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.     

Toward accurate and precise estimates of lion density

Reliable estimates of animal density are fundamental to understanding ecological processes and population dynamics. Furthermore, their accuracy is vital to conservation because wildlife authorities rely on estimates to make decisions. However, it is notoriously difficult to accurately estimate density for wide‐ranging carnivores that occur at low densities. In recent years, significant progress has been made in density estimation of Asian carnivores, but the methods have not been widely adapted to African carnivores, such as lions (Panthera leo). Although abundance indices for lions may produce poor inferences, they continue to be used to estimate density and inform management and policy. We used sighting data from a 3‐month survey and adapted a Bayesian spatially explicit capture‐recapture (SECR) model to estimate spatial lion density in the Maasai Mara National Reserve and surrounding conservancies in Kenya. Our unstructured spatial capture‐recapture sampling design incorporated search effort to explicitly estimate detection probability and density on a fine spatial scale, making our approach robust in the context of varying detection probabilities. Overall posterior mean lion density was estimated to be 17.08 (posterior SD 1.310) lions >1 year old/100 km², and the sex ratio was estimated at 2.2 females to 1 male. Our modeling framework and narrow posterior SD demonstrate that SECR methods can produce statistically rigorous and precise estimates of population parameters, and we argue that they should be favored over less reliable abundance indices. Furthermore, our approach is flexible enough to incorporate different data types, which enables robust population estimates over relatively short survey periods in a variety of systems. Trend analyses are essential to guide conservation decisions but are frequently based on surveys of differing reliability. We therefore call for a unified framework to assess lion numbers in key populations to improve management and policy decisions.     

Archaeological Evidence of Validity of Fish Populations on Unexploited Reefs as Proxy Targets for Modern Populations

Reef‐fish management and conservation is hindered by a lack of information on fish populations prior to large‐scale contemporary human impacts. As a result, relatively pristine sites are often used as conservation baselines for populations near sites affected by humans. This space‐for‐time approach can only be validated by sampling assemblages through time. We used archaeological remains to evaluate whether the remote, uninhabited Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) might provide a reasonable proxy for a lightly exploited baseline in the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI). We used molecular and morphological techniques to describe the taxonomic and size composition of the scarine parrotfish catches present in 2 archaeological assemblages from the MHI, compared metrics of these catches with modern estimates of reproductive parameters to evaluate whether catches represented by the archaeological material were consistent with sustainable fishing, and evaluated overlap between size structures represented by the archaeological material and modern survey data from the MHI and the NWHI to assess whether a space‐for‐time substitution is reasonable. The parrotfish catches represented by archaeological remains were consistent with sustainable fishing because they were dominated by large, mature individuals whose average size remained stable from prehistoric (AD approximately 1400–1700) through historic (AD 1700–1960) periods. The ancient catches were unlike populations in the MHI today. Overlap between the size structure of ancient MHI catches and modern survey data from the NWHI or the MHI was an order of magnitude greater for the NWHI comparison, a result that supports the validity of using the NWHI parrotfish data as a proxy for the MHI before accelerated, heavy human impacts in modern times. Evidencia Arqueológica de la Validez de Poblaciones de Peces en Arrecifes Sin Explotar como Objetivos de Apoderamiento para Poblaciones Actuales     

Understanding conservationists’ perspectives on the new‐conservation debate

A vibrant debate about the future direction of biodiversity conservation centers on the merits of the so‐called new conservation. Proponents of the new conservation advocate a series of positions on key conservation ideas, such as the importance of human‐dominated landscapes and conservation's engagement with capitalism. These have been fiercely contested in a debate dominated by a few high‐profile individuals, and so far there has been no empirical exploration of existing perspectives on these issues among a wider community of conservationists. We used Q methodology to examine empirically perspectives on the new conservation held by attendees at the 2015 International Congress for Conservation Biology (ICCB). Although we identified a consensus on several key issues, 3 distinct positions emerged: in favor of conservation to benefit people but opposed to links with capitalism and corporations, in favor of biocentric approaches but with less emphasis on wilderness protection than prominent opponents of new conservation, and in favor of the published new conservation perspective but with less emphasis on increasing human well‐being as a goal of conservation. Our results revealed differences between the debate on the new conservation in the literature and views held within a wider, but still limited, conservation community and demonstrated the existence of at least one viewpoint (in favor of conservation to benefit people but opposed to links with capitalism and corporations) that is almost absent from the published debate. We hope the fuller understanding we present of the variety of views that exist but have not yet been heard, will improve the quality and tone of debates on the subject.     

When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research

Understanding human perspectives is critical in a range of conservation contexts, for example, in overcoming conflicts or developing projects that are acceptable to relevant stakeholders. The Q methodology is a unique semiquantitative technique used to explore human perspectives. It has been applied for decades in other disciplines and recently gained traction in conservation. This paper helps researchers assess when Q is useful for a given conservation question and what its use involves. To do so, we explained the steps necessary to conduct a Q study, from the research design to the interpretation of results. We provided recommendations to minimize biases in conducting a Q study, which can affect mostly when designing the study and collecting the data. We conducted a structured literature review of 52 studies to examine in what empirical conservation contexts Q has been used. Most studies were subnational or national cases, but some also address multinational or global questions. We found that Q has been applied to 4 broad types of conservation goals: addressing conflict, devising management alternatives, understanding policy acceptability, and critically reflecting on the values that implicitly influence research and practice. Through these applications, researchers found hidden views, understood opinions in depth and discovered points of consensus that facilitated unlocking difficult disagreements. The Q methodology has a clear procedure but is also flexible, allowing researchers explore long‐term views, or views about items other than statements, such as landscape images. We also found some inconsistencies in applying and, mainly, in reporting Q studies, whereby it was not possible to fully understand how the research was conducted or why some atypical research decisions had been taken in some studies. Accordingly, we suggest a reporting checklist.     

Estimating abundance without recaptures of marked pallid sturgeon in the Mississippi River

Abundance estimates are essential for assessing the viability of populations and the risks posed by alternative management actions. An effort to estimate abundance via a repeated mark‐recapture experiment may fail to recapture marked individuals. We devised a method for obtaining lower bounds on abundance in the absence of recaptures for both panmictic and spatially structured populations. The method assumes few enough recaptures were expected to be missed by random chance. The upper Bayesian credible limit on expected recaptures allows probabilistic statements about the minimum number of individuals present in the population. We applied this method to data from a 12‐year survey of pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) in the lower and middle Mississippi River (U.S.A.). None of the 241 individuals marked was recaptured in the survey. After accounting for survival and movement, our model‐averaged estimate of the total abundance of pallid sturgeon ≥3 years old in the study area had a 1%, 5%, or 25% chance of being <4,600, 7,000, or 15,000, respectively. When we assumed fish were distributed in proportion to survey catch per unit effort, the farthest downstream reach in the survey hosted at least 4.5–15 fish per river kilometer (rkm), whereas the remainder of the reaches in the lower and middle Mississippi River hosted at least 2.6–8.5 fish/rkm for all model variations examined. The lower Mississippi River had an average density of pallid sturgeon ≥3 years old of at least 3.0–9.8 fish/rkm. The choice of Bayesian prior was the largest source of uncertainty we considered but did not alter the order of magnitude of lower bounds. Nil‐recapture estimates of abundance are highly uncertain and require careful communication but can deliver insights from experiments that might otherwise be considered a failure.     

Considering the needs of indigenous and local populations in conservation programs

Local rural and indigenous communities have assumed increasing responsibility for conservation within and between areas buffering the impacts of agricultural or resource‐extraction zones and protected areas. Empowering local communities as central partners in conservation and climate‐change mitigation has allowed many people to gain access to land and citizenship rights but has provided limited improvements in access to social services and economic opportunities even as expectation about their role as environmental stewards grows. These expectations, however, are inconsistent with reality. We conducted multiple field studies in Brazil since the mid‐1980s to illustrate the discrepancies between conservation programs and local conditions and expectations. We suggest that public policies and conservation programs should not delegate responsibility for managing protected areas to local and indigenous communities without considering local needs and expectations and locals’ attitudes toward conservation. In other words, behavior that maintains or improves the environment should not be treated as traditional based on the expectations of outsiders. Framing local populations as traditional environmentalists creates contradictions and frustrations for local populations and for conservation professionals and policy makers.     

Cost‐effectiveness of conservation payment schemes for species with different range sizes

Payments to compensate landowners for carrying out costly land‐use measures that benefit endangered biodiversity have become an important policy instrument. When designing such payments, it is important to take into account that spatially connected habitats are more valuable for many species than isolated ones. One way to incentivize provision of connected habitats is to offer landowners an agglomeration bonus, that is, a bonus on top of payments they are receiving to conserve land if the land is spatially connected. Researchers have compared the cost‐effectiveness of the agglomeration bonus with 2 alternatives: an all‐or‐nothing, agglomeration payment, where landowners receive a payment only if the conserved land parcels have a certain level of spatial connectivity, and a spatially homogeneous payment, where landowners receive a payment for conserved land parcels irrespective of their location. Their results show the agglomeration bonus is rarely the most cost‐effective option, and when it is, it is only slightly better than one of the alternatives. This suggests that the agglomeration bonus should not be given priority as a policy design option. However, this finding is based on consideration of only 1 species. We examined whether the same applied to 2 species, one for which the homogeneous payment is best and the other for which the agglomeration payment is most cost‐effective. We modified a published conceptual model so that we were able to assess the cost‐effectiveness of payment schemes for 2 species and applied it to a grassland bird and a grassland butterfly in Germany that require the same habitat but have different spatial‐connectivity needs. When conserving both species, the agglomeration bonus was more cost‐effective than the agglomeration and the homogeneous payment; thus, we showed that as a policy the agglomeration bonus is a useful conservation‐payment option.     

Environmental cost of using poor decision metrics to prioritize environmental projects

Conservation decision makers commonly use project‐scoring metrics that are inconsistent with theory on optimal ranking of projects. As a result, there may often be a loss of environmental benefits. We estimated the magnitudes of these losses for various metrics that deviate from theory in ways that are common in practice. These metrics included cases where relevant variables were omitted from the benefits metric, project costs were omitted, and benefits were calculated using a faulty functional form. We estimated distributions of parameters from 129 environmental projects from Australia, New Zealand, and Italy for which detailed analyses had been completed previously. The cost of using poor prioritization metrics (in terms of lost environmental values) was often high—up to 80% in the scenarios we examined. The cost in percentage terms was greater when the budget was smaller. The most costly errors were omitting information about environmental values (up to 31% loss of environmental values), omitting project costs (up to 35% loss), omitting the effectiveness of management actions (up to 9% loss), and using a weighted‐additive decision metric for variables that should be multiplied (up to 23% loss). The latter 3 are errors that occur commonly in real‐world decision metrics, in combination often reducing potential benefits from conservation investments by 30–50%. Uncertainty about parameter values also reduced the benefits from investments in conservation projects but often not by as much as faulty prioritization metrics.     

The Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species

There now appears to be a plausible pathway for reviving species that have been extinct for several decades, centuries, or even millennia. I conducted an ethical analysis of de‐extinction of long extinct species. I assessed several possible ethical considerations in favor of pursuing de‐extinction: that it is a matter of justice; that it would reestablish lost value; that it would create new value; and that society needs it as a conservation last resort. I also assessed several possible ethical arguments against pursuing de‐extinction: that it is unnatural; that it could cause animal suffering; that it could be ecologically problematic or detrimental to human health; and that it is hubristic. There are reasons in favor of reviving long extinct species, and it can be ethically acceptable to do so. However, the reasons in favor of pursuing de‐extinction do not have to do with its usefulness in species conservation; rather, they concern the status of revived species as scientific and technological achievements, and it would be ethically problematic to promote de‐extinction as a significant conservation strategy, because it does not prevent species extinctions, does not address the causes of extinction, and could be detrimental to some species conservation efforts. Moreover, humanity does not have a responsibility or obligation to pursue de‐extinction of long extinct species, and reviving them does not address any urgent problem. Therefore, legitimate ecological, political, animal welfare, legal, or human health concerns associated with a de‐extinction (and reintroduction) must be thoroughly addressed for it to be ethically acceptable. La Ética de Revivir Especies Extintas Hace Mucho Tiempo Sandler