An occupancy‐based quantification of the highly imperiled status of desert fishes of the southwestern United States

Desert fishes are some of the most imperiled vertebrates worldwide due to their low economic worth and because they compete with humans for water. An ecological complex of fishes, 2 suckers (Catostomus latipinnis, Catostomus discobolus) and a chub (Gila robusta) (collectively managed as the so‐called three species) are endemic to the U.S. Colorado River Basin, are affected by multiple stressors, and have allegedly declined dramatically. We built a series of occupancy models to determine relationships between trends in occupancy, local extinction, and local colonization rates, identify potential limiting factors, and evaluate the suitability of managing the 3 species collectively. For a historical period (1889–2011), top performing models (AICc) included a positive time trend in local extinction probability and a negative trend in local colonization probability. As flood frequency decreased post‐development local extinction probability increased. By the end of the time series, 47% (95% CI 34‐61) and 15% (95% CI 6‐33) of sites remained occupied by the suckers and the chub, respectively, and models with the 2 species of sucker as one group and the chub as the other performed best. For a contemporary period (2001?2011), top performing (based on AIC_c) models included peak annual discharge. As peak discharge increased, local extinction probability decreased and local colonization probability increased. For the contemporary period, results of models that split all 3 species into separate groups were similar to results of models that combined the 2 suckers but not the chub. Collectively, these results confirmed that declines in these fishes were strongly associated with water development and that relative to their historic distribution all 3 species have declined dramatically. Further, the chub was distinct in that it declined the most dramatically and therefore may need to be managed separately. Our modeling approach may be useful in other situations in which targeted data are sparse and conservation status and best management approach for multiple species are uncertain.     

Implementing Agri-environment Policy: A Landscape Ecology Perspective

An integrated, landscape-scale approach to countryside management argues for whole farm or business targeting, and for inter-farm co-operation to enhance current Agri-environmental Policy (AEP) and to meet Agri-environmental Policy objectives. This paper describes the preliminary results of a study in the Lake District Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA), using the ArcView GIS. Spatial data describing the characteristics of farms, farm businesses and farmers are analysed. It is suggested that there is scope for spatially adjacent farms to co-operate through multi-farm management agreements, to achieve and advance the stated aims of the Lakes ESA. The discussion focuses on the potential of AEP schemes to be reoriented away from their present focus on individual farms and holdings, towards a broader geographical coverage and an integrated approach to the management of land across ownership boundaries.     

Quantifying and mapping species threat abatement opportunities to support national target setting

The successful implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity's post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework will rely on effective translation of targets from global to national level and increased engagement across diverse sectors of society. Species conservation targets require policy support measures that can be applied to a diversity of taxonomic groups, that link action targets to outcome goals, and that can be applied to both global and national data sets to account for national context, which the species threat abatement and restoration (STAR) metric does. To test the flexibility of STAR, we applied the metric to vascular plants listed on national red lists of Brazil, Norway, and South Africa. The STAR metric uses data on species’ extinction risk, distributions, and threats, which we obtained from national red lists to quantify the contribution that threat abatement and habitat restoration activities could make to reducing species’ extinction risk. Across all 3 countries, the greatest opportunity for reducing plant species’ extinction risk was from abating threats from agricultural activities, which could reduce species’ extinction risk by 54% in Norway, 36% in South Africa, and 29% in Brazil. Species extinction risk could be reduced by a further 21% in South Africa by abating threats from invasive species and by 21% in Brazil by abating threats from urban expansion. Even with different approaches to red-listing among countries, the STAR metric yielded informative results that identified where the greatest conservation gains could be made for species through threat-abatement and restoration activities. Quantifiably linking local taxonomic coverage and data collection to global processes with STAR would allow national target setting to align with global targets and enable state and nonstate actors to measure and report on their potential contributions to species conservation.     

The relative importance of COVID-19 pandemic impacts on biodiversity conservation globally

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an enormous impact on almost all aspects of human society and endeavor; the natural world and its conservation have not been spared. Through a process of expert consultation, we identified and categorized, into 19 themes and 70 subthemes, the ways in which biodiversity and its conservation have been or could be affected by the pandemic globally. Nearly 60% of the effects have been broadly negative. Subsequently, we created a compendium of all themes and subthemes, each with explanatory text, and in August 2020 a diverse group of experienced conservationists with expertise from across sectors and geographies assessed each subtheme for its likely impact on biodiversity conservation globally. The 9 subthemes ranked highest all have a negative impact. These were, in rank order, governments sidelining the environment during their economic recovery, reduced wildlife-based tourism income, increased habitat destruction, reduced government funding, increased plastic and other solid waste pollution, weakening of nature-friendly regulations and their enforcement, increased illegal harvest of wild animals, reduced philanthropy, and threats to survival of conservation organizations. In combination, these impacts present a worrying future of increased threats to biodiversity conservation but reduced capacity to counter them. The highest ranking positive impact, at 10, was the beneficial impact of wildlife-trade restrictions. More optimistically, among impacts ranked 11-20, 6 were positive and 4 were negative. We hope our assessment will draw attention to the impacts of the pandemic and, thus, improve the conservation community's ability to respond to such threats in the future.