Prioritizing sites for conservation based on similarity to historical baselines and feasibility of protection

The concept of shifting baselines in conservation science implies advocacy for the use of historical knowledge to inform these baselines but does not address the feasibility of restoring sites to those baselines. In many regions, conservation feasibility varies among sites due to differences in resource availability, statutory power, and land‐owner participation. We used zooarchaeological records to identify a historical baseline of the freshwater mussel community's composition before Euro‐American influence at a river‐reach scale (i.e., a kilometer stretch of river that is abiotically similar) in the Leon River of central Texas (U.S.A.). We evaluated how the community reference position and the feasibility of conservation might enable identification of sites where conservation actions would preserve historically representative communities and be likely to succeed. We devised a conceptual model that incorporated community information and landscape factors to link the best conservation areas to potential cost and conservation benefits. Using fuzzy ordination, we identified modern mussel beds that were most like the historical baseline. We then quantified housing density and land use near each river reach identified to estimate feasibility of habitat restoration. Using our conceptual framework, we identified reaches of high conservation value (i.e., contain the best mussel beds) and where restoration actions would be most likely to succeed. Reaches above Lake Belton were most similar in species composition and relative abundance to zooarchaeological sites. A subset of these mussel beds occurred in locations where conservation actions appeared most feasible. Our results show how to use zooarchaeological data (biodiversity data often readily available) and estimates of conservation feasibility to inform conservation priorities at a local spatial scale.     

Considering science needs to deliver actionable science

Conservation practitioners, natural resource managers, and environmental stewards often seek out scientific contributions to inform decision-making. This body of science only becomes actionable when motivated by decision makers considering alternative courses of action. Many in the science community equate addressing stakeholder science needs with delivering actionable science. However, not all efforts to address science needs deliver actionable science, suggesting that the synonymous use of these two constructs (delivering actionable science and addressing science needs) is not trivial. This can be the case when such needs are conveyed by people who neglect decision makers responsible for articulating a priority management concern and for specifying how the anticipated scientific information will aid the decision-making process. We argue that the actors responsible for articulating these science needs and the process used to identify them are decisive factors in the ability to deliver actionable science, stressing the importance of examining the provenance and the determination of science needs. Guided by a desire to enhance communication and cross-literacy between scientists and decision makers, we identified categories of actors who may inappropriately declare science needs (e.g., applied scientists with and without regulatory affiliation, external influencers, reluctant decision makers, agents in place of decision makers, and boundary organization representatives). We also emphasize the importance of, and general approach to, undertaking needs assessments or gap analyses as a means to identify priority science needs. We conclude that basic stipulations to legitimize actionable science, such as the declaration of decisions of interest that motivate science needs and using a robust process to identify priority information gaps, are not always satisfied and require verification. To alleviate these shortcomings, we formulated practical suggestions for consideration by applied scientists, decision makers, research funding entities, and boundary organizations to help foster conditions that lead to science output being truly actionable.     

Conservation implications of anthropogenic impacts on visual communication and camouflage

Anthropogenic environmental impacts can disrupt the sensory environment of animals and affect important processes from mate choice to predator avoidance. Currently, these effects are best understood for auditory and chemosensory modalities, and recent reviews highlight their importance for conservation. We examined how anthropogenic changes to the visual environment (ambient light, transmission, and backgrounds) affect visual communication and camouflage and considered the implications of these effects for conservation. Human changes to the visual environment can increase predation risk by affecting camouflage effectiveness, lead to maladaptive patterns of mate choice, and disrupt mutualistic interactions between pollinators and plants. Implications for conservation are particularly evident for disrupted camouflage due to its tight links with survival. The conservation importance of impaired visual communication is less documented. The effects of anthropogenic changes on visual communication and camouflage may be severe when they affect critical processes such as pollination or species recognition. However, when impaired mate choice does not lead to hybridization, the conservation consequences are less clear. We suggest that the demographic effects of human impacts on visual communication and camouflage will be particularly strong when human‐induced modifications to the visual environment are evolutionarily novel (i.e., very different from natural variation); affected species and populations have low levels of intraspecific (genotypic and phenotypic) variation and behavioral, sensory, or physiological plasticity; and the processes affected are directly related to survival (camouflage), species recognition, or number of offspring produced, rather than offspring quality or attractiveness. Our findings suggest that anthropogenic effects on the visual environment may be of similar importance relative to conservation as anthropogenic effects on other sensory modalities.     

A systematic review of animal personality in conservation science

Although animal personality research may have applied uses, this suggestion has yet to be evaluated by assessing empirical studies examining animal personality and conservation. To address this knowledge gap, we performed a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature relating to conservation science and animal personality. Criteria for inclusion in our review included access to full text, primary research articles, and relevant animal conservation or personality focus (i.e., not human personality studies). Ninety-two articles met these criteria. We summarized the conservation contexts, testing procedures (including species and sample size), analytical approach, claimed personality traits (activity, aggression, boldness, exploration, and sociability), and each report's key findings and conservation-focused suggestions. Although providing evidence for repeatability in behavior is crucial for personality studies, repeatability quantification was implemented in only half of the reports. Nonetheless, each of the 5 personality traits were investigated to some extent in a range of conservations contexts. The most robust studies in the field showed variance in how personality relates to other ecologically important variables across species and contexts. Moreover, many studies were first attempts at using personality for conservation purposes in a given study system. Overall, it appears personality is not yet a fully realized tool for conservation. To apply personality research to conservation problems, we suggest researchers think about where individual differences in behavior may affect conservation outcomes in their system, assess where there are opportunities for repeated measures, and follow the most current methodological guides on quantifying personality.     

The need for spatially explicit quantification of benefits in invasive‐species management

Worldwide, invasive species are a leading driver of environmental change across terrestrial, marine, and freshwater environments and cost billions of dollars annually in ecological damages and economic losses. Resources limit invasive‐species control, and planning processes are needed to identify cost‐effective solutions. Thus, studies are increasingly considering spatially variable natural and socioeconomic assets (e.g., species persistence, recreational fishing) when planning the allocation of actions for invasive‐species management. There is a need to improve understanding of how such assets are considered in invasive‐species management. We reviewed over 1600 studies focused on management of invasive species, including flora and fauna. Eighty‐four of these studies were included in our final analysis because they focused on the prioritization of actions for invasive species management. Forty‐five percent (n = 38) of these studies were based on spatial optimization methods, and 35% (n = 13) accounted for spatially variable assets. Across all 84 optimization studies considered, 27% (n = 23) explicitly accounted for spatially variable assets. Based on our findings, we further explored the potential costs and benefits to invasive species management when spatially variable assets are explicitly considered or not. To include spatially variable assets in decision‐making processes that guide invasive‐species management there is a need to quantify environmental responses to invasive species and to enhance understanding of potential impacts of invasive species on different natural or socioeconomic assets. We suggest these gaps could be filled by systematic reviews, quantifying invasive species impacts on native species at different periods, and broadening sources and enhancing sharing of knowledge.     

Changes in bird‐migration patterns associated with human‐induced mortality

Many bird populations have recently changed their migratory behavior in response to alterations of the environment. We collected data over 16 years on male Great Bustards (Otis tarda), a species showing a partial migratory pattern (sedentary and migratory birds coexisting in the same breeding groups). We conducted population counts and radio tracked 180 individuals to examine differences in survival rates between migratory and sedentary individuals and evaluate possible effects of these differences on the migratory pattern of the population. Overall, 65% of individuals migrated and 35% did not. The average distance between breeding and postbreeding areas of migrant individuals was 89.9 km, and the longest average movement of sedentary males was 3.8 km. Breeding group and migration distance had no effect on survival. However, mortality of migrants was 2.4 to 3.5 times higher than mortality of sedentary birds. For marked males, collision with power lines was the main cause of death from unnatural causes (37.6% of all deaths), and migratory birds died in collisions with power lines more frequently than sedentary birds (21.3% vs 6.3%). The percentage of sedentary individuals increased from 17% in 1997 to 45% in 2012. These results were consistent with data collected from radio‐tracked individuals: The proportion of migratory individuals decreased from 86% in 1997–1999 to 44% in 2006–2010. The observed decrease in the migratory tendency was not related to climatic changes (temperatures did not change over the study period) or improvements in habitat quality (dry cereal farmland area decreased in the main study area). Our findings suggest that human‐induced mortality during migration may be an important factor shaping the migration patterns of species inhabiting humanized landscapes.     

Understanding the Lessons and Limitations of Conservation and Development

Abstract: The lack of concrete instances in which conservation and development have been successfully merged has strengthened arguments for strict exclusionist conservation policies. Research has focused more on social cooperation and conflict of different management regimes and less on how these factors actually affect the natural environments they seek to conserve. Consequently, it is still unknown which strategies yield better conservation outcomes? We conducted a meta‐analysis of 116 published case studies on common resource management regimes from Africa, south and central America, and southern and Southeast Asia. Using ranked sociodemographic, political, and ecological data, we analyzed the effect of land tenure, population size, social heterogeneity, as well as internally devised resource‐management rules and regulations (institutions) on conservation outcome. Although land tenure, population size, and social heterogeneity did not significantly affect conservation outcome, institutions were positively associated with better conservation outcomes. There was also a significant interaction effect between population size and institutions, which implies complex relationships between population size and conservation outcome. Our results suggest that communities managing a common resource can play a significant role in conservation and that institutions lead to management regimes with lower environmental impacts.     

Motivations for Conserving Urban Biodiversity

Abstract: In a time of increasing urbanization, the fundamental value of conserving urban biodiversity remains controversial. How much of a fixed budget should be spent on conservation in urban versus nonurban landscapes? The answer should depend on the goals that drive our conservation actions, yet proponents of urban conservation often fail to specify the motivation for protecting urban biodiversity. This is an important shortcoming on several fronts, including a missed opportunity to make a stronger appeal to those who believe conservation biology should focus exclusively on more natural, wilder landscapes. We argue that urban areas do offer an important venue for conservation biology, but that we must become better at choosing and articulating our goals. We explored seven possible motivations for urban biodiversity conservation: preserving local biodiversity, creating stepping stones to nonurban habitat, understanding and facilitating responses to environmental change, conducting environmental education, providing ecosystem services, fulfilling ethical responsibilities, and improving human well‐being. To attain all these goals, challenges must be faced that are common to the urban environment, such as localized pollution, disruption of ecosystem structure, and limited availability of land. There are, however, also challenges specific only to particular goals, meaning that different goals will require different approaches and actions. This highlights the importance of specifying the motivations behind urban biodiversity conservation. If the goals are unknown, progress cannot be assessed.     

Spatial cost–benefit analysis of blue restoration and factors driving net benefits globally

Marine coastal ecosystems, commonly referred to as blue ecosystems, provide valuable services to society but are under increasing threat worldwide due to a variety of drivers, including eutrophication, development, land-use change, land reclamation, and climate change. Ecological restoration is sometimes necessary to facilitate recovery in coastal ecosystems. Blue restoration (i.e., in marine coastal systems) is a developing field, and projects to date have been small scale and expensive, leading to the perception that restoration may not be economically viable. We conducted a global cost–benefit analysis to determine the net benefits of restoring coral reef, mangrove, saltmarsh, and seagrass ecosystems, where the benefit is defined as the monetary value of ecosystem services. We estimated costs from published restoration case studies and used an adjusted-value-transfer method to assign benefit values to these case studies. Benefit values were estimated as the monetary value provided by ecosystem services of the restored habitats. Benefits outweighed costs (i.e., there were positive net benefits) for restoration of all blue ecosystems. Mean benefit:cost ratios for ecosystem restoration were eight to 10 times higher than prior studies of coral reef and seagrass restoration, most likely due to the more recent lower cost estimates we used. Among ecosystems, saltmarsh had the greatest net benefits followed by mangrove; coral reef and seagrass ecosystems had lower net benefits. In general, restoration in nations with middle incomes had higher (eight times higher in coral reefs and 40 times higher in mangroves) net benefits than those with high incomes. Within an ecosystem type, net benefit varied with restoration technique (coral reef and saltmarsh), ecosystem service produced (mangrove and saltmarsh), and project duration (seagrass). These results challenge the perceptions of the low economic viability of blue restoration and should encourage further targeted investment in this field.     

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.