Knowledge, values, uses and management of the Araucaria araucana forest by the indigenous Mapuche Pewenche people: A basis for collaborative natural resource management in southern Chile

One of the most important endemic tree species of Chile and at the same time one of the most endangered ones is Araucaria araucana (Mol.) C. Koch, the monkey‐puzzle tree. It grows in the Andes Mountains, homeland of the indigenous Mapuche Pewenche people who depend on this tree. This paper is based on field research that investigated the ecological knowledge, uses and management of the Araucaria araucana forest by indigenous Mapuche Pewenche people based on the socio‐cultural, spiritual and ecological relationships they have with the Araucaria forest, to find out how indigenous people and their knowledge could contribute to sustainable Araucaria forest management. A Mapuche Pewenche community located in the IX region of Chile contributed to this study. Based on the analyses this paper illustrates the nature of indigenous ecological knowledge of Araucaria araucana on the one hand, and its utility in native forest management on the other. The research shows that the Mapuche Pewenche hold ecological knowledge and conduct practices to manage their Araucaria forest in a balanced way. They conserve and use forest biodiversity at one and the same time. This paper provides recommendations for sustainable Araucaria forest management and conservation strategies ex‐situ and in‐situ incorporating indigenous knowledge and scientific knowledge and for promoting a collaborative natural resources management.     

Empirical Trials of Plant Field Guides

We designed 3 image‐based field guides to tropical forest plant species in Ghana, Grenada, and Cameroon and tested them with 1095 local residents and 20 botanists in the United Kingdom. We compared users’ identification accuracy with different image formats, including drawings, specimen photos, living plant photos, and paintings. We compared users’ accuracy with the guides to their accuracy with only their prior knowledge of the flora. We asked respondents to score each format for usability, beauty, and how much they would pay for it. Prior knowledge of plant names was generally low (<22%). With a few exceptions, identification accuracy did not differ significantly among image formats. In Cameroon, users identifying sterile Cola species achieved 46–56% accuracy across formats; identification was most accurate with living plant photos. Botanists in the United Kingdom accurately identified 82–93% of the same Cameroonian species; identification was most accurate with specimens. In Grenada, users accurately identified 74–82% of plants; drawings yielded significantly less accurate identifications than paintings and photos of living plants. In Ghana, users accurately identified 85% of plants. Digital color photos of living plants ranked high for beauty, usability, and what users would pay. Black and white drawings ranked low. Our results show the potential and limitations of the use of field guides and nonspecialists to identify plants, for example, in conservation applications. We recommend authors of plant field guides use the cheapest or easiest illustration format because image type had limited bearing on accuracy; match the type of illustration to the most likely use of the guide for slight improvements in accuracy; avoid black and white formats unless the audience is experienced at interpreting illustrations or keeping costs low is imperative; discourage false‐positive identifications, which were common; and encourage users to ask an expert or use a herbarium for groups that are difficult to identify. Pruebas Empíricas de Guías de Campo de Plantas Hawthorne, Cable & Marshall     

Developing an interdisciplinary and cross‐sectoral community of practice in the domain of forests and livelihoods

Although significant resources are being spent researching and fostering the relationship between forests and livelihoods to promote mutually beneficial outcomes, critical gaps in understanding persist. A core reason for such gaps is that researchers, practitioners, and policy makers lack the structured space to interact and collaborate, which is essential for effective, interdisciplinary research, practice, and evaluation. Thus, scientific findings, policy recommendations, and measured outcomes have not always been synthesized into deep, systemic understanding; learning from practice and implementation does not easily find its way into scientific analyses, and science often fails to influence policy. Communities of practice (CofPs) are dynamic sociocultural systems that bring people together to share and create knowledge around a common topic of interest. They offer participants a space and structure within which to develop new, systemic approaches to multidimensional problems on a common theme. Uniquely informed by a systems‐thinking perspective and drawing from the scientific and gray literatures and in‐depth interviews with representatives of established CofPs in the natural resource management and development domain, we argue that a well‐designed and adequately funded CofP can facilitate interdisciplinary and cross‐sectoral relationships and knowledge exchange. Well‐designed CofPs integrate a set of core features and processes to enhance individual, collective, and domain outcomes; they set out an initial but evolving purpose, encourage diverse leadership, and promote collective‐identity development. Funding facilitates effective communication strategies (e.g., in person meetings). We urge our colleagues across sectors and disciplines to take advantage of CofPs to advance the domain of forests and livelihoods.     

Using empirical models of species colonization under multiple threatening processes to identify complementary threat‐mitigation strategies

Approaches to prioritize conservation actions are gaining popularity. However, limited empirical evidence exists on which species might benefit most from threat mitigation and on what combination of threats, if mitigated simultaneously, would result in the best outcomes for biodiversity. We devised a way to prioritize threat mitigation at a regional scale with empirical evidence based on predicted changes to population dynamics—information that is lacking in most threat‐management prioritization frameworks that rely on expert elicitation. We used dynamic occupancy models to investigate the effects of multiple threats (tree cover, grazing, and presence of an hyperaggressive competitor, the Noisy Miner (Manorina melanocephala) on bird‐population dynamics in an endangered woodland community in southeastern Australia. The 3 threatening processes had different effects on different species. We used predicted patch‐colonization probabilities to estimate the benefit to each species of removing one or more threats. We then determined the complementary set of threat‐mitigation strategies that maximized colonization of all species while ensuring that redundant actions with little benefit were avoided. The single action that resulted in the highest colonization was increasing tree cover, which increased patch colonization by 5% and 11% on average across all species and for declining species, respectively. Combining Noisy Miner control with increasing tree cover increased species colonization by 10% and 19% on average for all species and for declining species respectively, and was a higher priority than changing grazing regimes. Guidance for prioritizing threat mitigation is critical in the face of cumulative threatening processes. By incorporating population dynamics in prioritization of threat management, our approach helps ensure funding is not wasted on ineffective management programs that target the wrong threats or species.     

Cost‐effectiveness of conservation payment schemes for species with different range sizes

Payments to compensate landowners for carrying out costly land‐use measures that benefit endangered biodiversity have become an important policy instrument. When designing such payments, it is important to take into account that spatially connected habitats are more valuable for many species than isolated ones. One way to incentivize provision of connected habitats is to offer landowners an agglomeration bonus, that is, a bonus on top of payments they are receiving to conserve land if the land is spatially connected. Researchers have compared the cost‐effectiveness of the agglomeration bonus with 2 alternatives: an all‐or‐nothing, agglomeration payment, where landowners receive a payment only if the conserved land parcels have a certain level of spatial connectivity, and a spatially homogeneous payment, where landowners receive a payment for conserved land parcels irrespective of their location. Their results show the agglomeration bonus is rarely the most cost‐effective option, and when it is, it is only slightly better than one of the alternatives. This suggests that the agglomeration bonus should not be given priority as a policy design option. However, this finding is based on consideration of only 1 species. We examined whether the same applied to 2 species, one for which the homogeneous payment is best and the other for which the agglomeration payment is most cost‐effective. We modified a published conceptual model so that we were able to assess the cost‐effectiveness of payment schemes for 2 species and applied it to a grassland bird and a grassland butterfly in Germany that require the same habitat but have different spatial‐connectivity needs. When conserving both species, the agglomeration bonus was more cost‐effective than the agglomeration and the homogeneous payment; thus, we showed that as a policy the agglomeration bonus is a useful conservation‐payment option.     

Defining the Impact of Non‐Native Species

Non‐native species cause changes in the ecosystems to which they are introduced. These changes, or some of them, are usually termed impacts; they can be manifold and potentially damaging to ecosystems and biodiversity. However, the impacts of most non‐native species are poorly understood, and a synthesis of available information is being hindered because authors often do not clearly define impact. We argue that explicitly defining the impact of non‐native species will promote progress toward a better understanding of the implications of changes to biodiversity and ecosystems caused by non‐native species; help disentangle which aspects of scientific debates about non‐native species are due to disparate definitions and which represent true scientific discord; and improve communication between scientists from different research disciplines and between scientists, managers, and policy makers. For these reasons and based on examples from the literature, we devised seven key questions that fall into 4 categories: directionality, classification and measurement, ecological or socio‐economic changes, and scale. These questions should help in formulating clear and practical definitions of impact to suit specific scientific, stakeholder, or legislative contexts. Definiendo el Impacto de las Especies No‐Nativas     

Local Perceptions of Changes in Traditional Ecological Knowledge: A Case Study from Malekula Island,Vanuatu

Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) is a critical global resource that may be eroding amid social and environmental change. Here, we present data on local perceptions of TEK change from three communities on Malekula Island in Vanuatu. Utilizing a structured interview (n = 120), we find a common perception of TEK loss. Participants defined two key periods of TEK erosion (roughly 1940–1960 and 1980–present), and noted that TEK decline was driven both external (e.g., church) and internal (e.g., shifting values) processes. Erosion was perceived to more comprehensive in the worldview domain than in aspects of ethnobiological knowledge and practice. These data indicate the perceived fragility of TEK systems and the complexity of TEK change. TEK systems are critical to natural resource management, and data such as these will assist in designing nuanced responses to the ongoing loss of cultural knowledge and practice.     

Efficacy of created and restored nesting sites for the conservation of colonial Laridae in the South of France

By rapidly modifying key habitat components, habitat restoration is at risk of producing attractive cues for animals without providing habitats of sufficient quality. As such, individual fitness components, such as reproduction, could be reduced and restored habitats could become ecological traps. This risk notably appears by using artificial constructions in restoration projects, yet few studies have evaluated their efficacy in a robust way. We investigated this by analyzing 154 islets that were created or restored to improve the conservation status of 7 colonial Laridae species in the South of France. From 2007 to 2016, we compared occupancy dynamics and breeding parameters of these species between the restored sites and 846 unmanaged nesting sites. We also explored species’ preference for different nesting site characteristics and their respective effect on breeding parameters. Restored nesting sites were 2–9 times as attractive as unmanaged sites for all species except the Black-headed Gull (Chroicocephalus ridibundus). Colonization probability was up to 100 times higher in sites already used by other species the previous year and increased with distance to the shore until >0.2 when distance was over 250 m. Abandonment probability was 29–70% lower when breeding was successful the previous year in all species except the Sandwich Tern (Thalasseus sandvicensis). Productivity and breeding success probability were 2 times higher on managed sites. Distance from the shore was an important attractive characteristic of artificial nesting sites in all species. Other nesting site characteristics had species-specific effects on colonization, abandonment, and breeding success. Our results indicate that managed nesting sites are successful conservation tools for colonial Laridae in the Mediterranean and do not act as ecological traps. Our study showed that testing the ecological trap hypothesis is a robust way to evaluate the success of restoration projects of breeding habitats.     

The role of digital data entry in participatory environmental monitoring

Many argue that monitoring conducted exclusively by scientists is insufficient to address ongoing environmental challenges. One solution entails the use of mobile digital devices in participatory monitoring (PM) programs. But how digital data entry affects programs with varying levels of stakeholder participation, from nonscientists collecting field data to nonscientists administering every step of a monitoring program, remains unclear. We reviewed the successes, in terms of management interventions and sustainability, of 107 monitoring programs described in the literature (hereafter programs) and compared these with case studies from our PM experiences in Australia, Canada, Ethiopia, Ghana, Greenland, and Vietnam (hereafter cases). Our literature review showed that participatory programs were less likely to use digital devices, and 2 of our 3 more participatory cases were also slow to adopt digital data entry. Programs that were participatory and used digital devices were more likely to report management actions, which was consistent with cases in Ethiopia, Greenland, and Australia. Programs engaging volunteers were more frequently reported as ongoing, but those involving digital data entry were less often sustained when data collectors were volunteers. For the Vietnamese and Canadian cases, sustainability was undermined by a mismatch in stakeholder objectives. In the Ghanaian case, complex field protocols diminished monitoring sustainability. Innovative technologies attract interest, but the foundation of effective participatory adaptive monitoring depends more on collaboratively defined questions, objectives, conceptual models, and monitoring approaches. When this foundation is built through effective partnerships, digital data entry can enable the collection of more data of higher quality. Without this foundation, or when implemented ineffectively or unnecessarily, digital data entry can be an additional expense that distracts from core monitoring objectives and undermines project sustainability. The appropriate role of digital data entry in PM likely depends more on the context in which it is used and less on the technology itself.     

Evaluating the Quality of Citizen‐Scientist Data on Pollinator Communities

Abstract: Concerns about pollinator declines have grown in recent years, yet the ability to detect changes in abundance, taxonomic richness, and composition of pollinator communities is hampered severely by the lack of data over space and time. Citizen scientists may be able to extend the spatial and temporal extent of pollinator monitoring programs. We developed a citizen‐science monitoring protocol in which we trained 13 citizen scientists to observe and classify floral visitors at the resolution of orders or super families (e.g., bee, wasp, fly) and at finer resolution within bees (superfamily Apoidea) only. We evaluated the protocol by comparing data collected simultaneously at 17 sites by citizen scientists (observational data set) and by professionals (specimen‐based data set). The sites differed with respect to the presence and age of hedgerows planted to improve habitat quality for pollinators. We found significant, positive correlations among the two data sets for higher level taxonomic composition, honey bee (Apis mellifera) abundance, non‐Apis bee abundance, bee richness, and bee community similarity. Results for both data sets also showed similar trends (or lack thereof) in these metrics among sites differing in the presence and age of hedgerows. Nevertheless, citizen scientists did not observe approximately half of the bee groups collected by professional scientists at the same sites. Thus, the utility of citizen‐science observational data may be restricted to detection of community‐level changes in abundance, richness, or similarity over space and time, and citizen‐science observations may not reliably reflect the abundance or frequency of occurrence of specific pollinator species or groups.