Monitoring,imperfect detection,and risk optimization of a Tasmanian devil insurance population

Most species are imperfectly detected during biological surveys, which creates uncertainty around their abundance or presence at a given location. Decision makers managing threatened or pest species are regularly faced with this uncertainty. Wildlife diseases can drive species to extinction; thus, managing species with disease is an important part of conservation. Devil facial tumor disease (DFTD) is one such disease that led to the listing of the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) as endangered. Managers aim to maintain devils in the wild by establishing disease‐free insurance populations at isolated sites. Often a resident DFTD‐affected population must first be removed. In a successful collaboration between decision scientists and wildlife managers, we used an accessible population model to inform monitoring decisions and facilitate the establishment of an insurance population of devils on Forestier Peninsula. We used a Bayesian catch‐effort model to estimate population size of a diseased population from removal and camera trap data. We also analyzed the costs and benefits of declaring the area disease‐free prior to reintroduction and establishment of a healthy insurance population. After the monitoring session in May–June 2015, the probability that all devils had been successfully removed was close to 1, even when we accounted for a possible introduction of a devil to the site. Given this high probability and the baseline cost of declaring population absence prematurely, we found it was not cost‐effective to carry out any additional monitoring before introducing the insurance population. Considering these results within the broader context of Tasmanian devil management, managers ultimately decided to implement an additional monitoring session before the introduction. This was a conservative decision that accounted for uncertainty in model estimates and for the broader nonmonetary costs of mistakenly declaring the area disease‐free.     

Trait‐based prediction of extinction risk of small‐bodied freshwater fishes

Small body size is generally correlated with r‐selected life‐history traits, including early maturation, short‐generation times, and rapid growth rates, that result in high population turnover and a reduced risk of extinction. Unlike other classes of vertebrates, however, small freshwater fishes appear to have an equal or greater risk of extinction than large fishes. We explored whether particular traits explain the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List conservation status of small‐bodied freshwater fishes from 4 temperate river basins: Murray‐Darling, Australia; Danube, Europe; Mississippi‐Missouri, North America; and the Rio Grande, North America. Twenty‐three ecological and life‐history traits were collated for all 171 freshwater fishes of ≤120 mm total length. We used generalized linear mixed‐effects models to assess which combination of the 23 traits best explained whether a species was threatened or not threatened. We used the best models to predict the probability of 29 unclassified species being listed as threatened. With and without controlling for phylogeny at the family level, small body size—among small‐bodied species—was the most influential trait correlated with threatened species listings. The k‐folds cross‐validation demonstrated that body size and a random effect structure that included family predicted the threat status with an accuracy of 78% (SE 0.5). We identified 10 species likely to be threatened that are not listed as such on the IUCN Red List. Small body size is not a trait that provides universal resistance to extinction, particularly for vertebrates inhabiting environments affected by extreme habitat loss and fragmentation. We hypothesize that this is because small‐bodied species have smaller home ranges, lower dispersal capabilities, and heightened ecological specialization relative to larger vertebrates. Trait data and further model development are needed to predict the IUCN conservation status of the over 11,000 unclassified freshwater fishes, especially those under threat from proposed dam construction in the world's most biodiverse river basins.     

Evaluating the Quality of Citizen‐Scientist Data on Pollinator Communities

Abstract: Concerns about pollinator declines have grown in recent years, yet the ability to detect changes in abundance, taxonomic richness, and composition of pollinator communities is hampered severely by the lack of data over space and time. Citizen scientists may be able to extend the spatial and temporal extent of pollinator monitoring programs. We developed a citizen‐science monitoring protocol in which we trained 13 citizen scientists to observe and classify floral visitors at the resolution of orders or super families (e.g., bee, wasp, fly) and at finer resolution within bees (superfamily Apoidea) only. We evaluated the protocol by comparing data collected simultaneously at 17 sites by citizen scientists (observational data set) and by professionals (specimen‐based data set). The sites differed with respect to the presence and age of hedgerows planted to improve habitat quality for pollinators. We found significant, positive correlations among the two data sets for higher level taxonomic composition, honey bee (Apis mellifera) abundance, non‐Apis bee abundance, bee richness, and bee community similarity. Results for both data sets also showed similar trends (or lack thereof) in these metrics among sites differing in the presence and age of hedgerows. Nevertheless, citizen scientists did not observe approximately half of the bee groups collected by professional scientists at the same sites. Thus, the utility of citizen‐science observational data may be restricted to detection of community‐level changes in abundance, richness, or similarity over space and time, and citizen‐science observations may not reliably reflect the abundance or frequency of occurrence of specific pollinator species or groups.     

Effects of flow regimes altered by dams on survival, population declines, and range-wide losses of California river-breeding frogs

Widespread alteration of natural hydrologic patterns by large dams combined with peak demands for power and water delivery during summer months have resulted in frequent aseasonal flow pulses in rivers of western North America. Native species in these ecosystems have evolved with predictable annual flood-drought cycles; thus, their likelihood of persistence may decrease in response to disruption of the seasonal synchrony between stable low-flow conditions and reproduction. We evaluated whether altered flow regimes affected 2 native frogs in California and Oregon (U.S.A.) at 4 spatial and temporal extents. We examined changes in species distribution over approximately 50 years, current population density in 11 regulated and 16 unregulated rivers, temporal trends in abundance among populations occupying rivers with different hydrologic histories, and within-year patterns of survival relative to seasonal hydrology. The foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), which breeds only in flowing water, is more likely to be absent downstream of large dams than in free-flowing rivers, and breeding populations are on average 5 times smaller in regulated rivers than in unregulated rivers. Time series data (range = 8 - 19 years) from 5 populations of yellow-legged frogs and 2 populations of California red-legged frogs (R. draytonii) across a gradient of natural to highly artificial timing and magnitude of flooding indicate that variability of flows in spring and summer is strongly correlated with high mortality of early life stages and subsequent decreases in densities of adult females. Flow management that better mimics natural flow timing is likely to promote persistence of these species and others with similar phenology.     

The role of scientists in statutory interpretation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Like many federal statutes, the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) contains vague or ambiguous language. The meaning imparted to the ESA's unclear language can profoundly impact the fates of endangered and threatened species. Hence, conservation scientists should contribute to the interpretation of the ESA when vague or ambiguous language contains scientific words or refers to scientific concepts. Scientists need to know at least these 2 facts about statutory interpretation: statutory interpretation is subjective and the potential influence of normative values results in different expectations for the parties involved. With the possible exception of judges, all conventional participants in statutory interpretation are serving their own interests, advocating for their preferred policies, or biased. Hence, scientists can play a unique role by informing the interpretative process with objective, policy‐neutral information. Conversely, scientists may act as advocates for their preferred interpretation of unclear statutory language. The different roles scientists might play in statutory interpretation raise the issues of advocacy and competency. Advocating for a preferred statutory interpretation is legitimate political behavior by scientists, but statutory interpretation can be strongly influenced by normative values. Therefore, scientists must be careful not to commit stealth policy advocacy. Most conservation scientists lack demonstrable competence in statutory interpretation and therefore should consult or collaborate with lawyers when interpreting statutes. Professional scientific societies are widely perceived by the public as unbiased sources of objective information. Therefore, professional scientific societies should remain policy neutral and present all interpretations of unclear statutory language; explain the semantics and science both supporting and contradicting each interpretation; and describe the potential consequences of implementing each interpretation. A review of scientists’ interpretations of the phrase “significant portion of its range” in the ESA is used to critique the role of scientists and professional societies in statutory interpretation.     

Biodiversity Conservation and Indigenous Land Management in the Era of Self‐Determination

Abstract: Indigenous people inhabit approximately 85% of areas designated for biodiversity conservation worldwide. They also continue to struggle for recognition and preservation of cultural identities, lifestyles, and livelihoods—a struggle contingent on control and protection of traditional lands and associated natural resources (hereafter, self‐determination). Indigenous lands and the biodiversity they support are increasingly threatened because of human population growth and per capita consumption. Application of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to tribal lands in the United States provides a rich example of the articulation between biodiversity conservation and indigenous peoples' struggle for self‐determination. We found a paradoxical relationship whereby tribal governments are simultaneously and contradictorily sovereign nations; yet their communities depend on the U.S. government for protection through the federal‐trust doctrine. The unique legal status of tribal lands, their importance for conserving federally protected species, and federal environmental regulations' failure to define applicability to tribal lands creates conflict between tribal sovereignty, self‐determination, and constitutional authority. We reviewed Secretarial Order 3206, the U.S. policy on “American Indian tribal rights, federal–tribal trust responsibilities, and the ESA,” and evaluated how it influences ESA implementation on tribal lands. We found improved biodiversity conservation and tribal self‐determination requires revision of the fiduciary relationship between the federal government and the tribes to establish clear, legal definitions regarding land rights, applicability of environmental laws, and financial responsibilities. Such actions will allow provision of adequate funding and training to tribal leaders and resource managers, government agency personnel responsible for biodiversity conservation and land management, and environmental policy makers. Increased capacity, cooperation, and knowledge transfer among tribes and conservationists will improve biodiversity conservation and indigenous self‐determination.