography to identify factors that explained variance between responses about wildlife management. We compared responses between countries overall and within subgroups of respondents who strongly identified as environmentalists, animal rights activists, wildlife conservation advocates, and farmers. We created aggregate scores for the management-related response items per respondent and used regression analyses to identify the relative importance of country, identity, age, and gender in explaining variance between responses. These factors accounted for 15.3% of variance among responses. Australians overall were generally more accepting of lethal wildlife management actions than U.S. respondents. Differences in national attitudes reflected differences between United States and Australian wildlife management and policy, highlighting the importance of understanding social attitudes in shaping conservation policy. Identifying as a farmer followed by identifying as an animal rights activist most shaped attitudes toward wildlife management. Identity-related conflicts could be initiated or exacerbated by conservation interventions that fail to consider identity-related processes.     

Biological parameters used in setting captive‐breeding quotas for Indonesia's breeding facilities

The commercial captive breeding of wildlife is often seen as a potential conservation tool to relieve pressure on wild populations, but laundering of wild‐sourced specimens as captive bred can seriously undermine conservation efforts and provide a false sense of sustainability. Indonesia is at the center of such controversy; therefore, we examined Indonesia's captive‐breeding production plan (CBPP) for 2016. We compared the biological parameters used in the CBPP with parameters in the literature and with parameters suggested by experts on each species and identified shortcomings of the CBPP. Production quotas for 99 out of 129 species were based on inaccurate or unrealistic biological parameters and production quotas deviated more than 10% from what parameters in the literature allow for. For 38 species, the quota exceeded the number of animals that can be bred based on the biological parameters (range 100–540%) calculated with equations in the CBPP. We calculated a lower reproductive output for 88 species based on published biological parameters compared with the parameters used in the CBPP. The equations used in the production plan did not appear to account for other factors (e.g., different survival rate for juveniles compared to adult animals) involved in breeding the proposed large numbers of specimens. We recommend the CBPP be adjusted so that realistic published biological parameters are applied and captive‐breeding quotas are not allocated to species if their captive breeding is unlikely to be successful or no breeding stock is available. The shortcomings in the current CBPP create loopholes that mean mammals, reptiles, and amphibians from Indonesia declared captive bred may have been sourced from the wild.     

Governing trade-offs in ecosystem services and disservices to achieve human–wildlife coexistence

Sustaining wildlife populations, which provide both ecosystem services and disservices, represents a worldwide conservation challenge. The ecosystem services and Ostrom's social–ecological systems frameworks have been adopted across natural and social sciences to characterize benefits from nature. Despite their generalizability, individually they do not include explicit tools for addressing the sustainable management of many wildlife populations. For instance, Ostrom's framework does not specifically address competing perspectives on wildlife, whereas the ecosystem services framework provides a limited representation of the social and governance context wherein such competing perspectives are embedded. We developed a unified social–ecological framework of ecosystem disservices and services (SEEDS) that advances both frameworks by explicitly acknowledging the importance of competing wildlife perspectives embedded in the social and governance contexts. The SEEDS framework emulates the hierarchical structure of Ostrom's social–ecological systems, but adds subsystems reflecting heterogeneous stakeholder views and experiences of wildlife-based services and disservices. To facilitate operationalizing SEEDS and further broader analyses across human–wildlife systems, we devised a list of variables to describe SEEDS subsystems, such as types and level of services and disservices, cost and benefit sharing, and social participation of stakeholders. Steps to implement SEEDS involve engaging local communities and stakeholders to define the subsystems, analyze interactions and outcomes, and identify leverage points and actions to remedy unwanted outcomes. These steps connect SEEDS with other existing approaches in social–ecological research and can guide analyses across systems or within individual systems to provide new insights and management options for sustainable human–wildlife coexistence.     

Wildlife Connectivity Approaches and Best Practices in U.S. State Wildlife Action Plans

As habitat loss and fragmentation threaten biodiversity on large geographic scales, creating and maintaining connectivity of wildlife populations is an increasingly common conservation objective. To assess the progress and success of large‐scale connectivity planning, conservation researchers need a set of plans that cover large geographic areas and can be analyzed as a single data set. The state wildlife action plans (SWAPs) fulfill these requirements. We examined 50 SWAPs to determine the extent to which wildlife connectivity planning, via linkages, is emphasized nationally. We defined linkage as connective land that enables wildlife movement. For our content analysis, we identified and quantified 6 keywords and 7 content criteria that ranged in specificity and were related to linkages for wide‐ranging terrestrial vertebrates and examined relations between content criteria and statewide data on focal wide‐ranging species, spending, revenue, and conserved land. Our results reflect nationwide disparities in linkage conservation priorities and highlight the continued need for wildlife linkage planning. Only 30% or less of the 50 SWAPs fulfilled highly specific content criteria (e.g., identifying geographic areas for linkage placement or management). We found positive correlations between our content criteria and statewide data on percent conserved land, total focal species, and spending on parks and recreation. We supplemented our content analysis with interviews with 17 conservation professionals to gain specific information about state‐specific context and future directions of linkage conservation. Based on our results, relevant literature, and interview responses, we suggest the following best practices for wildlife linkage conservation plans: collect ecologically meaningful background data; be specific; establish community‐wide partnerships; and incorporate sociopolitical and socioeconomic information. Acercamientos a la Conectividad de Vida Silvestre y las Mejores Prácticas en los Planes de Acción de Vida Silvestre Estatales en los Estados Unidos     

Problems with mitigation translocation of herpetofauna

Mitigation translocation of nuisance animals is a commonly used management practice aimed at resolution of human–animal conflict by removal and release of an individual animal. Long considered a reasonable undertaking, especially by the general public, it is now known that translocated subjects are negatively affected by the practice. Mitigation translocation is typically undertaken with individual adult organisms and has a much lower success rate than the more widely practiced conservation translocation of threatened and endangered species. Nonetheless, the public and many conservation practitioners believe that because population‐level conservation translocations have been successful that mitigation translocation can be satisfactorily applied to a wide variety of human‐wildlife conflict situations. We reviewed mitigation translocations of reptiles, including our own work with 3 long‐lived species (Gila monsters [Heloderma suspectum], Sonoran desert tortoises [Gopherus morafkai], and western diamond‐backed rattlesnakes [Crotalus atrox]). Overall, mitigation translocation had a low success rate when judged either by effects on individuals (in all studies reviewed they exhibited increased movement or increased mortality) or by the success of the resolution of the human–animal conflict (translocated individuals often returned to the capture site). Careful planning and identification of knowledge gaps are critical to increasing success rates in mitigation translocations in the face of increasing pressure to find solutions for species threatened by diverse anthropogenic factors, including climate change and exurban and energy development. Problemas con la Mitigación por Traslocación de Herpetofauna     

Infectious Diseases and Extinction Risk in Wild Mammals

Abstract:  Parasite-driven declines in wildlife have become increasingly common and can pose significant risks to natural populations. We used the IUCN Red List of Threatened and Endangered Species and compiled data on hosts threatened by infectious disease and their parasites to better understand the role of infectious disease in contemporary host extinctions. The majority of mammal species considered threatened by parasites were either carnivores or artiodactyls, two clades that include the majority of domesticated animals. Parasites affecting host threat status were predominantly viruses and bacteria that infect a wide range of host species, including domesticated animals. Counter to our predictions, parasites transmitted by close contact were more likely to cause extinction risk than those transmitted by other routes. Mammal species threatened by parasites were not better studied for infectious diseases than other threatened mammals and did not have more parasites or differ in four key traits demonstrated to affect parasite species richness in other comparative studies. Our findings underscore the need for better information concerning the distribution and impacts of infectious diseases in populations of endangered mammals. In addition, our results suggest that evolutionary similarity to domesticated animals may be a key factor associated with parasite-mediated declines; thus, efforts to limit contact between domesticated hosts and wildlife could reduce extinction risk.     

Role of Prices and Wealth in Consumer Demand for Bushmeat in Gabon, Central Africa

Abstract:  Unsustainable hunting of wildlife for food is often a more immediate and significant threat to the conservation of biological diversity in tropical forests than deforestation. Why people eat wildlife is debated. Some may eat bushmeat because they can afford it; others may eat it because it is familiar, traditional, confers prestige, tastes good, or adds variety. We completed a survey of 1208 rural and urban households in Gabon, Africa, in 2002–2003 to estimate the effect of wealth and prices on the consumption of wildlife and other sources of animal protein. Consumption of bushmeat, fish, chicken, and livestock increased with increasing household wealth, and as the price of these commodities rose, consumption declined. Although the prices of substitutes for bushmeat did not significantly, in statistical terms, influence bushmeat consumption, as the price of wildlife increased and its consumption fell, the consumption of fish rose, indicating that fish and bushmeat were dietary substitutes. Our results suggest that policy makers can use economic levers such as taxation or supply reduction through better law enforcement to change demand for wildlife. These measures will help to regulate unsustainable exploitation and reduce the risk of irreversible loss of large-bodied and slow-reproducing wildlife species. If policy makers focus solely on reducing the unsustainable consumption of wildlife, they may see adverse impacts on the exploitation of fish. Furthermore, policy makers must ensure that raising household wealth through development assistance does not result in undesirable impacts on the conservation status of wildlife and fish.     

Motivations for the use and consumption of wildlife products

The dominant approach to combating the illegal wildlife trade has traditionally been to restrict the supply of wildlife products. Yet conservationists increasingly recognize the importance of implementing demand-side interventions that target the end consumers in the trade chain. Their aim is to curb the consumption of wildlife or shift consumption to more sustainable alternatives. However, there are still considerable knowledge gaps in understanding of the diversity of consumer motivations in the context of illegal wildlife trade, which includes hundreds of thousands of species, different uses, and diverse contexts. Based on consultation with multiple experts from a diversity of backgrounds, nationalities, and focal taxa, we developed a typology of common motivations held by wildlife consumers that can be used to inform conservation interventions. We identified 5 main motivational categories for wildlife use: experiential, social, functional, financial, and spiritual, each containing subcategories. This framework is intended to facilitate the segmentation of consumers based on psychographics and allow the tailoring of interventions—whether behavior change campaigns, enforcement efforts, or incentive programs—to the specific context in which they will be used. Underlining the importance of consumer research and collaborating with local actors is an important step toward promoting a more systematic approach to the design of demand reduction interventions.     

Impacts of rural to urban migration,urbanization, and generational change on consumption of wild animals in the Amazon

For the first time in history, more people live in urban areas than in rural areas. This trend is likely to continue, driven largely by rural-to-urban migration. We investigated how rural-to-urban migration, urbanization, and generational change affect the consumption of wild animals. We used chelonian (tortoises and freshwater turtles), one of the most hunted taxa in the Amazon, as a model. We surveyed 1356 households and 2776 school children across 10 urban areas of the Brazilian Amazon (6 small towns, 3 large towns, and Manaus, the largest city in the Amazon Basin) with a randomized response technique and anonymous questionnaires. Urban demand for wild meat (i.e., meat from wild animals) was alarmingly high. Approximately 1.7 million turtles and tortoises were consumed in urban areas of Amazonas during 2018. Consumption rates declined as size of the urban area increased and were greater for adults than children. Furthermore, the longer rural-to-urban migrants lived in urban areas, the lower their consumption rates. These results suggest that wild meat consumption is a rural-related tradition that decreases as urbanization increases and over time after people move to urban areas. However, it is unclear whether the observed decline will be fast enough to conserve hunted species, or whether children's consumption rate will remain the same as they become adults. Thus, conservation actions in urban areas are still needed. Current conservation efforts in the Amazon do not address urban demand for wildlife and may be insufficient to ensure the survival of traded species in the face of urbanization and human population growth. Our results suggest that conservation interventions must target the urban demand for wildlife, especially by focusing on young people and recent rural to urban migrants. Article impact statement: Amazon urbanite consumption of wildlife is high but decreases with urbanization, over time for rural to urban migrants, and between generations. Impactos de la Migración del Campo a la Ciudad, la Urbanización y del Cambio Generacional sobre el Consumo de Animales Silvestres en el Amazonas     

Evaluation of Selective Culling of Infected Individuals to Control Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumor Disease

Abstract: Sustainable strategies to manage infectious diseases in threatened wildlife are still lacking despite considerable concern over the global increase in emerging infectious diseases of wildlife and their potential to drive populations to extinction. Selective culling of infected individuals will often be the most feasible option to control infectious disease in a threatened wildlife host, but has seldom been implemented or evaluated as a management tool for the conservation of threatened species. The Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) is threatened with extinction by an infectious cancer, devil facial tumor disease (DFTD). We assess the success of an adaptive management trial involving selective culling of infected Tasmanian devils to control DFTD. Demographic and epidemiological parameters indicative of disease progression and impact were compared between the management site and a comparable unmanaged control site. Selective culling of infected individuals neither slowed rate of disease progression nor reduced population‐level impacts of this debilitating disease. Culling mortality simply compensated for disease mortality in this system. Failure of selective culling to impede DFTD progress and reduce its impacts in the managed population was attributed to DFTD's frequency‐dependent nature, its long latent period and high degree of infectivity, and the presence of a cryptic hidden disease reservoir or continual immigration of diseased individuals. We suggest that increasing the current removal rate and focusing removal efforts prior to the breeding season are options worth pursuing for future management of DFTD in this population. On the basis of our experience, we suggest that disease‐management programs for threatened wildlife populations be developed on the principles of adaptive management and utilize a wide variety of strategies with regular reviews and adaptation of strategies undertaken as new information is obtained.     

Compassionate versus consequentialist conservation

Ethical treatment of wildlife and consideration of animal welfare have become important themes in conservation, but ethical perspectives on how best to protect wild animals and promote their welfare are diverse. There are advantages to the consequentialist harms ethical framework applied in managing wild herbivores for conservation purposes. To minimize harms while achieving conservation goals, we argue that overabundant wild herbivores should in many cases be managed through consumptive in situ killing. Advantages of this policy are that the negative welfare states imposed on animals last only a short time; remaining animals are not deprived of positive welfare states (e.g., linked to rearing offspring); poor welfare states of animals in overabundant populations are avoided (e.g., starvation); negative welfare impacts on heterospecifics through resource depletion (i.e., competition) are prevented; harvesting meat reduces the number of (agricultural) animals raised to supply meat; and minimal costs maximize funding for other wildlife management and conservation priorities. Alternative ethical approaches to our consequentialist framework include deontology (containing animal rights) and virtue ethics, some of which underpin compassionate conservation. These alternative ethical approaches emphasize the importance of avoiding intentional killing of animals but, if no population reduction occurs, are likely to impose considerable unintentional harms on overabundant wildlife and indirectly harm heterospecifics through ineffective population reduction. If nonlethal control is used, it is likely that overabundant animals would be deprived of positive welfare states and economic costs would be prohibitive. We encourage conservation stakeholders to consider animal-welfare consequentialism as an ethical approach to minimize harms to the animals under their care as well as other animals that policies may affect while at the same time pursuing conservation goals.     

Animal agency in wildlife conservation and management

Wildlife conservation and management (WCM) practices have been historically drawn from a wide variety of academic fields, yet practitioners have been slow to engage with emerging conversations about animals as complex beings, whose individuality and sociality influence their relationships with humans. We propose an explicit acknowledgement of wild, nonhuman animals as active participants in WCM. We examined 190 studies of WCM interventions and outcomes to highlight 3 common assumptions that underpin many present approaches to WCM: animal behaviors are rigid and homogeneous; wildlife exhibit idealized wild behavior and prefer pristine habitats; and human–wildlife relationships are of marginal or secondary importance relative to nonhuman interactions. We found that these management interventions insufficiently considered animal learning, decision-making, individuality, sociality, and relationships with humans and led to unanticipated detrimental outcomes. To address these shortcomings, we synthesized theoretical advances in animal behavioral sciences, animal geographies, and animal legal theory that may help conservation professionals reconceptualize animals and their relationships with humans. Based on advances in these fields, we constructed the concept of animal agency, which we define as the ability of animals to actively influence conservation and management outcomes through their adaptive, context-specific, and complex behaviors that are predicated on their sentience, individuality, lived experiences, cognition, sociality, and cultures in ways that shape and reshape shared human–wildlife cultures, spaces, and histories. Conservation practices, such as compassionate conservation, convivial conservation, and ecological justice, incorporate facets of animal agency. Animal agency can be incorporated in conservation problem-solving by assessing the ways in which agency contributes to species’ survival and by encouraging more adaptive and collaborative decision-making among human and nonhuman stakeholders.     

Priority areas for conservation of and research focused on terrestrial vertebrates

Effective conservation policies require comprehensive knowledge of biodiversity. However, knowledge shortfalls still remain, hindering possibilities to improve decision making and built such policies. During the last 2 decades, conservationists have made great efforts to allocate resources as efficiently as possible but have rarely considered the idea that if research investments are also strategically allocated, it would likely fill knowledge gaps while simultaneously improving conservation actions. Therefore, prioritizing areas where both conservation and research actions could be conducted becomes a critical endeavor that can further maximize return on investment. We used Zonation, a conservation planning tool and geographical distributions of amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles to suggest and compare priority areas for conservation and research of terrestrial vertebrates worldwide. We also evaluated the degree of human disturbance in both types of priority areas by describing the value of the human footprint index within such areas. The spatial concordance between priority conservation and research areas was low: 0.36% of the world's land area. In these areas, we found it would be possible to protect almost half of the currently threatened species and to gather information on nearly 42% of data-deficient (DD) species. We also found that 6199 protected areas worldwide are located in such places, although only 35% of them have strict conservation purposes. Areas of consensus between conservation and research areas represent an opportunity for simultaneously conserving and acquiring knowledge of threatened and DD species of vertebrates. Although the picture is not the most encouraging, joint conservation and research efforts are possible and should be fostered to save vertebrate species from our own ignorance and extinction.     

International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control

Human–wildlife conflicts are commonly addressed by excluding, relocating, or lethally controlling animals with the goal of preserving public health and safety, protecting property, or conserving other valued wildlife. However, declining wildlife populations, a lack of efficacy of control methods in achieving desired outcomes, and changes in how people value animals have triggered widespread acknowledgment of the need for ethical and evidence‐based approaches to managing such conflicts. We explored international perspectives on and experiences with human–wildlife conflicts to develop principles for ethical wildlife control. A diverse panel of 20 experts convened at a 2‐day workshop and developed the principles through a facilitated engagement process and discussion. They determined that efforts to control wildlife should begin wherever possible by altering the human practices that cause human–wildlife conflict and by developing a culture of coexistence; be justified by evidence that significant harms are being caused to people, property, livelihoods, ecosystems, and/or other animals; have measurable outcome‐based objectives that are clear, achievable, monitored, and adaptive; predictably minimize animal welfare harms to the fewest number of animals; be informed by community values as well as scientific, technical, and practical information; be integrated into plans for systematic long‐term management; and be based on the specifics of the situation rather than negative labels (pest, overabundant) applied to the target species. We recommend that these principles guide development of international, national, and local standards and control decisions and implementation.     

Captive Breeding, Reintroduction, and the Conservation of Amphibians

Abstract: The global amphibian crisis has resulted in renewed interest in captive breeding as a conservation tool for amphibians. Although captive breeding and reintroduction are controversial management actions, amphibians possess a number of attributes that make them potentially good models for such programs. We reviewed the extent and effectiveness of captive breeding and reintroduction programs for amphibians through an analysis of data from the Global Amphibian Assessment and other sources. Most captive breeding and reintroduction programs for amphibians have focused on threatened species from industrialized countries with relatively low amphibian diversity. Out of 110 species in such programs, 52 were in programs with no plans for reintroduction that had conservation research or conservation education as their main purpose. A further 39 species were in programs that entailed captive breeding and reintroduction or combined captive breeding with relocations of wild animals. Nineteen species were in programs with relocations of wild animals only. Eighteen out of 58 reintroduced species have subsequently bred successfully in the wild, and 13 of these species have established self‐sustaining populations. As with threatened amphibians generally, amphibians in captive breeding or reintroduction programs face multiple threats, with habitat loss being the most important. Nevertheless, only 18 out of 58 reintroduced species faced threats that are all potentially reversible. When selecting species for captive programs, dilemmas may emerge between choosing species that have a good chance of surviving after reintroduction because their threats are reversible and those that are doomed to extinction in the wild as a result of irreversible threats. Captive breeding and reintroduction programs for amphibians require long‐term commitments to ensure success, and different management strategies may be needed for species earmarked for reintroduction and species used for conservation research and education.     

The contribution of policy,law, management,research, and advocacy failings to the recent extinctions of three Australian vertebrate species

Extinctions typically have ecological drivers, such as habitat loss. However, extinction events are also influenced by policy and management settings that may be antithetical to biodiversity conservation, inadequate to prevent extinction, insufficiently resourced, or poorly implemented. Three endemic Australian vertebrate species—the Christmas Island pipistrelle (Pipistrellus murrayi), Bramble Cay melomys (Melomys rubicola), and Christmas Island forest skink (Emoia nativitatis)—became extinct from 2009 to 2014. All 3 extinctions were predictable and probably preventable. We sought to identify the policy, management, research, and other shortcomings that contributed to their extinctions or failed to prevent them. These included a lack within national environmental legislation and policy of explicit commitment to the prevention of avoidable extinctions, lack of explicit accountability, inadequate resources for conservation (particularly for species not considered charismatic or not of high taxonomic distinctiveness), inadequate biosecurity, a slow and inadequate process for listing species as threatened, recovery planning that failed to consider the need for emergency response, inability of researchers to identify major threatening factors, lack of public engagement and involvement in conservation decisions, and limited advocacy. From these 3 cases, we recommend: environmental policy explicitly seeks to prevent extinction of any species and provides a clear chain of accountability and an explicit requirement for public inquiry following any extinction; implementation of a timely and comprehensive process for listing species as threatened and for recovery planning; reservation alone not be assumed sufficient to maintain species; enhancement of biosecurity measures; allocation of sufficient resources to undertake actions necessary to prevent extinction; monitoring be considered a pivotal component of the conservation response; research provides timely identification of factors responsible for decline and of the risk of extinction; effective dissemination of research results; advocacy by an informed public for the recovery of threatened species; and public involvement in governance of the recovery process. These recommendations should be applicable broadly to reduce the likelihood and incidence of extinctions.     

Campesino hunting and conservation in Latin America

Hunting presents a paradox for biodiversity conservation. It is both a problem and a solution to species declines and poverty. Yet, conservation scientists hold different assumptions about the significance and sustainability of hunting based on the cultures and identities of hunters. In Latin America, conservationists largely sort hunters as either indigenous or campesino. Indigenous hunters are often characterized as culturally driven stewards of wildlife sustainability. Campesino hunters, by contrast, are described as peasants—cultureless, uneducated, and uncaring toward wildlife sustainability. Although such ethnically fueled hunting discourse promotes hunting research, campesino hunters remain underrepresented in most comparative hunting reviews. Moreover, there are no targeted syntheses on the current state of knowledge about campesino hunting, nothing to guide conservation research and practice with and for the largest group of hunters in Latin America. We reviewed 334 articles published from 1937 to 2018 in English (55%) and Spanish (45%)—mostly published in 145 peer-reviewed journals—on the meanings, motivations, and sustainability of campesino hunting in Latin America. Although studies spanned 17 countries, 7 ecosystems, and >75 indigenous and nonindigenous demographics in 30 research contexts, they predominantly focused on nonindigenous campesinos for species-specific conservation and protected area management in tropical broadleaf forests of Mexico, Peru, and Colombia. Authors used 12 methods to collect campesino hunting data, primarily interviews, surveys, and questionnaires, and drew from 10 local and traditional knowledge themes about wildlife trends and uses. Eighteen drivers, 14 constraints, and 10 conflicts—mainly subsistence, income, ethics, regulations, and crop or livestock protection—shaped whether campesino hunters pursued 799 species, 70% of which were least concern species. Yet, only 25 studies (8%) empirically assessed sustainability. Our results show the need for increased interdisciplinary and geographic engagement with campesino hunting across Latin America.