Assessing the components of adaptive capacity to improve conservation and management efforts under global change

Natural‐resource managers and other conservation practitioners are under unprecedented pressure to categorize and quantify the vulnerability of natural systems based on assessment of the exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity of species to climate change. Despite the urgent need for these assessments, neither the theoretical basis of adaptive capacity nor the practical issues underlying its quantification has been articulated in a manner that is directly applicable to natural‐resource management. Both are critical for researchers, managers, and other conservation practitioners to develop reliable strategies for assessing adaptive capacity. Drawing from principles of classical and contemporary research and examples from terrestrial, marine, plant, and animal systems, we examined broadly the theory behind the concept of adaptive capacity. We then considered how interdisciplinary, trait‐ and triage‐based approaches encompassing the oft‐overlooked interactions among components of adaptive capacity can be used to identify species and populations likely to have higher (or lower) adaptive capacity. We identified the challenges and value of such endeavors and argue for a concerted interdisciplinary research approach that combines ecology, ecological genetics, and eco‐physiology to reflect the interacting components of adaptive capacity. We aimed to provide a basis for constructive discussion between natural‐resource managers and researchers, discussions urgently needed to identify research directions that will deliver answers to real‐world questions facing resource managers, other conservation practitioners, and policy makers. Directing research to both seek general patterns and identify ways to facilitate adaptive capacity of key species and populations within species, will enable conservation ecologists and resource managers to maximize returns on research and management investment and arrive at novel and dynamic management and policy decisions.     

The role of agri‐environment schemes in conservation and environmental management

Over half of the European landscape is under agricultural management and has been for millennia. Many species and ecosystems of conservation concern in Europe depend on agricultural management and are showing ongoing declines. Agri‐environment schemes (AES) are designed partly to address this. They are a major source of nature conservation funding within the European Union (EU) and the highest conservation expenditure in Europe. We reviewed the structure of current AES across Europe. Since a 2003 review questioned the overall effectiveness of AES for biodiversity, there has been a plethora of case studies and meta‐analyses examining their effectiveness. Most syntheses demonstrate general increases in farmland biodiversity in response to AES, with the size of the effect depending on the structure and management of the surrounding landscape. This is important in the light of successive EU enlargement and ongoing reforms of AES. We examined the change in effect size over time by merging the data sets of 3 recent meta‐analyses and found that schemes implemented after revision of the EU's agri‐environmental programs in 2007 were not more effective than schemes implemented before revision. Furthermore, schemes aimed at areas out of production (such as field margins and hedgerows) are more effective at enhancing species richness than those aimed at productive areas (such as arable crops or grasslands). Outstanding research questions include whether AES enhance ecosystem services, whether they are more effective in agriculturally marginal areas than in intensively farmed areas, whether they are more or less cost‐effective for farmland biodiversity than protected areas, and how much their effectiveness is influenced by farmer training and advice? The general lesson from the European experience is that AES can be effective for conserving wildlife on farmland, but they are expensive and need to be carefully designed and targeted.     

Implications of genetics and current protected areas for conservation of 5 endangered primates in China

Most of China's 24–28 primate species are threatened with extinction. Habitat reduction and fragmentation are perhaps the greatest threats. We used published data from a conservation genetics study of 5 endangered primates in China (Rhinopithecus roxellana, R. bieti, R. brelichi, Trachypithecus francoisi, and T. leucocephalus); distribution data on these species; and the distribution, area, and location of protected areas to inform conservation strategies for these primates. All 5 species were separated into subpopulations with unique genetic components. Gene flow appeared to be strongly impeded by agricultural land, meadows used for grazing, highways, and humans dwellings. Most species declined severely or diverged concurrently as human population and crop land cover increased. Nature reserves were not evenly distributed across subpopulations with unique genetic backgrounds. Certain small subpopulations were severely fragmented and had higher extinction risk than others. Primate mobility is limited and their genetic structure is strong and susceptible to substantial loss of diversity due to local extinction. Thus, to maximize preservation of genetic diversity in all these primate species, our results suggest protection is required for all sub‐populations. Key priorities for their conservation include maintaining R. roxellana in Shennongjia national reserve, subpopulations S4 and S5 of R. bieti and of R. brelichi in Fanjingshan national reserve, subpopulation CGX of T. francoisi in central Guangxi Province, and all 3 T. leucocephalus sub‐populations in central Guangxi Province.     

Seed plant phylogenetic diversity and species richness in conservation planning within a global biodiversity hotspot in eastern Asia

One of the main goals of conservation biology is to understand the factors shaping variation in biodiversity across the planet. This understanding is critical for conservation planners to be able to develop effective conservation strategies. Although many studies have focused on species richness and the protection of rare and endemic species, less attention has been paid to the protection of the phylogenetic dimension of biodiversity. We explored how phylogenetic diversity, species richness, and phylogenetic community structure vary in seed plant communities along an elevational gradient in a relatively understudied high mountain region, the Dulong Valley, in southeastern Tibet, China. As expected, phylogenetic diversity was well correlated with species richness among the elevational bands and among communities. At the community level, evergreen broad‐leaved forests had the highest levels of species richness and phylogenetic diversity. Using null model analyses, we found evidence of nonrandom phylogenetic structure across the region. Evergreen broad‐leaved forests were phylogenetically overdispersed, whereas other vegetation types tended to be phylogenetically clustered. We suggest that communities with high species richness or overdispersed phylogenetic structure should be a focus for biodiversity conservation within the Dulong Valley because these areas may help maximize the potential of this flora to respond to future global change. In biodiversity hotspots worldwide, we suggest that the phylogenetic structure of a community may serve as a useful measure of phylogenetic diversity in the context of conservation planning.     

Research priorities for conservation and natural resource management in Oceania's small‐island developing states

For conservation science to effectively inform management, research must focus on creating the scientific knowledge required to solve conservation problems. We identified research questions that, if answered, would increase the effectiveness of conservation and natural resource management practice and policy in Oceania's small‐island developing states. We asked conservation professionals from academia, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations across the region to propose such questions and then identify which were of high priority in an online survey. We compared the high‐priority questions with research questions identified globally and for other regions. Of 270 questions proposed by respondents, 38 were considered high priority, including: What are the highest priority areas for conservation in the face of increasing resource demand and climate change? How should marine protected areas be networked to account for connectivity and climate change? What are the most effective fisheries management policies that contribute to sustainable coral reef fisheries? High‐priority questions related to the particular challenges of undertaking conservation on small‐island developing states and the need for a research agenda that is responsive to the sociocultural context of Oceania. Research priorities for Oceania relative to elsewhere were broadly similar but differed in specific issues relevant to particular conservation contexts. These differences emphasize the importance of involving local practitioners in the identification of research priorities. Priorities were reasonably well aligned among sectoral groups. Only a few questions were widely considered answered, which may indicate a smaller‐than‐expected knowledge‐action gap. We believe these questions can be used to strengthen research collaborations between scientists and practitioners working to further conservation and natural resource management in this region.     

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.     

Protected areas as frontiers for human migration

Causes of human population growth near protected areas have been much debated. We conducted 821 interviews in 16 villages around Budongo Forest Reserve, Masindi district, Uganda, to explore the causes of human migration to protected areas and to identify differences in forest use between migrant and nonmigrant communities. We asked subjects for information about birthplace, migration, household assets, household activities, and forest use. Interview subjects were categorized as nonmigrants (born in one of the interview villages), socioeconomic migrants (chose to emigrate for economic or social reasons) from within Masindi district (i.e., local migrants) and from outside the Masindi district (i.e., regional migrants), or forced migrants (i.e., refugees or internally displaced individuals who emigrated as a result of conflict, human rights abuses, or natural disaster). Only 198 respondents were born in interview villages, indicating high rates of migration between 1998 and 2008. Migrants were drawn to Budongo Forest because they thought land was available (268 individuals) or had family in the area (161 individuals). A greater number of regional migrants settled in villages near Lake Albert than did forced and local migrants. Migration category was also associated with differences in sources of livelihood. Of forced migrants 40.5% earned wages through labor, whereas 25.5% of local and 14.5% of regional migrants engaged in wage labor. Migrant groups appeared to have different effects on the environment. Of respondents that hunted, 72.7% were regional migrants. Principal component analyses indicated households of regional migrants were more likely to be associated with deforestation. Our results revealed gaps in current models of human population growth around protected areas. By highlighting the importance of social networks and livelihood choices, our results contribute to a more nuanced understanding of causes of migration and of the environmental effects of different migrant groups.     

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.     

Large-sample-size assessment of socioeconomic predictors of community-level resource management occurrence

Community-level resource management efforts are cornerstones in ensuring sustainable use of natural resources. Yet, understanding how community characteristics influence management practices remains contested. With a sample size of ≥725 communities, we assessed the effects of key community (i.e., socioeconomic) characteristics (human population size and density, market integration, and modernization) on the probability of occurrence of fisheries management practices, including gear, species, and spatial restrictions. The study was based in Solomon Islands, a Pacific Island country with a population that is highly dependent on coastal fisheries. People primarily dwell in small communities adjacent to the coastline dispersed across 6 island provinces and numerous smaller islands. We used nationally collected data in binomial logistic regression models to examine the likelihood of management occurrence, given socioeconomic context of communities. In contrast to prevailing views, we identified a positive and statistically significant association between both human population size and market integration and all 3 management practices. Human population density, however, had a statistically significant negative association and modernization a varied and limited association with occurrence of all management practices. Our method offers a way to remotely predict the occurrence of resource management practices based on key socioeconomic characteristics. It could be used to improve understanding of why some communities conduct natural resource management activities when statistical patterns suggest they are not likely to and thus improve understanding of how some communities of people beat the odds despite limited market access and high population density.