Species Inequality in Scientific Study

Abstract: Some conservationists argue for a focused effort to protect the most critically endangered species, and others suggest a large‐scale endeavor to safeguard common species across large areas. Similar arguments are applicable to the distribution of scientific effort among species. Should conservation scientists focus research efforts on threatened species, common species, or do all species deserve equal attention? We assessed the scientific equity among 1909 mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians of southern Africa by relating the number of papers written about each species to their status on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List. Threatened large mammals and reptiles had more papers written about them than their nonthreatened counterparts, whereas threatened small mammals and amphibians received less attention than nonthreatened species. Threatened birds received an intermediate amount of attention in the scientific literature. Thus, threat status appears to drive scientific effort among some animal groups, whereas other factors (e.g., pest management and commercial interest) appear to dictate scientific investment in particular species of other groups. Furthermore, the scientific investment per species differed greatly between groups—the mean number of papers per threatened large mammal eclipsed that of threatened reptiles, birds, small mammals, and amphibians by 2.6‐, 15‐, 216‐, and more than 500‐fold, respectively. Thus, in the eyes of science, all species are not created equal. A few species commanded a great proportion of scientific attention, whereas for many species information that might inform conservation is virtually nonexistent.     

Quantifying Loss of Acoustic Communication Space for Right Whales in and around a U.S. National Marine Sanctuary

The effects of chronic exposure to increasing levels of human‐induced underwater noise on marine animal populations reliant on sound for communication are poorly understood. We sought to further develop methods of quantifying the effects of communication masking associated with human‐induced sound on contact‐calling North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in an ecologically relevant area (～10,000 km²) and time period (peak feeding time). We used an array of temporary, bottom‐mounted, autonomous acoustic recorders in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary to monitor ambient noise levels, measure levels of sound associated with vessels, and detect and locate calling whales. We related wind speed, as recorded by regional oceanographic buoys, to ambient noise levels. We used vessel‐tracking data from the Automatic Identification System to quantify acoustic signatures of large commercial vessels. On the basis of these integrated sound fields, median signal excess (the difference between the signal‐to‐noise ratio and the assumed recognition differential) for contact‐calling right whales was negative (?1 dB) under current ambient noise levels and was further reduced (?2 dB) by the addition of noise from ships. Compared with potential communication space available under historically lower noise conditions, calling right whales may have lost, on average, 63–67% of their communication space. One or more of the 89 calling whales in the study area was exposed to noise levels ≥120 dB re 1 μPa by ships for 20% of the month, and a maximum of 11 whales were exposed to noise at or above this level during a single 10‐min period. These results highlight the limitations of exposure‐threshold (i.e., dose‐response) metrics for assessing chronic anthropogenic noise effects on communication opportunities. Our methods can be used to integrate chronic and wide‐ranging noise effects in emerging ocean‐planning forums that seek to improve management of cumulative effects of noise on marine species and their habitats. Cuantificación de la Pérdida de Espacio de Comunicación Acústica para Ballenas Francas Dentro y Alrededor de un Santuario Marino Nacional en E. U. A.     

Use of Community‐Composition Data to Predict the Fecundity and Abundance of Species

Abstract: Species distribution models are critical tools for the prediction of invasive species spread and conservation of biodiversity. The majority of species distribution models have been built with environmental data. Community ecology theory suggests that species co‐occurrence data could also be used to predict current and potential distributions of species. Species assemblages are the products of biotic and environmental constraints on the distribution of individual species and as a result may contain valuable information for niche modeling. We compared the predictive ability of distribution models of annual grassland plants derived from either environmental or community‐composition data. Composition‐based models were built with the presence or absence of species at a site as predictors of site quality, whereas environment‐based models were built with soil chemistry, moisture content, above‐ground biomass, and solar radiation as predictors. The reproductive output of experimentally seeded individuals of 4 species and the abundance of 100 species were used to evaluate the resulting models. Community‐composition data were the best predictors of both the site‐specific reproductive output of sown individuals and the site‐specific abundance of existing populations. Successful community‐based models were robust to omission of data on the occurrence of rare species, which suggests that even very basic survey data on the occurrence of common species may be adequate for generating such models. Our results highlight the need for increased public availability of ecological survey data to facilitate community‐based modeling at scales relevant to conservation.