Anthropogenic areas as incidental substitutes for original habitat

One speaks of ecological substitutes when an introduced species performs, to some extent, the ecosystem function of an extirpated native species. We suggest that a similar case exists for habitats. Species evolve within ecosystems, but habitats can be destroyed or modified by natural and human‐made causes. Sometimes habitat alteration forces animals to move to or remain in a suboptimal habitat type. In that case, the habitat is considered a refuge, and the species is called a refugee. Typically refugee species have lower population growth rates than in their original habitats. Human action may lead to the unintended generation of artificial or semiartificial habitat types that functionally resemble the essential features of the original habitat and thus allow a population growth rate of the same magnitude or higher than in the original habitat. We call such areas substitution habitats and define them as human‐made habitats within the focal species range that by chance are partial substitutes for the species’ original habitat. We call species occupying a substitution habitat adopted species. These are 2 new terms in conservation biology. Examples of substitution habitats are dams for European otters, wheat and rice fields for many steppeland and aquatic birds, and urban areas for storks, falcons, and swifts. Although substitution habitats can bring about increased resilience against the agents of global change, the conservation of original habitat types remains a conservation priority.     

Reframing the concept of alternative livelihoods

Alternative livelihood project (ALP) is a widely used term for interventions that aim to reduce the prevalence of activities deemed to be environmentally damaging by substituting them with lower impact livelihood activities that provide at least equivalent benefits. ALPs are widely implemented in conservation, but in 2012, an International Union for Conservation of Nature resolution called for a critical review of such projects based on concern that their effectiveness was unproven. We focused on the conceptual design of ALPs by considering their underlying assumptions. We placed ALPs within a broad category of livelihood‐focused interventions to better understand their role in conservation and their intended impacts. We dissected 3 flawed assumptions about ALPs based on the notions of substitution, the homogenous community, and impact scalability. Interventions based on flawed assumptions about people's needs, aspirations, and the factors that influence livelihood choice are unlikely to achieve conservation objectives. We therefore recommend use of a sustainable livelihoods approach to understand the role and function of environmentally damaging behaviors within livelihood strategies; differentiate between households in a community that have the greatest environmental impact and those most vulnerable to resource access restrictions to improve intervention targeting; and learn more about the social–ecological system within which household livelihood strategies are embedded. Rather than using livelihood‐focused interventions as a direct behavior‐change tool, it may be more appropriate to focus on either enhancing the existing livelihood strategies of those most vulnerable to conservation‐imposed resource access restrictions or on use of livelihood‐focused interventions that establish a clear link to conservation as a means of building good community relations. However, we recommend that the term ALP be replaced by the broader term livelihood‐focused intervention. This avoids the implicit assumption that alternatives can fully substitute for natural resource‐based livelihood activities.     

Preferred conservation policies of shark researchers

There is increasing concern about the conservation status of sharks. However, the presence of numerous different (and potentially mutually exclusive) policies complicates management implementation and public understanding of the process. We distributed an online survey to members of the largest professional shark and ray research societies to assess member knowledge of and attitudes toward different conservation policies. Questions covered society member opinions on conservation and management policies, personal histories of involvement in advocacy and management, and perceptions of the approach of conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to shark conservation. One hundred and two surveys were completed (overall response rate 21%). Respondents considered themselves knowledgeable about and actively involved in conservation and management policy; a majority believed scientists have a responsibility to advocate for conservation (75%), and majorities have sent formal public comments to policymakers (54%) and included policy suggestions in their papers (53%). They believe sustainable shark fisheries are possible, are currently happening today (in a few places), and should be the goal instead of banning fisheries. Respondents were generally less supportive of newer limit‐based (i.e., policies that ban exploitation entirely without a species‐specific focus) conservation policy tools, such as shark sanctuaries and bans on the sale of shark fins, than of target‐based fisheries management tools (i.e., policies that allow for sustainable harvest of species whose populations can withstand it), such as fishing quotas. Respondents were generally supportive of environmental NGO efforts to conserve sharks but raised concerns about some NGOs that they perceived as using incorrect information and focusing on the wrong problems. Our results show there is an ongoing debate in shark conservation and management circles relative to environmental policy on target‐based natural resources management tools versus limit‐based conservation tools. They also suggest that closer communication between the scientific and environmental NGO communities may be needed to recognize and reconcile differing values and objectives between these groups.     

Quantifying the relative irreplaceability of important bird and biodiversity areas

World governments have committed to increase the global protected areas coverage by 2020, but the effectiveness of this commitment for protecting biodiversity depends on where new protected areas are located. Threshold‐ and complementarity‐based approaches have been independently used to identify important sites for biodiversity. We brought together these approaches by performing a complementarity‐based analysis of irreplaceability in important bird and biodiversity areas (IBAs), which are sites identified using a threshold‐based approach. We determined whether irreplaceability values are higher inside than outside IBAs and whether any observed difference depends on known characteristics of the IBAs. We focused on 3 regions with comprehensive IBA inventories and bird distribution atlases: Australia, southern Africa, and Europe. Irreplaceability values were significantly higher inside than outside IBAs, although differences were much smaller in Europe than elsewhere. Higher irreplaceability values in IBAs were associated with the presence and number of restricted‐range species; number of criteria under which the site was identified; and mean geographic range size of the species for which the site was identified (trigger species). In addition, IBAs were characterized by higher irreplaceability values when using proportional species representation targets, rather than fixed targets. There were broadly comparable results when measuring irreplaceability for trigger species and when considering all bird species, which indicates a good surrogacy effect of the former. Recently, the International Union for Conservation of Nature has convened a consultation to consolidate global standards for the identification of key biodiversity areas (KBAs), building from existing approaches such as IBAs. Our results informed this consultation, and in particular a proposed irreplaceability criterion that will allow the new KBA standard to draw on the strengths of both threshold‐ and complementarity‐based approaches.     

Trends in seabird breeding populations across the Great Barrier Reef

The Great Barrier Reef is an iconic ecosystem, known globally for its rich marine biodiversity that includes many thousands of tropical breeding seabirds. Despite indications of localized declines in some seabird species from as early as the mid-1990s, trends in seabird populations across the reef have never been quantified. With a long history of human impact and ongoing environmental change, seabirds are likely sentinels in this important ecosystem. Using 4 decades of monitoring data, we estimated site-specific trends for 9 seabird species from 32 islands and cays across the reef. Trends varied markedly among species and sites, but probable declines occurred at 45% of the 86 species-by-site combinations analyzed compared with increases at 14%. For 5 species, we combined site-specific trends into a multisite trend in scaled abundance, which revealed probable declines of Common Noddy (Anous stolidus), Sooty Tern (Onychoprion fuscatus), and Masked Booby (Sula dactylatra), but no long-term changes in the 2 most widely distributed species, Greater Crested Tern (Thalasseus bergii) and Brown Booby (Sula leucogaster). For Brown Booby, long-term stability largely resulted from increases at a single large colony on East Fairfax Island that offset declines at most other sites. Although growth of the Brown Booby population on East Fairfax points to the likely success of habitat restoration on the island, it also highlights a general vulnerability wherein large numbers of some species are concentrated at a small number of key sites. Identifying drivers of variation in population change across species and sites while ensuring long-term protection of key sites will be essential to securing the future of seabirds on the reef.     

Feasibility of using high‐resolution satellite imagery to assess vertebrate wildlife populations

Although remote sensing has been used for >40 years to learn about Earth, use of very high‐resolution satellite imagery (VHR) (<1‐m resolution) has become more widespread over the past decade for studying wildlife. As image resolution increases, there is a need to understand the capabilities and limitations of this exciting new path in wildlife research. We reviewed studies that used VHR to examine remote populations of wildlife. We then determined characteristics of the landscape and the life history of species that made the studies amenable to use of satellite imagery and developed a list of criteria necessary for appropriate use of VHR in wildlife research. From 14 representative articles, we determined 3 primary criteria that must be met for a system and species to be appropriately studied with VHR: open landscape, target organism's color contrasts with the landscape, and target organism is of detectable size. Habitat association, temporal exclusivity, coloniality, landscape differentiation, and ground truthing increase the utility of VHR for wildlife research. There is an immediate need for VHR imagery in conservation research, particularly in remote areas of developing countries, where research can be difficult. For wildlife researchers interested in but unfamiliar with remote sensing resources and tools, understanding capabilities and current limitations of VHR imagery is critical to its use as a conservation and wildlife research tool.     

Optimal Management of a Multispecies Shorebird Flyway under Sea‐Level Rise

Every year, millions of migratory shorebirds fly through the East Asian–Australasian Flyway between their arctic breeding grounds and Australasia. This flyway includes numerous coastal wetlands in Asia and the Pacific that are used as stopover sites where birds rest and feed. Loss of a few important stopover sites through sea‐level rise (SLR) could cause sudden population declines. We formulated and solved mathematically the problem of how to identify the most important stopover sites to minimize losses of bird populations across flyways by conserving land that facilitates upshore shifts of tidal flats in response to SLR. To guide conservation investment that minimizes losses of migratory bird populations during migration, we developed a spatially explicit flyway model coupled with a maximum flow algorithm. Migratory routes of 10 shorebird taxa were modeled in a graph theoretic framework by representing clusters of important wetlands as nodes and the number of birds flying between 2 nodes as edges. We also evaluated several resource allocation algorithms that required only partial information on flyway connectivity (node strategy, based on the impacts of SLR at nodes; habitat strategy, based on habitat change at sites; population strategy, based on population change at sites; and random investment). The resource allocation algorithms based on flyway information performed on average 15% better than simpler allocations based on patterns of habitat loss or local bird counts. The Yellow Sea region stood out as the most important priority for effective conservation of migratory shorebirds, but investment in this area alone will not ensure the persistence of species across the flyway. The spatial distribution of conservation investments differed enormously according to the severity of SLR and whether information about flyway connectivity was used to guide the prioritizations. With the rapid ongoing loss of coastal wetlands globally, our method provides insight into efficient conservation planning for migratory species. Gestión Óptima de una Ruta Migratoria de Múltiples Especies de Aves Costeras Sometida a Incremento del Nivel del Mar     

Human Migration,Protected Areas,and Conservation Outreach in Tanzania

A recent discussion debates the extent of human in‐migration around protected areas (PAs) in the tropics. One proposed argument is that rural migrants move to bordering areas to access conservation outreach benefits. A counter proposal maintains that PAs have largely negative effects on local populations and that outreach initiatives even if successful present insufficient benefits to drive in‐migration. Using data from Tanzania, we examined merits of statistical tests and spatial methods used previously to evaluate migration near PAs and applied hierarchical modeling with appropriate controls for demographic and geographic factors to advance the debate. Areas bordering national parks in Tanzania did not have elevated rates of in‐migration. Low baseline population density and high vegetation productivity with low interannual variation rather than conservation outreach explained observed migration patterns. More generally we argue that to produce results of conservation policy significance, analyses must be conducted at appropriate scales, and we caution against use of demographic data without appropriate controls when drawing conclusions about migration dynamics. La Migración Humana, Áreas Protegidas y el Alcance de la Conservación en Tanzania