Assessing the components of adaptive capacity to improve conservation and management efforts under global change

Natural‐resource managers and other conservation practitioners are under unprecedented pressure to categorize and quantify the vulnerability of natural systems based on assessment of the exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity of species to climate change. Despite the urgent need for these assessments, neither the theoretical basis of adaptive capacity nor the practical issues underlying its quantification has been articulated in a manner that is directly applicable to natural‐resource management. Both are critical for researchers, managers, and other conservation practitioners to develop reliable strategies for assessing adaptive capacity. Drawing from principles of classical and contemporary research and examples from terrestrial, marine, plant, and animal systems, we examined broadly the theory behind the concept of adaptive capacity. We then considered how interdisciplinary, trait‐ and triage‐based approaches encompassing the oft‐overlooked interactions among components of adaptive capacity can be used to identify species and populations likely to have higher (or lower) adaptive capacity. We identified the challenges and value of such endeavors and argue for a concerted interdisciplinary research approach that combines ecology, ecological genetics, and eco‐physiology to reflect the interacting components of adaptive capacity. We aimed to provide a basis for constructive discussion between natural‐resource managers and researchers, discussions urgently needed to identify research directions that will deliver answers to real‐world questions facing resource managers, other conservation practitioners, and policy makers. Directing research to both seek general patterns and identify ways to facilitate adaptive capacity of key species and populations within species, will enable conservation ecologists and resource managers to maximize returns on research and management investment and arrive at novel and dynamic management and policy decisions.     

Credibility and advocacy in conservation science

Conservation policy sits at the nexus of natural science and politics. On the one hand, conservation scientists strive to maintain scientific credibility by emphasizing that their research findings are the result of disinterested observations of reality. On the other hand, conservation scientists are committed to conservation even if they do not advocate a particular policy. The professional conservation literature offers guidance on negotiating the relationship between scientific objectivity and political advocacy without damaging conservation science's credibility. The value of this guidance, however, may be restricted by limited recognition of credibility's multidimensionality and emergent nature: it emerges through perceptions of expertise, goodwill, and trustworthiness. We used content analysis of the literature to determine how credibility is framed in conservation science as it relates to apparent contradictions between science and advocacy. Credibility typically was framed as a static entity lacking dimensionality. Authors identified expertise or trustworthiness as important, but rarely mentioned goodwill. They usually did not identify expertise, goodwill, or trustworthiness as dimensions of credibility or recognize interactions among these 3 dimensions of credibility. This oversimplification may limit the ability of conservation scientists to contribute to biodiversity conservation. Accounting for the emergent quality and multidimensionality of credibility should enable conservation scientists to advance biodiversity conservation more effectively.     

Achieving Conservation Science that Bridges the Knowledge–Action Boundary

There are many barriers to using science to inform conservation policy and practice. Conservation scientists wishing to produce management‐relevant science must balance this goal with the imperative of demonstrating novelty and rigor in their science. Decision makers seeking to make evidence‐based decisions must balance a desire for knowledge with the need to act despite uncertainty. Generating science that will effectively inform management decisions requires that the production of information (the components of knowledge) be salient (relevant and timely), credible (authoritative, believable, and trusted), and legitimate (developed via a process that considers the values and perspectives of all relevant actors) in the eyes of both researchers and decision makers. We perceive 3 key challenges for those hoping to generate conservation science that achieves all 3 of these information characteristics. First, scientific and management audiences can have contrasting perceptions about the salience of research. Second, the pursuit of scientific credibility can come at the cost of salience and legitimacy in the eyes of decision makers, and, third, different actors can have conflicting views about what constitutes legitimate information. We highlight 4 institutional frameworks that can facilitate science that will inform management: boundary organizations (environmental organizations that span the boundary between science and management), research scientists embedded in resource management agencies, formal links between decision makers and scientists at research‐focused institutions, and training programs for conservation professionals. Although these are not the only approaches to generating boundary‐spanning science, nor are they mutually exclusive, they provide mechanisms for promoting communication, translation, and mediation across the knowledge–action boundary. We believe that despite the challenges, conservation science should strive to be a boundary science, which both advances scientific understanding and contributes to decision making. Logrando que la Ciencia de la Conservación Trasponga la Frontera Conocimiento‐Acción     

Acknowledging Conservation Trade‐Offs and Embracing Complexity

Abstract: There is a growing recognition that conservation often entails trade‐offs. A focus on trade‐offs can open the way to more complete consideration of the variety of positive and negative effects associated with conservation initiatives. In analyzing and working through conservation trade‐offs, however, it is important to embrace the complexities inherent in the social context of conservation. In particular, it is important to recognize that the consequences of conservation activities are experienced, perceived, and understood differently from different perspectives, and that these perspectives are embedded in social systems and preexisting power relations. We illustrate the role of trade‐offs in conservation and the complexities involved in understanding them with recent debates surrounding REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation), a global conservation policy designed to create incentives to reduce tropical deforestation. Often portrayed in terms of the multiple benefits it may provide: poverty alleviation, biodiversity conservation, and climate‐change mitigation; REDD may involve substantial trade‐offs. The gains of REDD may be associated with a reduction in incentives for industrialized countries to decrease carbon emissions; relocation of deforestation to places unaffected by REDD; increased inequality in places where people who make their livelihood from forests have insecure land tenure; loss of biological and cultural diversity that does not directly align with REDD measurement schemes; and erosion of community‐based means of protecting forests. We believe it is important to acknowledge the potential trade‐offs involved in conservation initiatives such as REDD and to examine these trade‐offs in an open and integrative way that includes a variety of tools, methods, and points of view.     

Effects of national forest‐management regimes on unprotected forests of the Himalaya

Globally, deforestation continues, and although protected areas effectively protect forests, the majority of forests are not in protected areas. Thus, how effective are different management regimes to avoid deforestation in non‐protected forests? We sought to assess the effectiveness of different national forest‐management regimes to safeguard forests outside protected areas. We compared 2000–2014 deforestation rates across the temperate forests of 5 countries in the Himalaya (Bhutan, Nepal, China, India, and Myanmar) of which 13% are protected. We reviewed the literature to characterize forest management regimes in each country and conducted a quasi‐experimental analysis to measure differences in deforestation of unprotected forests among countries and states in India. Countries varied in both overarching forest‐management goals and specific tenure arrangements and policies for unprotected forests, from policies emphasizing economic development to those focused on forest conservation. Deforestation rates differed up to 1.4% between countries, even after accounting for local determinants of deforestation, such as human population density, market access, and topography. The highest deforestation rates were associated with forest policies aimed at maximizing profits and unstable tenure regimes. Deforestation in national forest‐management regimes that emphasized conservation and community management were relatively low. In India results were consistent with the national‐level results. We interpreted our results in the context of the broader literature on decentralized, community‐based natural resource management, and our findings emphasize that the type and quality of community‐based forestry programs and the degree to which they are oriented toward sustainable use rather than economic development are important for forest protection. Our cross‐national results are consistent with results from site‐ and regional‐scale studies that show forest‐management regimes that ensure stable land tenure and integrate local‐livelihood benefits with forest conservation result in the best forest outcomes.     

A framework to guide the conservation of species hybrids based on ethical and ecological considerations

Species hybrids have long been undervalued in conservation and are often perceived as a threat to pure species. Recently, the conservation value of hybrids, especially those of natural origin, has gained recognition; however, hybrid conservation remains controversial. We reviewed hybrid management policies, including laws, regulations, and management protocols, from a variety of organizations, primarily in Canada and the United States. We found that many policies are based on limited ethical and ecological considerations and provide little opportunity for hybrid conservation. In most policies, hybrids are either unrepresented or considered a threat to conservation goals. This is problematic because our review of the hybrid conservation literature identified many ethical and ecological considerations relevant to determining the conservation value of a hybrid, all of which are management‐context specific. We also noted a lack of discussion of the ethical considerations regarding hybrid conservation. Based on these findings, we created a policy framework outlining situations in which hybrids could be eligible for conservation in Canada and the United States. The framework comprises a decision tree that helps users determine whether a hybrid should be eligible for conservation based on multiple ecological and ethical considerations. The framework may be applied to any hybrid and is flexible in that it accommodates context‐specific management by allowing different options if a hybrid is a threat to or could benefit conservation goals. The framework can inform policy makers and conservationists in decision‐making processes regarding hybrid conservation by providing a systematic set of decision criteria and guidance on additional criteria to be considered in cases of uncertainty, and it fills a policy gap that limits current hybrid management.     

Orchestrating Ecosystem Management: Challenges and Lessons from Sequoia National Forest

Abstract: Numerous agencies and organizations have adopted the concept of ecosystem management as a guiding principle in natural resource management. Despite this widespread interest, no single definition of ecosystem management has been accepted, and there are no specific guidelines or standards by which to apply the concept. I examined how one federal agency, the U.S. Forest Service, is applying the principles of ecosystem management at a local level. I present a case study examining management of giant sequoia (   Sequoiadendron giganteum ) in Sequoia National Forest, California, to illuminate the challenges of practicing ecosystem management by associating on-the-ground management activities with ecosystem management themes, characteristics, and mechanisms identified in academic, industry, and agency literature. Experience at Sequoia National Forest suggests that the application of ecosystem management is compromised by poor relations between managers and stakeholders, multifarious policy requirements, budgetary uncertainty, and limited ecological research on which to base management decisions. To facilitate successful application of ecosystem management in the future, I recommend that managers (1) build confidence and trust in the process, (2) acknowledge bias, (3) reconcile policy and funding constraints with long-term planning, (4) invest in scientific research, data collection, and monitoring capacity, and (5) explore the relationship between values and science. These recommendations, although based on the U.S. Forest Service experience, are relevant to natural resource management in general.     

The Need to Disentangle Key Concepts from Ecosystem‐Approach Jargon

The ecosystem approach—as endorsed by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CDB) in 2000—is a strategy for holistic, sustainable, and equitable natural resource management, to be implemented via the 12 Malawi Principles. These principles describe the need to manage nature in terms of dynamic ecosystems, while fully engaging with local peoples. It is an ambitious concept. Today, the term is common throughout the research and policy literature on environmental management. However, multiple meanings have been attached to the term, resulting in confusion. We reviewed references to the ecosystem approach from 1957 to 2012 and identified 3 primary uses: as an alternative to ecosystem management or ecosystem‐based management; in reference to an integrated and equitable approach to resource management as per the CBD; and as a term signifying a focus on understanding and valuing ecosystem services. Although uses of this term and its variants may overlap in meaning, typically, they do not entirely reflect the ethos of the ecosystem approach as defined by the CBD. For example, there is presently an increasing emphasis on ecosystem services, but focusing on these alone does not promote decentralization of management or use of all forms of knowledge, both of which are integral to the CBD's concept. We highlight that the Malawi Principles are at risk of being forgotten. To better understand these principles, more effort to implement them is required. Such efforts should be evaluated, ideally with comparative approaches, before allowing the CBD's concept of holistic and socially engaged management to be abandoned or superseded. It is possible that attempts to implement all 12 principles together will face many challenges, but they may also offer a unique way to promote holistic and equitable governance of natural resources. Therefore, we believe that the CBD's concept of the ecosystem approach demands more attention. La Necesidad de Desenredar Conceptos Clave del Argot Ambiente‐Estrategia     

Valuing Ecosystem Services in Terms of Ecological Risks and Returns

Abstract: The economic valuation of ecosystem services is a key policy tool in stemming losses of biological diversity. It is proposed that the loss of ecosystem function and the biological resources within ecosystems is due in part to the failure of markets to recognize the benefits humans derive from ecosystems. Placing monetary values on ecosystem services is often suggested as a necessary step in correcting such market failures. We consider the effects of valuing different types of ecosystem services within an economic framework. We argue that provisioning and regulating ecosystem services are generally produced and consumed in ways that make them amenable to economic valuation. The values associated with cultural ecosystem services lie outside the domain of economic valuation, but their worth may be expressed through noneconomic, deliberative forms of valuation. We argue that supporting ecosystem services are not of direct value and that the losses of such services can be expressed in terms of the effects of their loss on the risk to the provision of the directly valued ecosystem services they support. We propose a heuristic framework that considers the relations between ecological risks and returns in the provision of ecosystem services. The proposed ecosystem‐service valuation framework, which allows the expression of the value of all types of ecosystem services, calls for a shift from static, purely monetary valuation toward the consideration of trade‐offs between the current flow of benefits from ecosystems and the ability of those ecosystems to provide future flows.     

Balancing Emotion and Cognition: a Case for Decision Aiding in Conservation Efforts

Abstract: Despite advances in the quality of participatory decision making for conservation, many current efforts still suffer from an inability to bridge the gap between science and policy. Judgment and decision‐making research suggests this gap may result from a person's reliance on affect‐based shortcuts in complex decision contexts. I examined the results from 3 experiments that demonstrate how affect (i.e., the instantaneous reaction one has to a stimulus) influences individual judgments in these contexts and identified techniques from the decision‐aiding literature that help encourage a balance between affect‐based emotion and cognition in complex decision processes. In the first study, subjects displayed a lack of focus on their stated conservation objectives and made decisions that reflected their initial affective impressions. Value‐focused approaches may help individuals incorporate all the decision‐relevant objectives by making the technical and value‐based objectives more salient. In the second study, subjects displayed a lack of focus on statistical risk and again made affect‐based decisions. Trade‐off techniques may help individuals incorporate relevant technical data, even when it conflicts with their initial affective impressions or other value‐based objectives. In the third study, subjects displayed a lack of trust in decision‐making authorities when the decision involved a negatively affect‐rich outcome (i.e., a loss). Identifying shared salient values and increasing procedural fairness may help build social trust in both decision‐making authorities and the decision process.     

Assessing the Value of the Umbrella‐Species Concept for Conservation Planning with Meta‐Analysis

Abstract: The umbrella‐species concept, which suggests that conservation strategies designed for one species may benefit co‐occurring species, has been promoted as a framework for conservation planning. Nevertheless, there has been considerable variation in the outcome of empirical tests of this concept that has led researchers to question its value, so we used data from 15 published studies in a meta‐analysis to evaluate whether conservation of putative umbrella species also conserves co‐occurring species. We tested the effectiveness of putative umbrella species categorized by taxonomic group, taxonomic similarity to co‐occurring species, body size, generality of resource use, and trophic level to evaluate criteria proposed to guide the selection of umbrella species. We compared species richness and number of individuals (by species and higher taxonomic group) between sites with and without putative umbrella species to test whether more co‐occurring species were present in greater abundances when the area or resource needs of umbrella species were met. Species richness and abundance of co‐occurring species were consistently higher in sites where umbrella species were present than where they were not and for conservation schemes with avian than with mammalian umbrella species. There were no differences in species richness or species abundance with resource generalist or specialist umbrella species or based on taxonomic similarity of umbrella and co‐occurring species. Taxonomic group abundance was higher in across‐taxonomic umbrella species schemes than when umbrella species were of the same taxon as co‐occurring species. Co‐occurring species had similar, or higher, species richness with small‐bodied umbrella species relative to larger‐bodied umbrella species. The only significant difference among umbrella species categorized by trophic level was that species richness was higher with omnivorous than it was with carnivorous avian umbrella species. Our results suggest there is merit to the umbrella‐species concept for conservation, but they do not support the use of the criteria we used to identify umbrella species.     

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.     

Sea otters,social justice,and ecosystem‐service perceptions in Clayoquot Sound,Canada

We sought to take a first step toward better integration of social concerns into empirical ecosystem service (ES) work. We did this by adapting cognitive anthropological techniques to study the Clayoquot Sound social‐ecological system on the Pacific coast of Canada's Vancouver Island. We used freelisting and ranking exercises to elicit how locals perceive ESs and to determine locals’ preferred food species. We analyzed these data with the freelist‐analysis software package ANTHROPAC. We considered the results in light of an ongoing trophic cascade caused by the government reintroduction of sea otters (Enhydra lutris) and their spread along the island's Pacific coast. We interviewed 67 local residents (n = 29 females, n = 38 males; n = 26 self‐identified First Nation individuals, and n = 41 non‐First Nation individuals) and 4 government managers responsible for conservation policy in the region. We found that the mental categories participants—including trained ecologists—used to think about ESs, did not match the standard academic ES typology. With reference to the latest ecological model projections for the region, we found that First Nations individuals and women were most likely to perceive the most immediate ES losses from the trophic cascade, with the most certainty. The inverse was found for men and non‐First Nations individuals, generally. This suggests that 2 historically disadvantaged groups (i.e., First Nations and women) are poised to experience the immediate impacts of the government‐initiated trophic cascade as yet another social injustice in a long line of perceived inequities. Left unaddressed, this could complicate efforts at multistakeholder ecosystem management in the region.     

Bolder science needed now for protected areas

Recognizing that protected areas (PAs) are essential for effective biodiversity conservation action, the Convention on Biological Diversity established ambitious PA targets as part of the 2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity. Under the strategic goal to “improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species, and genetic diversity,” Target 11 aims to put 17% of terrestrial and 10% of marine regions under PA status by 2020. Additionally and crucially, these areas are required to be of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative, and well‐connected and to include “other effective area‐based conservation measures” (OECMs). Whereas the area‐based targets are explicit and measurable, the lack of guidance for what constitutes important and representative; effective; and OECMs is affecting how nations are implementing the target. There is a real risk that Target 11 may be achieved in terms of area while failing the overall strategic goal for which it is established because the areas are poorly located, inadequately managed, or based on unjustifiable inclusion of OECMs. We argue that the conservation science community can help establish ecologically sensible PA targets to help prioritize important biodiversity areas and achieve ecological representation; identify clear, comparable performance metrics of ecological effectiveness so progress toward these targets can be assessed; and identify metrics and report on the contribution OECMs make toward the target. By providing ecologically sensible targets and new performance metrics for measuring the effectiveness of both PAs and OECMs, the science community can actively ensure that the achievement of the required area in Target 11 is not simply an end in itself but generates genuine benefits for biodiversity.     

Considering the needs of indigenous and local populations in conservation programs

Local rural and indigenous communities have assumed increasing responsibility for conservation within and between areas buffering the impacts of agricultural or resource‐extraction zones and protected areas. Empowering local communities as central partners in conservation and climate‐change mitigation has allowed many people to gain access to land and citizenship rights but has provided limited improvements in access to social services and economic opportunities even as expectation about their role as environmental stewards grows. These expectations, however, are inconsistent with reality. We conducted multiple field studies in Brazil since the mid‐1980s to illustrate the discrepancies between conservation programs and local conditions and expectations. We suggest that public policies and conservation programs should not delegate responsibility for managing protected areas to local and indigenous communities without considering local needs and expectations and locals’ attitudes toward conservation. In other words, behavior that maintains or improves the environment should not be treated as traditional based on the expectations of outsiders. Framing local populations as traditional environmentalists creates contradictions and frustrations for local populations and for conservation professionals and policy makers.     

Impacts of phylogenetic nomenclature on the efficacy of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Cataloging biodiversity is critical to conservation efforts because accurate taxonomy is often a precondition for protection under laws designed for species conservation, such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). Traditional nomenclatural codes governing the taxonomic process have recently come under scrutiny because taxon names are more closely linked to hierarchical ranks than to the taxa themselves. A new approach to naming biological groups, called phylogenetic nomenclature (PN), explicitly names taxa by defining their names in terms of ancestry and descent. PN has the potential to increase nomenclatural stability and decrease confusion induced by the rank‐based codes. But proponents of PN have struggled with whether species and infraspecific taxa should be governed by the same rules as other taxa or should have special rules. Some proponents advocate the wholesale abandonment of rank labels (including species); this could have consequences for the implementation of taxon‐based conservation legislation. I examined the principles of PN as embodied in the PhyloCode (an alternative to traditional rank‐based nomenclature that names biological groups based on the results of phylogenetic analyses and does not associate taxa with ranks) and assessed how this novel approach to naming taxa might affect the implementation of species‐based legislation by providing a case study of the ESA. The latest version of the PhyloCode relies on the traditional rank‐based codes to name species and infraspecific taxa; thus, little will change regarding the main targets of the ESA because they will retain rank labels. For this reason, and because knowledge of evolutionary relationships is of greater importance than nomenclatural procedures for initial protection of endangered taxa under the ESA, I conclude that PN under the PhyloCode will have little impact on implementation of the ESA. Impactos de la Nomenclatura Filogenética sobre la Eficiencia del Acta Estadunidense para las Especies en Peligro     

Aligning science and policy to achieve evolutionarily enlightened conservation

There is increasing recognition among conservation scientists that long‐term conservation outcomes could be improved through better integration of evolutionary theory into management practices. Despite concerns that the importance of key concepts emerging from evolutionary theory (i.e., evolutionary principles and processes) are not being recognized by managers, there has been little effort to determine the level of integration of evolutionary theory into conservation policy and practice. We assessed conservation policy at 3 scales (international, national, and provincial) on 3 continents to quantify the degree to which key evolutionary concepts, such as genetic diversity and gene flow, are being incorporated into conservation practice. We also evaluated the availability of clear guidance within the applied evolutionary biology literature as to how managers can change their management practices to achieve better conservation outcomes. Despite widespread recognition of the importance of maintaining genetic diversity, conservation policies provide little guidance about how this can be achieved in practice and other relevant evolutionary concepts, such as inbreeding depression, are mentioned rarely. In some cases the poor integration of evolutionary concepts into management reflects a lack of decision‐support tools in the literature. Where these tools are available, such as risk‐assessment frameworks, they are not being adopted by conservation policy makers, suggesting that the availability of a strong evidence base is not the only barrier to evolutionarily enlightened management. We believe there is a clear need for more engagement by evolutionary biologists with policy makers to develop practical guidelines that will help managers make changes to conservation practice. There is also an urgent need for more research to better understand the barriers to and opportunities for incorporating evolutionary theory into conservation practice.     

Hybridization,agency discretion,and implementation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that the “best available scientific and commercial data” be used to protect imperiled species from extinction and preserve biodiversity. However, it does not provide specific guidance on how to apply this mandate. Scientific data can be uncertain and controversial, particularly regarding species delineation and hybridization issues. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had an evolving hybrid policy to guide protection decisions for individuals of hybrid origin. Currently, this policy is in limbo because it resulted in several controversial conservation decisions in the past. Biologists from FWS must interpret and apply the best available science to their recommendations and likely use considerable discretion in making recommendations for what species to list, how to define those species, and how to recover them. We used semistructured interviews to collect data on FWS biologists’ use of discretion to make recommendations for listed species with hybridization issues. These biologists had a large amount of discretion to determine the best available science and how to interpret it but generally deferred to the scientific consensus on the taxonomic status of an organism. Respondents viewed hybridization primarily as a problem in the context of the ESA, although biologists who had experience with hybridization issues were more likely to describe it in more nuanced terms. Many interviewees expressed a desire to continue the current case‐by‐case approach for handling hybridization issues, but some wanted more guidance on procedures (i.e., a “flexible” hybrid policy). Field‐level information can provide critical insight into which policies are working (or not working) and why. The FWS biologists’ we interviewed had a high level of discretion, which greatly influenced ESA implementation, particularly in the context of hybridization.     

Biomass‐based targets and the management of multispecies coral reef fisheries

The failure of fisheries management among multispecies coral reef fisheries is well documented and has dire implications for the 100 million people engaged in these small‐scale operations. Weak or missing management institutions, a lack of research capacity, and the complex nature of these ecosystems have heralded a call for ecosystem‐based management approaches. However, ecosystem‐based management of coral reef fisheries has proved challenging due to the multispecies nature of catches and the diversity of fish functional roles. We used data on fish communities collected from 233 individual sites in 9 western Indian Ocean countries to evaluate changes in the site's functional composition and associated life‐history characteristics along a large range of fish biomass. As biomass increased along this range, fish were larger and grew and matured more slowly while the abundance of scraping and predatory species increased. The greatest changes in functional composition occurred below relatively low standing stock biomass (<600 kg/ha); abundances of piscivores, apex predators, and scraping herbivores were low at very light levels of fishing. This suggests potential trade‐offs in ecosystem function and estimated yields for different management systems. Current fishing gear and area restrictions are not achieving conservation targets (proposed here as standing stock biomass of 1150 kg/ha) and result in losses of life history and ecological functions. Fish in reefs where destructive gears were restricted typically had very similar biomass and functions to young and low compliance closures. This indicates the potentially important role of fisheries restrictions in providing some gains in biomass and associated ecological functions when fully protected area enforcement potential is limited and likely to fail. Our results indicate that biomass alone can provide broad ecosystem‐based fisheries management targets that can be easily applied even where research capacity and information is limited. Of particular value, is our finding that current management tools may be used to reach key ecosystem‐based management targets, enabling ecosystem‐based management in many socioeconomic contexts.     

A typology of time‐scale mismatches and behavioral interventions to diagnose and solve conservation problems

Ecological systems often operate on time scales significantly longer or shorter than the time scales typical of human decision making, which causes substantial difficulty for conservation and management in socioecological systems. For example, invasive species may move faster than humans can diagnose problems and initiate solutions, and climate systems may exhibit long‐term inertia and short‐term fluctuations that obscure learning about the efficacy of management efforts in many ecological systems. We adopted a management‐decision framework that distinguishes decision makers within public institutions from individual actors within the social system, calls attention to the ways socioecological systems respond to decision makers’ actions, and notes institutional learning that accrues from observing these responses. We used this framework, along with insights from bedeviling conservation problems, to create a typology that identifies problematic time‐scale mismatches occurring between individual decision makers in public institutions and between individual actors in the social or ecological system. We also considered solutions that involve modifying human perception and behavior at the individual level as a means of resolving these problematic mismatches. The potential solutions are derived from the behavioral economics and psychology literature on temporal challenges in decision making, such as the human tendency to discount future outcomes at irrationally high rates. These solutions range from framing environmental decisions to enhance the salience of long‐term consequences, to using structured decision processes that make time scales of actions and consequences more explicit, to structural solutions aimed at altering the consequences of short‐sighted behavior to make it less appealing. Additional application of these tools and long‐term evaluation measures that assess not just behavioral changes but also associated changes in ecological systems are needed.