Advancing the Integration of History and Ecology for Conservation

Abstract: The important role of humans in the development of current ecosystems was recognized decades ago; however, the integration of history and ecology in order to inform conservation has been difficult. We identified four issues that hinder historical ecological research and considered possible solutions. First, differences in concepts and methods between the fields of ecology and history are thought to be large. However, most differences stem from miscommunication between ecologists and historians and are less substantial than is usually assumed. Cooperation can be achieved by focusing on the features ecology and history have in common and through understanding and acceptance of differing points of view. Second, historical ecological research is often hampered by differences in spatial and temporal scales between ecology and history. We argue that historical ecological research can only be conducted at extents for which sources in both disciplines have comparable resolutions. Researchers must begin by clearly defining the relevant scales for the given purpose. Third, periods for which quantitative historical sources are not easily accessible (before AD 1800) have been neglected in historical ecological research. Because data from periods before 1800 are as relevant to the current state of ecosystems as more recent data, we suggest that historical ecologists actively seek out data from before 1800 and apply analytic methods commonly used in ecology to these data. Fourth, humans are not usually considered an intrinsic ecological factor in current ecological research. In our view, human societies should be acknowledged as integral parts of ecosystems and societal processes should be recognized as driving forces of ecosystem change.     

Integrating Paleobiology,Archeology, and History to Inform Biological Conservation

The search for novel approaches to establishing ecological baselines (reference conditions) is constrained by the fact that most ecological studies span the past few decades, at most, and investigate ecosystems that have been substantially altered by human activities for decades, centuries, or more. Paleobiology, archeology, and history provide historical ecological context for biological conservation, remediation, and restoration. We argue that linking historical ecology explicitly with conservation can help unify related disciplines of conservation paleobiology, conservation archeobiology, and environmental history. Differences in the spatial and temporal resolution and extent (scale) of prehistoric, historic, and modern ecological data remain obstacles to integrating historical ecology and conservation biology, but the prolonged temporal extents of historical ecological data can help establish more complete baselines for restoration, document a historical range of ecological variability, and assist in determining desired future conditions. We used the eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) fishery of the Chesapeake Bay (U.S.A.) to demonstrate the utility of historical ecological data for elucidating oyster conservation and the need for an approach to conservation that transcends disciplinary boundaries. Historical ecological studies from the Chesapeake have documented dramatic declines (as much as 99%) in oyster abundance since the early to mid‐1800s, changes in oyster size in response to different nutrient levels from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries, and substantial reductions in oyster accretion rates (from 10 mm/year to effectively 0 mm/year) from the Late Holocene to modern times. Better integration of different historical ecological data sets and increased collaboration between paleobiologists, geologists, archeologists, environmental historians, and ecologists to create standardized research designs and methodologies will help unify prehistoric, historic, and modern time perspectives on biological conservation. Integración de Paleobiología, Arqueología e Historia para Informar a la Biología de la Conservación     

Habitat Use and Life History as Predictors of Bird Responses to Habitat Change

Abstract:  In theory the consideration of life-history characteristics should provide a way of making predictive generalizations about the responses of different species to environmental modification. Nevertheless, few studies have tested the validity of this assumption or attempted to apply it across large numbers of related species. We explored both quantitative and qualitative contrasts between species of waterbirds that have either expanded or contracted their ranges in southern Africa over the past 40 years to test the hypothesis that expansionists and contractionists, respectively, should share life-history characteristics and/or ecological attributes. Similarities and differences in life history and ecology were explored through multivariate statistics. Overall, life-history traits provided an inadequate explanation of whether species would be range expansionists or contractionists. By contrast, ecological attributes of species that related to habitat use correlated well with range changes. In particular, waterbird species that inhabit pans seemed to be preadapted to using human-made dams and impoundments. The ability of many species to use artificial wetlands has aided their westward range expansions into arid regions of southern Africa. By contrast, species that rely on vegetated wetlands and that require reeds for nesting were predisposed to range contraction because their habitats have been severely affected by agricultural development and urbanization. In direct contrast to range expansions, most range contractions were west to east, the eastward contraction reflected the high level of wetland loss and degradation in the eastern lowlands of South Africa. Based on analysis of ecological attributes of regional contractionists, several additional species were identified as of potential conservation concern, although such concern may not as yet have been expressed.     

Evaluating the Conservation Mission of Zoos, Aquariums, Botanical Gardens, and Natural History Museums

Abstract:  Collection-based institutions—zoos, aquariums, museums, and botanical gardens—exhibit wildlife and thus have a special connection with nature. Many of these institutions emphasize a mission of conservation, and, undeniably, they do contribute directly to conservation education and conservation science. They present an exceptional opportunity for many urban residents to see the wonders of life, and they can contribute to education and habitat preservation. Because many collection-based institutions now hold a stated mission of conservation, we suggest eight potential questions to evaluate actions toward that mission: (1) Does conservation thought define policy decisions? (2) Is there sufficient organizational funding for conservation activities? (3) Is there a functional conservation department? (4) Does the institution advocate for conservation? (5) Do conservation education programs effectively target children and adults? (6) Does the institution contribute directly to habitat protection locally and internationally? (7) Do exhibits explain and promote conservation efforts? and (8) Do internal policies and activities protect the environment? These questions are offered as a place to begin discussion. We hope they will help employees and administrators of a collection-based institution (and citizens of the surrounding community) think about and support their institution's conservation activities. Public support and praise for institutions that are striving toward solutions for conservation problems and pressure on organizations that are moving more slowly toward a conservation orientation can help shift more resources toward saving nature.     

Conservation Biology and Real-World Conservation

Abstract:  In the 20 years since Conservation Biology was launched with the aim of disseminating scientific knowledge to help conserve biodiversity and the natural world, our discipline has hugely influenced the practice of conservation. But we have had less impact outside the profession itself, and we have not transformed that practice into an enterprise large enough to achieve our conservation goals. As we look to the next 20 years, we need to become more relevant and important to the societies in which we live. To do so, the discipline of conservation biology must generate answers even when full scientific knowledge is lacking, structure scientific research around polices and debates that influence what we value as conservationists, go beyond the certitude of the biological sciences into the more contextual debates of the social sciences, engage scientifically with human-dominated landscapes, and address the question of how conservation can contribute to the improvement of human livelihoods and the quality of human life.     

Mutation and Conservation

Mutation can critically affect the viability of small populations by causing inbreeding depression, by maintaining potentially adaptive genetic variation in quantitative characters, and through the erosion of fitness by accumulation of mildly detrimental mutations. I review and integrate recent empirical and theoretical work on spontaneous mutation and its role in population viability and conservation planning. I analyze both the maintenance of potentially adaptive genetic variation in quantitative characters and the role of detrimental mutations in increasing the extinction risk of small populations. Recent experiments indicate that the rate of production of quasineutral, potentially adaptive genetic variance in quantitative characters is an order of magnitude smaller than the total mutational variance because mutations with large phenotypic effects tend to be strongly detrimental. This implies that, to maintain normal adaptive potential in quantitative characters under a balance between mutation and random genetic drift (or among mutation, drift, and stabilizing natural selection), the effective population size should be about 5000 rather than 500 (the Franklin-Soulé number). Recent theoretical results suggest that the risk of extinction due to the fixation of mildly detrimental mutations may be comparable in importance to environmental stochasticity and could substantially decrease the long-term viability of populations with effective sizes as large as a few thousand. These findings suggest that current recovery goals for many threatened and endangered species are inadequate to ensure long-term population viability.