Interventions for Reducing Extinction Risk in Chytridiomycosis‐Threatened Amphibians

Wildlife diseases pose an increasing threat to biodiversity and are a major management challenge. A striking example of this threat is the emergence of chytridiomycosis. Despite diagnosis of chytridiomycosis as an important driver of global amphibian declines 15 years ago, researchers have yet to devise effective large‐scale management responses other than biosecurity measures to mitigate disease spread and the establishment of disease‐free captive assurance colonies prior to or during disease outbreaks. We examined the development of management actions that can be implemented after an epidemic in surviving populations. We developed a conceptual framework with clear interventions to guide experimental management and applied research so that further extinctions of amphibian species threatened by chytridiomycosis might be prevented. Within our framework, there are 2 management approaches: reducing Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (the fungus that causes chytridiomycosis) in the environment or on amphibians and increasing the capacity of populations to persist despite increased mortality from disease. The latter approach emphasizes that mitigation does not necessarily need to focus on reducing disease‐associated mortality. We propose promising management actions that can be implemented and tested based on current knowledge and that include habitat manipulation, antifungal treatments, animal translocation, bioaugmentation, head starting, and selection for resistance. Case studies where these strategies are being implemented will demonstrate their potential to save critically endangered species. Intervenciones para Reducir el Riesgo de Extinción en Anfibios Amenazados por la Quitridiomicosis     

Establishing IUCN Red List Criteria for Threatened Ecosystems

Abstract: The potential for conservation of individual species has been greatly advanced by the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) development of objective, repeatable, and transparent criteria for assessing extinction risk that explicitly separate risk assessment from priority setting. At the IV World Conservation Congress in 2008, the process began to develop and implement comparable global standards for ecosystems. A working group established by the IUCN has begun formulating a system of quantitative categories and criteria, analogous to those used for species, for assigning levels of threat to ecosystems at local, regional, and global levels. A final system will require definitions of ecosystems; quantification of ecosystem status; identification of the stages of degradation and loss of ecosystems; proxy measures of risk (criteria); classification thresholds for these criteria; and standardized methods for performing assessments. The system will need to reflect the degree and rate of change in an ecosystem's extent, composition, structure, and function, and have its conceptual roots in ecological theory and empirical research. On the basis of these requirements and the hypothesis that ecosystem risk is a function of the risk of its component species, we propose a set of four criteria: recent declines in distribution or ecological function, historical total loss in distribution or ecological function, small distribution combined with decline, or very small distribution. Most work has focused on terrestrial ecosystems, but comparable thresholds and criteria for freshwater and marine ecosystems are also needed. These are the first steps in an international consultation process that will lead to a unified proposal to be presented at the next World Conservation Congress in 2012.     

Priorities for Improving the Scientific Foundation of Conservation Policy in North America

Abstract:  The Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) can enhance conservation of biodiversity in North America by increasing its engagement in public policy. Toward this end, the North America Section of SCB is establishing partnerships with other professional organizations in order to speak more powerfully to decision makers and taking other actions—such as increasing interaction with chapters—geared to engage members more substantively in science-policy issues. Additionally, the section is developing a North American Biodiversity Blueprint, which spans the continental United States and Canada and is informed by natural and social science. This blueprint is intended to clarify the policy challenges for protecting continental biodiversity, to foster bilateral collaboration to resolve common problems, and to suggest rational alternative policies and practices that are more likely than current practices to sustain North America's natural heritage. Conservation scientists and practitioners can play a key role by drawing policy makers' attention to ultimate, as well as proximate, causes of biodiversity decline and to the ecological and economic consequences of not addressing these threats.     

Economic Growth,Climate Change,Biodiversity Loss: Distributive Justice for the Global North and South

Abstract: Economic growth‐the increase in production and consumption of goods and services‐must be considered within its biophysical context. Economic growth is fueled by biophysical inputs and its outputs degrade ecological processes, such as the global climate system. Economic growth is currently the principal cause of increased climate change, and climate change is a primary mechanism of biodiversity loss. Therefore, economic growth is a prime catalyst of biodiversity loss. Because people desire economic growth for dissimilar reasons‐some for the increased accumulation of wealth, others for basic needs‐how we limit economic growth becomes an ethical problem. Principles of distributive justice can help construct an international climate‐change regime based on principles of equity. An equity‐based framework that caps economic growth in the most polluting economies will lessen human impact on biodiversity. When coupled with a cap‐and‐trade mechanism, the framework can also provide a powerful tool for redistribution of wealth. Such an equity‐based framework promises to be more inclusive and therefore more effective because it accounts for the disparate developmental conditions of the global north and south.     

Localization of a Contact Zone between Two Highly Divergent Mitochondrial DNA Lineages of the Brown Bear Ursus arctos in Scandinavia

In Europe the brown bear ( Ursus arctos ) is represented by two different mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineages, which probably diverged about 0.85 million years ago. Scandinavia has been colonized by representatives of both lineages, from the north (eastern lineage) and from the south (western lineage), and now bears occur primarily in four main regions called female concentration areas. For management purposes the localization of the contact zone between these two genotypes is important. Using hairs as a source of DNA, 127 individual brown bears from throughout the Scandinavian populations were assayed for lineage assignment. A part of the mtDNA control region was amplified via the polymerase chain reaction, and the product was either sequenced (14 individuals) or digested with two diagnostic restriction endonucleases (113 individuals). Fifty-six and 71 bears were assigned to the western and eastern lineages, respectively. The geographic distribution of the two genotypes allowed precise localization of the contact zone. Only two males from each lineage had crossed the border between the two lineages. We used dispersal data from bears radio-marked as yearlings to determine whether potential mtDNA introgressions agreed with the dispersal behavior of bears. The males in the "wrong" areas were all within the 95th-percentile dispersal distance from the "correct" area. Females were more philopatric than males, and none were found in the wrong areas. The two female concentration areas flanking the contact zone were 134 km apart. Thus, radiotelemetry results on dispersal distances could explain the occurrence of the males in the wrong genetic area. In the absence of information concerning possible male-mediated gene flow, a conservative management approach would be to consider the southern and the three northern female concentration areas as two distinct conservation units.     

Establishing Representative No-Take Areas in the Great Barrier Reef: Large-Scale Implementation of Theory on Marine Protected Areas

Abstract:  The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, an area almost the size of Japan, has a new network of no-take areas that significantly improves the protection of biodiversity. The new marine park zoning implements, in a quantitative manner, many of the theoretical design principles discussed in the literature. For example, the new network of no-take areas has at least 20% protection per "bioregion," minimum levels of protection for all known habitats and special or unique features, and minimum sizes for no-take areas of at least 10 or 20 km across at the smallest diameter. Overall, more than 33% of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is now in no-take areas (previously 4.5%). The steps taken leading to this outcome were to clarify to the interested public why the existing level of protection was inadequate; detail the conservation objectives of establishing new no-take areas; work with relevant and independent experts to define, and contribute to, the best scientific process to deliver on the objectives; describe the biodiversity (e.g., map bioregions); define operational principles needed to achieve the objectives; invite community input on all of the above; gather and layer the data gathered in round-table discussions; report the degree of achievement of principles for various options of no-take areas; and determine how to address negative impacts. Some of the key success factors in this case have global relevance and include focusing initial communication on the problem to be addressed; applying the precautionary principle; using independent experts; facilitating input to decision making; conducting extensive and participatory consultation; having an existing marine park that encompassed much of the ecosystem; having legislative power under federal law; developing high-level support; ensuring agency priority and ownership; and being able to address the issue of displaced fishers.