Negative Off‐Site Impacts of Ecological Restoration: Understanding and Addressing the Conflict

Abstract: Ecological restoration is a key component of biological conservation. Nevertheless, unlike protection of existing areas, restoration changes existing land use and can therefore be more controversial. Some restoration projects negatively affect surrounding landowners, creating social constraints to restoration success. Just as negative off‐site impacts (i.e., negative externalities) flow from industrial areas to natural areas, restoration projects can generate negative externalities for commercial land uses, such as agriculture. Negative externalities from industry have led to government regulation to prevent human health and environmental impacts. Negative externalities from restoration projects have elicited similar legal constraint on at least one large‐scale conservation project, riparian restoration in the Sacramento River Conservation Area. The negative externalities of restoration that are perceived to be the direct result of specific goals, such as endangered species management, are likely to be more contentious than externalities arising from unintended phenomena such as weed invasion. Restoration planners should give equal consideration to off‐site characteristics as to on‐site characteristics when choosing sites for restoration and designing projects. Efforts to control externalities can lead to off‐site ecological benefits.     

Evaluating the Success of Conservation Actions in Safeguarding Tropical Forest Biodiversity

Abstract: We reviewed the evidence on the extent and efficacy of conservation of tropical forest biodiversity for each of the classes of conservation action defined by the new International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classification. Protected areas are the most tested conservation approach, and a number of studies show they are generally effective in slowing deforestation. There is some documentation of the extent of sustainable timber management in tropical forest, but little information on other landscape‐conservation tactics. The extent and effectiveness of ex situ species conservation is quite well known. Forty‐one tropical‐forest species now survive only in captivity. Other single‐species conservation actions are not as well documented. The potential of policy mechanisms, such as international conventions and provision of funds, to slow extinctions in tropical forests is considerable, but the effects of policy are difficult to measure. Finally, interventions to promote tropical conservation by supporting education and livelihoods, providing incentives, and furthering capacity building are all thought to be important, but their extent and effectiveness remain poorly known. For birds, the best studied taxon, the sum of such conservation actions has averted one‐fifth of the extinctions that would otherwise have occurred over the last century. Clearly, tropical forest conservation works, but more is needed, as is critical assessment of what works in what circumstances, if mass extinction is to be averted.     

Understanding Trait‐Dependent Community Disassembly: Dung Beetles,Density Functions,and Forest Fragmentation

Abstract: Anthropogenic disturbances such as fragmentation are rapidly altering biodiversity, yet a lack of attention to species traits and abundance patterns has made the results of most studies difficult to generalize. We determined traits of extinction‐prone species and present a novel strategy for classifying species according to their population‐level response to a gradient of disturbance intensity. We examined the effects of forest fragmentation on dung beetle communities in an archipelago of 33 islands recently created by flooding in Venezuela. Species richness, density, and biomass all declined sharply with decreasing island area and increasing island isolation. Species richness was highly nested, indicating that local extinctions occurred nonrandomly. The most sensitive dung beetle species appeared to require at least 85 ha of forest, more than many large vertebrates. Extinction‐prone species were either large‐bodied, forest specialists, or uncommon. These explanatory variables were unrelated, suggesting at least 3 underlying causes of extirpation. Large species showed high wing loading (body mass/wing area) and a distinct flight strategy that may increase their area requirements. Although forest specificity made most species sensitive to fragmentation, a few persistent habitat generalists dispersed across the matrix. Density functions classified species into 4 response groups on the basis of their change in density with decreasing species richness. Sensitive and persistent species both declined with increasing fragmentation intensity, but persistent species occurred on more islands, which may be due to their higher baseline densities. Compensatory species increased in abundance following the initial loss of sensitive species, but rapidly declined with increasing fragmentation. Supertramp species (widespread habitat generalists) may be poor competitors but strong dispersers; their abundance peaked following the decline of the other 3 groups. Nevertheless, even the least sensitive species were extirpated or rare on the smallest and most isolated islands.     

Combining geodiversity with climate and topography to account for threatened species richness

Understanding threatened species diversity is important for long‐term conservation planning. Geodiversity—the diversity of Earth surface materials, forms, and processes—may be a useful biodiversity surrogate for conservation and have conservation value itself. Geodiversity and species richness relationships have been demonstrated; establishing whether geodiversity relates to threatened species’ diversity and distribution pattern is a logical next step for conservation. We used 4 geodiversity variables (rock‐type and soil‐type richness, geomorphological diversity, and hydrological feature diversity) and 4 climatic and topographic variables to model threatened species diversity across 31 of Finland's national parks. We also analyzed rarity‐weighted richness (a measure of site complementarity) of threatened vascular plants, fungi, bryophytes, and all species combined. Our 1‐km² resolution data set included 271 threatened species from 16 major taxa. We modeled threatened species richness (raw and rarity weighted) with boosted regression trees. Climatic variables, especially the annual temperature sum above 5 °C, dominated our models, which is consistent with the critical role of temperature in this boreal environment. Geodiversity added significant explanatory power. High geodiversity values were consistently associated with high threatened species richness across taxa. The combined effect of geodiversity variables was even more pronounced in the rarity‐weighted richness analyses (except for fungi) than in those for species richness. Geodiversity measures correlated most strongly with species richness (raw and rarity weighted) of threatened vascular plants and bryophytes and were weakest for molluscs, lichens, and mammals. Although simple measures of topography improve biodiversity modeling, our results suggest that geodiversity data relating to geology, landforms, and hydrology are also worth including. This reinforces recent arguments that conserving nature's stage is an important principle in conservation.