Living at the Edge: Local versus Positional Factors in the Long‐Term Population Dynamics of an Endangered Orchid

Abstract: Populations at the margin of geographic ranges of distribution have been considered more vulnerable than central ones, but recent reviews have caste doubt on this generalization. We examined the reproductive and demographic performance of a rare Euroasiatic orchid (Cypripedium calceolus) at its southwesterly range limit and compared our findings with those of previous studies of nine central populations at the center of the orchid's range. We sought to test the central‐marginal model and to evaluate factors involved in long‐term performance of forest Eurosiberian species with peripheral populations in southern European mountains. We characterized (structure, temporal fluctuations, herbivory, reproductive success, and recruitment at different habitats) four Pyrenean populations of C. calceolus of different sizes (5–3500 ramets) and monitored three of them for up to 13 years. Two quantitative stochastic models (count data and matrix models) were used to assess population trends and viability and the effect of herbivory. Contrary to expectations, and despite the negative effect of sporadic events of herbivory, the peripheral populations we studied (except the smallest one) performed similarly or better than populations occurring in central part of the species’ range in terms of reproductive success and population growth rates. Landscape changes over the last 50 years suggest that natural reforestation could be involved in the success of this plant at its southern limit. Forest expansion in the mountain regions of southern Europe may provide new opportunities for plants with geographic distributions centered mainly at higher latitudes and give some hope for their recovery in future scenarios dominated by biodiversity loss.     

Potential Misuse of Avian Density as a Conservation Metric

Abstract: Effective conservation metrics are needed to evaluate the success of management in a rapidly changing world. Reproductive rates and densities of breeding birds (as a surrogate for reproductive rate) have been used to indicate the quality of avian breeding habitat, but the underlying assumptions of these metrics rarely have been examined. When birds are attracted to breeding areas in part by the presence of conspecifics and when breeding in groups influences predation rates, the effectiveness of density and reproductive rate as indicators of habitat quality is reduced. It is beneficial to clearly distinguish between individual‐ and population‐level processes when evaluating habitat quality. We use the term reproductive rate to refer to both levels and further distinguish among levels by using the terms per capita fecundity (number of female offspring per female per year, individual level) and population growth rate (the product of density and per capita fecundity, population level). We predicted how density and reproductive rate interact over time under density‐independent and density‐dependent scenarios, assuming the ideal free distribution model of how birds settle in breeding habitats. We predicted population density of small populations would be correlated positively with both per capita fecundity and population growth rate due to the Allee effect. For populations in the density‐dependent growth phase, we predicted no relation between density and per capita fecundity (because individuals in all patches will equilibrate to the same success rate) and a positive relation between density and population growth rate. Several ecological theories collectively suggest that positive correlations between density and per capita fecundity would be difficult to detect. We constructed a decision tree to guide interpretation of positive, neutral, nonlinear, and negative relations between density and reproductive rates at individual and population levels.     

A Critical Assessment of the Use of Surrogate Species in Conservation Planning in the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta,California (U.S.A.)

Abstract: Conservation biology has provided wildlife managers with a wealth of concepts and tools for use in conservation planning; among them is the surrogate species concept. Over the past 20 years, a growing body of empirical literature has demonstrated the limited effectiveness of surrogates as management tools, unless it is first established that the target species and surrogate will respond similarly to a given set of environmental conditions. Wildlife managers and policy makers have adopted the surrogate species concept, reflecting the limited information available on most species at risk of extirpation or extinction and constraints on resources available to support conservation efforts. We examined the use of surrogate species, in the form of cross‐taxon response‐indicator species (that is, one species from which data are used to guide management planning for another, distinct species) in the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta, California (U.S.A.). In that system there has been increasing reliance on surrogates in conservation planning for species listed under federal or state endangered species acts, although the agencies applying the surrogate species concept did not first validate that the surrogate and target species respond similarly to relevant environmental conditions. During the same period, conservation biologists demonstrated that the surrogate concept is generally unsupported by ecological theory and empirical evidence. Recently developed validation procedures may allow for the productive use of surrogates in conservation planning, but, used without validation, the surrogate species concept is not a reliable planning tool.     

Use of a Business Excellence Model to Improve Conservation Programs

Abstract: The current shortfall in effectiveness within conservation biology is illustrated by increasing interest in “evidence‐based conservation,” whose proponents have identified the need to benchmark conservation initiatives against actions that lead to proven positive effects. The effectiveness of conservation policies, approaches, and evaluation is under increasing scrutiny, and in these areas models of excellence used in business could prove valuable. Typically, conservation programs require years of effort and involve rigorous long‐term implementation processes. Successful balance of long‐term efforts alongside the achievement of short‐term goals is often compromised by management or budgetary constraints, a situation also common in commercial businesses. “Business excellence” is an approach many companies have used over the past 20 years to ensure continued success. Various business excellence evaluations have been promoted that include concepts that could be adapted and applied in conservation programs. We describe a conservation excellence model that shows how scientific processes and results can be aligned with financial and organizational measures of success. We applied the model to two well‐documented species conservation programs. In the first, the Po’ouli program, several aspects of improvement were identified, such as more authority for decision making in the field and better integration of habitat management and population recovery processes. The second example, the black‐footed ferret program, could have benefited from leadership effort to reduce bureaucracy and to encourage use of best‐practice species recovery approaches. The conservation excellence model enables greater clarity in goal setting, more‐effective identification of job roles within programs, better links between technical approaches and measures of biological success, and more‐effective use of resources. The model could improve evaluation of a conservation program's effectiveness and may be used to compare different programs, for example during reviews of project performance by sponsoring organizations.     

Value of protected areas to avian persistence across 20 years of climate and land-use change

Establishing protected areas, where human activities and land cover changes are restricted, is among the most widely used strategies for biodiversity conservation. This practice is based on the assumption that protected areas buffer species from processes that drive extinction. However, protected areas can maintain biodiversity in the face of climate change and subsequent shifts in distributions have been questioned. We evaluated the degree to which protected areas influenced colonization and extinction patterns of 97 avian species over 20 years in the northeastern United States. We fitted single-visit dynamic occupancy models to data from Breeding Bird Atlases to quantify the magnitude of the effect of drivers of local colonization and extinction (e.g., climate, land cover, and amount of protected area) in heterogeneous landscapes that varied in the amount of area under protection. Colonization and extinction probabilities improved as the amount of protected area increased, but these effects were conditional on landscape context and species characteristics. In this forest-dominated region, benefits of additional land protection were greatest when both forest cover in a grid square and amount of protected area in neighboring grid squares were low. Effects did not vary with species’ migratory habit or conservation status. Increasing the amounts of land protection benefitted the range margins species but not the core range species. The greatest improvements in colonization and extinction rates accrued for forest birds relative to open-habitat or generalist species. Overall, protected areas stemmed extinction more than they promoted colonization. Our results indicate that land protection remains a viable conservation strategy despite changing habitat and climate, as protected areas both reduce the risk of local extinction and facilitate movement into new areas. Our findings suggest conservation in the face of climate change favors creation of new protected areas over enlarging existing ones as the optimal strategy to reduce extinction and provide stepping stones for the greatest number of species.     

A spatial approach to combatting wildlife crime

Poaching can have devastating impacts on animal and plant numbers, and in many countries has reached crisis levels, with illegal hunters employing increasingly sophisticated techniques. We used data from an 8‐year study in Savé Valley Conservancy, Zimbabwe, to show how geographic profiling—a mathematical technique originally developed in criminology and recently applied to animal foraging and epidemiology—can be adapted for use in investigations of wildlife crime. The data set contained information on over 10,000 incidents of illegal hunting and the deaths of 6,454 wild animals. We used a subset of data for which the illegal hunters’ identities were known. Our model identified the illegal hunters’ home villages based on the spatial locations of the hunting incidences (e.g., snares). Identification of the villages was improved by manipulating the probability surface inside the conservancy to reflect the fact that although the illegal hunters mostly live outside the conservancy, the majority of hunting occurs inside the conservancy (in criminology terms, commuter crime). These results combined with rigorous simulations showed for the first time how geographic profiling can be combined with GIS data and applied to situations with more complex spatial patterns, for example, where landscape heterogeneity means some parts of the study area are less likely to be used (e.g., aquatic areas for terrestrial animals) or where landscape permeability differs (e.g., forest bats tend not to fly over open areas). More broadly, these results show how geographic profiling can be used to target antipoaching interventions more effectively and more efficiently and to develop management strategies and conservation plans in a range of conservation scenarios.     

Hybridization,agency discretion,and implementation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that the “best available scientific and commercial data” be used to protect imperiled species from extinction and preserve biodiversity. However, it does not provide specific guidance on how to apply this mandate. Scientific data can be uncertain and controversial, particularly regarding species delineation and hybridization issues. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had an evolving hybrid policy to guide protection decisions for individuals of hybrid origin. Currently, this policy is in limbo because it resulted in several controversial conservation decisions in the past. Biologists from FWS must interpret and apply the best available science to their recommendations and likely use considerable discretion in making recommendations for what species to list, how to define those species, and how to recover them. We used semistructured interviews to collect data on FWS biologists’ use of discretion to make recommendations for listed species with hybridization issues. These biologists had a large amount of discretion to determine the best available science and how to interpret it but generally deferred to the scientific consensus on the taxonomic status of an organism. Respondents viewed hybridization primarily as a problem in the context of the ESA, although biologists who had experience with hybridization issues were more likely to describe it in more nuanced terms. Many interviewees expressed a desire to continue the current case‐by‐case approach for handling hybridization issues, but some wanted more guidance on procedures (i.e., a “flexible” hybrid policy). Field‐level information can provide critical insight into which policies are working (or not working) and why. The FWS biologists’ we interviewed had a high level of discretion, which greatly influenced ESA implementation, particularly in the context of hybridization.     

Rank aggregation of local expert knowledge for conservation planning of the critically endangered saola

There has been much recent interest in using local knowledge and expert opinion for conservation planning, particularly for hard‐to‐detect species. Although it is possible to ask for direct estimation of quantities such as population size, relative abundance is easier to estimate. However, an expert's knowledge is often geographically restricted relative to the area of interest. Combining (or aggregating) experts’ assessments of relative abundance is difficult when each expert only knows a part of the area of interest. We used Google's PageRank algorithm to aggregate ranked abundance scores elicited from local experts through a rapid rural‐appraisal method. We applied this technique to conservation planning for the saola (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis), a poorly known bovid. Near a priority landscape for the species, composed of 3 contiguous protected areas, we asked groups of local people to indicate relative abundances of saola and other species by placing beans on community maps. For each village, we used this information to rank areas within the knowledge area of that village for saola abundance. We used simulations to compare alternative methods to aggregate the rankings from the different villages. The best‐performing method was then used to produce a single map of relative abundance across the entire landscape, an area larger than that known to any one village. This map has informed prioritization of surveys and conservation action in the continued absence of direct information about the saola.     

On nonepistemic values in conservation biology

Conservation biology is a uniquely interdisciplinary science with strong roots in ecology, but it also embraces a value‐laden and mission‐oriented framework. This combination of science and values causes conservation biology to be at the center of critique regarding the discipline's scientific credibility—especially the division between the realms of theory and practice. We identify this dichotomy between seemingly objective (fact‐based) and subjective (value‐laden) practices as the measure‐value dichotomy, whereby measure refers to methods and analyses used in conservation biology (i.e., measuring biodiversity) and value refers to nonepistemic values. We reviewed and evaluated several landmark articles central to the foundation of conservation biology and concepts of biodiversity with respect to their attempts to separate measures and values. We argue that the measure‐value dichotomy is false and that conservation biology can make progress in ways unavailable to other disciplines because its practitioners are tasked with engaging in both the realm of theory and the realm of practice. The entanglement of measures and values is by no means a weakness of conservation biology. Because central concepts such as biodiversity contain both factual and evaluative aspects, conservation biologists can make theoretical progress by examining, reviewing, and forming the values that are an integral part of those concepts. We suggest that values should be included and analyzed with respect to the methods, results, and conclusions of scientific work in conservation biology.