Faunal Changes and Bottomland Hardwood Forest Loss in the Tensas Watershed, Louisiana

Intentamos asociar las diferencias entre las poblaclones de fauna en la cuenca de Tensas con las diferencias de extensión de áreas de bosques caducifolios de tierras bajas, usando datos existentes. La cuenca de Tensas era parte del area de distribución original de varias especies que actualmente están ausentes: lobo rojo, la puma de Florida, Pájaro Carpintero. El oso negro de Louisiana y Gorjeador de Bachman. también está en peligro de extinción. Los catastras de aves proporcionaron los mejores datos faunisticos Las comparaciones de poblaciones de aves (1) con la disminución del bosque caducifolio de tierras bajas al pasar del tiempo y (2) con áreas con diferentes superficies de este tipo de bosque apoyan la bipótesis de que el número de especies selvicolas y las densidades de población de especies del interior del bosque decrecieron junto con la disminución acumulativa en el área de bosques. Hemos señalado el deterioro de las poblaciones de fauna autoctona utilizando encuestas existentes de aves y datos cualitativos, demostrando la utilidad del enfoque del impacto acumulativo a una escala de cuencas hidrográfica Asegurando la conservación de los habitats necesarioq un plan de munejo de impacto acumulativo reducería extinciones adicionales en esta cuenca hidrográfica.     

Social Capital in Biodiversity Conservation and Management

Abstract:  The knowledge and values of local communities are now being acknowledged as valuable for biodiversity conservation. Relationships of trust, reciprocity and exchange, common rules, norms and sanctions, and connectedness in groups are what make up social capital, which is a necessary resource for shaping individual action to achieve positive biodiversity outcomes. Agricultural and rural conservation programs address biodiversity at three levels: agrobiodiversity on farms, nearby nature in landscapes, and protected areas. Recent initiatives that have sought to build social capital have shown that rural people can improve their understanding of biodiversity and agroecological relationships at the same time as they develop new social rules, norms, and institutions. This process of social learning helps new ideas to spread and can lead to positive biodiversity outcomes over large areas. New ideas spread more rapidly where there is high social capital. There remain many practical and policy difficulties, however, not least regarding the need to invest in social capital formation and the many unresolved questions of how the state views communities empowered to make their own decisions. Nonetheless, attention to the value of social relations, in the form of trust, reciprocal arrangements, locally developed rules, norms and sanctions, and emergent institutions, has clearly been shown to deliver a biodiversity dividend in many contexts. This suggests a need to blend both the biological and social elements of conservation.     

The Consistency of Extinction Risk Classification Protocols

Abstract:  Systematic protocols that use decision rules or scores are seen to improve consistency and transparency in classifying the conservation status of species. When applying these protocols, assessors are typically required to decide on estimates for attributes that are inherently uncertain. Input data and resulting classifications are usually treated as though they are exact and hence without operator error. We investigated the impact of data interpretation on the consistency of protocols of extinction risk classifications and diagnosed causes of discrepancies when they occurred. We tested three widely used systematic classification protocols employed by the World Conservation Union, NatureServe, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. We provided 18 assessors with identical information for 13 different species to infer estimates for each of the required parameters for the three protocols. The threat classification of several of the species varied from low risk to high risk, depending on who did the assessment. This occurred across the three protocols investigated. Assessors tended to agree on their placement of species in the highest (50–70%) and lowest risk categories (20–40%), but there was poor agreement on which species should be placed in the intermediate categories. Furthermore, the correspondence between the three classification methods was unpredictable, with large variation among assessors. These results highlight the importance of peer review and consensus among multiple assessors in species classifications and the need to be cautious with assessments carried out by a single assessor. Greater consistency among assessors requires wide use of training manuals and formal methods for estimating parameters that allow uncertainties to be represented, carried through chains of calculations, and reported transparently.     

Safeguarding Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in the Little Karoo,South Africa

Abstract: Global declines in biodiversity and the widespread degradation of ecosystem services have led to urgent calls to safeguard both. Responses to this urgency include calls to integrate the needs of ecosystem services and biodiversity into the design of conservation interventions. The benefits of such integration are purported to include improvements in the justification and resources available for these interventions. Nevertheless, additional costs and potential trade‐offs remain poorly understood in the design of interventions that seek to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services. We sought to investigate the synergies and trade‐offs in safeguarding ecosystem services and biodiversity in South Africa's Little Karoo. We used data on three ecosystem services—carbon storage, water recharge, and fodder provision—and data on biodiversity to examine several conservation planning scenarios. First, we investigated the amount of each ecosystem service captured incidentally by a conservation plan to meet targets for biodiversity only while minimizing opportunity costs. We then examined the costs of adding targets for ecosystem services into this conservation plan. Finally, we explored trade‐offs between biodiversity and ecosystem service targets at a fixed cost. At least 30% of each ecosystem service was captured incidentally when all of biodiversity targets were met. By including data on ecosystem services, we increased the amount of services captured by at least 20% for all three services without additional costs. When biodiversity targets were reduced by 8%, an extra 40% of fodder provision and water recharge were obtained and 58% of carbon could be captured for the same cost. The opportunity cost (in terms of forgone production) of safeguarding 100% of the biodiversity targets was about US$500 million. Our results showed that with a small decrease in biodiversity target achievement, substantial gains for the conservation of ecosystem services can be achieved within our biodiversity priority areas for no extra cost.     

Payments for Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Community-Based Conservation in Northern Tanzania

Abstract:  Payments for ecosystem services (PES) are an increasingly promoted approach to conservation. These approaches seek to develop financial mechanisms that create economic incentives for the maintenance of ecosystems and associated biodiversity by rewarding those who are responsible for provision of ecological services. There are, however, few cases in which such schemes have been used as a strategy for conserving wildlife in developing countries and very few operational examples of such schemes of any sort in sub-Saharan Africa. In savannah ecosystems, large mammal populations generally depend on seasonal use of extensive areas and are widely declining as a result of habitat loss, overexploitation, and policies that limit local benefits from wildlife. Community-based conservation strategies seek to create local incentives for conserving wildlife, but often have limited impact as a result of persistent institutional barriers that limit local rights and economic benefits. In northern Tanzania, a consortium of tourism operators is attempting to address these challenges through an agreement with a village that possesses part of a key wildlife dispersal area outside Tarangire National Park. The operators pay the community to enforce voluntary restrictions on agricultural cultivation and permanent settlement in a defined area of land. The initiative represents a potentially cost-effective framework for community-based conservation in an ecologically important area and is helping to reconcile historically conflicting local and national interests relative to land tenure, pastoralist livelihoods, and conservation. Wider adaptation of payments for ecosystem services approaches to settings where sustaining wildlife populations depends on local stewardship may help address current challenges facing conservation outside state-protected areas in savannah ecosystems in sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the world.     

Assessing the Ecological and Social Benefits of Private Land Conservation in Colorado

Abstract: Conservation of private land through conservation easements, development agreements, and clustered housing has increased greatly as have criticisms of the laws, public programs, and incentives that motivate landowners to use them. Rapid land‐use change at the urban–rural interface in Larimer County, Colorado, has given rise to programs that provide a variety of land‐conservation options for landowners. As of January 2005, roughly 60% of Larimer County was publicly owned, and 3% or 16,200 ha was privately owned with some form of protection. We used document analysis, a landowner survey, targeted interviews, and a landscape‐level spatial analysis to analyze the patterns, quantities, and qualities of private land conservation. We created a jurisdiction‐specific typology of desired benefits from local government‐planning documents to help evaluate conservation parcels. Most easements and other conservation documents used general terms and did not describe the site‐specific values of the land being conserved. Landowners were able to describe some benefits not included in parcel‐specific documents, and our spatial analysis revealed parcel‐specific and cumulative conservation benefits such as the amount of buffering, infill, connectivity, protected agricultural land, riparian protection, and other benefits not referenced by either documents or landowners. Conservation benefits provided by a parcel varied depending on its geographic location, the specific institution such as a land trust or open space program that a landowner worked with, and the conservation mechanism used, such as voluntary easement or residential clustering requirements. The methods we used provide a template for jurisdictions wishing to undertake a similar analysis. Our findings may assist other jurisdictions and institutions interested in improving how land‐conservation benefits are described; justify and inform future investments in private land conservation; assist local governments and other institutions with the assessment of program effectiveness; and be useful for conservation planners who wish to become more involved in on‐the‐ground implementation of conservation actions.