Effects of Errors and Gaps in Spatial Data Sets on Assessment of Conservation Progress

Data on the location and extent of protected areas, ecosystems, and species’ distributions are essential for determining gaps in biodiversity protection and identifying future conservation priorities. However, these data sets always come with errors in the maps and associated metadata. Errors are often overlooked in conservation studies, despite their potential negative effects on the reported extent of protection of species and ecosystems. We used 3 case studies to illustrate the implications of 3 sources of errors in reporting progress toward conservation objectives: protected areas with unknown boundaries that are replaced by buffered centroids, propagation of multiple errors in spatial data, and incomplete protected‐area data sets. As of 2010, the frequency of protected areas with unknown boundaries in the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) caused the estimated extent of protection of 37.1% of the terrestrial Neotropical mammals to be overestimated by an average 402.8% and of 62.6% of species to be underestimated by an average 10.9%. Estimated level of protection of the world's coral reefs was 25% higher when using recent finer‐resolution data on coral reefs as opposed to globally available coarse‐resolution data. Accounting for additional data sets not yet incorporated into WDPA contributed up to 6.7% of additional protection to marine ecosystems in the Philippines. We suggest ways for data providers to reduce the errors in spatial and ancillary data and ways for data users to mitigate the effects of these errors on biodiversity assessments. Efectos de Errores y Vacíos en Conjuntos de Datos Espaciales sobre la Evaluación del Progreso de la Conservación     

Mapping social–ecological vulnerability to inform local decision making

An overarching challenge of natural resource management and biodiversity conservation is that relationships between people and nature are difficult to integrate into tools that can effectively guide decision making. Social–ecological vulnerability offers a valuable framework for identifying and understanding important social–ecological linkages, and the implications of dependencies and other feedback loops in the system. Unfortunately, its implementation at local scales has hitherto been limited due at least in part to the lack of operational tools for spatial representation of social–ecological vulnerability. We developed a method to map social–ecological vulnerability based on information on human–nature dependencies and ecosystem services at local scales. We applied our method to the small‐scale fishery of Moorea, French Polynesia, by combining spatially explicit indicators of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity of both the resource (i.e., vulnerability of reef fish assemblages to fishing) and resource users (i.e., vulnerability of fishing households to the loss of fishing opportunity). Our results revealed that both social and ecological vulnerabilities varied considerably through space and highlighted areas where sources of vulnerability were high for both social and ecological subsystems (i.e., social–ecological vulnerability hotspots) and thus of high priority for management intervention. Our approach can be used to inform decisions about where biodiversity conservation strategies are likely to be more effective and how social impacts from policy decisions can be minimized. It provides a new perspective on human–nature linkages that can help guide sustainability management at local scales; delivers insights distinct from those provided by emphasis on a single vulnerability component (e.g., exposure); and demonstrates the feasibility and value of operationalizing the social–ecological vulnerability framework for policy, planning, and participatory management decisions.     

Effectiveness of Predator Removal for Enhancing Bird Populations

Abstract: Predation pressure on vulnerable bird species has made predator control an important issue for international nature conservation. Predator removal by culling or translocation is controversial, expensive, and time‐consuming, and results are often temporary. Thus, it is important to assess its effectiveness from all available evidence. We used explicit systematic review methodology to determine the impact of predator removal on four measurable responses in birds: breeding performance (hatching success and fledging success) and population size (breeding and postbreeding). We used meta‐analysis to summarize results from 83 predator removal studies from six continents. We also investigated whether characteristics of the prey, predator species, location, and study methodology explained heterogeneity in effect sizes. Removing predators increased hatching success, fledging success, and breeding populations. Removing all predator species achieved a significantly larger increase in breeding population than removing only a subset. Postbreeding population size was not improved on islands, or overall, but did increase on mainlands. Heterogeneity in effect sizes for the four population parameters was not explained by whether predators were native or introduced; prey were declining, migratory, or game species; or by the study methodology. Effect sizes for fledging success were smaller for ground‐nesting birds than those that nest elsewhere, but the difference was not significant. We conclude that current evidence indicates that predator removal is an effective strategy for the conservation of vulnerable bird populations. Nevertheless, the ethical and practical problems associated with predator removal may lead managers to favor alternative, nonlethal solutions. Research is needed to provide and synthesize data to determine whether these are effective management practices for future policies on bird conservation.     

Effect of stage-specific vital rates on population growth rates and effective population sizes in an endangered iteroparous plant

Effective population size (N(e)) determines the strength of genetic drift and can influence the level of genetic diversity a population can maintain. Assessing how changes in demographic rates associated with environmental variables and management actions affect N(e) thus can be crucial to the conservation of endangered species. Calculation of N(e) through demographic models makes it possible to use elasticity analyses to study this issue. The elasticity of N(e) to a given vital rate is the proportional change in N(e) associated with a proportional increase in that vital rate. In addition, demographic models can be used to study N(e) and population growth rate (λ) simultaneously. Simultaneous examination is important because some vital rates differ diametrically in their associations with λ and N(e). For example, in some cases increasing these vital rates increases λ and decreases N(e). We used elasticity analysis to study the effect of stage-specific survival and flowering rates on N(e), annual effective population size (N(a)), and λ in seven populations of the endangered plant Austrian dragonhead (Dracocephalum austriacum). In populations with λ ≥ 1, the elasticities of N(e) and N(a) were similar to those of λ. Survival rates of adults were associated with greater elasticities than survival rates of juveniles, flowering rates, or fecundity. In populations with λ < 1, N(e) and N(a) exhibited greater elasticities to juvenile than to adult vital rates. These patterns are similar to those observed in other species with similar life histories. We did not observe contrasting effects of any vital rate on λ and N(e); thus, management actions that increase the λ of populations of Austrian dragonhead will not increase genetic drift. Our results show that elasticity analyses of N(e) and N(a) can complement elasticity analysis of λ. Moreover, such analyses do not require more data than standard matrix models of population dynamics.