Considering science needs to deliver actionable science

Conservation practitioners, natural resource managers, and environmental stewards often seek out scientific contributions to inform decision-making. This body of science only becomes actionable when motivated by decision makers considering alternative courses of action. Many in the science community equate addressing stakeholder science needs with delivering actionable science. However, not all efforts to address science needs deliver actionable science, suggesting that the synonymous use of these two constructs (delivering actionable science and addressing science needs) is not trivial. This can be the case when such needs are conveyed by people who neglect decision makers responsible for articulating a priority management concern and for specifying how the anticipated scientific information will aid the decision-making process. We argue that the actors responsible for articulating these science needs and the process used to identify them are decisive factors in the ability to deliver actionable science, stressing the importance of examining the provenance and the determination of science needs. Guided by a desire to enhance communication and cross-literacy between scientists and decision makers, we identified categories of actors who may inappropriately declare science needs (e.g., applied scientists with and without regulatory affiliation, external influencers, reluctant decision makers, agents in place of decision makers, and boundary organization representatives). We also emphasize the importance of, and general approach to, undertaking needs assessments or gap analyses as a means to identify priority science needs. We conclude that basic stipulations to legitimize actionable science, such as the declaration of decisions of interest that motivate science needs and using a robust process to identify priority information gaps, are not always satisfied and require verification. To alleviate these shortcomings, we formulated practical suggestions for consideration by applied scientists, decision makers, research funding entities, and boundary organizations to help foster conditions that lead to science output being truly actionable.     

A systematic review of animal personality in conservation science

Although animal personality research may have applied uses, this suggestion has yet to be evaluated by assessing empirical studies examining animal personality and conservation. To address this knowledge gap, we performed a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature relating to conservation science and animal personality. Criteria for inclusion in our review included access to full text, primary research articles, and relevant animal conservation or personality focus (i.e., not human personality studies). Ninety-two articles met these criteria. We summarized the conservation contexts, testing procedures (including species and sample size), analytical approach, claimed personality traits (activity, aggression, boldness, exploration, and sociability), and each report's key findings and conservation-focused suggestions. Although providing evidence for repeatability in behavior is crucial for personality studies, repeatability quantification was implemented in only half of the reports. Nonetheless, each of the 5 personality traits were investigated to some extent in a range of conservations contexts. The most robust studies in the field showed variance in how personality relates to other ecologically important variables across species and contexts. Moreover, many studies were first attempts at using personality for conservation purposes in a given study system. Overall, it appears personality is not yet a fully realized tool for conservation. To apply personality research to conservation problems, we suggest researchers think about where individual differences in behavior may affect conservation outcomes in their system, assess where there are opportunities for repeated measures, and follow the most current methodological guides on quantifying personality.     

Validating graph-based connectivity models with independent presence–absence and genetic data sets

Habitat connectivity is a key objective of current conservation policies and is commonly modeled by landscape graphs (i.e., sets of habitat patches [nodes] connected by potential dispersal paths [links]). These graphs are often built based on expert opinion or species distribution models (SDMs) and therefore lack empirical validation from data more closely reflecting functional connectivity. Accordingly, we tested whether landscape graphs reflect how habitat connectivity influences gene flow, which is one of the main ecoevolutionary processes. To that purpose, we modeled the habitat network of a forest bird (plumbeous warbler [Setophaga plumbea]) on Guadeloupe with graphs based on expert opinion, Jacobs’ specialization indices, and an SDM. We used genetic data (712 birds from 27 populations) to compute local genetic indices and pairwise genetic distances. Finally, we assessed the relationships between genetic distances or indices and cost distances or connectivity metrics with maximum-likelihood population-effects distance models and Spearman correlations between metrics. Overall, the landscape graphs reliably reflected the influence of connectivity on population genetic structure; validation R² was up to 0.30 and correlation coefficients were up to 0.71. Yet, the relationship among graph ecological relevance, data requirements, and construction and analysis methods was not straightforward because the graph based on the most complex construction method (species distribution modeling) sometimes had less ecological relevance than the others. Cross-validation methods and sensitivity analyzes allowed us to make the advantages and limitations of each construction method spatially explicit. We confirmed the relevance of landscape graphs for conservation modeling but recommend a case-specific consideration of the cost-effectiveness of their construction methods. We hope the replication of independent validation approaches across species and landscapes will strengthen the ecological relevance of connectivity models.     

Effects of climate and land-cover change on the conservation status of gibbons

Species shift their distribution in response to climate and land-cover change, which may result in a spatial mismatch between currently protected areas (PAs) and priority conservation areas (PCAs). We examined the effects of climate and land-cover change on potential range of gibbons and sought to identify PCAs that would conserve them effectively. We collected global gibbon occurrence points and modeled (ecological niche model) their current and potential 2050s ranges under climate-change and different land-cover-change scenarios. We examined change in range and PA coverage between the current and future ranges of each gibbon species. We applied spatial conservation prioritization to identify the top 30% PCAs for each species. We then determined how much of the PCAs are conserved in each country within the global range of gibbons. On average, 31% (SD 22) of each species’ current range was covered in PAs. PA coverage of the current range of 9 species was <30%. Nine species lost on average 46% (SD 29) of their potential range due to climate change. Under climate-change with an optimistic land-cover-change scenario (B1), 12 species lost 39% (SD 28) of their range. In a pessimistic land-cover-change scenario (A2), 15 species lost 36% (SD 28) of their range. Five species lost significantly more range under the A2 scenario than the B1 scenario (p = 0.01, SD 0.01), suggesting that gibbons will benefit from effective management of land cover. PA coverage of future range was <30% for 11 species. On average, 32% (SD 25) of PCAs were covered by PAs. Indonesia contained more species and PCAs and thus has the greatest responsibility for gibbon conservation. Indonesia, India, and Myanmar need to expand their PAs to fulfill their responsibility to gibbon conservation. Our results provide a baseline for global gibbon conservation, particularly for countries lacking gibbon research capacity.     

Boosting large-scale river connectivity restoration by planning for the presence of unrecorded barriers

Conservation decisions are invariably made with incomplete data on species’ distributions, habitats, and threats, but frameworks for allocating conservation investments rarely account for missing data. We examined how explicit consideration of missing data can boost return on investment in ecosystem restoration, focusing on the challenge of restoring aquatic ecosystem connectivity by removing dams and road crossings from rivers. A novel way of integrating the presence of unmapped barriers into a barrier optimization model was developed and applied to the U.S. state of Maine to maximize expected habitat gain for migratory fish. Failing to account for unmapped barriers during prioritization led to nearly 50% lower habitat gain than was anticipated using a conventional barrier optimization approach. Explicitly acknowledging that data are incomplete during project selection, however, boosted expected habitat gains by 20–273% on average, depending on the true number of unmapped barriers. Importantly, these gains occurred without additional data. Simply acknowledging that some barriers were unmapped, regardless of their precise number and location, improved conservation outcomes. Given incomplete data on ecosystems worldwide, our results demonstrate the value of accounting for data shortcomings during project selection.     

A strategy for the next decade to address data deficiency in neglected biodiversity

Measuring progress toward international biodiversity targets requires robust information on the conservation status of species, which the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species provides. However, data and capacity are lacking for most hyperdiverse groups, such as invertebrates, plants, and fungi, particularly in megadiverse or high-endemism regions. Conservation policies and biodiversity strategies aimed at halting biodiversity loss by 2020 need to be adapted to tackle these information shortfalls after 2020. We devised an 8-point strategy to close existing data gaps by reviving explorative field research on the distribution, abundance, and ecology of species; linking taxonomic research more closely with conservation; improving global biodiversity databases by making the submission of spatially explicit data mandatory for scientific publications; developing a global spatial database on threats to biodiversity to facilitate IUCN Red List assessments; automating preassessments by integrating distribution data and spatial threat data; building capacity in taxonomy, ecology, and biodiversity monitoring in countries with high species richness or endemism; creating species monitoring programs for lesser-known taxa; and developing sufficient funding mechanisms to reduce reliance on voluntary efforts. Implementing these strategies in the post-2020 biodiversity framework will help to overcome the lack of capacity and data regarding the conservation status of biodiversity. This will require a collaborative effort among scientists, policy makers, and conservation practitioners.     

Assessing the current state of ecological connectivity in a large marine protected area system

The establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) is a critical step in ensuring the continued persistence of marine biodiversity. Although the area protected in MPAs is growing, the movement of individuals (or larvae) among MPAs, termed connectivity, has only recently been included as an objective of many MPAs. As such, assessing connectivity is often neglected or oversimplified in the planning process. For promoting population persistence, it is important to ensure that protected areas in a system are functionally connected through dispersal or adult movement. We devised a multi-species model of larval dispersal for the Australian marine environment to evaluate how much local scale connectivity is protected in MPAs and determine whether the extensive system of MPAs truly functions as a network. We focused on non-migratory species with simplified larval behaviors (i.e., passive larval dispersal) (e.g., no explicit vertical migration) as an illustration. Of all the MPAs analyzed (approximately 2.7 million km²), outside the Great Barrier Reef and Ningaloo Reef, <50% of MPAs (46-80% of total MPA area depending on the species considered) were functionally connected. Our results suggest that Australia's MPA system cannot be referred to as a single network, but rather a collection of numerous smaller networks delineated by natural breaks in the connectivity of reef habitat. Depending on the dispersal capacity of the taxa of interest, there may be between 25 and 47 individual ecological networks distributed across the Australian marine environment. The need to first assess the underlying natural connectivity of a study system prior to implementing new MPAs represents a key research priority for strategically enlarging MPA networks. Our findings highlight the benefits of integrating multi-species connectivity into conservation planning to identify opportunities to better incorporate connectivity into the design of MPA systems and thus to increase their capacity to support long-term, sustainable biodiversity outcomes.     

Effects of site-selection bias on estimates of biodiversity change

Estimates of biodiversity change are essential for the management and conservation of ecosystems. Accurate estimates rely on selecting representative sites, but monitoring often focuses on sites of special interest. How such site-selection biases influence estimates of biodiversity change is largely unknown. Site-selection bias potentially occurs across four major sources of biodiversity data, decreasing in likelihood from citizen science, museums, national park monitoring, and academic research. We defined site-selection bias as a preference for sites that are either densely populated (i.e., abundance bias) or species rich (i.e., richness bias). We simulated biodiversity change in a virtual landscape and tracked the observed biodiversity at a sampled site. The site was selected either randomly or with a site-selection bias. We used a simple spatially resolved, individual-based model to predict the movement or dispersal of individuals in and out of the chosen sampling site. Site-selection bias exaggerated estimates of biodiversity loss in sites selected with a bias by on average 300–400% compared with randomly selected sites. Based on our simulations, site-selection bias resulted in positive trends being estimated as negative trends: richness increase was estimated as 0.1 in randomly selected sites, whereas sites selected with a bias showed a richness change of −0.1 to −0.2 on average. Thus, site-selection bias may falsely indicate decreases in biodiversity. We varied sampling design and characteristics of the species and found that site-selection biases were strongest in short time series, for small grains, organisms with low dispersal ability, large regional species pools, and strong spatial aggregation. Based on these findings, to minimize site-selection bias, we recommend use of systematic site-selection schemes; maximizing sampling area; calculating biodiversity measures cumulatively across plots; and use of biodiversity measures that are less sensitive to rare species, such as the effective number of species. Awareness of the potential impact of site-selection bias is needed for biodiversity monitoring, the design of new studies on biodiversity change, and the interpretation of existing data.     

Developing shared qualitative models for complex systems

Understanding complex systems is essential to ensure their conservation and effective management. Models commonly support understanding of complex ecological systems and, by extension, their conservation. Modeling, however, is largely a social process constrained by individuals’ mental models (i.e., a small-scale internal model of how a part of the world works based on knowledge, experience, values, beliefs, and assumptions) and system complexity. To account for both system complexity and the diversity of knowledge of complex systems, we devised a novel way to develop a shared qualitative complex system model. We disaggregated a system (carbonate coral reefs) into smaller subsystem modules that each represented a functioning unit, about which an individual is likely to have more comprehensive knowledge. This modular approach allowed us to elicit an individual mental model of a defined subsystem for which the individuals had a higher level of confidence in their knowledge of the relationships between variables. The challenge then was to bring these subsystem models together to form a complete, shared model of the entire system, which we attempted through 4 phases: develop the system framework and subsystem modules; develop the individual mental model elicitation methods; elicit the mental models; and identify and isolate differences for exploration and identify similarities to cocreate a shared qualitative model. The shared qualitative model provides opportunities to develop a quantitative model to understand and predict complex system change.     

Building a global taxonomy of wildlife offenses

Most countries have many pieces of legislation that govern biodiversity, including a range of criminal, administrative, and civil law provisions that state how wildlife must be legally used, managed, and protected. However, related debates in conservation, such as about enforcement, often overlook the details within national legislation that define which specific acts are illegal, the conditions under which laws apply, and how they are sanctioned. Based on a review of 90 wildlife laws in 8 high-biodiversity countries with different legal systems, we developed a taxonomy that describes all types of wildlife offenses in those countries. The 511 offenses are organized into a hierarchical taxonomy that scholars and practitioners can use to help conduct legal analyses. This is significant amidst competing calls to strengthen, deregulate, and reform wildlife legislation, particularly in response to fears over zoonotic threats and large-scale biodiversity loss. It can be used to provide more nuance legal analyses and facilitate like-for-like comparisons across countries, informing processes to redraft conservation laws, review deregulation efforts, close loopholes, and harmonize legislation across jurisdictions. We applied the taxonomy in a comparison of sanctions in 8 countries for hunting a protected species. We found not only huge ranges in fines (US$0 to $200,000) and imprisonment terms (1.5 years to life imprisonment), but also fundamentally different approaches to designing sanctions for wildlife offenses. The taxonomy also illustrates how future legal taxonomies can be developed for other environmental issues (e.g., invasive species, protected areas).