Adapting the bioblitz to meet conservation needs

When conservation strategies require new, field‐based information, practitioners must find the best ways to rapidly deliver high‐quality survey data. To address this challenge, several rapid‐assessment approaches have been developed since the early 1990s. These typically involve large areas, take many months to complete, and are not appropriate when conservation‐relevant survey data are urgently needed for a specific locale. In contrast, bioblitzes are designed for quick collection of site‐specific survey data. Although bioblitzes are commonly used to achieve educational or public‐engagement goals, conservation practitioners are increasingly using a modified bioblitz approach to generate conservation‐relevant data while simultaneously enhancing research capacity and building working partnerships focused on conservation concerns. We term these modified events expert bioblitzes. Several expert bioblitzes have taken place on lands of conservation concern in Southern California and have involved collaborative efforts of government agencies, nonprofit organizations, botanic gardens, museums, and universities. The results of expert bioblitzes directly informed on‐the‐ground conservation and decision‐making; increased capacity for rapid deployment of expert bioblitzes in the future; and fostered collaboration and communication among taxonomically and institutionally diverse experts. As research and conservation funding becomes increasingly scarce, expert bioblitzes can play an increasingly important role in biodiversity conservation.     

The potential for biodiversity offsetting to fund effective invasive species control

Compensating for biodiversity losses in 1 location by conserving or restoring biodiversity elsewhere (i.e., biodiversity offsetting) is being used increasingly to compensate for biodiversity losses resulting from development. We considered whether a form of biodiversity offsetting, enhancement offsetting (i.e., enhancing the quality of degraded natural habitats through intensive ecological management), can realistically secure additional funding to control biological invaders at a scale and duration that results in enhanced biodiversity outcomes. We suggest that biodiversity offsetting has the potential to enhance biodiversity values through funding of invasive species control, but it needs to meet 7 key conditions: be technically possible to reduce invasive species to levels that enhance native biodiversity; be affordable; be sufficiently large to compensate for the impact; be adaptable to accommodate new strategic and tactical developments while not compromising biodiversity outcomes; acknowledge uncertainties associated with managing pests; be based on an explicit risk assessment that identifies the cost of not achieving target outcomes; and include financial mechanisms to provide for in‐perpetuity funding. The challenge then for conservation practitioners, advocates, and policy makers is to develop frameworks that allow for durable and effective partnerships with developers to realize the full potential of enhancement offsets, which will require a shift away from traditional preservation‐focused approaches to biodiversity management. El Potencial de la Compensación de la Biodiversidad para Financiar Controles Efectivos de Especies Invasoras     

Motivations for Conserving Urban Biodiversity

Abstract: In a time of increasing urbanization, the fundamental value of conserving urban biodiversity remains controversial. How much of a fixed budget should be spent on conservation in urban versus nonurban landscapes? The answer should depend on the goals that drive our conservation actions, yet proponents of urban conservation often fail to specify the motivation for protecting urban biodiversity. This is an important shortcoming on several fronts, including a missed opportunity to make a stronger appeal to those who believe conservation biology should focus exclusively on more natural, wilder landscapes. We argue that urban areas do offer an important venue for conservation biology, but that we must become better at choosing and articulating our goals. We explored seven possible motivations for urban biodiversity conservation: preserving local biodiversity, creating stepping stones to nonurban habitat, understanding and facilitating responses to environmental change, conducting environmental education, providing ecosystem services, fulfilling ethical responsibilities, and improving human well‐being. To attain all these goals, challenges must be faced that are common to the urban environment, such as localized pollution, disruption of ecosystem structure, and limited availability of land. There are, however, also challenges specific only to particular goals, meaning that different goals will require different approaches and actions. This highlights the importance of specifying the motivations behind urban biodiversity conservation. If the goals are unknown, progress cannot be assessed.     

Transforming ecology and conservation biology through genome editing

As the conservation challenges increase, new approaches are needed to help combat losses in biodiversity and slow or reverse the decline of threatened species. Genome-editing technology is changing the face of modern biology, facilitating applications that were unimaginable only a decade ago. The technology has the potential to make significant contributions to the fields of evolutionary biology, ecology, and conservation, yet the fear of unintended consequences from designer ecosystems containing engineered organisms has stifled innovation. To overcome this gap in the understanding of what genome editing is and what its capabilities are, more research is needed to translate genome-editing discoveries into tools for ecological research. Emerging and future genome-editing technologies include new clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) targeted sequencing and nucleic acid detection approaches as well as species genetic barcoding and somatic genome-editing technologies. These genome-editing tools have the potential to transform the environmental sciences by providing new noninvasive methods for monitoring threatened species or for enhancing critical adaptive traits. A pioneering effort by the conservation community is required to apply these technologies to real-world conservation problems.     

Constraints of philanthropy on determining the distribution of biodiversity conservation funding

Caught between ongoing habitat destruction and funding shortfalls, conservation organizations are using systematic planning approaches to identify places that offer the highest biodiversity return per dollar invested. However, available tools do not account for the landscape of funding for conservation or quantify the constraints this landscape imposes on conservation outcomes. Using state‐level data on philanthropic giving to and investments in land conservation by a large nonprofit organization, we applied linear regression to evaluate whether the spatial distribution of conservation philanthropy better explained expenditures on conservation than maps of biodiversity priorities, which were derived from a planning process internal to the organization and return on investment (ROI) analyses based on data on species richness, land costs, and existing protected areas. Philanthropic fund raising accounted for considerably more spatial variation in conservation spending (r² = 0.64) than either of the 2 systematic conservation planning approaches (r² = 0.08–0.21). We used results of one of the ROI analyses to evaluate whether increases in flexibility to reallocate funding across space provides conservation gains. Small but plausible “tax” increments of 1–10% on states redistributed to the optimal funding allocation from the ROI analysis could result in gains in endemic species protected of 8.5–80.2%. When such increases in spatial flexibility are not possible, conservation organizations should seek to cultivate increased support for conservation in priority locations. We used lagged correlations of giving to and spending by the organization to evaluate whether investments in habitat protection stimulate future giving to conservation. The most common outcome at the state level was that conservation spending quarters correlated significantly and positively with lagged fund raising quarters. In effect, periods of high fund raising for biodiversity followed (rather than preceded) periods of high expenditure on land conservation projects, identifying one mechanism conservation organizations could explore to seed greater activity in priority locations. Our results demonstrate how limitations on the ability of conservation organizations to reallocate their funding across space can impede organizational effectiveness and elucidate ways conservation planning tools could be more useful if they quantified and incorporated these constraints.     

Ecological Correlates of Extinction Proneness in Tropical Butterflies

Abstract:  Widespread and rapid losses of natural habitats and biodiversity have made the identification of extinction-prone species a major challenge in conservation biology. We assessed the relative importance of biologically relevant species traits (e.g., body size, ecological specialization) obtained from published records to determine the extinction probability of butterflies in a highly disturbed tropical landscape (i.e., Singapore). We also developed a taxon-specific model to estimate the extinction proneness of butterflies in Southeast Asia. Logistic regression analyses showed that adult habitat specialization, larval host plant specificity, geographical distribution, sexual dichromatism, and congenor density were significant and independent determinants of butterfly extinctions in Singapore. Among these traits, specificity of larval host plant and adult habitat specialization were the best correlates of extinction risks. We used this phenomenological extinction-regression model to estimate the relative extinction proneness of 416 butterfly species in Southeast Asia. Our results illustrate the utility of available taxon-specific data for a localized area in estimating the extinction proneness of closely related species on a regional scale. When intensive field studies are not forthcoming, especially in regions suffering from rapid biodiversity losses (e.g., Southeast Asia), similar approaches could be used to estimate extinction threats for other taxonomic groups.     

Tourism policy,biodiversity conservation and management: a case of the Kruger National Park,South Africa

Management of Kruger National Park (KNP) has recently made considerable progress in developing new policies to address biodiversity conservation and management challenges. These include tourism, water provision and elephant management policies. This study examines the integration of these three policies with regard to biodiversity conservation and management. Findings indicate that in their current fragmented form, the three policies actually undermine opportunities for effective biodiversity conservation and management in the KNP. This can be reversed by adopting a new management approach based on an environmental matrix organizational framework. Such a framework provides a mechanism for integrated policymaking and implementation and for improving biodiversity conservation and management in the KNP. The study concludes that an integrated approach is necessary due to the interlinkages between policies that affect biodiversity conservation at the KNP.     

Prospects for stakeholder coordination by protected‐area managers in Europe

Growing resource demands by humans, invasive species, natural hazards, and a changing climate have created broad‐scale impacts and the need for broader‐extent conservation activities that span ownerships and even political borders. Implementing regional‐scale conservation brings great challenges, and learning how to overcome these challenges is essential for maintaining biodiversity (i.e., richness and evenness of biological communities) and ecosystem functions and services across scales and borders in the face of system change. We administered an online survey to examine factors potentially driving perspectives of protected‐area (PA) managers regarding coordination with neighboring PAs and other stakeholders (i.e., stakeholder coordination) for conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services during the next decade within diverse regions across Europe. Although >70% (n = 58) of responding PA managers indicated that climate change and invasive species are relevant for their PAs, they gave <50% probability that these threats could be mitigated through stakeholder coordination. They thought there was a >60% probability (n = 85) that stakeholder coordination would take place with the aim to improve conservation outcomes. Consistent with the foundation on which many European PAs were established, managers viewed maintaining or enhancing biodiversity as the most important (>70%; n = 61) expected benefit. Other benefits included maintaining or enhancing human resources and environmental education (range of Bayesian credibility intervals [CIs] 57–93%). They thought the main barriers to stakeholder coordination were the lack of human and economic resources (CI 59–67% chance of hindering; n = 64) followed by communication and interstakeholder differences in political structures and laws (CI 51–64% probability of hindering). European policies and strategies that address these hindering factors could be particularly effective means of enabling implementation of green infrastructure networks in which PAs are the nodes.     

Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation: a Peninsular Malaysian case

SUMMARY

The contention is examined that forests can contribute to biodiversity conservation either as protected areas or as production forests, especially where the latter are managed for timber extraction. This notion is explored for the Peninsular Malaysian forests, and it is shown that biodiversity conservation would be optimized if the system of protected areas is located within a broader matrix of carefully managed production forests. A model is developed to illustrate how the biodiversity value of protected areas would be enhanced through interaction with production forests. In no way is the suggestion being made here that production forests could serve as critical centres for the conservation of biotic diversity, but then neither should they be dismissed as areas completely devoid of any contribution to the biodiversity cause. These findings are especially significant in Peninsular Malaysia where two-thirds of the forests legally set aside as Permanent Forest Estate is to be managed as production forests. If the incremental biodiversity value of these forests can be captured through improved management practices, then the overall biodiversity status of the country, and the globe, could be greatly increased. The extent to which any country is willing to set aside forests as protected areas, strictly for biodiversity conservation, is limited, hence the integrated approach to the management of protected and production forests advocated here could prove an attractive and feasible strategy. Where funding is limited, as in the case of the Global Environment Facility, it may be worthwhile to provide incentives for improved management of production forests as a means of conserving biodiversity.     

Toward equality of biodiversity knowledge through technology transfer

To help stem the continuing decline of biodiversity, effective transfer of technology from resource‐rich to biodiversity‐rich countries is required. Biodiversity technology as defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is a complex term, encompassing a wide variety of activities and interest groups. As yet, there is no robust framework by which to monitor the extent to which technology transfer might benefit biodiversity. We devised a definition of biodiversity technology and a framework for the monitoring of technology transfer between CBD signatories. Biodiversity technology within the scope of the CBD encompasses hard and soft technologies that are relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, or make use of genetic resources, and that relate to all aspects of the CBD, with a particular focus on technology transfer from resource‐rich to biodiversity‐rich countries. Our proposed framework introduces technology transfer as a response indicator: technology transfer is increased to stem pressures on biodiversity. We suggest an initial approach of tracking technology flow between countries; charting this flow is likely to be a one‐to‐many relationship (i.e., the flow of a specific technology from one country to multiple countries). Future developments should then focus on integrating biodiversity technology transfer into the current pressure‐state‐response indicator framework favored by the CBD (i.e., measuring the influence of technology transfer on changes in state and pressure variables). Structured national reporting is important to obtaining metrics relevant to technology and knowledge transfer. Interim measures, that can be used to assess biodiversity technology or knowledge status while more in‐depth indicators are being developed, include the number of species inventories, threatened species lists, or national red lists; databases on publications and project funding may provide measures of international cooperation. Such a pragmatic approach, followed by rigorous testing of specific technology transfer metrics submitted by CBD signatories in a standardized manner may in turn improve the focus of future targets on technology transfer for biodiversity conservation.     

Emerging conservation challenges and prospects in an era of offshore hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation

Globally, extensive marine areas important for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem functioning are undergoing exploration and extraction of oil and natural gas resources. Such operations are expanding to previously inaccessible deep waters and other frontier regions, while conservation‐related legislation and planning is often lacking. Conservation challenges arising from offshore hydrocarbon development are wide‐ranging. These challenges include threats to ecosystems and marine species from oil spills, negative impacts on native biodiversity from invasive species colonizing drilling infrastructure, and increased political conflicts that can delay conservation actions. With mounting offshore operations, conservationists need to urgently consider some possible opportunities that could be leveraged for conservation. Leveraging options, as part of multi‐billion dollar marine hydrocarbon operations, include the use of facilities and costly equipment of the deep and ultra‐deep hydrocarbon industry for deep‐sea conservation research and monitoring and establishing new conservation research, practice, and monitoring funds and environmental offsetting schemes. The conservation community, including conservation scientists, should become more involved in the earliest planning and exploration phases and remain involved throughout the operations so as to influence decision making and promote continuous monitoring of biodiversity and ecosystems. A prompt response by conservation professionals to offshore oil and gas developments can mitigate impacts of future decisions and actions of the industry and governments. New environmental decision support tools can be used to explicitly incorporate the impacts of hydrocarbon operations on biodiversity into marine spatial and conservation plans and thus allow for optimum trade‐offs among multiple objectives, costs, and risks.     

On nonepistemic values in conservation biology

Conservation biology is a uniquely interdisciplinary science with strong roots in ecology, but it also embraces a value‐laden and mission‐oriented framework. This combination of science and values causes conservation biology to be at the center of critique regarding the discipline's scientific credibility—especially the division between the realms of theory and practice. We identify this dichotomy between seemingly objective (fact‐based) and subjective (value‐laden) practices as the measure‐value dichotomy, whereby measure refers to methods and analyses used in conservation biology (i.e., measuring biodiversity) and value refers to nonepistemic values. We reviewed and evaluated several landmark articles central to the foundation of conservation biology and concepts of biodiversity with respect to their attempts to separate measures and values. We argue that the measure‐value dichotomy is false and that conservation biology can make progress in ways unavailable to other disciplines because its practitioners are tasked with engaging in both the realm of theory and the realm of practice. The entanglement of measures and values is by no means a weakness of conservation biology. Because central concepts such as biodiversity contain both factual and evaluative aspects, conservation biologists can make theoretical progress by examining, reviewing, and forming the values that are an integral part of those concepts. We suggest that values should be included and analyzed with respect to the methods, results, and conclusions of scientific work in conservation biology.     

Local Land‐Use Planning to Conserve Biodiversity: Planners’ Perspectives on What Works

Abstract: Because habitat loss due to urbanization is a primary threat to biodiversity, and land‐use decisions in urbanizing areas are mainly made at the local level, land‐use planning by municipal planning departments has a potentially important—but largely unrealized—role in conserving biodiversity. To understand planners’ perspectives on the factors that facilitate and impede biodiversity conservation in local planning, we interviewed directors of 17 municipal planning departments in the greater Seattle (Washington, U.S.A.) area and compared responses of planners from similar‐sized jurisdictions that were “high” and “low performing” with respect to incorporation of biodiversity conservation in local planning. Planners from low‐performing jurisdictions regarded mandates from higher governmental levels as the primary drivers of biodiversity conservation, whereas those from high‐performing jurisdictions regarded community values as the main drivers, although they also indicated that mandates were important. Biodiversity conservation was associated with presence of local conservation flagship elements (e.g., salmonids) and human‐centered benefits of biodiversity conservation (e.g., quality of life). Planners from high‐ and low‐performing jurisdictions favored different planning mechanisms for biodiversity conservation, perhaps reflecting differences in funding and staffing. High performers reported more collaborations with other entities on biodiversity issues. Planners’ comments indicated that the term biodiversity may be problematic in the context of local planning. The action most planners recommended to increase biodiversity conservation in local planning was public education. These results suggest that to advance biodiversity conservation in local land‐use planning, conservation biologists should investigate and educate the public about local conservation flagships and human benefits of local biodiversity, work to raise ecological literacy and explain biodiversity more effectively to the public, and promote collaboration on biodiversity conservation among jurisdictions and inclusion of biodiversity specialists in planning departments.     

Case studies of conservation plans that incorporate geodiversity

Geodiversity has been used as a surrogate for biodiversity when species locations are unknown, and this utility can be extended to situations where species locations are in flux. Recently, scientists have designed conservation networks that aim to explicitly represent the range of geophysical environments, identifying a network of physical stages that could sustain biodiversity while allowing for change in species composition in response to climate change. Because there is no standard approach to designing such networks, we compiled 8 case studies illustrating a variety of ways scientists have approached the challenge. These studies show how geodiversity has been partitioned and used to develop site portfolios and connectivity designs; how geodiversity‐based portfolios compare with those derived from species and communities; and how the selection and combination of variables influences the results. Collectively, they suggest 4 key steps when using geodiversity to augment traditional biodiversity‐based conservation planning: create land units from species‐relevant variables combined in an ecologically meaningful way; represent land units in a logical spatial configuration and integrate with species locations when possible; apply selection criteria to individual sites to ensure they are appropriate for conservation; and develop connectivity among sites to maintain movements and processes. With these considerations, conservationists can design more effective site portfolios to ensure the lasting conservation of biodiversity under a changing climate.     

Matches and mismatches between conservation investments and biodiversity values in the European Union

Recently, the European Commission adopted a new strategy to halt the loss of biodiversity. Member states are expected to favor a more effective collection and redistribution of European Union (EU) funds under the current Multiannual Financial Framework for 2014–2020. Because of the large spatial variation in the distribution of biodiversity and conservation needs at the continental scale, EU instruments should ensure that countries with higher biodiversity values get more funds and resources for the conservation than other countries. Using linear regressions, we assessed the association between conservation investments and biodiversity values across member states, accounting for a variety of conservation investment indicators, taxonomic groups (including groups of plants, vertebrates, and invertebrates), and indicators of biodiversity value. In general, we found clear overall associations between conservation investments and biodiversity variables. However, some countries received more or less investment than would be expected based on biodiversity values in those countries. We also found that the extensive use of birds as unique indicators of conservation effectiveness may lead to biased decisions. Our results can inform future decisions regarding funding allocation and thus improve distribution of EU conservation funds.     

Enhancing the Engagement of U.S. Private Foundations with Conservation Science

Abstract: Funding for conservation is limited, and its investment for maximum conservation gain can likely be enhanced through the application of relevant science. Many donor institutions support and use science to pursue conservation goals, but their activities remain relatively unfamiliar to the conservation‐science community. We examined the priorities and practices of U.S.‐based private foundations that support biodiversity conservation. We surveyed 50 donor members of the Consultative Group on Biological Diversity (CGBD) to address three questions: (1) What support do CGBD members provide for conservation science? (2) How do CGBD members use conservation science in their grant making and strategic thinking? (3) How do CGBD members obtain information about conservation science? The 38 donor institutions that responded to the survey made $340 million in grants for conservation in 2005, including $62 million for conservation science. Individual foundations varied substantially in the proportion of conservation funds allocated to science. Foundations also varied in the ways and degree to which they used conservation science to guide their grant making. Respondents found it “somewhat difficult” to stay informed about conservation science relevant to their work, reporting that they accessed conservation science information mainly through their grantees. Many funders reported concerns about the strategic utility of funding conservation science to achieve conservation gains. To increase investment by private foundations in conservation science, funders, researchers, and conservation practitioners need to jointly identify when and how new scientific knowledge will lower barriers to conservation gains. We envision an evolving relationship between funders and conservation scientists that emphasizes primary research and synthesis motivated by (1) applicability, (2) human‐ecosystem interactions, (3) active engagement among scientists and decision makers, and (4) broader communication of relevant scientific information.     

A strategy for the next decade to address data deficiency in neglected biodiversity

Measuring progress toward international biodiversity targets requires robust information on the conservation status of species, which the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species provides. However, data and capacity are lacking for most hyperdiverse groups, such as invertebrates, plants, and fungi, particularly in megadiverse or high-endemism regions. Conservation policies and biodiversity strategies aimed at halting biodiversity loss by 2020 need to be adapted to tackle these information shortfalls after 2020. We devised an 8-point strategy to close existing data gaps by reviving explorative field research on the distribution, abundance, and ecology of species; linking taxonomic research more closely with conservation; improving global biodiversity databases by making the submission of spatially explicit data mandatory for scientific publications; developing a global spatial database on threats to biodiversity to facilitate IUCN Red List assessments; automating preassessments by integrating distribution data and spatial threat data; building capacity in taxonomy, ecology, and biodiversity monitoring in countries with high species richness or endemism; creating species monitoring programs for lesser-known taxa; and developing sufficient funding mechanisms to reduce reliance on voluntary efforts. Implementing these strategies in the post-2020 biodiversity framework will help to overcome the lack of capacity and data regarding the conservation status of biodiversity. This will require a collaborative effort among scientists, policy makers, and conservation practitioners.     

Four challenges to an effective national nature assessment

Comprehensive biodiversity assessments play an essential role in strengthening global and national conservation strategies. The recently announced first U.S. National Nature Assessment (NNA) provides an unparalleled opportunity to comprehensively review status and trends of biodiversity at all levels. This broad context can help in the coordination of actions to conserve individual species and ecosystems. The scientific assessments that informed the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework adopted at the 2022 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) conference of parties provide models for synthesizing information on trends at multiple levels of biodiversity, including decline in abundance and distribution of species, loss of populations and genetic diversity, and degradation and loss of ecosystems and their services. The assessments then relate these trends to data on drivers of biodiversity loss and pathways to their mitigation. The U.S. NNA can augment such global analyses and avoid the pitfalls encountered by previous U.S. efforts by ensuring policy-relevant design, data accessibility, and inclusivity in process and product and by incorporating spatial data relevant to national and subnational audiences. Although the United States is not formally a CBD party, an effective NNA should take full advantage of the global context by including indicators adopted at the 2022 meeting and incorporating an independent review mechanism that supports periodic stocktaking and ratcheting up of ambition in response to identified shortfalls in stemming biodiversity loss. The challenges to design of an effective U.S. assessment are relevant globally as nations develop assessments and reporting to support the new global biodiversity framework's targets. By considering and incorporating the diverse ways in which society values and benefits from nature, such assessments can help bridge the gap between research and conservation practice and communicate the extent of the biodiversity crisis to the public, fostering broad-based support for transformative change in humanity's relationship to the natural world.     

Biodiversity Conservation in Local Planning

Abstract:  Local land-use policy is increasingly being recognized as fundamental to biodiversity conservation in the United States. Many planners and conservation scientists have called for broader use of planning and regulatory tools to support the conservation of biodiversity at local scales. Yet little is known about the pervasiveness of these practices. We conducted an on-line survey of county, municipal, and tribal planning directors (n = 116 ) in 3 geographic regions of the United States: metropolitan Seattle, Washington; metropolitan Des Moines, Iowa; and the Research Triangle, North Carolina. Our objectives were to gauge the extent to which local planning departments address biodiversity conservation and to identify factors that facilitate or hinder conservation actions in local planning. We found that biodiversity conservation was seldom a major consideration in these departments. Staff time was mainly devoted to development mandates and little time was spent on biodiversity conservation. Regulations requiring conservation actions that might benefit biodiversity were uncommon, with the exception of rules governing water quality in all 3 regions and the protection of threatened and endangered species in the Seattle region. Planning tools that could enhance habitat conservation were used infrequently. Collaboration across jurisdictions was widespread, but rarely focused on conservation. Departments with a conservation specialist on staff tended to be associated with higher levels of conservation actions. Jurisdictions in the Seattle region also reported higher levels of conservation action, largely driven by state and federal mandates. Increased funding was most frequently cited as a factor that would facilitate greater consideration of biodiversity in local planning. There are numerous opportunities for conservation biologists to play a role in improving conservation planning at local scales.