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.     

Misdirections in Conservation Biology

Abstract: The hypothesis that conservation biology is proceeding along two separate trajectories ( Caughley 1994 ) has provoked extensive discussion. Caughley's dichotomy, a "small-population" paradigm versus a "declining-population" paradigm, has recently been exemplified in discussion of management strategies for conservation of the Javan gibbon (   Hylobates moloch ). Recommendations from extensive fieldwork focused on reducing the major known threat to the species—habitat destruction—and proposed a strategy of forest management and protection. A population and habitat viability analysis focused on an entirely different issue—low genetic diversity—and proposed a program of single-species genetic management. It is not surprising that geneticists see inbreeding as a major conservation problem, and it is not unusual that ecologists focus on how ecology relates to conservation. A problem results when managers assume that addressing only one or the other of these factors is the appropriate conservation action. Conservation biologists must learn to thoroughly analyze every conservation problem before trying to solve it. We must actively involve experts from all fields in forming and reviewing conservation strategies. If only captive breeding specialists or ecologists are invited to address a problem, then the techniques employed to solve it will be irrevocably biased. We do not all see the world in the same way, even within the relatively small field of conservation. To achieve effective conservation action, we must learn to balance and capitalize on our different perspectives.     

Googling Trends in Conservation Biology

Web‐crawling approaches, that is, automated programs data mining the internet to obtain information about a particular process, have recently been proposed for monitoring early signs of ecosystem degradation or for establishing crop calendars. However, lack of a clear conceptual and methodological framework has prevented the development of such approaches within the field of conservation biology. Our objective was to illustrate how Google Trends, a freely accessible web‐crawling engine, can be used to track changes in timing of biological processes, spatial distribution of invasive species, and level of public awareness about key conservation issues. Google Trends returns the number of internet searches that were made for a keyword in a given region of the world over a defined period. Using data retrieved online for 13 countries, we exemplify how Google Trends can be used to study the timing of biological processes, such as the seasonal recurrence of pollen release or mosquito outbreaks across a latitudinal gradient. We mapped the spatial extent of results from Google Trends for 5 invasive species in the United States and found geographic patterns in invasions that are consistent with their coarse‐grained distribution at state levels. From 2004 through 2012, Google Trends showed that the level of public interest and awareness about conservation issues related to ecosystem services, biodiversity, and climate change increased, decreased, and followed both trends, respectively. Finally, to further the development of research approaches at the interface of conservation biology, collective knowledge, and environmental management, we developed an algorithm that allows the rapid retrieval of Google Trends data.     

Conservation Biology in Historical Perspective

Book reviewed in this article:
The American Conservation Movement: John Muir and His Legacy . Fox, S.
Aldo Leopold: His Life and Work. Meine, C.
An Overview of Biodiversity
Biodiversity. Wilson, E. O., editor.
Value of Biodiversity
Why Preserve Natural Variety? Norton, B.G.
Management of Common Property Resources
Proceedings of the Conference on Common Property Resource Management. Panel on Common Property Resource Management (Bromley, D. W., chair).
Conservation and Management of Bird Populations
The Pheasant: Ecology, Management and Conservation. Hill, D., and Robertson, P.
Ecology and Conservation of Grassland Birds. Goriup, P. D., editor.
Mammal Populations
Mammal Populations Mammal Population Studies. Harris, S., editor.
Taking a Stand for Forests
Last Stand of the Red Spruce . Mello, R. A.     

Bayesian Methods in Conservation Biology

Abstract: Bayesian statistical inference provides an alternate way to analyze data that is likely to be more appropriate to conservation biology problems than traditional statistical methods. I contrast Bayesian techniques with traditional hypothesis-testing techniques using examples applicable to conservation. I use a trend analysis of two hypothetical populations to illustrate how easy it is to understand Bayesian results, which are given in terms of probability. Bayesian trend analysis indicated that the two populations had very different chances of declining at biologically important rates. For example, the probability that the first population was declining faster than 5% per year was 0.00, compared to a probability of 0.86 for the second population. The Bayesian results appropriately identified which population was of greater conservation concern. The Bayesian results contrast with those obtained with traditional hypothesis testing. Hypothesis testing indicated that the first population, which the Bayesian analysis indicated had no chance of declining at > 5% per year, was declining significantly because it was declining at a slow rate and the abundance estimates were precise. Despite the high probability that the second population was experiencing a serious decline, hypothesis testing failed to reject the null hypothesis of no decline because the abundance estimates were imprecise. Finally, I extended the trend analysis to illustrate Bayesian decision theory, which allows for choice between more than two decisions and allows explicit specification of the consequences of various errors. The Bayesian results again differed from the traditional results: the decision analysis led to the conclusion that the first population was declining slowly and the second population was declining rapidly.