Enhancement of conservation knowledge through increased access to botanical information

Herbarium specimens are increasingly recognized as an important resource for conservation science and virtual herbaria are making specimens freely available to a wider range of users than ever before. Few virtual herbaria are designed with conservation use as a primary driver. Exceptionally, Brazil's Reflora Virtual Herbarium (RVH) was created to increase knowledge and conservation of the Brazilian flora. The RVH is closely integrated with the Flora of Brazil 2020 platform on which Brazil's new national Flora is under construction. Both resources are accessible via the Reflora home page and thousands of users move seamlessly between these Reflora resources. To understand how the Reflora resources are currently used and their impact on conservation science, we conducted a literature review and an online survey. We searched for publications of studies in which Reflora resources were used and publications resulting from Brazilian researchers who were part of Reflora's research and mobility program. The survey contained multiple choice questions and questions that required a written response. We targeted Reflora webpage visitors with the survey to capture a wider range of Reflora users than the literature review. Reflora resources were used for a variety of conservation-relevant purposes. Half the 806 scientific publications in which Reflora was cited and 81% of the 1069 survey respondents accessing Reflora resources mentioned conservation-relevant research outputs. Most conservation-relevant uses of the Reflora resources in scientific publications were research rather than implementation focused. The survey of Reflora users showed conservation uses and impacts of virtual herbaria were more numerous and diverse than the uses captured in the literature review. Virtual herbaria are vital resources for conservation science, but they must document use and impacts more comprehensively to ensure sustainability.     

Studying citizen science through adaptive management and learning feedbacks as mechanisms for improving conservation

Citizen science has generated a growing interest among scientists and community groups, and citizen science programs have been created specifically for conservation. We examined collaborative science, a highly interactive form of citizen science, which we developed within a theoretically informed framework. In this essay, we focused on 2 aspects of our framework: social learning and adaptive management. Social learning, in contrast to individual‐based learning, stresses collaborative and generative insight making and is well‐suited for adaptive management. Adaptive‐management integrates feedback loops that are informed by what is learned and is guided by iterative decision making. Participants engaged in citizen science are able to add to what they are learning through primary data collection, which can result in the real‐time information that is often necessary for conservation. Our work is particularly timely because research publications consistently report a lack of established frameworks and evaluation plans to address the extent of conservation outcomes in citizen science. To illustrate how our framework supports conservation through citizen science, we examined how 2 programs enacted our collaborative science framework. Further, we inspected preliminary conservation outcomes of our case‐study programs. These programs, despite their recent implementation, are demonstrating promise with regard to positive conservation outcomes. To date, they are independently earning funds to support research, earning buy‐in from local partners to engage in experimentation, and, in the absence of leading scientists, are collecting data to test ideas. We argue that this success is due to citizen scientists being organized around local issues and engaging in iterative, collaborative, and adaptive learning.     

A strategy for the next decade to address data deficiency in neglected biodiversity

Measuring progress toward international biodiversity targets requires robust information on the conservation status of species, which the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species provides. However, data and capacity are lacking for most hyperdiverse groups, such as invertebrates, plants, and fungi, particularly in megadiverse or high-endemism regions. Conservation policies and biodiversity strategies aimed at halting biodiversity loss by 2020 need to be adapted to tackle these information shortfalls after 2020. We devised an 8-point strategy to close existing data gaps by reviving explorative field research on the distribution, abundance, and ecology of species; linking taxonomic research more closely with conservation; improving global biodiversity databases by making the submission of spatially explicit data mandatory for scientific publications; developing a global spatial database on threats to biodiversity to facilitate IUCN Red List assessments; automating preassessments by integrating distribution data and spatial threat data; building capacity in taxonomy, ecology, and biodiversity monitoring in countries with high species richness or endemism; creating species monitoring programs for lesser-known taxa; and developing sufficient funding mechanisms to reduce reliance on voluntary efforts. Implementing these strategies in the post-2020 biodiversity framework will help to overcome the lack of capacity and data regarding the conservation status of biodiversity. This will require a collaborative effort among scientists, policy makers, and conservation practitioners.     

Wildlife collection for scientific purposes

Illegal transfer of wildlife has 2 main purposes: trade and scientific research. Trade is the most common, whereas scientific research is much less common and unprofitable, yet still important. Biopiracy in science is often neglected despite that many researchers encounter it during their careers. The use of illegally acquired specimens is detected in different research fields, from scientists bioprospecting for new pharmacological substances, to taxonomists working on natural history collections, to researchers working in zoos, aquariums, and botanical gardens. The practice can be due to a lack of knowledge about the permit requirements in different countries or, probably most often, to the generally high level of bureaucracy associated with rule compliance. Significant regulatory filters to avoid biopiracy can be provided by different stakeholders. Natural history collection hosts should adopt strict codes of conduct; editors of scientific publications should require authors to declare that all studied specimens were acquired legally and to cite museum catalog numbers as guarantee of best practices. Scientific societies should actively encourage publication in peer-reviewed journals of work in which specimens collected from the wild were used. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature could require newly designated types based on recently collected specimens to be accompanied by statements of deposition in recognized scientific or educational institutions. We also propose the creation of an online platform that gathers information about environmental regulations and permits required for scientific activities in different countries and respective responsible governmental agencies and the simplification of the bureaucracy related to regulating scientific activities. This would make regulations more agile and easier to comply with. The global biodiversity crisis means data need to be collected ever faster, but biopiracy is not the answer and undermines the credibility of science and researchers. It is critical to find a modus vivendi that promotes compliance with regulations and scientific progress.     

The contribution of community wisdom to conservation ecology

Scientists have traditionally collected data on whether a population is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same, but such studies are often limited by geographic scale and time frame. This means that for many species, understanding of trends comes from only part of their ranges at particular periods. Working with citizen scientists has the potential to overcome these limits. Citizen science has the added benefit of exposing citizens to the scientific process and engaging them in management outcomes. We examined a different way of using citizen scientists (instead of data collection). We asked community members to answer a question directly and thus examined whether community wisdom can inform conservation. We reviewed the results of 3 mail‐in surveys that asked community members to say whether they thought koala populations were increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. We then compared the survey results with population trends derived from more traditional research. Population trends identified through community wisdom were similar to the trends identified by traditional research. The community wisdom surveys, however, allowed the question to be addressed at much broader geographical scales and time frames. Studies that apply community wisdom have the benefit of engaging a broad section of the community in conservation research and education and therefore in the political process of conserving species.     

A Guide to Understanding Social Science Research for Natural Scientists

Natural scientists are increasingly interested in social research because they recognize that conservation problems are commonly social problems. Interpreting social research, however, requires at least a basic understanding of the philosophical principles and theoretical assumptions of the discipline, which are embedded in the design of social research. Natural scientists who engage in social science but are unfamiliar with these principles and assumptions can misinterpret their results. We developed a guide to assist natural scientists in understanding the philosophical basis of social science to support the meaningful interpretation of social research outcomes. The 3 fundamental elements of research are ontology, what exists in the human world that researchers can acquire knowledge about; epistemology, how knowledge is created; and philosophical perspective, the philosophical orientation of the researcher that guides her or his action. Many elements of the guide also apply to the natural sciences. Natural scientists can use the guide to assist them in interpreting social science research to determine how the ontological position of the researcher can influence the nature of the research; how the epistemological position can be used to support the legitimacy of different types of knowledge; and how philosophical perspective can shape the researcher's choice of methods and affect interpretation, communication, and application of results. The use of this guide can also support and promote the effective integration of the natural and social sciences to generate more insightful and relevant conservation research outcomes. Una Guía para Entender la Investigación de Ciencias Sociales para las Ciencias Naturales Katie Moon     

Science or Slaughter: Need for Lethal Sampling of Sharks

Abstract: General consensus among scientists, commercial interests, and the public regarding the status of shark populations is leading to an increasing need for the scientific community to provide information to help guide effective management and conservation actions. Experience from other marine vertebrate taxa suggests that public, political, and media pressures will play an increasingly important part in setting research, management, and conservation priorities. We examined the potential implications of nonscientific influences on shark research. In particular, we considered whether lethal research sampling of sharks is justified. Although lethal sampling comes at a cost to a population, especially for threatened species, the conservation benefits from well‐designed studies provide essential data that cannot be collected currently in any other way. Methods that enable nonlethal collection of life‐history data on sharks are being developed (e.g., use of blood samples to detect maturity), but in the near future they will not provide widespread or significant benefits. Development of these techniques needs to continue, as does the way in which scientists coordinate their use of material collected during lethal sampling. For almost half of the known shark species there are insufficient data to determine their population status; thus, there is an ongoing need for further collection of scientific data to ensure all shark populations have a future. Shark populations will benefit most when decisions about the use of lethal sampling are made on the basis of scientific evidence that is free from individual, political, public, and media pressures.     

Bibliometric analysis of ecosystem monitoring-related research in Africa: implications for ecological stewardship and scientific collaboration

Regional ecosystem monitoring is a central form of knowledge sharing and collaboration amongst scientists and decision makers on environmental health, land use change, and science-policy development. Despite the proliferation of such research networks on long-term monitoring on many continents, little has been achieved in Africa. This study aims to assess and examine the spatiotemporal trend and categorical patterns in ecosystem monitoring-related research in Africa for the benefits of conserving biodiversity and sustaining natural resource sectors for well-being and livelihood security, environmental planning, and ecological stewardship. A systematic review was conducted using bibliometric tools. Based on a set of search terms and peer-reviewed publications retrieved from various ecosystem monitoring networks and journal databases, further analysis was conducted using social network approaches, mapping tools, and content analysis. About 1442 scientific publications on ecosystem monitoring and related research were documented from 1987 to 2014 mostly published in English. The number of publication increased progressively since 1992 after the Convention on Biodiversity was signed and this trend peaked till 2008. South African Journal of Science was the most leading journal and Nature the most cited. Internationally coauthored and collaborative articles represented majority of the findings with the United Kingdom at the central position in the research network due to colonial relationships. Regional collaboration amongst countries is limited owing to language barriers and other institutional constraints such as funding and short-term projects. These findings have implication for prioritizing national and regional policies toward biodiversity science and its contribution to human well-being, food security, and global change responses.     

Closing the knowledge-action gap in conservation with open science

The knowledge-action gap in conservation science and practice occurs when research outputs do not result in actions to protect or restore biodiversity. Among the diverse and complex reasons for this gap, three barriers are fundamental: knowledge is often unavailable to practitioners and challenging to interpret or difficult to use or both. Problems of availability, interpretability, and useability are solvable with open science practices. We considered the benefits and challenges of three open science practices for use by conservation scientists and practitioners. First, open access publishing makes the scientific literature available to all. Second, open materials (detailed methods, data, code, and software) increase the transparency and use of research findings. Third, open education resources allow conservation scientists and practitioners to acquire the skills needed to use research outputs. The long-term adoption of open science practices would help researchers and practitioners achieve conservation goals more quickly and efficiently and reduce inequities in information sharing. However, short-term costs for individual researchers (insufficient institutional incentives to engage in open science and knowledge mobilization) remain a challenge. We caution against a passive approach to sharing that simply involves making information available. We advocate a proactive stance toward transparency, communication, collaboration, and capacity building that involves seeking out and engaging with potential users to maximize the environmental and societal impact of conservation science.     

Managing the Koala Problem: Interdisciplinary Perspectives

Abstract: There is a complex scientific, ethical, and cultural debate in Australia about how best to conserve koalas and their habitat. Despite the diverse array of management and research options promoted by scientists, wildlife agency staff, and koala advocates, there remains a gap in our acknowledgment of the social factors influencing decision making about koala conservation. Koala management research has generated valuable scientific knowledge about koala biology and ecology but has been weak about organizational and policy processes and about the cultures within which we produce, disseminate, and legitimize this kind of knowledge. We suggest that more effective koala conservation will result from making the political and cultural influences on decision making regarding the koala more explicit in research, management, and policy-making forums. Research must be conducted in the context of the cultural significance of the koala. The koala's survival depends on preserving the valuable lands that these creatures (and many others) inhabit. Ultimately, the koala symbolizes conflicting land-use values and illustrates the need for greater collaboration, cooperation, and trust among social and natural scientists in the conduct of koala conservation research, management, and policy.     

Nanoscience in food and agriculture: research,industries and patents

High population rise and climate changes are increasing issues of agricultural production and food safety. Nanotechnology is finding revolutionary applications to improve agricultural and food systems, notably for better crop production and food preservation. Here we review research, industrial and patent trends of nanoscience in food and agriculture. In a literature survey, we found 44.6% publications in the nano-food research area during the years 2013–2015 and 59.09% publications in the nano-agriculture research area during 2012–2015. USA is leading in the development of nanotechnology firms with a maximum share of 75.5% of the total firms, followed by Germany and France with 8.10 and 4.74%, respectively. USA is leading in the nano-food research with 22 granted patents, whereas China is placed first in nano-agriculture research with 28 granted patents during assessment years 2011–2015. Nano-food research focused mainly on nano-food packaging with 76.84% contributions, whereas in nano-agriculture research, focus has been on nano-fertilizers with 90% contributions. Germany, France, Korea, Italy, Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovak republic have more than 20% of dedicated nanotechnology firms. A growth of about 45% in nano-food patents has been observed for USA during 2011–2015, and China is leading in the nano-agriculture patents with an increase of 60.7% during 2012–2015.     

How Research‐Prioritization Exercises Affect Conservation Policy

Abstract: Conservation scientists are concerned about the apparent lack of impact their research is having on policy. By better aligning research with policy needs, conservation science might become more relevant to policy and increase its real‐world salience in the conservation of biological diversity. Consequently, some conservation scientists have embarked on a variety of exercises to identify research questions that, if answered, would provide the evidence base with which to develop and implement effective conservation policies. I synthesized two existing approaches to conceptualizing research impacts. One widely used approach classifies the impacts of research as conceptual, instrumental, and symbolic. Conceptual impacts occur when policy makers are sensitized to new issues and change their beliefs or thinking. Instrumental impacts arise when scientific research has a direct effect on policy decisions. The use of scientific research results to support established policy positions are symbolic impacts. The second approach classifies research issues according to whether scientific knowledge is developed fully and whether the policy issue has been articulated clearly. I believe exercises to identify important research questions have objectives of increasing the clarity of policy issues while strengthening science–policy interactions. This may facilitate the transmission of scientific knowledge to policy makers and, potentially, accelerate the development and implementation of effective conservation policy. Other, similar types of exercises might also be useful. For example, identification of visionary science questions independent of current policy needs, prioritization of best practices for transferring scientific knowledge to policy makers, and identification of questions about human values and their role in political processes could all help advance real‐world conservation science. It is crucial for conservation scientists to understand the wide variety of ways in which their research can affect policy and be improved systematically.     

Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation

Despite broad recognition of the value of social sciences and increasingly vocal calls for better engagement with the human element of conservation, the conservation social sciences remain misunderstood and underutilized in practice. The conservation social sciences can provide unique and important contributions to society's understanding of the relationships between humans and nature and to improving conservation practice and outcomes. There are 4 barriers—ideological, institutional, knowledge, and capacity—to meaningful integration of the social sciences into conservation. We provide practical guidance on overcoming these barriers to mainstream the social sciences in conservation science, practice, and policy. Broadly, we recommend fostering knowledge on the scope and contributions of the social sciences to conservation, including social scientists from the inception of interdisciplinary research projects, incorporating social science research and insights during all stages of conservation planning and implementation, building social science capacity at all scales in conservation organizations and agencies, and promoting engagement with the social sciences in and through global conservation policy‐influencing organizations. Conservation social scientists, too, need to be willing to engage with natural science knowledge and to communicate insights and recommendations clearly. We urge the conservation community to move beyond superficial engagement with the conservation social sciences. A more inclusive and integrative conservation science—one that includes the natural and social sciences—will enable more ecologically effective and socially just conservation. Better collaboration among social scientists, natural scientists, practitioners, and policy makers will facilitate a renewed and more robust conservation. Mainstreaming the conservation social sciences will facilitate the uptake of the full range of insights and contributions from these fields into conservation policy and practice.     

Identifying future research directions for biodiversity,ecosystem services and sustainability: perspectives from early-career researchers

We aimed to identify priority research questions in the field of biodiversity, ecosystem services and sustainability (BESS), based on a workshop held during the NRG BESS Conference for Early Career Researchers on BESS, and to compare these to existing horizon scanning exercises. This work highlights the need for improved data availability through collaboration and knowledge exchange, which, in turn, can support the integrated valuation and sustainable management of ecosystems in response to global change. In addition, clear connectivity among different research themes in this field further emphasizes the need to consider a wider range of topics simultaneously to ensure the sustainable management of ecosystems for human wellbeing. In contrast to other horizon scanning exercises, our focus was more interdisciplinary and more concerned with the limits of sustainability and dynamic relationships between social and ecological systems. The identified questions could provide a framework for researchers, policy makers, funding agencies and the private sector to advance knowledge in biodiversity and ES research and to develop and implement policies to enable sustainable future development.     

Ökonomische Ansätze zur Ökosystembewertung am Beispiel des Bodens

As it is practically impossible in an industrial society to reduce impacts into ecosystems to a level that would preclude any damages, the need for damage valuation arises. One of the available valuation tools is the economic approach. Subsequent publications present this approach using the example of soils. In the first part, soils as part of ecosystems are considered from an ecological and a conventional economic point of view. In the following so-called ecological-economic perspective, more recent developments in economic valuation research are introduced. It is shown how ecological and economic valuation can complement one another. It is emphasized that economic valuations should be restricted to a critical soil structure which, in economic terms, is determined by the non-substitutable services of the ecological asset.     

Inherent conflicts at the coast

Because choice is conflict, decision-making is necessarily about conflict resolution. Choices are necessary because the options are mutually exclusive but the nature of this inherent conflict varies. Typically, these conflicts are multidimensional. In coasal zones, the complex interactions between systems makes decision-making particularly complex; in particular, environmental interests are themselves frequently in conflict. In making a choice, it is important to determine why that choice is necessary in the first place. There are further conflicts about the objectives to be satisfied by the decision process; between the determination of the best outcome and the best decision process. Social scientists centre upon the requirement for a fair decision process rather than upon seeking an optimum outcome. Unlike physical scientists who seek more and better information, social scientists focus upon the development and maintenance of institutions.     

Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development

Sustainable development requires changes in socio-technical systems and wider societal change – in beliefs, values and governance that co-evolve with technology changes. In this article we present a practical model for managing processes of co-evolution: transition management. Transition management is a multilevel model of governance which shapes processes of co-evolution using visions, transition experiments and cycles of learning and adaptation. Transition management helps societies to transform themselves in a gradual, reflexive way through guided processes of variation and selection, the outcomes of which are stepping stones for further change. It shows that societies can break free from existing practices and technologies, by engaging in co-evolutionary steering. This is illustrated by the Dutch waste management transition. Perhaps transition management constitutes the third way that policy scientists have been looking for all the time, combining the advantages of incrementalism (based on mutual adaptation) with the advantages of planning (based on long-term objectives).     

Aquatic Chemistry and the Human Environment

The evident physical continuity in the cycles of water in air, soil, lake, river, estuary and sea is difficult to describe accurately; there is also a chemical continuity that is impossibly complex in detail but has unifying principles that need to be explored. Amid current somewhat myopic concern about the effects of certain toxic metals in the environment specifically in relation to man it is appropriate to reflect on the wider issues of aquatic chemistry that affect the human environment. These issues embrace the aquatic chemistry of the countryside and the health of the population and reciprocally the impingement of human activities on the aquatic realm. If one can demonstrate a coherent core of chemical principles there may also be an implied need for more enlightened co-ordination in the study of aquatic chemistry, its applications and developments. At present, fundamental chemistry, water and wastewater technologies, environmental chemistry and epidemiology are discrete provinces of aquatic science. Insularity is even more serious in professional affiliations and consequently job qualifications; also among the central, local and industrial bodies who establish legislation and set and administer standards for water.

Benefits of greater collaboration and co-ordination would reach not only scientists, learned institutions, managers and the general public here but would also lead to much more effective understanding and practical help in other lands where water supply and water-related problems are enormously more acute.     

Chemistry in Ecology: An Editorial Review

At a time when scientists contribute to and, at times, seem likely to be overwhelmed by an information explosion, one might pardonably question the need for another journal; particularly another journai of an ecological nature. Too often, however, land, sea and fresh water are treated as if they do not interact, and chemistry, although a driving force in ecological systems, is either viewed as an impact upon parts rather than the whole system, or ignored completely: an attitude which is the despair of chemists and a grave loss to ecologists. Indeed, i t would seem, particularly in the marine field, that biologists/ecologists are falling far behind the chemists and this is a loss to the scientific community as a whole. One outcome is a lack of the wider view and those attempts to theorise which are necessary to progress in the subject. While not forgetting that an understanding of the component parts is vital to an understanding of the whole, Chemistry in Ecology will seek to promote the wider view, and in so doing try to create “bridges” between studies which have not been allied hitherto, but may advantageously work together in the future.     

Shared ways of thinking in Brazil about the science–practice interface in ecology and conservation

The debate in the literature on the science–practice interface suggests a diversity of opinions on how to link science and practice to improve conservation. Understanding this diversity is key to addressing unequal power relations, avoiding the consideration of only dominant views, and identifying strategies to link science and practice. In turn, linking science and practice should promote conservation decisions that are socially robust and scientifically informed. To identify and describe the viewpoints of scientists and decision makers on how the science–practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions, we interviewed Brazilian scientists (ecologists and conservation scientists, n = 11) and decision makers (n = 11). We used Q methodology and asked participants to rank their agreement with 48 statements on how the science–practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions. We used principal component analysis to identify shared viewpoints. The predominant viewpoint, shared by scientists and decision makers, was characterized by valuing the integration of scientific and strategic knowledge to address environmental problems. The second viewpoint, held mostly by decision makers, was distinguished by assigning great importance to science in the decision-making process and calling for problem-relevant research. The third viewpoint, shared only by scientists, was characterized by an unwillingness to collaborate and a perception of scientists as producers of knowledge that may help decision makers. Most participants agreed organizations should promote collaboration and that actors and knowledge from both science and practice are relevant. Disagreements concerned specific roles assigned to actors, willingness to collaborate, and organizational and institutional arrangements considered effective to link science and practice. Our results suggest there is ample room for collaborations and that impediments lie mainly in existing organizations and formal institutional arrangements rather than in negative attitudes between scientists and decision makers.