Contribution of Systematic Reviews to Management Decisions

Systematic reviews comprehensively summarize evidence about the effectiveness of conservation interventions. We investigated the contribution to management decisions made by this growing body of literature. We identified 43 systematic reviews of conservation evidence, 23 of which drew some concrete conclusions relevant to management. Most reviews addressed conservation interventions relevant to policy decisions; only 35% considered practical on‐the‐ground management interventions. The majority of reviews covered only a small fraction of the geographic and taxonomic breadth they aimed to address (median = 13% of relevant countries and 16% of relevant taxa). The likelihood that reviews contained at least some implications for management tended to increase as geographic coverage increased and to decline as taxonomic breadth increased. These results suggest the breadth of a systematic review requires careful consideration. Reviews identified a mean of 312 relevant primary studies but excluded 88% of these because of deficiencies in design or a failure to meet other inclusion criteria. Reviews summarized on average 284 data sets and 112 years of research activity, yet the likelihood that their results had at least some implications for management did not increase as the amount of primary research summarized increased. In some cases, conclusions were elusive despite the inclusion of hundreds of data sets and years of cumulative research activity. Systematic reviews are an important part of the conservation decision making tool kit, although we believe the benefits of systematic reviews could be significantly enhanced by increasing the number of reviews focused on questions of direct relevance to on‐the‐ground managers; defining a more focused geographic and taxonomic breadth that better reflects available data; including a broader range of evidence types; and appraising the cost‐effectiveness of interventions. Contribuciones de las Revisiones Sistemáticas a las Decisiones de Manejo     

Refuge‐Effect Hypothesis and the Demise of the Dodo

The Dodo was last sighted on the inshore island of Ile d'Ambre in 1662, nearly 25 years after the previous sighting on the mainland of Mauritius. It has been suggested that its survival on the inshore island is representative of the refuge effect. Understanding what constitutes significant persistence is fundamental to conservation. I tested the refuge‐effect hypothesis for the persistence of the Dodo (Raphus cucullatus) on an inshore island beyond that of the mainland population. For a location to be considered a refuge, most current definitions suggest that both spatial and temporal isolation from the cause of disturbance are required. These results suggest the island was not a refuge for the Dodo because the sighting in 1662 was not temporally isolated from that of the mainland sightings. Furthermore, with only approximately 350 m separating Ile d'Ambre from the mainland of Mauritius, it is unlikely this population of Dodos was spatially isolated. Hipótesis del Efecto Refugio y la Desaparición del Dodo     

Assessment of the Conservation Measures Partnership's effort to improve conservation outcomes through adaptive management

Conservation practice has demonstrated an increasing desire for accountability of actions, particularly with respect to effectiveness, efficiency, and impact to clearly identified objectives. This has been accompanied by increased attention to achieving adaptive management. In 2002, practitioners representing several prominent conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) launched a community of practice called the Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP). The partnership CMP has worked to establish standards of conservation practice to improve accountability of conservation actions through adaptive management. The focal organizing framework for CMP has been the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (OS). We evaluated, through an online survey and personal interviews, the first decade of CMP and the OS. The CMP has garnered a positive reputation among agencies, NGOs, and funders and has succeeded in developing a large user base of the OS. However, CMP has not fully achieved its goal of making the OS standard operating procedure for the largest NGOs (e.g., The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund), despite it being widely used within these organizations. This lack of institutionalization is attributable to multiple causes, including an increase in the number of partially overlapping decision‐support frameworks and challenges achieving full‐cycle adaptive management. Users strongly believed the OS fosters better conservation practice and highly valued the OS for improving their practice. A primary objective of the OS is to assist practitioners to achieve full‐cycle adaptive management to better integrate learning into improving the effectiveness and efficiency of actions. However, most practitioners had not yet achieved cycle completion for their projects. To improve the effectiveness of CMP, OS, and conservation practice in general, we recommend collaborative efforts among the proponents of multiple decision‐support frameworks to foster strong institutional adoption of a common set of adaptive‐management standards for conservation accountability.     

Conservation practitioners’ understanding of how to manage evolutionary processes

Both academics and practitioners consider a lack of knowledge about evolutionary theory to be a general barrier to effectively managing genetic diversity. However, it is challenging to judge practitioners’ level of understanding and how this influences their management decisions. Knowledge built through experience may be difficult for practitioners to articulate, but could nonetheless result in appropriate management strategies. To date, researchers have assessed only the explicit (formal) knowledge practitioners have of evolutionary concepts. To explore practitioners’ understanding of evolutionary concepts, it is necessary to consider how they might apply explicit and implicit knowledge to their management decisions. Using an online survey, we asked Australian practitioners to respond to 2 common management scenarios in which there is strong evidence that managing genetic diversity can improve outcomes: managing small, isolated populations and sourcing seeds for restoration projects. In describing their approach to these scenarios, practitioners demonstrated a stronger understanding of the effective management of genetic diversity than the definitions of the relevant concepts. However, their management of genetic diversity within small populations was closer to best practice than for restoration projects. Moreover, the risks practitioners described in implementing best practice management were more likely to affect their approach to restoration than translocation projects. These findings provide evidence that strategies to build the capacity of practitioners to manage genetic diversity should focus on realistic management scenarios. Given that practitioners recognize the importance of adapting their practices and the strong evidence for the benefits of actively managing genetic diversity, there is hope that better engagement by evolutionary biologists with practitioners could facilitate significant shifts toward evolutionarily enlightened management.