Developing Metapopulation Connectivity Criteria from Genetic and Habitat Data to Recover the Endangered Mexican Wolf

Restoring connectivity between fragmented populations is an important tool for alleviating genetic threats to endangered species. Yet recovery plans typically lack quantitative criteria for ensuring such population connectivity. We demonstrate how models that integrate habitat, genetic, and demographic data can be used to develop connectivity criteria for the endangered Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi), which is currently being restored to the wild from a captive population descended from 7 founders. We used population viability analysis that incorporated pedigree data to evaluate the relation between connectivity and persistence for a restored Mexican wolf metapopulation of 3 populations of equal size. Decreasing dispersal rates greatly increased extinction risk for small populations (<150–200), especially as dispersal rates dropped below 0.5 genetically effective migrants per generation. We compared observed migration rates in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) wolf metapopulation to 2 habitat‐based effective distance metrics, least‐cost and resistance distance. We then used effective distance between potential primary core populations in a restored Mexican wolf metapopulation to evaluate potential dispersal rates. Although potential connectivity was lower in the Mexican wolf versus the NRM wolf metapopulation, a connectivity rate of >0.5 genetically effective migrants per generation may be achievable via natural dispersal under current landscape conditions. When sufficient data are available, these methods allow planners to move beyond general aspirational connectivity goals or rules of thumb to develop objective and measurable connectivity criteria that more effectively support species recovery. The shift from simple connectivity rules of thumb to species‐specific analyses parallels the previous shift from general minimum‐viable‐population thresholds to detailed viability modeling in endangered species recovery planning. Desarrollo de Criterios de Conectividad Metapoblacional a Partir de Datos Genéticos y de Hábitat para Recuperar al Lobo Mexicano en Peligro de Extinción     

Environmental cost of using poor decision metrics to prioritize environmental projects

Conservation decision makers commonly use project‐scoring metrics that are inconsistent with theory on optimal ranking of projects. As a result, there may often be a loss of environmental benefits. We estimated the magnitudes of these losses for various metrics that deviate from theory in ways that are common in practice. These metrics included cases where relevant variables were omitted from the benefits metric, project costs were omitted, and benefits were calculated using a faulty functional form. We estimated distributions of parameters from 129 environmental projects from Australia, New Zealand, and Italy for which detailed analyses had been completed previously. The cost of using poor prioritization metrics (in terms of lost environmental values) was often high—up to 80% in the scenarios we examined. The cost in percentage terms was greater when the budget was smaller. The most costly errors were omitting information about environmental values (up to 31% loss of environmental values), omitting project costs (up to 35% loss), omitting the effectiveness of management actions (up to 9% loss), and using a weighted‐additive decision metric for variables that should be multiplied (up to 23% loss). The latter 3 are errors that occur commonly in real‐world decision metrics, in combination often reducing potential benefits from conservation investments by 30–50%. Uncertainty about parameter values also reduced the benefits from investments in conservation projects but often not by as much as faulty prioritization metrics.     

Spatial cost–benefit analysis of blue restoration and factors driving net benefits globally

Marine coastal ecosystems, commonly referred to as blue ecosystems, provide valuable services to society but are under increasing threat worldwide due to a variety of drivers, including eutrophication, development, land-use change, land reclamation, and climate change. Ecological restoration is sometimes necessary to facilitate recovery in coastal ecosystems. Blue restoration (i.e., in marine coastal systems) is a developing field, and projects to date have been small scale and expensive, leading to the perception that restoration may not be economically viable. We conducted a global cost–benefit analysis to determine the net benefits of restoring coral reef, mangrove, saltmarsh, and seagrass ecosystems, where the benefit is defined as the monetary value of ecosystem services. We estimated costs from published restoration case studies and used an adjusted-value-transfer method to assign benefit values to these case studies. Benefit values were estimated as the monetary value provided by ecosystem services of the restored habitats. Benefits outweighed costs (i.e., there were positive net benefits) for restoration of all blue ecosystems. Mean benefit:cost ratios for ecosystem restoration were eight to 10 times higher than prior studies of coral reef and seagrass restoration, most likely due to the more recent lower cost estimates we used. Among ecosystems, saltmarsh had the greatest net benefits followed by mangrove; coral reef and seagrass ecosystems had lower net benefits. In general, restoration in nations with middle incomes had higher (eight times higher in coral reefs and 40 times higher in mangroves) net benefits than those with high incomes. Within an ecosystem type, net benefit varied with restoration technique (coral reef and saltmarsh), ecosystem service produced (mangrove and saltmarsh), and project duration (seagrass). These results challenge the perceptions of the low economic viability of blue restoration and should encourage further targeted investment in this field.     

The need for spatially explicit quantification of benefits in invasive‐species management

Worldwide, invasive species are a leading driver of environmental change across terrestrial, marine, and freshwater environments and cost billions of dollars annually in ecological damages and economic losses. Resources limit invasive‐species control, and planning processes are needed to identify cost‐effective solutions. Thus, studies are increasingly considering spatially variable natural and socioeconomic assets (e.g., species persistence, recreational fishing) when planning the allocation of actions for invasive‐species management. There is a need to improve understanding of how such assets are considered in invasive‐species management. We reviewed over 1600 studies focused on management of invasive species, including flora and fauna. Eighty‐four of these studies were included in our final analysis because they focused on the prioritization of actions for invasive species management. Forty‐five percent (n = 38) of these studies were based on spatial optimization methods, and 35% (n = 13) accounted for spatially variable assets. Across all 84 optimization studies considered, 27% (n = 23) explicitly accounted for spatially variable assets. Based on our findings, we further explored the potential costs and benefits to invasive species management when spatially variable assets are explicitly considered or not. To include spatially variable assets in decision‐making processes that guide invasive‐species management there is a need to quantify environmental responses to invasive species and to enhance understanding of potential impacts of invasive species on different natural or socioeconomic assets. We suggest these gaps could be filled by systematic reviews, quantifying invasive species impacts on native species at different periods, and broadening sources and enhancing sharing of knowledge.     

Use of linkage mapping and centrality analysis across habitat gradients to conserve connectivity of gray wolf populations in western North America

Centrality metrics evaluate paths between all possible pairwise combinations of sites on a landscape to rank the contribution of each site to facilitating ecological flows across the network of sites. Computational advances now allow application of centrality metrics to landscapes represented as continuous gradients of habitat quality. This avoids the binary classification of landscapes into patch and matrix required by patch-based graph analyses of connectivity. It also avoids the focus on delineating paths between individual pairs of core areas characteristic of most corridor- or linkage-mapping methods of connectivity analysis. Conservation of regional habitat connectivity has the potential to facilitate recovery of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), a species currently recolonizing portions of its historic range in the western United States. We applied 3 contrasting linkage-mapping methods (shortest path, current flow, and minimum-cost-maximum-flow) to spatial data representing wolf habitat to analyze connectivity between wolf populations in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park (Wyoming). We then applied 3 analogous betweenness centrality metrics to analyze connectivity of wolf habitat throughout the northwestern United States and southwestern Canada to determine where it might be possible to facilitate range expansion and interpopulation dispersal. We developed software to facilitate application of centrality metrics. Shortest-path betweenness centrality identified a minimal network of linkages analogous to those identified by least-cost-path corridor mapping. Current flow and minimum-cost-maximum-flow betweenness centrality identified diffuse networks that included alternative linkages, which will allow greater flexibility in planning. Minimum-cost-maximum-flow betweenness centrality, by integrating both land cost and habitat capacity, allows connectivity to be considered within planning processes that seek to maximize species protection at minimum cost. Centrality analysis is relevant to conservation and landscape genetics at a range of spatial extents, but it may be most broadly applicable within single- and multispecies planning efforts to conserve regional habitat connectivity.     

Efficient and equitable design of marine protected areas in Fiji through inclusion of stakeholder‐specific objectives in conservation planning

The efficacy of protected areas varies, partly because socioeconomic factors are not sufficiently considered in planning and management. Although integrating socioeconomic factors into systematic conservation planning is increasingly advocated, research is needed to progress from recognition of these factors to incorporating them effectively in spatial prioritization of protected areas. We evaluated 2 key aspects of incorporating socioeconomic factors into spatial prioritization: treatment of socioeconomic factors as costs or objectives and treatment of stakeholders as a single group or multiple groups. Using as a case study the design of a system of no‐take marine protected areas (MPAs) in Kubulau, Fiji, we assessed how these aspects affected the configuration of no‐take MPAs in terms of trade‐offs between biodiversity objectives, fisheries objectives, and equity in catch losses among fisher stakeholder groups. The achievement of fisheries objectives and equity tended to trade‐off concavely with increasing biodiversity objectives, indicating that it is possible to achieve low to mid‐range biodiversity objectives with relatively small losses to fisheries and equity. Importantly, the extent of trade‐offs depended on the method used to incorporate socioeconomic data and was least severe when objectives were set for each fisher stakeholder group explicitly. We found that using different methods to incorporate socioeconomic factors that require similar data and expertise can result in plans with very different impacts on local stakeholders.     

Coupling urban 3-D information and circuit theory to advance the development of urban ecological networks

Ongoing, rapid urban growth accompanied by habitat fragmentation and loss challenges biodiversity conservation and leads to decreases in ecosystem services. Application of the concept of ecological networks in the preservation and restoration of connections among isolated patches of natural areas is a powerful conservation strategy. However, previous approaches often failed to objectively consider the impacts of complex 3-D city environments on ecological niches. We used airborne lidar-derived information on the 3-D structure of the built environment and vegetation and detailed land use and cover data to characterize habitat quality, niche diversity, and human disturbance and to predict habitat connectivity among 38 identified habitat core areas (HCAs) in Nanjing, China. We used circuit theory and Linkage Mapper to create a landscape resistance layer, simulate habitat connectivity, and identify and prioritize important corridors. We mapped 64 links by using current flow centrality to evaluate each HCA's contribution and the links that facilitate intact connectivity. Values were highest for HCA links located in the west, south, and northeast of the study area, where natural forests with complex 3-D structures predominate. Two smaller HCA areas had high centrality scores relative to their extents, which means they could act as important stepping stones in connectivity planning. The mapped pinch-point regions had narrow and fragile links among the HCAs, suggesting they require special protection. The barriers with the highest impact scores were mainly located at the HCA connections to Purple Mountain and, based on these high scores, are more likely to indicate important locations that can be restored to improve potential connections. Our novel framework allowed us to sufficiently convey spatially explicit information to identify targets for habitat restoration and potential pathways for species movement and dispersal. Such information is critical for assessing existing or potential habitats and corridors and developing strategic plans to balance habitat conservation and other land uses based on scientifically informed connectivity planning and implementation.     

Benefits of Investing in Ecosystem Restoration

Measures aimed at conservation or restoration of ecosystems are often seen as net‐cost projects by governments and businesses because they are based on incomplete and often faulty cost‐benefit analyses. After screening over 200 studies, we examined the costs (94 studies) and benefits (225 studies) of ecosystem restoration projects that had sufficient reliable data in 9 different biomes ranging from coral reefs to tropical forests. Costs included capital investment and maintenance of the restoration project, and benefits were based on the monetary value of the total bundle of ecosystem services provided by the restored ecosystem. Assuming restoration is always imperfect and benefits attain only 75% of the maximum value of the reference systems over 20 years, we calculated the net present value at the social discount rates of 2% and 8%. We also conducted 2 threshold cum sensitivity analyses. Benefit‐cost ratios ranged from about 0.05:1 (coral reefs and coastal systems, worst‐case scenario) to as much as 35:1 (grasslands, best‐case scenario). Our results provide only partial estimates of benefits at one point in time and reflect the lower limit of the welfare benefits of ecosystem restoration because both scarcity of and demand for ecosystem services is increasing and new benefits of natural ecosystems and biological diversity are being discovered. Nonetheless, when accounting for even the incomplete range of known benefits through the use of static estimates that fail to capture rising values, the majority of the restoration projects we analyzed provided net benefits and should be considered not only as profitable but also as high‐yielding investments. Beneficios de Invertir en la Restauración de Ecosistemas     

Predicting the time needed for environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps

Systematic reviews (SRs) and systematic mapping aim to maximize transparency and comprehensiveness while minimizing subjectivity and bias. These are time-consuming and complex tasks, so SRs are considered resource intensive, but published estimates of systematic-review resource requirements are largely anecdotal. We analyzed all Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) SRs (n = 66) and maps (n = 20) published from 2012 to 2017 to estimate the average number of articles retained at each review stage. We also surveyed 33 experienced systematic reviewers to collate information on the rate at which those stages could be completed. In combination, these data showed that the average CEE SR takes an estimated 164 d (full-time equivalent) (SD 23), and the average CEE systematic map (SM) (excluding critical appraisal) takes 211 d (SD 53). While screening titles and abstracts is widely considered time-consuming, metadata extraction and critical appraisal took as long or longer to complete, especially for SMs. Given information about the planned methods and evidence base, we created a software tool that predicts time requirements of a SR or map with evidence-based defaults as a starting point. Our results shed light on the most time-consuming stages of the SR and mapping processes, will inform review planning, and can direct innovation to streamline processes. Future predictions of effort required to complete SRs and maps could be improved if authors provide more details on methods and results.     

Standardized reporting of the costs of management interventions for biodiversity conservation

Effective conservation management interventions must combat threats and deliver benefits at costs that can be achieved within limited budgets. Considerable effort has focused on measuring the potential benefits of conservation interventions, but explicit quantification of the financial costs of implementation is rare. Even when costs have been quantified, haphazard and inconsistent reporting means published values are difficult to interpret. This reporting deficiency hinders progress toward a collective understanding of the financial costs of management interventions across projects and thus limits the ability to identify efficient solutions to conservation problems or attract adequate funding. We devised a standardized approach to describing financial costs reported for conservation interventions. The standards call for researchers and practitioners to describe the objective and outcome, context and methods, and scale of costed interventions, and to state which categories of costs are included and the currency and date for reported costs. These standards aim to provide enough contextual information that readers and future users can interpret the cost data appropriately. We suggest these standards be adopted by major conservation organizations, conservation science institutions, and journals so that cost reporting is comparable among studies. This would support shared learning and enhance the ability to identify and perform cost‐effective conservation.