Improving effectiveness of systematic conservation planning with density data

Systematic conservation planning aims to design networks of protected areas that meet conservation goals across large landscapes. The optimal design of these conservation networks is most frequently based on the modeled habitat suitability or probability of occurrence of species, despite evidence that model predictions may not be highly correlated with species density. We hypothesized that conservation networks designed using species density distributions more efficiently conserve populations of all species considered than networks designed using probability of occurrence models. To test this hypothesis, we used the Zonation conservation prioritization algorithm to evaluate conservation network designs based on probability of occurrence versus density models for 26 land bird species in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. We assessed the efficacy of each conservation network based on predicted species densities and predicted species diversity. High‐density model Zonation rankings protected more individuals per species when networks protected the highest priority 10‐40% of the landscape. Compared with density‐based models, the occurrence‐based models protected more individuals in the lowest 50% priority areas of the landscape. The 2 approaches conserved species diversity in similar ways: predicted diversity was higher in higher priority locations in both conservation networks. We conclude that both density and probability of occurrence models can be useful for setting conservation priorities but that density‐based models are best suited for identifying the highest priority areas. Developing methods to aggregate species count data from unrelated monitoring efforts and making these data widely available through ecoinformatics portals such as the Avian Knowledge Network will enable species count data to be more widely incorporated into systematic conservation planning efforts.     

The case for policy‐relevant conservation science

Drawing on the “evidence‐based” (Sutherland et al. 2013) versus “evidence‐informed” debate (Adams & Sandbrook 2013), which has become prominent in conservation science, I argue that science can be influential if it holds a dual reference (Lentsch & Weingart 2011) that contributes to the needs of policy makers whilst maintaining technical rigor. In line with such a strategy, conservation scientists are increasingly recognizing the usefulness of constructing narratives through which to enhance the influence of their evidence (Leslie et al. 2013; Lawton & Rudd 2014). Yet telling stories alone is rarely enough to influence policy; instead, these narratives must be policy relevant. To ensure that evidence is persuasive alongside other factors in a complex policy‐making process, conservation scientists could follow 2 steps: reframe within salient political contexts and engage more productively in boundary work, which is defined as the ways in which scientists “construct, negotiate, and defend the boundary between science and policy” (Owens et al. 2006:640). These will both improve the chances of evidence‐informed conservation policy.     

Aligning science and policy to achieve evolutionarily enlightened conservation

There is increasing recognition among conservation scientists that long‐term conservation outcomes could be improved through better integration of evolutionary theory into management practices. Despite concerns that the importance of key concepts emerging from evolutionary theory (i.e., evolutionary principles and processes) are not being recognized by managers, there has been little effort to determine the level of integration of evolutionary theory into conservation policy and practice. We assessed conservation policy at 3 scales (international, national, and provincial) on 3 continents to quantify the degree to which key evolutionary concepts, such as genetic diversity and gene flow, are being incorporated into conservation practice. We also evaluated the availability of clear guidance within the applied evolutionary biology literature as to how managers can change their management practices to achieve better conservation outcomes. Despite widespread recognition of the importance of maintaining genetic diversity, conservation policies provide little guidance about how this can be achieved in practice and other relevant evolutionary concepts, such as inbreeding depression, are mentioned rarely. In some cases the poor integration of evolutionary concepts into management reflects a lack of decision‐support tools in the literature. Where these tools are available, such as risk‐assessment frameworks, they are not being adopted by conservation policy makers, suggesting that the availability of a strong evidence base is not the only barrier to evolutionarily enlightened management. We believe there is a clear need for more engagement by evolutionary biologists with policy makers to develop practical guidelines that will help managers make changes to conservation practice. There is also an urgent need for more research to better understand the barriers to and opportunities for incorporating evolutionary theory into conservation practice.     

The alignment of agricultural and nature conservation policies in the European Union

Europe is a region of relatively high population density and productive agriculture subject to substantial government intervention under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Many habitats and species of high conservation interest have been created by the maintenance of agricultural practices over long periods. These practices are often no longer profitable, and nature conservation initiatives require government support to cover the cost for them to be continued. The CAP has been reformed both to reduce production of agricultural commodities at costs in excess of world prices and to establish incentives for landholders to adopt voluntary conservation measures. A separate nature conservation policy has established an extensive series of protected sites (Natura 2000) that has, as yet, failed to halt the loss of biodiversity. Additional broader scale approaches have been advocated for conservation in the wider landscape matrix, including the alignment of agricultural and nature conservation policies, which remains a challenge. Possibilities for alignment include further shifting of funds from general support for farmers toward targeted payments for biodiversity goals at larger scales and adoption of an ecosystem approach. The European response to the competing demands for land resources may offer lessons globally as demands on rural land increase.     

Metabolism of aceclofenac in cattle to vulture‐killing diclofenac

The nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drug (NSAID) diclofenac is highly toxic to Gyps vultures, and its recent widespread use in South Asia caused catastrophic declines in at least 3 scavenging raptors. The manufacture of veterinary formulations of diclofenac has since been banned across the region with mixed success. However, at least 12 other NSAIDs are available for veterinary use in South Asia. Aceclofenac is one of these compounds, and it is known to metabolize into diclofenac in some mammal species. The metabolic pathway of aceclofenac in cattle, the primary food of vultures in South Asia, is unknown. We gave 6 cattle the recommended dose of aceclofenac (2 mg/kg), collected blood thereafter at intervals for up to 12 h, and used liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry in a pharmacokinetic analysis of aceclofenac and diclofenac in the plasma. Nearly all the aceclofenac administered to the cattle was very rapidly metabolized into diclofenac. At 2 h, half the aceclofenac had been converted into diclofenac, and at 12 h four‐fifths of the aceclofenac had been converted into diclofenac. Therefore, administering aceclofenac to livestock poses the same risk to vultures as administering diclofenac to livestock. This, coupled with the risk that aceclofenac may replace diclofenac in the veterinary market, points to the need for an immediate ban on all aceclofenac formulations that can be used to treat livestock. Without such a ban, the recovery of vultures across South Asia will not be successful.     

A novel holistic framework for genetic‐based captive‐breeding and reintroduction programs

Research in reintroduction biology has provided a greater understanding of the often limited success of species reintroductions and highlighted the need for scientifically rigorous approaches in reintroduction programs. We examined the recent genetic‐based captive‐breeding and reintroduction literature to showcase the underuse of the genetic data gathered. We devised a framework that takes full advantage of the genetic data through assessment of the genetic makeup of populations before (past component of the framework), during (present component), and after (future component) captive‐breeding and reintroduction events to understand their conservation potential and maximize their success. We empirically applied our framework to two small fishes: Yarra pygmy perch (Nannoperca obscura) and southern pygmy perch (Nannoperca australis). Each of these species has a locally adapted and geographically isolated lineage that is endemic to the highly threatened lower Murray–Darling Basin in Australia. These two populations were rescued during Australia's recent decade‐long Millennium Drought, when their persistence became entirely dependent on captive‐breeding and subsequent reintroduction efforts. Using historical demographic analyses, we found differences and similarities between the species in the genetic impacts of past natural and anthropogenic events that occurred in situ, such as European settlement (past component). Subsequently, successful maintenance of genetic diversity in captivity—despite skewed brooder contribution to offspring—was achieved through carefully managed genetic‐based breeding (present component). Finally, genetic monitoring revealed the survival and recruitment of released captive‐bred offspring in the wild (future component). Our holistic framework often requires no additional data collection to that typically gathered in genetic‐based breeding programs, is applicable to a wide range of species, advances the genetic considerations of reintroduction programs, and is expected to improve with the use of next‐generation sequencing technology.     

Quantifying the relative irreplaceability of important bird and biodiversity areas

World governments have committed to increase the global protected areas coverage by 2020, but the effectiveness of this commitment for protecting biodiversity depends on where new protected areas are located. Threshold‐ and complementarity‐based approaches have been independently used to identify important sites for biodiversity. We brought together these approaches by performing a complementarity‐based analysis of irreplaceability in important bird and biodiversity areas (IBAs), which are sites identified using a threshold‐based approach. We determined whether irreplaceability values are higher inside than outside IBAs and whether any observed difference depends on known characteristics of the IBAs. We focused on 3 regions with comprehensive IBA inventories and bird distribution atlases: Australia, southern Africa, and Europe. Irreplaceability values were significantly higher inside than outside IBAs, although differences were much smaller in Europe than elsewhere. Higher irreplaceability values in IBAs were associated with the presence and number of restricted‐range species; number of criteria under which the site was identified; and mean geographic range size of the species for which the site was identified (trigger species). In addition, IBAs were characterized by higher irreplaceability values when using proportional species representation targets, rather than fixed targets. There were broadly comparable results when measuring irreplaceability for trigger species and when considering all bird species, which indicates a good surrogacy effect of the former. Recently, the International Union for Conservation of Nature has convened a consultation to consolidate global standards for the identification of key biodiversity areas (KBAs), building from existing approaches such as IBAs. Our results informed this consultation, and in particular a proposed irreplaceability criterion that will allow the new KBA standard to draw on the strengths of both threshold‐ and complementarity‐based approaches.     

A roadmap for knowledge exchange and mobilization research in conservation and natural resource management

Scholars across all disciplines have long been interested in how knowledge moves within and beyond their community of peers. Rapid environmental changes and calls for sustainable management practices mean the best knowledge possible is needed to inform decisions, policies, and practices to protect biodiversity and sustainably manage vulnerable natural resources. Although the conservation literature on knowledge exchange (KE) and knowledge mobilization (KM) has grown in recent years, much of it is based on context‐specific case studies. This presents a challenge for learning cumulative lessons from KE and KM research and thus effectively using knowledge in conservation and natural resources management. Although continued research on the gap between knowledge and action is valuable, overarching conceptual frameworks are now needed to enable summaries and comparisons across diverse KE‐KM research. We propose a knowledge‐action framework that provides a conceptual roadmap for future research and practice in KE/KM with the aim of synthesizing lessons learned from contextual case studies and guiding the development and testing of hypotheses in this domain. Our knowledge‐action framework has 3 elements that occur at multiple levels and scales: knowledge production (e.g., academia and government), knowledge mediation (e.g., knowledge networks, actors, relational dimension, and contextual dimension), and knowledge‐based action (e.g., instrumental, symbolic, and conceptual). The framework integrates concepts from the sociology of science in particular, and serves as a guide to further comprehensive understanding of knowledge exchange and mobilization in conservation and sustainable natural resource management.     

Founder Effects,Inbreeding, and Loss of Genetic Diversity in Four Avian Reintroduction Programs

Abstract: The number of individuals translocated and released as part of a reintroduction is often small, as is the final established population, because the reintroduction site is typically small. Small founder and small resulting populations can result in population bottlenecks, which are associated with increased rates of inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity, both of which can affect the long‐term viability of reintroduced populations. I used information derived from pedigrees of four monogamous bird species reintroduced onto two different islands (220 and 259 ha) in New Zealand to compare the pattern of inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity among the reintroduced populations. Although reintroduced populations founded with few individuals had higher levels of inbreeding, as predicted, other factors, including biased sex ratio and skewed breeding success, contributed to high levels of inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity. Of the 10–58 individuals released, 4–25 genetic founders contributed at least one living descendent and yielded approximately 3–11 founder–genome equivalents (number of genetic founders assuming an equal contribution of offspring and no random loss of alleles across generations) after seven breeding seasons. This range is much lower than the 20 founder–genome equivalents recommended for captive‐bred populations. Although the level of inbreeding in one reintroduced population initially reached three times that of a closely related species, the long‐term estimated rate of inbreeding of this one population was approximately one‐third that of the other species due to differences in carrying capacities of the respective reintroduction sites. The increasing number of reintroductions to suitable areas that are smaller than those I examined here suggests that it might be useful to develop long‐term strategies and guidelines for reintroduction programs, which would minimize inbreeding and maintain genetic diversity.