Application of Conservation Biology Research to Management

Abstract: We conducted a survey of all primary authors of "Contributed Papers" and "Research Notes" in Conservation Biology from 1987 to 1998 to assess the perceived effectiveness of published management recommendations. No systematic survey has previously assessed the degree to which authors believe that resource managers are using the growing body of research published in Conservation Biology . In March 1999, we sent surveys to 667 authors of 790 published papers, asking whether their papers included management recommendations, whether such recommendations have been used in practice, and why they believed they have or have not been used. We received completed surveys from 198 authors of 223 papers. The percentage of papers that included management recommendations increased from 1987 to 1991, then stabilized at about 75%. Author perception of the use of management recommendations generally increased over the 5 years from 1994 to 1998. Initiatives of federal, state, and local agencies were the most often-cited cause of successful implementation of management recommendations, accounting for over half of all such cases. Our survey suggests that authors in Conservation Biology have increased the use of explicit management recommendations in their papers and that authors believe their recommendations are being used to an increasing degree.     

Impact of Criticism of Null-Hypothesis Significance Testing on Statistical Reporting Practices in Conservation Biology

Abstract:  Over the last decade, criticisms of null-hypothesis significance testing have grown dramatically, and several alternative practices, such as confidence intervals, information theoretic, and Bayesian methods, have been advocated. Have these calls for change had an impact on the statistical reporting practices in conservation biology? In 2000 and 2001, 92% of sampled articles in Conservation Biology and Biological Conservation reported results of null-hypothesis tests. In 2005 this figure dropped to 78%. There were corresponding increases in the use of confidence intervals, information theoretic, and Bayesian techniques. Of those articles reporting null-hypothesis testing—which still easily constitute the majority—very few report statistical power (8%) and many misinterpret statistical nonsignificance as evidence for no effect (63%). Overall, results of our survey show some improvements in statistical practice, but further efforts are clearly required to move the discipline toward improved practices.     

Who's Who in Conservation Biology—an Authorship Analysis

Abstract:  As the flagship journal of the field, Conservation Biology represents a multidisciplinary, global constituency of conservation professionals—a constituency composed of more than 5200 authors representing 1500 organizations and 89 countries. Using bibliometric records of research published in Conservation Biology , I evaluated trends in authorship of research papers from 1987 to 2005. Authorship diversified and became increasingly collaborative over time. North Americans now compose one-half of primary authorship, down from 75% in the 1990s, and European primary authors contribute a quarter of the journal's contributed research. Forty-five countries were represented in volume 19 of the journal. The top three most-cited authors are Australian. The percentage of single-authored papers declined from 57% in 1987 to 18% in 2005. Collectively, academic institutions contribute the most research to Conservation Biology , although a government agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, was the single most-productive organization. The maturing of conservation biology as a discipline, the complex geographic and multidisciplinary nature of conservation questions, and the increased ease of communication in a technologically connected world contribute to the increasingly diverse and collaborative Conservation Biology authorship.     

Depletion and Conservation of Japan's Forests

Book reviewed in this article:
The Green Archipelago: Forestry in Preindustrial Japan . Totman, C.
Conservation Biology: Outlook for the Future
Conservation for the Twentyfirst Century. Western, D., and Pearl, M., editors.
Conservation Biology: Hawai'I
Conservation Biology in Hawai'i. Stone, C. P., and Stone, D. B.
Important Recent Developments in Valuing Environmental Goods
Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Mitchell, R. C., and Carson, R. T.
Tropical Forest Conservation: Getting the Act Together
The Future of the Tropical Rain Forest. Proceedings of an international conference organized by the Oxford Forestry Institute. McDermott, M. J., editor.
Saving the Tropical Forests. Gradwohl, J., and Greenberg, R.
Crop Breeders' Use of Gene Bank Collections
The Use of Plant Genetic Resources. Brown, A. H. D., Frankel, O.H., Marshall, D.R., and Williams, J. T., editors.     

Timber Certification: Where Is the Voice of the Biologist?

Editor's note: This Conservation Forum begins with a reprinted editorial by Elizabeth Bennett from the August 2000 issue of Conservation Biology . Several papers were submitted in repsonse to that piece, and it is reprinted here to start this forum.     

Cover Caption

Cover: The Caerulean Paradise-Flycatcher (Eutrichomyias rowleyi) from Sangihe Island, Sulawesi, graced the cover of the first issue of Conservation Biology in May 1987 and at that time was thought to be extinct. As we celebrate 20 years of Conservation Biology with a special anniversary issue (see pp. 629-712), we can also celebrate the good news that this species is in fact extant (see pp. 918-920) (painting by Stephen V. Nash; photo by Jon Riley).     

"A Mission-Driven Discipline": the Growth of Conservation Biology

Abstract:  Conservation biology emerged in the mid-1980s, drawing on established disciplines and integrating them in pursuit of a coherent goal: the protection and perpetuation of the Earth's biological diversity. Opportunistic in its borrowing and application of knowledge, conservation biology had its roots within the established biological sciences and resource management disciplines but has continually incorporated insights from the empirical experience of resource managers, from the social sciences and humanities, and from diverse cultural sources. The Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) has represented the field's core constituency, while expanding that constituency in keeping with the field's integrative spirit. Conservation Biology has served as SCB's flagship publication, promoting research, dialog, debate, and application of the field's essential concepts. Over the last 20 years the field, SCB, and the journal have evolved to meet changing conservation needs, to explore gaps in our knowledge base, to incorporate new information from related fields, to build professional capacity, and to provide expanded opportunities for international participation. In turn, the field, SCB, and journal have prompted change in related fields, organizations, and publications. In its dedication to advancing the scientific foundations of biodiversity conservation and placing that science at the service of society in a world whose variety, wildness, and beauty we care for, conservation biology represents both a continuation and radical reconfiguration of the traditional relationship between science and conservation.     

Book Reviews

Book reviewed in this article:
Conservation Biology: A New Discipline Comes of Age Conservation Biology. The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Soulé, Michael E., ed. 1986.
Conserving Biological Diversity, in Our National Forests. Norse, E.A.; Rosenbaum, K.L.; Wilcove, D.S.; Wilcox, B.A.; Romme, W.H.; Johnston, D.W.; Stout, M.L. 1986.
Foundations for a National Biological Survey. Kim, Ke Chung; Knudson, L., eds. 1986.     

The Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels

This paper represents a work in progress by the World Conservation Union (IUCN). Earlier drafts of the work have appeared in IUCN publications, but the "International Issues" section of Conservation Biology seems an appropriate and important place to publish the penultimate version of the document. Comments on this issue in general or on the approach taken by the IUCN should be sent to the authors directly.
Joshua Ginsburg     

Leadership: a New Frontier in Conservation Science

Abstract:  Leadership is a critical tool for expanding the influence of conservation science, but recent advances in leadership concepts and practice remain underutilized by conservation scientists. Furthermore, an explicit conceptual foundation and definition of leadership in conservation science are not available in the literature. Here we drew on our diverse leadership experiences, our reading of leadership literature, and discussions with selected conservation science leaders to define conservation-science leadership, summarize an exploratory set of leadership principles that are applicable to conservation science, and recommend actions to expand leadership capacity among conservation scientists and practitioners. We define 2 types of conservation-science leadership: shaping conservation science through path-breaking research, and advancing the integration of conservation science into policy, management, and society at large. We focused on the second, integrative type of leadership because we believe it presents the greatest opportunity for improving conservation effectiveness. We identified 8 leadership principles derived mainly from the "adaptive leadership" literature: recognize the social dimension of the problem; cycle frequently through action and reflection; get and maintain attention; combine strengths of multiple leaders; extend your reach through networks of relationships; strategically time your effort; nurture productive conflict; and cultivate diversity. Conservation scientists and practitioners should strive to develop themselves as leaders, and the Society for Conservation Biology, conservation organizations, and academia should support this effort through professional development, mentoring, teaching, and research.     

Conservation Challenges for the Austral and Neotropical America Section

Abstract:  The Austral and Neotropical America (ANA) section of the Society for Conservation Biology includes a vast territory with some of the largest relatively pristine ecosystems in the world. With more than 573 million people, the economic growth of the region still depends strongly on natural resource exploitation and still has high rates of environmental degradation and biodiversity loss. A survey among the ANA section membership, with more than 700 members, including most of the section's prominent ecologists and conservationists, indicates that lack of capacity building for conservation, corruption, and threats such as deforestation and illegal trade of species, are among the most urgent problems that need to be addressed to improve conservation in the region. There are, however, strong universities and ecology groups taking the lead in environmental research and conservation, a most important issue to enhance the ability of the region to solve conservation and development conflicts .     

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.     

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.     

A Science for Survival: Values and Conservation Biology

Practice of conservation biology that does not actively and continuously question the values that shape it is self-defeating: Conservation biology is inescapably normative. Advocacy for the preservation of biodiversity is part of the scientific practice of conservation biology. If the editorial policy of or the publications in Conservation Biology direct the discipline toward an "objective, value-free" approach, then they do not educate and transform society but rather narrow the focus to the "object of knowledge" (be this species, gene pools, landscapes, or ecosystems). To pretend that the acquisition of "positive knowledge" alone will avert mass extinctions is misguided. Conservation biologists should reflect on the constitutive values (especially contextual, but also methodological and bias) underlying their research programs and policy recommendations. Such reflection is itself an inherent element of scientific objectivity and takes into account the social nature of scientific knowledge. Without openly acknowledging such a perspective, conservation biology could become merely a subdiscipline of biology, intellectually and functionally sterile and incapable of averting an anthropogenic mass extinction.     

Gaining Traction: Retreading the Wheels of Marine Conservation

Abstract:  A number of international treaties address the conservation of marine resources. The declining state of the world's oceans suggests that these treaties are not succeeding and could use improvement. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) is increasingly embracing the conservation of marine species. We examine the evolution of marine species protection under CITES and illuminate some of the mechanisms used and challenges faced in implementing CITES protection. We found that clarification is needed on when and where CITES applies and how CITES should work with other treaties and institutions. The Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) can contribute to increased effectiveness of CITES for marine conservation. Foremost, the SCB community could foster dialogue on creating a broad vision of how CITES should apply to marine species and how it can synergistically interact with other important marine-conservation treaties and institutions. More specific contributions could focus on defining listing criteria for marine species, improving the science behind the nondetriment finding, and offering technical guidance on species proposals. A future role for SCB could be to contribute to the enhanced effectiveness of other marine conservation agreements such as the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, the International Whaling Commission, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea .     

Developing Policy-Oriented Curricula for Conservation Biology: Professional and Leadership Education in the Public Interest

Abstract: Some conservation biologists question the ability of current university curricula to prepare students to meet the needs of the profession in solving real-life conservation problems or to integrate the goals of conservation biology with other societal goals. The gist of the criticism is that curricula tend to emphasize narrow, technical proficiency at the expense of more integrative, "policy-oriented" problem solving. Conservation biologists' work should be relevant to policy, and I argue that professional participation could become more effective through a broader educational curriculum. Such curricula should teach students three things: (1) an understanding of how the policy-making system works and how human value interactions constitute the core of professional work, (2) mastery of skills in critical thinking and development of an interdisciplinary, "procedural rationality" for analyzing problems and evaluating potential solutions, and (3) development of influence and responsibility within policy systems. Seminars, case studies, and field trips are among the tools that can develop these skills in students. Finally, the education committee of the Society for Conservation Biology has great potential to improve the quality and relevance of professional education.     

Preliminary Caesium Data From A Cooperative Us/Ussr Monitoring Survey for Chernobyl Radioactivity in the Black Sea

In June 1990, scientists from the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Radiation Programs (ORP), and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), travelled to Sevastopol in the Soviet Union to work with radioecologists and marine scientists from the USSR Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas (IBSS). the purpose of this cooperative programme was to conduct a monitoring survey for radioactivity in the northwestern Black Sea. Samples of sediment, surface and in-situ water, and biota were collected from fourteen stations for post-survey radionuclide analyses to determine levels of radioactivity in the Black Sea environment resulting from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant explosion and subsequent transport of radioactivity via the Dnepr and Danube rivers. This paper presents the preliminary data for caesium-137 and caesium-134 in sediment samples analyzed by the EPA/ORP. Caesium-137 was measured at four shallow (20-114 m) stations on the shelf near the mouth of the Dnepr and Danube Rivers, but was not detected in sediments from comparable depths at stations further off shore or in slope sediments at depths of 510-1288 meters. Caesium-134 was detected only in sediments from the shallow-water station nearest to the Danube River.     

Preliminary Caesium Data From A Cooperative Us/Ussr Monitoring Survey for Chernobyl Radioactivity in the Black Sea

In June 1990, scientists from the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Radiation Programs (ORP), and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), travelled to Sevastopol in the Soviet Union to work with radioecologists and marine scientists from the USSR Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas (IBSS). the purpose of this cooperative programme was to conduct a monitoring survey for radioactivity in the northwestern Black Sea. Samples of sediment, surface and in-situ water, and biota were collected from fourteen stations for post-survey radionuclide analyses to determine levels of radioactivity in the Black Sea environment resulting from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant explosion and subsequent transport of radioactivity via the Dnepr and Danube rivers. This paper presents the preliminary data for caesium-137 and caesium-134 in sediment samples analyzed by the EPA/ORP. Caesium-137 was measured at four shallow (20–114 m) stations on the shelf near the mouth of the Dnepr and Danube Rivers, but was not detected in sediments from comparable depths at stations further off shore or in slope sediments at depths of 510–1288 meters. Caesium-134 was detected only in sediments from the shallow-water station nearest to the Danube River.     

From conference abstract to publication in the conservation science literature

Every 2 years, the conservation community comes together at The Society for Conservation Biology's International Congress for Conservation Biology (ICCB) to share new developments in conservation science and practice. Publication of findings presented at conferences in scientific journals adds to the permanent record and helps increase the potential impact of the work presented. However, quantitative research on publication rates for meetings relevant to conservation is lacking. For the 25th ICCB, (Auckland, New Zealand in 2011), we examined study publication rates and presenter demographics, recorded titles, number of authors, presenter affiliations, gender, country of the study region, publication status, and elapsed time between presentation and publication. Of the 980 contributions (782 talks and 198 posters), 587 (60%) were published as peer-reviewed journal articles or book chapters. Mean time to publication was 13.7 months for all presentation abstracts and 21.3 months excluding abstracts with corresponding articles that were published before the meeting. The gender breakdown of presenters was almost even (53% male, 47% female), but representation of the countries where the presenting authors were based was skewed. The political units with the most contributions were by far the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Presenters based in 16 different English-speaking countries made up 74% of the total sample, but this did not influence the likelihood of their abstract leading to a publication. Examination of conference presenters and publication of their presentations is useful to identify biases and potential challenges that need to be addressed to make conference communications permanent and increase their reach beyond conference attendees.     

Michael Soulé (1936–2020) on spirituality,ethics, and conservation biology

Michael Soulé is best known for his scientific contributions and central role in founding the Society for Conservation Biology and its flagship journal. Less well known are his childhood experiences, his affinity for Zen Buddhism and Arne Naess’ deep ecology philosophy, and his contributions as an environmental activist to efforts to protect biodiversity and rewild ecosystems. Also less well known is the extent to which he was an interdisciplinary environmental studies scholar, struggling to understand what promotes and hinders proenvironmental behaviors. In this regard, his life and that of many other conservation scientists provide important clues, but no easy answers. By attempting to integrate the humanities, with its quest for a meaningful and fulfilling human existence, with naturalistic nature spirituality and ecocentric values, as well as the social and natural sciences, Soulé sought to solve the riddle as to why human beings seemed unable to understand, slow, and halt negative anthropogenic environmental change. He thus modeled what interdisciplinary environmental studies is at its best. Those advocating the conservation of biological diversity have much to learn from Michael Soulé, not only from his scientific findings but also from his way of seeing, the questions he asked, and his love of the living world.