Epidemiologic Analysis of Factors Associated with Local Disappearances of Native Ranid Frogs in Arizona

Abstract:  We examined factors that may independently or synergistically contribute to amphibian population declines. We used epidemiologic case–control methodology to sample and analyze a large database developed and maintained by the Arizona Game and Fish Department that describes historical and currently known ranid frog localities in Arizona, U.S.A. Sites with historical documentation of target ranid species ( n = 324) were evaluated to identify locations where frogs had disappeared during the study period (case sites) and locations where frog populations persisted (control sites). Between 1986 and 2003, 117 (36%) of the 324 sites became case sites, of which 105 were used in the analyses. An equal number of control sites were sampled to control for the effects of time. Risk factors, or predictor variables, were defined from environmental data summarized during site surveys and geographic information system data layers. We evaluated risk factors with univariate and multifactorial logistic-regression analyses to derive odds ratios (OR). Odds for local population disappearance were significantly related to 4 factors in the multifactorial model. Disappearance of frog populations increased with increasing elevation (OR = 2.7 for every 500 m, p < 0.01). Sites where disappearances occurred were 4.3 times more likely to have other nearby sites that also experienced disappearances (OR = 4.3, p < 0.01), whereas the odds of disappearance were 6.7 times less (OR = 0.15, p < 0.01) when there was a source population nearby. Sites with disappearances were 2.6 times more likely to have introduced crayfish than were control sites (OR = 2.6, p = 0.04). The identification of factors associated with frog disappearances increases understanding of declines occurring in natural populations and aids in conservation efforts to reestablish and protect native ranids by identifying and prioritizing implicated threats.     

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

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

A Multidisciplinary Approach to Assessing the Sustainability of Freshwater Crayfish Harvesting in Madagascar

Abstract:  There is growing interest among conservation decision makers in promoting harvesting of forest products as an incentive for communities to retain forest cover. Assessments of the sustainability of existing harvests are essential for implementing such policies. Madagascar's endemic freshwater crayfish, Astacoides spp., are harvested throughout their range. Despite their importance to human communities, Madagascar's crayfish, like much of the island's freshwater biodiversity, are poorly known, and there is concern that the harvest may be unsustainable. We investigated sustainability of the crayfish harvest in and around Ranomafana National Park in eastern Madagascar, focusing on the heavily harvested A. granulimanus. Several villages around the park have traditional taboos against selling crayfish, resulting in widely varying levels of crayfish exploitation. We used two approaches to assess sustainability of the harvest. First we used participatory mapping combined with a geographic information system analysis to produce a spatially accurate map of harvesting intensity. We then carried out mark-and-recapture sampling at 74 sites across a range of harvest intensities to test whether the level of harvesting was a significant predictor of crayfish density and structure. Second, we used size-structured matrix population models to estimate the forest area necessary to provide the observed annual harvest from one harvesting village and compared this estimate with the area available to the harvesters. Our findings show that the crayfish harvest in Ranomafana may be sustainable under current socioeconomic conditions, suggesting that A. granulimanus is less vulnerable to overexploitation than previously thought. We emphasize the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to assessing sustainability involving both ecological information about the harvested species and socioeconomic data about the level and spatial pattern of the harvest.     

Seventy‐One Important Questions for the Conservation of Marine Biodiversity

The ocean provides food, economic activity, and cultural value for a large proportion of humanity. Our knowledge of marine ecosystems lags behind that of terrestrial ecosystems, limiting effective protection of marine resources. We describe the outcome of 2 workshops in 2011 and 2012 to establish a list of important questions, which, if answered, would substantially improve our ability to conserve and manage the world's marine resources. Participants included individuals from academia, government, and nongovernment organizations with broad experience across disciplines, marine ecosystems, and countries that vary in levels of development. Contributors from the fields of science, conservation, industry, and government submitted questions to our workshops, which we distilled into a list of priority research questions. Through this process, we identified 71 key questions. We grouped these into 8 subject categories, each pertaining to a broad component of marine conservation: fisheries, climate change, other anthropogenic threats, ecosystems, marine citizenship, policy, societal and cultural considerations, and scientific enterprise. Our questions address many issues that are specific to marine conservation, and will serve as a road map to funders and researchers to develop programs that can greatly benefit marine conservation. Setenta y Un Preguntas Importantes para la Conservación de la Biodiversidad Marina     

Knowing But Not Doing: Selecting Priority Conservation Areas and the Research–Implementation Gap

Abstract: Conservation assessment is a rapidly evolving discipline whose stated goal is the design of networks of protected areas that represent and ensure the persistence of nature (i.e., species, habitats, and environmental processes) by separating priority areas from the activities that degrade or destroy them. Nevertheless, despite a burgeoning scientific literature that ever refines these techniques for allocating conservation resources, it is widely believed that conservation assessments are rarely translated into actions that actually conserve nature. We reviewed the conservation assessment literature in peer‐reviewed journals and conducted survey questionnaires of the authors of these studies. Two‐thirds of conservation assessments published in the peer‐reviewed scientific literature do not deliver conservation action, primarily because most researchers never plan for implementation. This research–implementation gap between conservation science and real‐world action is a genuine phenomenon and is a specific example of the “knowing–doing gap” that is widely recognized in management science. Given the woefully inadequate resources allocated for conservation, our findings raise questions over the utility of conservation assessment science, as currently practiced, to provide useful, pragmatic solutions to conservation planning problems. A reevaluation of the conceptual and operational basis of conservation planning research is urgently required. We recommend the following actions for beginning a process for bridging the research–implementation gap in conservation planning: (1) acknowledge the research–implementation gap is real, (2) source research questions from practitioners, (3) situate research within a broader conservation planning model, (4) expand the social dimension of conservation assessments, (5) support conservation plans with transdisciplinary social learning institutions, (6) reward academics for societal engagement and implementation, and (7) train students in skills for “doing” conservation.