Crayfish Use of Trash Versus Natural Cover in Incised, Sand-Bed Streams

Historic land use changes and subsequent river channelization created deeply incised, unstable stream channels largely devoid of natural cover throughout the Yazoo River basin, Mississippi, USA. Large trash (e.g., televisions, toilets, car parts) dumped in streams provided shelter for some aquatic fauna. To determine whether trash served as a surrogate for natural cover, I examined crayfish use of both cover types. I sampled crayfishes by kick-seining 2 × 1-m plots in three cover classes: trash, natural cover, and no cover. I captured 415 crayfishes from 136 of the 294 plots. Most crayfishes were in natural cover (253), followed by trash (154), and no-cover (8) plots. Trash use varied by crayfish genus and size. Frequencies of all size classes of Procambarus and of the smallest Cambarus were higher in natural cover than trash. Many of the smallest individuals were found in live root mats. As Cambarus and Orconectes grew, they shifted more toward trash, and the largest Orconectes size class was significantly more abundant than expected in trash. Trash served as “artificial reefs,” providing cover for crayfishes and other fauna, but functioned differently than the remaining natural cover. The results confirmed that stream substrate did not provide adequate instream cover for crayfishes in the study area and suggested that high-quality natural cover for large crayfishes was in short supply, at least for some species. Land management that provides for abundant, ongoing input and retention of complex cover, such as trees and live roots, to stream channels should be beneficial for crayfish assemblages.     

Simultaneous-count models to estimate abundance from counts of unmarked individuals with imperfect detection

We developed a method to estimate population abundance from simultaneous counts of unmarked individuals over multiple sites. We considered that at each sampling occasion, individuals in a population could be detected at 1 of the survey sites or remain undetected and used either multinomial or binomial simultaneous-count models to estimate abundance, the latter being equivalent to an N-mixture model with one site. We tested model performance with simulations over a range of detection probabilities, population sizes, growth rates, number of years, sampling occasions, and sites. We then applied our method to 3 critically endangered vulture species in Cambodia to demonstrate the real-world applicability of the model and to provide the first abundance estimates for these species in Cambodia. Our new approach works best when existing methods are expected to perform poorly (i.e., few sites and large variation in abundance among sites) and if individuals may move among sites between sampling occasions. The approach performed better when there were >8 sampling occasions and net probability of detection was high (>0.5). We believe our approach will be useful in particular for simultaneous surveys at aggregation sites, such as roosts. The method complements existing approaches for estimating abundance of unmarked individuals and is the first method designed specifically for simultaneous counts.     

‘How corporate social responsibility can be integrated into corporate sustainability: a theoretical review of their relationships’

The notion that corporations are expected to have social and environmental performance standards and practices while meeting their financial and legal obligations is commonly referred to as corporate social responsibility (CSR) or corporate sustainability (CS). Previous studies have discussed whether the two terms are converging or should be used as stand-alone concepts. After reviewing the trends in development of CSR and CS, and the various viewpoints on the relationships between the two, we propose a relationship model to better understand how CSR can be integrated into CS as either a transitional stage or ultimate goal for a corporation. This study aims to provide researchers and practitioners with further insights on the adoption of CSR and CS. The model is intended to provide a plausible view of the relationships between CSR and CS to help to lessen the confusion and ease the communication both between and within these fields.     

Standardized reporting of the costs of management interventions for biodiversity conservation

Effective conservation management interventions must combat threats and deliver benefits at costs that can be achieved within limited budgets. Considerable effort has focused on measuring the potential benefits of conservation interventions, but explicit quantification of the financial costs of implementation is rare. Even when costs have been quantified, haphazard and inconsistent reporting means published values are difficult to interpret. This reporting deficiency hinders progress toward a collective understanding of the financial costs of management interventions across projects and thus limits the ability to identify efficient solutions to conservation problems or attract adequate funding. We devised a standardized approach to describing financial costs reported for conservation interventions. The standards call for researchers and practitioners to describe the objective and outcome, context and methods, and scale of costed interventions, and to state which categories of costs are included and the currency and date for reported costs. These standards aim to provide enough contextual information that readers and future users can interpret the cost data appropriately. We suggest these standards be adopted by major conservation organizations, conservation science institutions, and journals so that cost reporting is comparable among studies. This would support shared learning and enhance the ability to identify and perform cost‐effective conservation.     

Quantifying the conservation gains from shared access to linear infrastructure

The proliferation of linear infrastructure such as roads and railways is a major global driver of cumulative biodiversity loss. One strategy for reducing habitat loss associated with development is to encourage linear infrastructure providers and users to share infrastructure networks. We quantified the reductions in biodiversity impact and capital costs under linear infrastructure sharing of a range of potential mine to port transportation links for 47 mine locations operated by 28 separate companies in the Upper Spencer Gulf Region of South Australia. We mapped transport links based on least‐cost pathways for different levels of linear‐infrastructure sharing and used expert‐elicited impacts of linear infrastructure to estimate the consequences for biodiversity. Capital costs were calculated based on estimates of construction costs, compensation payments, and transaction costs. We evaluated proposed mine‐port links by comparing biodiversity impacts and capital costs across 3 scenarios: an independent scenario, where no infrastructure is shared; a restricted‐access scenario, where the largest mining companies share infrastructure but exclude smaller mining companies from sharing; and a shared scenario where all mining companies share linear infrastructure. Fully shared development of linear infrastructure reduced overall biodiversity impacts by 76% and reduced capital costs by 64% compared with the independent scenario. However, there was considerable variation among companies. Our restricted‐access scenario showed only modest biodiversity benefits relative to the independent scenario, indicating that reductions are likely to be limited if the dominant mining companies restrict access to infrastructure, which often occurs without policies that promote sharing of infrastructure. Our research helps illuminate the circumstances under which infrastructure sharing can minimize the biodiversity impacts of development.     

Fixism and conservation science

The field of biodiversity conservation has recently been criticized as relying on a fixist view of the living world in which existing species constitute at the same time targets of conservation efforts and static states of reference, which is in apparent disagreement with evolutionary dynamics. We reviewed the prominent role of species as conservation units and the common benchmark approach to conservation that aims to use past biodiversity as a reference to conserve current biodiversity. We found that the species approach is justified by the discrepancy between the time scales of macroevolution and human influence and that biodiversity benchmarks are based on reference processes rather than fixed reference states. Overall, we argue that the ethical and theoretical frameworks underlying conservation research are based on macroevolutionary processes, such as extinction dynamics. Current species, phylogenetic, community, and functional conservation approaches constitute short‐term responses to short‐term human effects on these reference processes, and these approaches are consistent with evolutionary principles.