Critical pedagogy of place to enhance ecological engagement activities

Scientists in higher education institutions around the globe recognize the importance of engaging with public stakeholders to share their enthusiasm, explain their science, and encourage primary and secondary students to enter the sciences. However, without direct consideration of students’ and teachers’ perspectives and interests, scientists may design activities around their own goals, limiting the impact on school stakeholders (i.e., students, teachers, paraprofessional staff, students’ parents, and other caregivers). We drew from natural and social science research to describe how expanding the conception of place beyond the biophysical can help engage school stakeholders in meaningful ways. We describe the multidimensional PLACE framework that we developed to integrate perspectives, knowledge, and values of all stakeholders in engagement programming. The framework is organized around topics that stakeholders should discuss early on to ensure successful partnerships. We recommend that scientists identify and use pedagogy that is inclusive; language framed around dialogic communication methods; aims and motivations centered on engagement; cultural funds of knowledge of place (i.e., disciplinary, personal, or experiential knowledge); and evaluation of engagement based on meaningful metrics. Two case studies are presented to illustrate how the PLACE framework components, when addressed, can lead to robust, successful partnerships between scientists and schools.     

Validating graph-based connectivity models with independent presence–absence and genetic data sets

Habitat connectivity is a key objective of current conservation policies and is commonly modeled by landscape graphs (i.e., sets of habitat patches [nodes] connected by potential dispersal paths [links]). These graphs are often built based on expert opinion or species distribution models (SDMs) and therefore lack empirical validation from data more closely reflecting functional connectivity. Accordingly, we tested whether landscape graphs reflect how habitat connectivity influences gene flow, which is one of the main ecoevolutionary processes. To that purpose, we modeled the habitat network of a forest bird (plumbeous warbler [Setophaga plumbea]) on Guadeloupe with graphs based on expert opinion, Jacobs’ specialization indices, and an SDM. We used genetic data (712 birds from 27 populations) to compute local genetic indices and pairwise genetic distances. Finally, we assessed the relationships between genetic distances or indices and cost distances or connectivity metrics with maximum-likelihood population-effects distance models and Spearman correlations between metrics. Overall, the landscape graphs reliably reflected the influence of connectivity on population genetic structure; validation R² was up to 0.30 and correlation coefficients were up to 0.71. Yet, the relationship among graph ecological relevance, data requirements, and construction and analysis methods was not straightforward because the graph based on the most complex construction method (species distribution modeling) sometimes had less ecological relevance than the others. Cross-validation methods and sensitivity analyzes allowed us to make the advantages and limitations of each construction method spatially explicit. We confirmed the relevance of landscape graphs for conservation modeling but recommend a case-specific consideration of the cost-effectiveness of their construction methods. We hope the replication of independent validation approaches across species and landscapes will strengthen the ecological relevance of connectivity models.     

Inadvertent advocacy

Policy advocacy is an issue regularly debated among conservation scientists. These debates have focused on intentional policy advocacy by scientists, but advocacy can also be unintentional. I define inadvertent policy advocacy as the act of unintentionally expressing personal policy preferences or ethical judgments in a way that is nearly indistinguishable from scientific judgments. A scientist may be well intentioned and intellectually honest but still inadvertently engage in policy advocacy. There are two ways to inadvertently engage in policy advocacy. First, a scientist expresses an opinion that she or he believes is a scientific judgment but it is actually an ethical judgment or personal policy preference. Second, a scientist expresses an opinion that he or she knows is an ethical judgment or personal policy preference but inadvertently fails to effectively communicate the nature of the opinion to policy makers or the public. I illustrate inadvertent advocacy with three examples: recovery criteria in recovery plans for species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, a scientific peer review of a recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), and the International Union for Conservation of Nature's definition of threatened. In each example, scientists expressed ethical judgments or policy preferences, but their value judgments were not identified as such, and, hence, their value judgments were opaque to policy makers and the public. Circumstances suggest their advocacy was inadvertent. I believe conservation scientists must become acutely aware of the line between science and policy and avoid inadvertent policy advocacy because it is professional negligence, erodes trust in scientists and science, and perpetuates an ethical vacuum that undermines the rational political discourse necessary for the evolution of society's values. The principal remedy for inadvertent advocacy is education of conservation scientists in an effort to help them understand how science and values interact to fulfill the mission of conservation science.     

Evaluating unintended consequences of intentional species introductions and eradications for improved conservation management

Increasingly intensive strategies to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem function are being deployed in response to global anthropogenic threats, including intentionally introducing and eradicating species via assisted migration, rewilding, biological control, invasive species eradications, and gene drives. These actions are highly contentious because of their potential for unintended consequences. We conducted a global literature review of these conservation actions to quantify how often unintended outcomes occur and to elucidate their underlying causes. To evaluate conservation outcomes, we developed a community assessment framework for systematically mapping the range of possible interaction types for 111 case studies. Applying this tool, we quantified the number of interaction types considered in each study and documented the nature and strength of intended and unintended outcomes. Intended outcomes were reported in 51% of cases, a combination of intended outcomes and unintended outcomes in 26%, and strictly unintended outcomes in 10%. Hence, unintended outcomes were reported in 36% of all cases evaluated. In evaluating overall conservations outcomes (weighing intended vs. unintended effects), some unintended effects were fairly innocuous relative to the conservation objective, whereas others resulted in serious unintended consequences in recipient communities. Studies that assessed a greater number of community interactions with the target species reported unintended outcomes more often, suggesting that unintended consequences may be underreported due to insufficient vetting. Most reported unintended outcomes arose from direct effects (68%) or simple density-mediated or indirect effects (25%) linked to the target species. Only a few documented cases arose from more complex interaction pathways (7%). Therefore, most unintended outcomes involved simple interactions that could be predicted and mitigated through more formal vetting. Our community assessment framework provides a tool for screening future conservation actions by mapping the recipient community interaction web to identify and mitigate unintended outcomes from intentional species introductions and eradications for conservation.     

Genomic erosion in a demographically recovered bird species during conservation rescue

The pink pigeon (Nesoenas mayeri) is an endemic species of Mauritius that has made a remarkable recovery after a severe population bottleneck in the 1970s to early 1990s. Prior to this bottleneck, an ex situ population was established from which captive-bred individuals were released into free-living subpopulations to increase population size and genetic variation. This conservation rescue led to rapid population recovery to 400–480 individuals, and the species was twice downlisted on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. We analyzed the impacts of the bottleneck and genetic rescue on neutral genetic variation during and after population recovery (1993–2008) with restriction site-associated sequencing, microsatellite analyses, and quantitative genetic analysis of studbook data of 1112 birds from zoos in Europe and the United States. We used computer simulations to study the predicted changes in genetic variation and population viability from the past into the future. Genetic variation declined rapidly, despite the population rebound, and the effective population size was approximately an order of magnitude smaller than census size. The species carried a high genetic load of circa 15 lethal equivalents for longevity. Our computer simulations predicted continued inbreeding will likely result in increased expression of deleterious mutations (i.e., a high realized load) and severe inbreeding depression. Without continued conservation actions, it is likely that the pink pigeon will go extinct in the wild within 100 years. Conservation rescue of the pink pigeon has been instrumental in the recovery of the free-living population. However, further genetic rescue with captive-bred birds from zoos is required to recover lost variation, reduce expression of harmful deleterious variation, and prevent extinction. The use of genomics and modeling data can inform IUCN assessments of the viability and extinction risk of species, and it helps in assessments of the conservation dependency of populations.     

Transforming ecology and conservation biology through genome editing

As the conservation challenges increase, new approaches are needed to help combat losses in biodiversity and slow or reverse the decline of threatened species. Genome-editing technology is changing the face of modern biology, facilitating applications that were unimaginable only a decade ago. The technology has the potential to make significant contributions to the fields of evolutionary biology, ecology, and conservation, yet the fear of unintended consequences from designer ecosystems containing engineered organisms has stifled innovation. To overcome this gap in the understanding of what genome editing is and what its capabilities are, more research is needed to translate genome-editing discoveries into tools for ecological research. Emerging and future genome-editing technologies include new clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) targeted sequencing and nucleic acid detection approaches as well as species genetic barcoding and somatic genome-editing technologies. These genome-editing tools have the potential to transform the environmental sciences by providing new noninvasive methods for monitoring threatened species or for enhancing critical adaptive traits. A pioneering effort by the conservation community is required to apply these technologies to real-world conservation problems.     

A genoscape-network model for conservation prioritization in a migratory bird

Migratory animals are declining worldwide and coordinated conservation efforts are needed to reverse current trends. We devised a novel genoscape-network model that combines genetic analyses with species distribution modeling and demographic data to overcome challenges with conceptualizing alternative risk factors in migratory species across their full annual cycle. We applied our method to the long distance, Neotropical migratory bird, Wilson's Warbler (Cardellina pusilla). Despite a lack of data from some wintering locations, we demonstrated how the results can be used to help prioritize conservation of breeding and wintering areas. For example, we showed that when genetic, demographic, and network modeling results were considered together it became clear that conservation recommendations will differ depending on whether the goal is to preserve unique genetic lineages or the largest number of birds per unit area. More specifically, if preservation of genetic lineages is the goal, then limited resources should be focused on preserving habitat in the California Sierra, Basin Rockies, or Coastal California, where the 3 most vulnerable genetic lineages breed, or in western Mexico, where 2 of the 3 most vulnerable lineages overwinter. Alternatively, if preservation of the largest number of individuals per unit area is the goal, then limited conservation dollars should be placed in the Pacific Northwest or Central America, where densities are estimated to be the highest. Overall, our results demonstrated the utility of adopting a genetically based network model for integrating multiple types of data across vast geographic scales and better inform conservation decision-making for migratory animals.     

Compassionate versus consequentialist conservation

Ethical treatment of wildlife and consideration of animal welfare have become important themes in conservation, but ethical perspectives on how best to protect wild animals and promote their welfare are diverse. There are advantages to the consequentialist harms ethical framework applied in managing wild herbivores for conservation purposes. To minimize harms while achieving conservation goals, we argue that overabundant wild herbivores should in many cases be managed through consumptive in situ killing. Advantages of this policy are that the negative welfare states imposed on animals last only a short time; remaining animals are not deprived of positive welfare states (e.g., linked to rearing offspring); poor welfare states of animals in overabundant populations are avoided (e.g., starvation); negative welfare impacts on heterospecifics through resource depletion (i.e., competition) are prevented; harvesting meat reduces the number of (agricultural) animals raised to supply meat; and minimal costs maximize funding for other wildlife management and conservation priorities. Alternative ethical approaches to our consequentialist framework include deontology (containing animal rights) and virtue ethics, some of which underpin compassionate conservation. These alternative ethical approaches emphasize the importance of avoiding intentional killing of animals but, if no population reduction occurs, are likely to impose considerable unintentional harms on overabundant wildlife and indirectly harm heterospecifics through ineffective population reduction. If nonlethal control is used, it is likely that overabundant animals would be deprived of positive welfare states and economic costs would be prohibitive. We encourage conservation stakeholders to consider animal-welfare consequentialism as an ethical approach to minimize harms to the animals under their care as well as other animals that policies may affect while at the same time pursuing conservation goals.     

Hybridization,agency discretion,and implementation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that the “best available scientific and commercial data” be used to protect imperiled species from extinction and preserve biodiversity. However, it does not provide specific guidance on how to apply this mandate. Scientific data can be uncertain and controversial, particularly regarding species delineation and hybridization issues. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had an evolving hybrid policy to guide protection decisions for individuals of hybrid origin. Currently, this policy is in limbo because it resulted in several controversial conservation decisions in the past. Biologists from FWS must interpret and apply the best available science to their recommendations and likely use considerable discretion in making recommendations for what species to list, how to define those species, and how to recover them. We used semistructured interviews to collect data on FWS biologists’ use of discretion to make recommendations for listed species with hybridization issues. These biologists had a large amount of discretion to determine the best available science and how to interpret it but generally deferred to the scientific consensus on the taxonomic status of an organism. Respondents viewed hybridization primarily as a problem in the context of the ESA, although biologists who had experience with hybridization issues were more likely to describe it in more nuanced terms. Many interviewees expressed a desire to continue the current case‐by‐case approach for handling hybridization issues, but some wanted more guidance on procedures (i.e., a “flexible” hybrid policy). Field‐level information can provide critical insight into which policies are working (or not working) and why. The FWS biologists’ we interviewed had a high level of discretion, which greatly influenced ESA implementation, particularly in the context of hybridization.