Shifting elasmobranch community assemblage at Cocos Island—an isolated marine protected area

Fishing pressure has increased the extinction risk of many elasmobranch (shark and ray) species. Although many countries have established no‐take marine reserves, a paucity of monitoring data means it is still unclear if reserves are effectively protecting these species. We examined data collected by a small group of divers over the past 21 years at one of the world's oldest marine protected areas (MPAs), Cocos Island National Park, Costa Rica. We used mixed effects models to determine trends in relative abundance, or probability of occurrence, of 12 monitored elasmobranch species while accounting for variation among observers and from abiotic factors. Eight of 12 species declined significantly over the past 2 decades. We documented decreases in relative abundance for 6 species, including the iconic scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini) (?45%), whitetip reef shark (Triaenodon obesus) (?77%), mobula ray (Mobula spp.) (?78%), and manta ray (Manta birostris) (?89%), and decreases in the probability of occurrence for 2 other species. Several of these species have small home ranges and should be better protected by an MPA, which underscores the notion that declines of marine megafauna will continue unabated in MPAs unless there is adequate enforcement effort to control fishing. In addition, probability of occurrence at Cocos Island of tiger (Galeocerdo cuvier), Galapagos (Carcharhinus galapagensis), blacktip (Carcharhinus limbatus), and whale (Rhincodon typus) sharks increased significantly. The effectiveness of MPAs cannot be evaluated by examining single species because population responses can vary depending on life history traits and vulnerability to fishing pressure.     

Minimizing the cost of translocation failure with decision‐tree models that predict species’ behavioral response in translocation sites

The high number of failures is one reason why translocation is often not recommended. Considering how behavior changes during translocations may improve translocation success. To derive decision‐tree models for species’ translocation, we used data on the short‐term responses of an endangered Australian skink in 5 simulated translocations with different release conditions. We used 4 different decision‐tree algorithms (decision tree, decision‐tree parallel, decision stump, and random forest) with 4 different criteria (gain ratio, information gain, gini index, and accuracy) to investigate how environmental and behavioral parameters may affect the success of a translocation. We assumed behavioral changes that increased dispersal away from a release site would reduce translocation success. The trees became more complex when we included all behavioral parameters as attributes, but these trees yielded more detailed information about why and how dispersal occurred. According to these complex trees, there were positive associations between some behavioral parameters, such as fight and dispersal, that showed there was a higher chance, for example, of dispersal among lizards that fought than among those that did not fight. Decision trees based on parameters related to release conditions were easier to understand and could be used by managers to make translocation decisions under different circumstances. Minimizar el Costo del Fracaso de la Reubicación con Modelos de Árboles de Decisión que Predigan la Respuesta Conductual de la Especie en los Sitios de Reubicación     

Utility of biological sensor tags in animal conservation

Electronic tags (both biotelemetry and biologging platforms) have informed conservation and resource management policy and practice by providing vital information on the spatial ecology of animals and their environments. However, the extent of the contribution of biological sensors (within electronic tags) that measure an animal's state (e.g., heart rate, body temperature, and details of locomotion and energetics) is less clear. A literature review revealed that, despite a growing number of commercially available state sensor tags and enormous application potential for such devices in animal biology, there are relatively few examples of their application to conservation. Existing applications fell under 4 main themes: quantifying disturbance (e.g., ecotourism, vehicular and aircraft traffic), examining the effects of environmental change (e.g., climate change), understanding the consequences of habitat use and selection, and estimating energy expenditure. We also identified several other ways in which sensor tags could benefit conservation, such as determining the potential efficacy of management interventions. With increasing sensor diversity of commercially available platforms, less invasive attachment techniques, smaller device sizes, and more researchers embracing such technology, we suggest that biological sensor tags be considered a part of the necessary toolbox for conservation. This approach can measure (in real time) the state of free‐ranging animals and thus provide managers with objective, timely, relevant, and accurate data to inform policy and decision making.     

A review of selection‐based tests of abiotic surrogates for species representation

Because conservation planners typically lack data on where species occur, environmental surrogates—including geophysical settings and climate types—have been used to prioritize sites within a planning area. We reviewed 622 evaluations of the effectiveness of abiotic surrogates in representing species in 19 study areas. Sites selected using abiotic surrogates represented more species than an equal number of randomly selected sites in 43% of tests (55% for plants) and on average improved on random selection of sites by about 8% (21% for plants). Environmental diversity (ED) (42% median improvement on random selection) and biotically informed clusters showed promising results and merit additional testing. We suggest 4 ways to improve performance of abiotic surrogates. First, analysts should consider a broad spectrum of candidate variables to define surrogates, including rarely used variables related to geographic separation, distance from coast, hydrology, and within‐site abiotic diversity. Second, abiotic surrogates should be defined at fine thematic resolution. Third, sites (the landscape units prioritized within a planning area) should be small enough to ensure that surrogates reflect species’ environments and to produce prioritizations that match the spatial resolution of conservation decisions. Fourth, if species inventories are available for some planning units, planners should define surrogates based on the abiotic variables that most influence species turnover in the planning area. Although species inventories increase the cost of using abiotic surrogates, a modest number of inventories could provide the data needed to select variables and evaluate surrogates. Additional tests of nonclimate abiotic surrogates are needed to evaluate the utility of conserving nature's stage as a strategy for conservation planning in the face of climate change.     

Assessing the components of adaptive capacity to improve conservation and management efforts under global change

Natural‐resource managers and other conservation practitioners are under unprecedented pressure to categorize and quantify the vulnerability of natural systems based on assessment of the exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity of species to climate change. Despite the urgent need for these assessments, neither the theoretical basis of adaptive capacity nor the practical issues underlying its quantification has been articulated in a manner that is directly applicable to natural‐resource management. Both are critical for researchers, managers, and other conservation practitioners to develop reliable strategies for assessing adaptive capacity. Drawing from principles of classical and contemporary research and examples from terrestrial, marine, plant, and animal systems, we examined broadly the theory behind the concept of adaptive capacity. We then considered how interdisciplinary, trait‐ and triage‐based approaches encompassing the oft‐overlooked interactions among components of adaptive capacity can be used to identify species and populations likely to have higher (or lower) adaptive capacity. We identified the challenges and value of such endeavors and argue for a concerted interdisciplinary research approach that combines ecology, ecological genetics, and eco‐physiology to reflect the interacting components of adaptive capacity. We aimed to provide a basis for constructive discussion between natural‐resource managers and researchers, discussions urgently needed to identify research directions that will deliver answers to real‐world questions facing resource managers, other conservation practitioners, and policy makers. Directing research to both seek general patterns and identify ways to facilitate adaptive capacity of key species and populations within species, will enable conservation ecologists and resource managers to maximize returns on research and management investment and arrive at novel and dynamic management and policy decisions.     

On how much biodiversity is covered in Europe by national protected areas and by the Natura 2000 network: insights from terrestrial vertebrates

The European Union has made extensive biodiversity conservation efforts with the Habitats and Birds Directives and with the establishment of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas, one of the largest networks of conservation areas worldwide. We performed a gap analysis of the entire Natura 2000 system plus national protected areas and all terrestrial vertebrates (freshwater fish excluded). We also evaluated the level of connectivity of both systems, providing therefore a first estimate of the functionality of the Natura 2000 system as an effective network of protected areas. Together national protected areas and the Natura 2000 network covered more than one‐third of the European Union. National protected areas did not offer protection to 13 total gap species (i.e., species not covered by any protected area) or to almost 300 partial gap species (i.e., species whose representation target is not met). Together the Natura 2000 network and national protected areas left 1 total gap species and 121 partial gap species unprotected. The terrestrial vertebrates listed in the Habitats and Birds Directives were relatively well covered (especially birds), and overall connectivity was improved considerably by Natura 2000 sites that act as stepping stones between national protected areas. Overall, we found that the Natura 2000 network represents at continental level an important network of protected areas that acts as a good complement to existing national protected areas. However, a number of problems remain that are mainly linked to the criteria used to list the species in the Habitats and Birds Directives. The European Commission initiated in 2014 a process aimed at assessing the importance of the Birds and Habitats Directives for biodiversity conservation. Our results contribute to this assessment and suggest the system is largely effective for terrestrial vertebrates but would benefit from further updating of the species lists and field management.     

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.