Effectiveness of Environmental Surrogates for the Selection of Conservation Area Networks

Abstract:  Rapid biodiversity assessment and conservation planning require the use of easily quantified and estimated surrogates for biodiversity. Using data sets from Québec and Queensland, we applied four methods to assess the extent to which environmental surrogates can represent biodiversity components: (1) surrogacy graphs; (2) marginal representation plots; (3) Hamming distance function; and (4) Syrjala statistical test for spatial congruence. For Québec we used 719 faunal and floral species as biodiversity components, and for Queensland we used 2348 plant species. We used four climatic parameter types (annual mean temperature, minimum temperature during the coldest quarter, maximum temperature during the hottest quarter, and annual precipitation), along with slope, elevation, aspect, and soil types, as environmental surrogates. To study the effect of scale, we analyzed the data at seven spatial scales ranging from 0.01° to 0.10° longitude and latitude. At targeted representations of 10% for environmental surrogates and biodiversity components, all four methods indicated that using a full set of environmental surrogates systematically provided better results than selecting areas at random, usually ensuring that ≥90% of the biodiversity components achieved the 10% targets at scales coarser than 0.02°. The performance of surrogates improved with coarser spatial resolutions. Thus, environmental surrogate sets are useful tools for biodiversity conservation planning. A recommended protocol for the use of such surrogates consists of randomly selecting a set of areas for which distributional data are available, identifying an optimal surrogate set based on these areas, and subsequently prioritizing places for conservation based on the optimal surrogate set.     

Demographic Connectivity for Ursid Populations at Wildlife Crossing Structures in Banff National Park

Wildlife crossing structures are one solution to mitigating the fragmentation of wildlife populations caused by roads, but their effectiveness in providing connectivity has only been superficially evaluated. Hundreds of grizzly (Ursus arctos) and black bear (Ursus americanus) passages through under and overpasses have been recorded in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. However, the ability of crossing structures to allow individual and population‐level movements across road networks remains unknown. In April 2006, we initiated a 3‐year investigation into whether crossing structures provide demographic connectivity for grizzly and black bears in Banff National Park. We collected hair with multiple noninvasive methods to obtain genetic samples from grizzly and black bears around the Bow Valley. Our objectives were to determine the number of male and female grizzly and black bears that use crossing structures; examine spatial and temporal patterns of crossings; and estimate the proportions of grizzly and black bear populations in the Bow Valley that use crossing structures. Fifteen grizzly (7 female, 8 male) and 17 black bears (8 female, 9 male) used wildlife crossing structures. The number of individuals detected at wildlife crossing structures was highly correlated with the number of passages in space and time. Grizzly bears used open crossing structures (e.g., overpasses) more often than constricted crossings (e.g., culverts). Peak use of crossing structures for both bear species occurred in July, when high rates of foraging activity coincide with mating season. We compared the number of bears that used crossings with estimates of population abundance from a related study and determined that substantial percentages of grizzly (15.0% in 2006, 19.8% in 2008) and black bear (17.6% in 2006, 11.0% in 2008) populations used crossing structures. On the basis of our results, we concluded wildlife crossing structures provide demographic connectivity for bear populations in Banff National Park. Conectividad Demográfica para Poblaciones de Úrsidos en Estructuras para Cruce de Vida Silvestre en el Parque Nacional Banff     

On Advocacy by Environmental Scientists: What, Whether, Why, and How

Abstract:  Debate about the nature and appropriateness of advocacy by environmental scientists is important—it represents understanding the role of these citizens in our society. Much has been written about advocacy by scientists, and that literature describes substantial diversity in reasons why advocacy by scientists is or is not appropriate. Despite the nature of this literature there has been no comprehensive, systematic review of why some favor and others oppose advocacy by environmental scientists. Through a literature review we catalogued, categorized, and critiqued the arguments used for and against the appropriateness of advocacy by environmental scientists. Most arguments, whether for or against advocacy, are characterized by some significant deficiency. From our analysis of the literature an argument emerges that to date has never been fully articulated: that advocacy is nearly unavoidable, and that scientists, by virtue of being citizens first and scientists second, have a responsibility to advocate to the best of their abilities, to improve their advocacy abilities, and to advocate in a justified and transparent manner. We also discuss the meaning and relevance of advocacy being justified and transparent. We suggest scientists expend their efforts to better understand what constitutes appropriate advocacy and spend less effort pondering whether they should advocate .     

Demographic Stability Metrics for Conservation Prioritization of Isolated Populations

Abstract:  Systems of geographically isolated habitat patches house species that occur naturally as small, disjunct populations. Many of these species are of conservation concern, particularly under the interacting influences of isolation and rapid global change. One potential conservation strategy is to prioritize the populations most likely to persist through change and act as sources for future recolonization of less stable localities. We propose an approach to classify long-term population stability (and, presumably, future persistence potential) with composite demographic metrics derived from standard population-genetic data. Stability metrics can be related to simple habitat measures for a straightforward method of classifying localities to inform conservation management. We tested these ideas in a system of isolated desert headwater streams with mitochondrial sequence data from 16 populations of a flightless aquatic insect. Populations exhibited a wide range of stability scores, which were significantly predicted by dry-season aquatic habitat size. This preliminary test suggests strong potential for our proposed method of classifying isolated populations according to persistence potential. The approach is complementary to existing methods for prioritizing local habitats according to diversity patterns and should be tested further in other systems and with additional loci to inform composite demographic stability scores.     

Enhancing the Engagement of U.S. Private Foundations with Conservation Science

Abstract: Funding for conservation is limited, and its investment for maximum conservation gain can likely be enhanced through the application of relevant science. Many donor institutions support and use science to pursue conservation goals, but their activities remain relatively unfamiliar to the conservation‐science community. We examined the priorities and practices of U.S.‐based private foundations that support biodiversity conservation. We surveyed 50 donor members of the Consultative Group on Biological Diversity (CGBD) to address three questions: (1) What support do CGBD members provide for conservation science? (2) How do CGBD members use conservation science in their grant making and strategic thinking? (3) How do CGBD members obtain information about conservation science? The 38 donor institutions that responded to the survey made $340 million in grants for conservation in 2005, including $62 million for conservation science. Individual foundations varied substantially in the proportion of conservation funds allocated to science. Foundations also varied in the ways and degree to which they used conservation science to guide their grant making. Respondents found it “somewhat difficult” to stay informed about conservation science relevant to their work, reporting that they accessed conservation science information mainly through their grantees. Many funders reported concerns about the strategic utility of funding conservation science to achieve conservation gains. To increase investment by private foundations in conservation science, funders, researchers, and conservation practitioners need to jointly identify when and how new scientific knowledge will lower barriers to conservation gains. We envision an evolving relationship between funders and conservation scientists that emphasizes primary research and synthesis motivated by (1) applicability, (2) human‐ecosystem interactions, (3) active engagement among scientists and decision makers, and (4) broader communication of relevant scientific information.