Effect of decision rules in choice experiments on hunting and bushmeat trade

Providing insight on decisions to hunt and trade bushmeat can facilitate improved management interventions that typically include enforcement, alternative employment, and donation of livestock. Conservation interventions to regulate bushmeat hunting and trade have hitherto been based on assumptions of utility- (i.e., personal benefits) maximizing behavior, which influences the types of incentives designed. However, if individuals instead strive to minimize regret, interventions may be misguided. We tested support for 3 hypotheses regarding decision rules through a choice experiment in Tanzania. We estimated models based on the assumptions of random utility maximization (RUM) and pure random regret maximization (P-RRM) and combinations thereof. One of these models had an attribute-specific decision rule and another had a class-specific decision rule. The RUM model outperformed the P-RRM model, but the attribute-specific model performed better. Allowing respondents with different decision rules and preference heterogeneity within each decision rule in a class-specific model performed best, revealing that 55% of the sample used a P-RRM decision rule. Individuals using a P-RRM decision rule responded less to enforcement, salary, and livestock donation than did individuals using the RUM decision rule. Hence, 3 common strategies, enforcement, alternative income-generating activities, and providing livestock as a substitute protein, are likely less effective in changing the behavior of more than half of respondents. Only salary elicited a large (i.e. elastic) response, and only for one RUM class. Policies to regulate the bushmeat trade based solely on the assumption of individuals maximizing utility, may fail for a significant proportion of the sample. Despite the superior performance of models that allow both RUM and P-RRM decision rules there are drawbacks that must be considered before use in the Global South, where very little is known about the social–psychology of decision making.     

Generation lengths of the world's birds and their implications for extinction risk

Birds have been comprehensively assessed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List more times than any other taxonomic group. However, to date, generation lengths have not been systematically estimated to scale population trends when undertaking assessments, as required by the criteria of the IUCN Red List. We compiled information from major databases of published life-history and trait data for all birds and imputed missing life-history data as a function of species traits with generalized linear mixed models. Generation lengths were derived for all species, based on our modeled values of age at first breeding, maximum longevity, and annual adult survival. The resulting generation lengths varied from 1.42 to 27.87 years (median 2.99). Most species (61%) had generation lengths <3.33 years, meaning that the period of 3 generations—over which population declines are assessed under criterion A—was <10 years, which is the value used for IUCN Red List assessments of species with short generation times. For these species, our trait-informed estimates of generation length suggested that 10 years is a robust precautionary value for threat assessment. In other cases, however, for whole families, genera, or individual species, generation length had a substantial impact on their estimated extinction risk, resulting in higher extinction risk in long-lived species than in short-lived species. Although our approach effectively addressed data gaps, generation lengths for some species may have been underestimated due to a paucity of life-history data. Overall, our results will strengthen future extinction-risk assessments and augment key databases of avian life-history and trait data.     

Use of standardized methods to improve extinction-risk classification

Standardized classification methods based on quantifiable risk metrics are critical for evaluating extinction threats because they increase objectivity, consistency, and transparency of listing decisions. Yet, in the United States, neither federal nor state agencies use standardized methods for listing species for legal protection, which could put listing decisions at odds with the magnitude of the risk. We used a recently developed set of quantitative risk metrics for California herpetofauna as a case study to highlight discrepancies in listing decisions made without standardized methods. We also combined such quantitative metrics with classification tree analysis to attempt to increase the transparency of previous listing decisions by identifying the criteria that had inherently been given the most weight. Federally listed herpetofauna in California scored significantly higher on the risk-metric spectrum than those not federally listed, whereas state-listed species did not score any higher than species that were not state listed. Based on classification trees, state endemism was the most important predictor of listing status at the state level and distribution trend (decline in a species’ range size) and population trend (decline in a species’ abundance at localized sites) were the most important predictors at the federal level. Our results emphasize the need for governing bodies to adopt standardized methods for assessing conservation risk that are based on quantitative criteria. Such methods allow decision makers to identify criteria inherently given the most weight in determining listing status, thus increasing the transparency of previous listing decisions, and produce an unbiased comparison of conservation threat across all species to promote consistency, efficiency, and effectiveness of the listing process.     

Shared ways of thinking in Brazil about the science–practice interface in ecology and conservation

The debate in the literature on the science–practice interface suggests a diversity of opinions on how to link science and practice to improve conservation. Understanding this diversity is key to addressing unequal power relations, avoiding the consideration of only dominant views, and identifying strategies to link science and practice. In turn, linking science and practice should promote conservation decisions that are socially robust and scientifically informed. To identify and describe the viewpoints of scientists and decision makers on how the science–practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions, we interviewed Brazilian scientists (ecologists and conservation scientists, n = 11) and decision makers (n = 11). We used Q methodology and asked participants to rank their agreement with 48 statements on how the science–practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions. We used principal component analysis to identify shared viewpoints. The predominant viewpoint, shared by scientists and decision makers, was characterized by valuing the integration of scientific and strategic knowledge to address environmental problems. The second viewpoint, held mostly by decision makers, was distinguished by assigning great importance to science in the decision-making process and calling for problem-relevant research. The third viewpoint, shared only by scientists, was characterized by an unwillingness to collaborate and a perception of scientists as producers of knowledge that may help decision makers. Most participants agreed organizations should promote collaboration and that actors and knowledge from both science and practice are relevant. Disagreements concerned specific roles assigned to actors, willingness to collaborate, and organizational and institutional arrangements considered effective to link science and practice. Our results suggest there is ample room for collaborations and that impediments lie mainly in existing organizations and formal institutional arrangements rather than in negative attitudes between scientists and decision makers.     

Campesino hunting and conservation in Latin America

Hunting presents a paradox for biodiversity conservation. It is both a problem and a solution to species declines and poverty. Yet, conservation scientists hold different assumptions about the significance and sustainability of hunting based on the cultures and identities of hunters. In Latin America, conservationists largely sort hunters as either indigenous or campesino. Indigenous hunters are often characterized as culturally driven stewards of wildlife sustainability. Campesino hunters, by contrast, are described as peasants—cultureless, uneducated, and uncaring toward wildlife sustainability. Although such ethnically fueled hunting discourse promotes hunting research, campesino hunters remain underrepresented in most comparative hunting reviews. Moreover, there are no targeted syntheses on the current state of knowledge about campesino hunting, nothing to guide conservation research and practice with and for the largest group of hunters in Latin America. We reviewed 334 articles published from 1937 to 2018 in English (55%) and Spanish (45%)—mostly published in 145 peer-reviewed journals—on the meanings, motivations, and sustainability of campesino hunting in Latin America. Although studies spanned 17 countries, 7 ecosystems, and >75 indigenous and nonindigenous demographics in 30 research contexts, they predominantly focused on nonindigenous campesinos for species-specific conservation and protected area management in tropical broadleaf forests of Mexico, Peru, and Colombia. Authors used 12 methods to collect campesino hunting data, primarily interviews, surveys, and questionnaires, and drew from 10 local and traditional knowledge themes about wildlife trends and uses. Eighteen drivers, 14 constraints, and 10 conflicts—mainly subsistence, income, ethics, regulations, and crop or livestock protection—shaped whether campesino hunters pursued 799 species, 70% of which were least concern species. Yet, only 25 studies (8%) empirically assessed sustainability. Our results show the need for increased interdisciplinary and geographic engagement with campesino hunting across Latin America.     

Effects of Natura 2000 on nontarget bird and butterfly species based on citizen science data

The European Union's Natura 2000 (N2000) is among the largest international networks of protected areas. One of its aims is to secure the status of a predetermined set of (targeted) bird and butterfly species. However, nontarget species may also benefit from N2000. We evaluated how the terrestrial component of this network affects the abundance of nontargeted, more common bird and butterfly species based on data from long-term volunteer-based monitoring programs in 9602 sites for birds and 2001 sites for butterflies. In almost half of the 155 bird species assessed, and particularly among woodland specialists, abundance increased (slope estimates ranged from 0.101 [SD 0.042] to 3.51 [SD 1.30]) as the proportion of landscape covered by N2000 sites increased. This positive relationship existed for 27 of the 104 butterfly species (estimates ranged from 0.382 [SD 0.163] to 4.28 [SD 0.768]), although most butterflies were generalists. For most species, when land-cover covariates were accounted for these positive relationships were not evident, meaning land cover may be a determinant of positive effects of the N2000 network. The increase in abundance as N2000 coverage increased correlated with the specialization index for birds, but not for butterflies. Although the N2000 network supports high abundance of a large spectrum of species, the low number of specialist butterflies with a positive association with the N2000 network shows the need to improve the habitat quality of N2000 sites that could harbor open-land butterfly specialists. For a better understanding of the processes involved, we advocate for standardized collection of data at N2000 sites.     

Rethinking the native range concept

A species is not native outside its native range, but native range is not precisely defined. The invasion literature contains wide discussion of the core concepts such as naturalization, invasiveness, and ecological impact, but the concept of native range has received so little attention that a formal definition does not exist. I considered, among other impediments to a formal definition of native range, the sometimes arbitrariness of the spatial and temporal limits assigned to native range. Broad questions that remain include whether invasion theory can be used to define the native range for species without non-native ranges.     

Nonadditive effects among threats on rare plant species

The current loss of biodiversity has put 50,000 plant species at an elevated risk of extinction worldwide. Conserving at-risk species is often complicated by covariance or nonadditivity among threats, which makes it difficult to determine optimal management strategies. We sought to demographically quantify covariance and nonadditive effects of more threats on more rare plant species than ever attempted in a single analysis. We used 1082 population reports from 186 populations across 3 U.S. states of 27 rare, herbaceous plant species collected over 15 years by citizen scientists. We used a linear mixed-effects model with 4 threats and their interactions as fixed predictors, species as a random predictor, and annual growth rates as the response. We found a significant 3-way interaction on annual growth rates; rare plant population sizes were reduced by 46% during the time immediately after disturbance when populations were also browsed by deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and had high levels of encroachment by woody species. This nonadditive effect should be considered a major threat to the persistence of rare plant species. Our results highlight the need for comprehensive, multithreat assessments to determine optimal conservation actions.     

Mediation of area and edge effects in forest fragments by adjacent land use

Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation have pervasive detrimental effects on tropical forest biodiversity, but the role of the surrounding land use (i.e., matrix) in determining the severity of these impacts remains poorly understood. We surveyed bird species across an interior-edge-matrix gradient to assess the effects of matrix type on biodiversity at 49 different sites with varying levels of landscape fragmentation in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest—a highly threatened biodiversity hotspot. Both area and edge effects were more pronounced in forest patches bordering pasture matrix, whereas patches bordering Eucalyptus plantation maintained compositionally similar bird communities between the edge and the interior and exhibited reduced effects of patch size. These results suggest the type of matrix in which forest fragments are situated can explain a substantial amount of the widely reported variability in biodiversity responses to forest loss and fragmentation.     

Understanding Publication Bias in Reintroduction Biology by Assessing Translocations of New Zealand's Herpetofauna

The intentional translocation of animals is an important tool for species conservation and ecosystem restoration, but reported success rates are low, particularly for threatened and endangered species. Publication bias further distorts success rates because the results of successful translocations may be more likely to be published than failed translocations. We conducted the first comprehensive review of all published and unpublished translocations of herpetofauna in New Zealand to assess publication bias. Of 74 translocations of 29 species in 25 years, 35 have been reported in the published literature, and the outcomes of 12 have been published. Using a traditional definition of success, publication bias resulted in a gross overestimate of translocation success rates (41.7% and 8.1% for published and all translocations, respectively), but bias against failed translocations was minimal (8.3% and 6.8%, respectively). Publication bias against translocations with uncertain outcomes, the vast majority of projects, was also strong (50.0% and 85.1% for published and all translocations, respectively). Recent translocations were less likely to be published than older translocations. The reasons behind translocations were related to publication. A greater percentage of translocations for conservation and research were published (63.3% and 40.0%, respectively) than translocations for mitigation during land development (10.0%). Translocations conducted in collaboration with a university were more frequently published (82.7% and 24.4%, respectively). To account for some of this publication bias, we reassessed the outcome of each translocation using a standardized definition of success, which takes into consideration the species’ life history and the time since release. Our standardized definition of translocation success provided a more accurate summary of success rates and allows for a more rigorous evaluation of the causes of translocation success and failure in large‐scale reviews. Entendiendo el Sesgo de Publicaciones en la Biología de la Reintroducción Mediante el Estudio de Traslocaciones de la Herpetofauna de Nueva Zelanda