Integrating habitat-masked range maps with quantifications of prevalence to estimate area of occupancy in IUCN assessments

Estimates of species geographic ranges constitute critical input for biodiversity assessments, including those for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species. Area of occupancy (AOO) is one metric that IUCN uses to quantify a species’ range, but data limitations typically lead to either under- or overestimates (and unnecessarily wide bounds of uncertainty). Fortunately, existing methods in which range maps and land-cover data are used to estimate the area currently holding habitat for a species can be extended to yield an unbiased range of plausible estimates for AOO. Doing so requires estimating the proportion of sites (currently containing habitat) that a species occupies within its range (i.e., prevalence). Multiplying a quantification of habitat area by prevalence yields an estimate of what the species inhabits (i.e., AOO). For species with intense sampling at many sites, presence–absence data sets or occupancy modeling allow calculation of prevalence. For other species, primary biodiversity data (records of a species’ presence at a point in space and time) from citizen-science initiatives and research collections of natural history museums and herbaria could be used. In such cases, estimates of sample prevalence should be corrected by dividing by the species’ detectability. To estimate detectability from these data sources, extensions of inventory-completeness analyses merit development. With investments to increase the quality and availability of online biodiversity data, consideration of prevalence should lead to tighter and more realistic bounds of AOO for many taxonomic groups and geographic regions. By leading to more realistic and representative characterizations of biodiversity, integrating maps of current habitat with estimates of prevalence should empower conservation practitioners and decision makers and thus guide actions and policy worldwide.     

Recognizing reflexivity among conservation practitioners

When deciding how to conserve biodiversity, practitioners navigate diverse missions, sometimes conflicting approaches, and uncertain trade-offs. These choices are based not only on evidence, funders’ priorities, stakeholders’ interests, and policies, but also on practitioners’ personal experiences, backgrounds, and values. Calls for greater reflexivity—an individual or group's ability to examine themselves in relation to their actions and interactions with others—have appeared in the conservation science literature. But what role does reflexivity play in conservation practice? We explored how self-reflection can shape how individuals and groups conserve nature. To provide examples of reflexivity in conservation practice, we conducted a year-long series of workshop discussions and online exchanges. During these, we examined cases from the peer-reviewed and gray literature, our own experiences, and conversations with 10 experts. Reflexivity among practitioners spanned individual and collective levels and informal and formal settings. Reflexivity also encompassed diverse themes, including practitioners’ values, emotional struggles, social identities, training, cultural backgrounds, and experiences of success and failure. Reflexive processes also have limitations, dangers, and costs. Informal and institutionalized reflexivity requires allocation of limited time and resources, can be hard to put into practice, and alone cannot solve conservation challenges. Yet, when intentionally undertaken, reflexive processes might be integrated into adaptive management cycles at multiple points, helping conservation practitioners better reach their goals. Reflexivity could also play a more transformative role in conservation by motivating practitioners to reevaluate their goals and methods entirely. Reflexivity might help the conservation movement imagine and thus work toward a better world for wildlife, people, and the conservation sector itself.     

Effects of different management strategies on long-term trends of Australian threatened and near-threatened mammals

Monitoring is critical to assess management effectiveness, but broadscale systematic assessments of monitoring to evaluate and improve recovery efforts are lacking. We compiled 1808 time series from 71 threatened and near-threatened terrestrial and volant mammal species and subspecies in Australia (48% of all threatened mammal taxa) to compare relative trends of populations subject to different management strategies. We adapted the Living Planet Index to develop the Threatened Species Index for Australian Mammals and track aggregate trends for all sampled threatened mammal populations and for small (<35 g), medium (35–5500 g), and large mammals (>5500 g) from 2000 to 2017. Unmanaged populations (42 taxa) declined by 63% on average; unmanaged small mammals exhibited the greatest declines (96%). Populations of 17 taxa in havens (islands and fenced areas that excluded or eliminated introduced red foxes [Vulpes vulpes] and domestic cats [Felis catus]) increased by 680%. Outside havens, populations undergoing sustained predator baiting initially declined by 75% but subsequently increased to 47% of their abundance in 2000. At sites where predators were not excluded or baited but other actions (e.g., fire management, introduced herbivore control) occurred, populations of small and medium mammals declined faster, but large mammals declined more slowly, than unmanaged populations. Only 13% of taxa had data for both unmanaged and managed populations; index comparisons for this subset showed that taxa with populations increasing inside havens declined outside havens but taxa with populations subject to predator baiting outside havens declined more slowly than populations with no management and then increased, whereas unmanaged populations continued to decline. More comprehensive and improved monitoring (particularly encompassing poorly represented management actions and taxonomic groups like bats and small mammals) is required to understand whether and where management has worked. Improved implementation of management for threats other than predation is critical to recover Australia's threatened mammals.     

Comparing spatial conservation prioritization methods with site- versus spatial dependency-based connectivity

Larval dispersal is an important component of marine reserve networks. Two conceptually different approaches to incorporate dispersal connectivity into spatial planning of these networks exist, and it is an open question as to when either is most appropriate. Candidate reserve sites can be selected individually based on local properties of connectivity or on a spatial dependency-based approach of selecting clusters of strongly connected habitat patches. The first acts on individual sites, whereas the second acts on linked pairs of sites. We used a combination of larval dispersal simulations representing different seascapes and case studies of biophysical larval dispersal models in the Coral Triangle region and the province of Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia, to compare the performance of these 2 methods in the spatial planning software Marxan. We explored the reserve design performance implications of different dispersal distances and patterns based on the equilibrium settlement of larvae in protected and unprotected areas. We further assessed different assumptions about metapopulation contributions from unprotected areas, including the case of 100% depletion and more moderate scenarios. The spatial dependency method was suitable when dispersal was limited, a high proportion of the area of interest was substantially degraded, or the target amount of habitat protected was low. Conversely, when subpopulations were well connected, the 100% depletion was relaxed, or more habitat was protected, protecting individual sites with high scores in metrics of connectivity was a better strategy. Spatial dependency methods generally produced more spatially clustered solutions with more benefits inside than outside reserves compared with site-based methods. Therefore, spatial dependency methods potentially provide better results for ecological persistence objectives over enhancing fisheries objectives, and vice versa. Different spatial prioritization methods of using connectivity are appropriate for different contexts, depending on dispersal characteristics, unprotected area contributions, habitat protection targets, and specific management objectives. Comparación entre los métodos de priorización de la conservación espacial con sitio y la conectividad espacial basada en la dependencia     

Fragmentation effects on an endangered species across a gradient from the interior to edge of its range

Understanding how habitat fragmentation affects individual species is complicated by challenges associated with quantifying species-specific habitat and spatial variability in fragmentation effects within a species’ range. We aggregated a 29-year breeding survey data set for the endangered marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) from >42,000 forest sites throughout the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington, and northern California) of the United States. We built a species distribution model (SDM) in which occupied sites were linked with Landsat imagery to quantify murrelet-specific habitat and then used occupancy models to test the hypotheses that fragmentation negatively affects murrelet breeding distribution and that these effects are amplified with distance from the marine foraging habitat toward the edge of the species’ nesting range. Murrelet habitat declined in the Pacific Northwest by 20% since 1988, whereas the proportion of habitat comprising edges increased by 17%, indicating increased fragmentation. Furthermore, fragmentation of murrelet habitat at landscape scales (within 2 km of survey stations) negatively affected occupancy of potential breeding sites, and these effects were amplified near the range edge. On the coast, the odds of occupancy decreased by 37% (95% confidence interval [CI] –54 to 12) for each 10% increase in edge habitat (i.e., fragmentation), but at the range edge (88 km inland) these odds decreased by 99% (95% CI 98 to 99). Conversely, odds of murrelet occupancy increased by 31% (95% CI 14 to 52) for each 10% increase in local edge habitat (within 100 m of survey stations). Avoidance of fragmentation at broad scales but use of locally fragmented habitat with reduced quality may help explain the lack of murrelet population recovery. Further, our results emphasize that fragmentation effects can be nuanced, scale dependent, and geographically variable. Awareness of these nuances is critical for developing landscape-level conservation strategies for species experiencing broad-scale habitat loss and fragmentation.     

Prioritizing species conservation programs based on IUCN Green Status and estimates of cost-sharing potential

Over 1 million species around the world are at risk of extinction, and conservation organizations have to decide where to invest their limited resources. Cost-effectiveness can be increased by leveraging funding opportunities and increasing collaborative partnerships to achieve shared conservation goals. We devised a structured decision-making framework to prioritize species’ conservation programs based on a cost–benefit analysis that takes collaborative opportunities into account in an examination of national and global conservation return on investment. Conservation benefit is determined by modifying the novel International Union for the Conservation of Nature Green Status for Species to provide an efficient, high-level measure that is comparable among species, even with limited information and time constraints. We applied this prioritization approach to the Wilder Institute/Calgary Zoo, Canada, a nonprofit organization seeking to increase the number of species it assists with conservation translocations. We sought to identify and prioritize additional species’ programs for which conservation translocation expertise and actions could make the most impact. Estimating the likelihood of cost-sharing potential enabled total program cost to be distinguished from costs specific to the organization. Comparing a benefit-to-cost ratio on different geographic scales allowed decision makers to weigh alternative options for investing in new species’ programs in a transparent and effective manner. Our innovative analysis aligns with general conservation planning frameworks and can be adapted for any organization.     

Rapid,recurring, structured survey versus bioblitz for generating biodiversity data and analysis with a multispecies abundance model

A bioblitz inexpensively and quickly generates biodiversity data, but bioblitzes are often conducted with haphazard, unreplicated sampling. Results tend to be taxonomically, geographically, or temporally biased, lack metadata, and consist of lists of observed taxa that do not enable further analyses or correction for imperfect detection. A rapid, recurring, structured survey (RRSS) uses a structured sampling design and temporal and spatial replication to survey randomly selected sites on a conservation property. We participated in a loosely structured bioblitz and a subsequent RRSS at Big Canoe Creek Nature Preserve in Springville (St. Clair County), Alabama (USA) to compare observed richness derived from the 2 survey approaches. The RRSS data structure enabled us to fit models that accounted for imperfect detection to estimate abundances, occupancy probabilities, and habitat associations. The loosely structured bioblitz data could not be used in such models. We present a new integrated multispecies abundance model that we applied to avian RRSS data. Our model extension enables estimation for the community, employs data augmentation to estimate the number of undetected species, and incorporates covariates. The RRSS generated a more comprehensive and less biased list of observed taxonomic richness than the loosely structured bioblitz (e.g., 73 vs. 45 bird species and 104 vs. 63 insect families from the RRSS vs. loosely structured bioblitz, respectively). Models fit to the RRSS data identified seasonal patterns in avian community composition and allowed for estimation of habitat–occupancy relationships for insect taxa. The RRSS protocol has potential for broad transferability as a standardized, quick, and inexpensive way to inventory biodiversity and estimate ecological parameters while providing an outreach opportunity.     

Identifying climate change refugia for South American biodiversity

Refugia-based conservation offers long-term effectiveness and minimize uncertainty on strategies for climate change adaptation. We used distribution modelling to identify climate change refugia for 617 terrestrial mammals and to quantify the role of protected areas (PAs) in providing refugia across South America. To do so, we compared species potential distribution across different scenarios of climate change, highlighting those regions likely to retain suitable climatic conditions by year 2090, and explored the proportion of refugia inside PAs. Moist tropical forests in high-elevation areas with complex topography concentrated the highest local diversity of species refugia, although regionally important refugia centers occurred elsewhere. Andean–Amazon forests contained climate change refugia for more than half of the continental species’ pool and for up to 87 species locally (17 × 17 km² grid cell). The highlands of the southern Atlantic Forest also included megadiverse refugia for up to 76 species per cell. Almost half of the species that may find refugia in the Atlantic Forest will do so in a single region—the Serra do Mar and Serra do Espinhaço. Most of the refugia we identified, however, were not in PAs, which may contain <6% of the total area of climate change refugia, leaving 129–237 species with no refugia inside the territorial limits of PAs of any kind. Our results reveal a dismal scenario for the level of refugia protection in some of the most biodiverse regions of the world. Nonetheless, because refugia tend to be in high-elevation, topographically complex, and remote areas, with lower anthropogenic pressure, formally protecting them may require a comparatively modest investment.     

Red-list status and extinction risk of the world's whales,dolphins, and porpoises

To understand the scope and scale of the loss of biodiversity, tools are required that can be applied in a standardized manner to all species globally, spanning realms from land to the open ocean. We used data from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Red List to provide a synthesis of the conservation status and extinction risk of cetaceans. One in 4 cetacean species (26% of 92 species) was threatened with extinction (i.e., critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable) and 11% were near threatened. Ten percent of cetacean species were data deficient, and we predicted that 2–3 of these species may also be threatened. The proportion of threatened cetaceans has increased: 15% in 1991, 19% in 2008, and 26% in 2021. The assessed conservation status of 20% of species has worsened from 2008 to 2021, and only 3 moved into categories of lesser threat. Cetacean species with small geographic ranges were more likely to be listed as threatened than those with large ranges, and those that occur in freshwater (100% of species) and coastal (60% of species) habitats were under the greatest threat. Analysis of odontocete species distributions revealed a global hotspot of threatened small cetaceans in Southeast Asia, in an area encompassing the Coral Triangle and extending through nearshore waters of the Bay of Bengal, northern Australia, and Papua New Guinea and into the coastal waters of China. Improved management of fisheries to limit overfishing and reduce bycatch is urgently needed to avoid extinctions or further declines, especially in coastal areas of Asia, Africa, and South America.     

Evaluating the influence of nature connection and values on conservation attitudes at a tropical deforestation frontier

Inner phenomena, such as personal motivations for pursuing sustainability, may be critical levers for improving conservation outcomes. Most conservation research and policies, however, focus on external phenomena (e.g., ecological change or economic processes). We explored the factors shaping 9 conservation attitudes toward forest and wildlife protection among colonist farmers around an Amazonian deforestation frontier. Our data comprised 241 face-to-face quantitative surveys, complemented with qualitative insights from open-ended questionnaire responses and opportunistic semistructured interviews. To account for the full spectrum of possible inner motivations, we employed measures of nature connection (indicating biospheric motivation) and personal values organized around the traditionalism (traditionalist through to high openness to change) and universalism dimensions (egoistic through to altruistic motivations). We used averaged beta-binomial generalized linear models to assess the role of external factors (socioeconomic, sociodemographic, and environmental) and personal (inner) motivations on the variation in attitudes. Each attitude was modeled separately. The relative importance of each predictor was judged by the proportion of models where it appeared as significant. Proconservation views were expressed by the majority (at least 65%) of the respondents in 7 out of the 9 attitude models. The most consistent predictors were emotional nature connection and personal values (significant in 4–6 out of 9 models), rather than external phenomena (significant in 0–5 models). However, the poorest farmers had lower scores on the agreement with prioritizing nature over development (𝛽 = –0.52, 95% CI: –0.96 to –0.07). Qualitative data also indicated that economic barriers hinder forest conservation on farms. These results suggest that biospheric, traditionalistic, and altruistic motivations promote people's proconservation attitudes, but nurturing these latent motivations is unlikely to improve conservation outcomes if material poverty remains unaddressed. Integrating the inner–outer perspective into conservation thinking and practical interventions could foster environmental stewardship and increase human well-being.