纳板河保护区野生动物生境管理分析评价

根据纳板河保护区野生动物的生境特点，对保护区野生动物生境管理现状进行分析，提出保护区野生动物生境管理的措施建议。     

Biological parameters used in setting captive‐breeding quotas for Indonesia's breeding facilities

The commercial captive breeding of wildlife is often seen as a potential conservation tool to relieve pressure on wild populations, but laundering of wild‐sourced specimens as captive bred can seriously undermine conservation efforts and provide a false sense of sustainability. Indonesia is at the center of such controversy; therefore, we examined Indonesia's captive‐breeding production plan (CBPP) for 2016. We compared the biological parameters used in the CBPP with parameters in the literature and with parameters suggested by experts on each species and identified shortcomings of the CBPP. Production quotas for 99 out of 129 species were based on inaccurate or unrealistic biological parameters and production quotas deviated more than 10% from what parameters in the literature allow for. For 38 species, the quota exceeded the number of animals that can be bred based on the biological parameters (range 100–540%) calculated with equations in the CBPP. We calculated a lower reproductive output for 88 species based on published biological parameters compared with the parameters used in the CBPP. The equations used in the production plan did not appear to account for other factors (e.g., different survival rate for juveniles compared to adult animals) involved in breeding the proposed large numbers of specimens. We recommend the CBPP be adjusted so that realistic published biological parameters are applied and captive‐breeding quotas are not allocated to species if their captive breeding is unlikely to be successful or no breeding stock is available. The shortcomings in the current CBPP create loopholes that mean mammals, reptiles, and amphibians from Indonesia declared captive bred may have been sourced from the wild.     

Conservation and the 4 Rs,which are rescue,rehabilitation, release,and research

Vertebrate animals can be injured or threatened with injury through human activities, thus warranting their “rescue.” Details of wildlife rescue, rehabilitation, release, and associated research (our 4 Rs) are often recorded in large databases, resulting in a wealth of available information. This information has huge research potential and can contribute to understanding of animal biology, anthropogenic impacts on wildlife, and species conservation. However, such databases have been little used, few studies have evaluated factors influencing success of rehabilitation and/or release, recommended actions to conserve threatened species have rarely arisen, and direct benefits for species conservation are yet to be demonstrated. We therefore recommend that additional research be based on data from rescue, rehabilitation, and release of animals that is broader in scope than previous research and would have community support.     

Governing trade-offs in ecosystem services and disservices to achieve human–wildlife coexistence

Sustaining wildlife populations, which provide both ecosystem services and disservices, represents a worldwide conservation challenge. The ecosystem services and Ostrom's social–ecological systems frameworks have been adopted across natural and social sciences to characterize benefits from nature. Despite their generalizability, individually they do not include explicit tools for addressing the sustainable management of many wildlife populations. For instance, Ostrom's framework does not specifically address competing perspectives on wildlife, whereas the ecosystem services framework provides a limited representation of the social and governance context wherein such competing perspectives are embedded. We developed a unified social–ecological framework of ecosystem disservices and services (SEEDS) that advances both frameworks by explicitly acknowledging the importance of competing wildlife perspectives embedded in the social and governance contexts. The SEEDS framework emulates the hierarchical structure of Ostrom's social–ecological systems, but adds subsystems reflecting heterogeneous stakeholder views and experiences of wildlife-based services and disservices. To facilitate operationalizing SEEDS and further broader analyses across human–wildlife systems, we devised a list of variables to describe SEEDS subsystems, such as types and level of services and disservices, cost and benefit sharing, and social participation of stakeholders. Steps to implement SEEDS involve engaging local communities and stakeholders to define the subsystems, analyze interactions and outcomes, and identify leverage points and actions to remedy unwanted outcomes. These steps connect SEEDS with other existing approaches in social–ecological research and can guide analyses across systems or within individual systems to provide new insights and management options for sustainable human–wildlife coexistence.     

Setting population targets for mammals using body mass as a predictor of population persistence

Conservation planning and biodiversity assessments need quantitative targets to optimize planning options and assess the adequacy of current species protection. However, targets aiming at persistence require population‐specific data, which limit their use in favor of fixed and nonspecific targets, likely leading to unequal distribution of conservation efforts among species. We devised a method to derive equitable population targets; that is, quantitative targets of population size that ensure equal probabilities of persistence across a set of species and that can be easily inferred from species‐specific traits. In our method, we used models of population dynamics across a range of life‐history traits related to species’ body mass to estimate minimum viable population targets. We applied our method to a range of body masses of mammals, from 2 g to 3825 kg. The minimum viable population targets decreased asymptotically with increasing body mass and were on the same order of magnitude as minimum viable population estimates from species‐ and context‐specific studies. Our approach provides a compromise between pragmatic, nonspecific population targets and detailed context‐specific estimates of population viability for which only limited data are available. It enables a first estimation of species‐specific population targets based on a readily available trait and thus allows setting equitable targets for population persistence in large‐scale and multispecies conservation assessments and planning.     

Wildlife and wildlife management in Tanzania

Tanzania, arguably mainland Africa's most important nation for conservation, is losing habitat and natural resources rapidly. Moving away from a charcoal energy base and developing sustainable finance mechanisms for natural forests are critical to slowing persistent deforestation. Addressing governance and capacity deficits, including law enforcement, technical skills, and funding, across parts of the wildlife sector are key to effective wildlife protection. These changes could occur in tandem with bringing new models of natural resource management into play that include capacity building, corporate payment for ecosystem services, empowering nongovernmental organizations in law enforcement, greater private‐sector involvement, and novel community conservation strategies. The future of Tanzania's wildlife looks uncertain—as epitomized by the current elephant crisis—unless the country confronts issues of governance, embraces innovation, and fosters greater collaboration with the international community.     

Killing Tigers to Save Them: Fallacies of the Farming Argument

Abstract: The lucrative, illegal trade in tigers (Panthera tigris) remains a major conservation problem. Tiger farming has been proposed as a potential solution, with farmed tigers substituting for wild tigers. At first glance, this argument's logic seems simple: farming will increase the supply of tigers, prices will fall, and poaching will no longer be profitable. We contend, however, that this supply‐side argument relies on mistaken assumptions. First, tiger markets are imperfect, meaning they are dominated by a few producers who control price. Second, consumers prefer wild tigers to farmed tigers and therefore the two are not pure substitutes. In economic terms, products from wild tigers are luxury goods, commanding a price premium. Third, there is no evidence that farmed tigers can be produced or sold more cheaply than wild tigers. In sum, it is unlikely that farming will drive down the price of wild‐caught tigers or decrease profitability for tiger poachers. Rather, tiger farming is more likely to increase aggregate demand for tiger products and stimulate higher levels of poaching.     

On the conflicts of wildlife management in Africa

SUMMARY

The paper analyses the conflict between wildlife conservation and the costs and benefits obtained from it in an East African context. A well defined agency is managing a national park of fixed area. Wildlife is also assumed to be ‘owned’ by the park authority. The park owner has therefore economic incentives to conserve the wildlife. The management policy, however, does not take into account the damage caused to the production of the agropastoralists living in the proximity of the park by the wildlife roaming freely in and out of the park. The conflict is first analysed in a one-species framework. Next, the model is extented to a two-species framework where the species compete for grazing lands.     

Motivations for the use and consumption of wildlife products

The dominant approach to combating the illegal wildlife trade has traditionally been to restrict the supply of wildlife products. Yet conservationists increasingly recognize the importance of implementing demand-side interventions that target the end consumers in the trade chain. Their aim is to curb the consumption of wildlife or shift consumption to more sustainable alternatives. However, there are still considerable knowledge gaps in understanding of the diversity of consumer motivations in the context of illegal wildlife trade, which includes hundreds of thousands of species, different uses, and diverse contexts. Based on consultation with multiple experts from a diversity of backgrounds, nationalities, and focal taxa, we developed a typology of common motivations held by wildlife consumers that can be used to inform conservation interventions. We identified 5 main motivational categories for wildlife use: experiential, social, functional, financial, and spiritual, each containing subcategories. This framework is intended to facilitate the segmentation of consumers based on psychographics and allow the tailoring of interventions—whether behavior change campaigns, enforcement efforts, or incentive programs—to the specific context in which they will be used. Underlining the importance of consumer research and collaborating with local actors is an important step toward promoting a more systematic approach to the design of demand reduction interventions.