A strategy for wildlife management in depopulating rural areas of Japan

Former ranges of wild animals have been reestablished in many developed countries. However, this reestablishment has led to increasing human–wildlife conflict in agroforest ecosystems. In Japan, human–wildlife conflict, such as crop raiding by and ecological impacts of wild ungulates and primates, is a serious problem in depopulated rural areas due to these animal range expansions and increased abundances. Japan's human population is predicted to decline by 24% by 2050, and approximately 20% of agricultural settlements will become completely depopulated. In this scenario, anthropogenic pressures on wildlife (e.g., hunting and habitat alteration) will continue to decrease and human–wildlife conflict will increase due to increasing wildlife recovery. Japan's local governments plan to slow range recovery, prevent species reestablishment, or remove recolonizing large mammals through lethal control. This strategy, however, is not cost-effective, and workforce shortages in depopulated communities make it infeasible. Moreover, the suppression of wildlife prevents the recovery of ecological functions and thus would degrade regional biodiversity. The declining pressure on wildlife that accompanies human depopulation will prevent the restoration of any past states of human–wildlife interaction. We suggest human-used areas in rural landscapes be aggregated in compact cities and that in transition zones between human settlements and depopulated lands that land-sharing approaches be applied. Concentrating management efforts in compact cities may effectively decrease human–wildlife conflict, rather than intensifying human pressures. Reforestation of depopulated lands may lead to recovery of wildlife habitats, their ecosystem functions, and regional biodiversity due to minimization of negative anthropogenic effects (land-sparing approach). Balancing resolution of human–wildlife conflict and ecological rewilding could become a new, challenging task for regional wildlife managers.     

When all life counts in conservation

Conservation science involves the collection and analysis of data. These scientific practices emerge from values that shape who and what is counted. Currently, conservation data are filtered through a value system that considers native life the only appropriate subject of conservation concern. We examined how trends in species richness, distribution, and threats change when all wildlife count by adding so-called non-native and feral populations to the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List and local species richness assessments. We focused on vertebrate populations with founding members taken into and out of Australia by humans (i.e., migrants). We identified 87 immigrant and 47 emigrant vertebrate species. Formal conservation accounts underestimated global ranges by an average of 30% for immigrants and 7% for emigrants; immigrations surpassed extinctions in Australia by 52 species; migrants were disproportionately threatened (33% of immigrants and 29% of emigrants were threatened or decreasing in their native ranges); and incorporating migrant populations into risk assessments reduced global threat statuses for 15 of 18 species. Australian policies defined most immigrants as pests (76%), and conservation was the most commonly stated motivation for targeting these species in killing programs (37% of immigrants). Inclusive biodiversity data open space for dialogue on the ethical and empirical assumptions underlying conservation science.     

Evaluating unintended consequences of intentional species introductions and eradications for improved conservation management

Increasingly intensive strategies to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem function are being deployed in response to global anthropogenic threats, including intentionally introducing and eradicating species via assisted migration, rewilding, biological control, invasive species eradications, and gene drives. These actions are highly contentious because of their potential for unintended consequences. We conducted a global literature review of these conservation actions to quantify how often unintended outcomes occur and to elucidate their underlying causes. To evaluate conservation outcomes, we developed a community assessment framework for systematically mapping the range of possible interaction types for 111 case studies. Applying this tool, we quantified the number of interaction types considered in each study and documented the nature and strength of intended and unintended outcomes. Intended outcomes were reported in 51% of cases, a combination of intended outcomes and unintended outcomes in 26%, and strictly unintended outcomes in 10%. Hence, unintended outcomes were reported in 36% of all cases evaluated. In evaluating overall conservations outcomes (weighing intended vs. unintended effects), some unintended effects were fairly innocuous relative to the conservation objective, whereas others resulted in serious unintended consequences in recipient communities. Studies that assessed a greater number of community interactions with the target species reported unintended outcomes more often, suggesting that unintended consequences may be underreported due to insufficient vetting. Most reported unintended outcomes arose from direct effects (68%) or simple density-mediated or indirect effects (25%) linked to the target species. Only a few documented cases arose from more complex interaction pathways (7%). Therefore, most unintended outcomes involved simple interactions that could be predicted and mitigated through more formal vetting. Our community assessment framework provides a tool for screening future conservation actions by mapping the recipient community interaction web to identify and mitigate unintended outcomes from intentional species introductions and eradications for conservation.     

Evaluating the success of functional restoration after reintroduction of a lost avian pollinator

Conservation translocation is a common method for species recovery, for which one increasingly frequent objective is restoring lost ecological functions to promote ecosystem recovery. However, few conservation translocation programs explicitly state or monitor function as an objective, limiting the ability to test assumptions, learn from past efforts, and improve management. We evaluated whether translocations of hihi (Notiomystis cincta), a threatened New Zealand passerine, achieved their implicit objective of restoring lost pollination function. Through a pollinator-exclusion experiment, we quantified, with log response ratios (lnR), the effects of birds on fruit set and seed quality in hangehange (Geniostoma ligustrifolium), a native flowering shrub. We isolated the contributions of hihi by making comparisons across sites with and without hihi. Birds improved fruit set more at sites without hihi (lnR = 1.27) than sites with hihi (lnR = 0.50), suggesting other avian pollinators compensated for and even exceeded hihi contributions to fruit set. Although birds improved seed germination only at hihi sites (lnR = 0.22–0.41), plants at sites without hihi had germination rates similar to hihi sites because they produced 26% more filled seeds, regardless of pollination condition. Therefore, although our results showed hihi improved seed quality, they also highlighted the complexity of ecological functions. When an important species is lost, ecosystems may be able to achieve similar function through different means. Our results underscore the importance of stating and monitoring the ecological benefits of conservation translocations when functional restoration is a motivation to ensure these programs are achieving their objectives.     

Addressing social attitudes toward lethal control of wildlife in national parks

The extraordinary population growth of certain ungulate species is increasingly a concern in agroforestry areas because overabundance may negatively affect natural environments and human livelihoods. However, society may have negative perceptions of killing wildlife to reduce their numbers and mitigate damage. We used an online survey that included a choice experiment to determine Spanish citizens’ (n = 190) preferences toward wildlife population control measures related to negative effects of ungulate overabundance (negative impacts on vegetation and other wildlife species and disease transmission to livestock) in 2 agroforestry national parks in Spain. We used latent-class and willingness-to-pay in space models to analyze survey results. Two percent of respondents thought a national park should have no human intervention even if lack of management may cause environmental degradation, whereas 95% of respondents favored efforts to reduce damage caused by overabundant ungulate species. We estimated human well-being losses of survey respondents when sustainable effects of deer overabundance on the environment became unsustainable effects and well-being gains when sustainable effects transitioned to no visible effects. We found that the type of wildlife-control program was a very relevant issue for the respondents; indirect control in which killing was avoided was the preferred action. Sixty-six percent of respondents agreed with the option of hunters paying for culling animals to reduce ungulate impacts rather than management cost coming out of taxes, whereas 19% of respondents were against this option and willing to pay for other solutions in national parks. Our results suggest that killing wildlife in national parks could be a socially acceptable tool to manage overabundance problems in certain contexts, but it could also generate social conflicts.     

Whose voices count in biodiversity conservation? Ecological democracy in biodiversity offsetting,REDD+, and rewilding

ABSTRACT

Ecological democracy seeks environmentally sustainable ends through broad, active democratic participation. What happens when laws fostering participation in environmental decision-making and biodiversity preservation lead to differing results? What is best for biodiversity may not be what for local citizens believe is best. I examine conflicts and congruencies in the context of Biodiversity Offsetting, REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation), and the Rewilding movement. I ask questions that are legal (Who has what legal rights to speak for or against programs that enhance biodiversity?), epistemological (Whose expertise and knowledge matters when scientists and non-scientists don't agree?), axiological (Are some values objectively better, and why?), and normative (Whose opinions about biodiversity should count?). Many people have the right to participate in an ecological democracy: But when protecting biodiversity, who does and should have the right to be heard? I problematize the role that ‘local’ actors play in decision-making and describe the variegated role that experts – particularly biologists – play in ecological democracy when biodiversity preservation matters. To determine whose values and voices should be prioritized, I describe ‘deep equity,’ an axiological and normative groundwork for determining when biodiversity-promoting policies may be preferable even if affected citizens don't agree.     

Addressing inequality and intolerance in human–wildlife coexistence

Millennia of human conflict with wildlife have built a culture of intolerance toward wildlife among some stakeholders. We explored 2 key obstacles to improved human–wildlife coexistence: coexistence inequality (how the costs and benefits of coexisting with wildlife are unequally shared) and intolerance. The costs of coexisting with wildlife are often disproportionately borne by the so-called global south and rural communities, and the benefits often flow to the global north and urban dwellers. Attitudes and behaviors toward wildlife (tolerance versus intolerance) vary with social and cultural norms. We suggest more empathetic advocacy is needed that, for example, promotes conservation while appropriately considering those who bear the costs of conflict with wildlife. To achieve more equitable cost-sharing, we suggest limiting the costs incurred by those most affected or by sharing those costs more widely. For example, we advocate for the development of improved wildlife compensation schemes, increasing the scale of rewilding efforts, and preventing wildlife-derived revenue leaching out of the local communities bearing the costs of coexistence.     

Assessing the Potential to Restore Historic Grazing Ecosystems with Tortoise Ecological Replacements

The extinction of large herbivores, often keystone species, can dramatically modify plant communities and impose key biotic thresholds that may prevent an ecosystem returning to its previous state and threaten native biodiversity. A potentially innovative, yet controversial, landscape‐based long‐term restoration approach is to replace missing plant‐herbivore interactions with non‐native herbivores. Aldabran giant (Aldabrachelys gigantea) and Madagascan radiated (Astrochelys radiata) tortoises, taxonomically and functionally similar to the extinct Mauritian giant tortoises (Cylindraspis spp.), were introduced to Round Island, Mauritius, in 2007 to control the non‐native plants that were threatening persistence of native species. We monitored the response of the plant community to tortoise grazing for 11 months in enclosures before the tortoises were released and, compared the cost of using tortoises as weeders with the cost of using manual labor. At the end of this period, plant biomass; vegetation height and cover; and adult, seedling, flower, and seed abundance were 3–136 times greater in adjacent control plots than in the tortoise enclosures. After their release, the free‐roaming tortoises grazed on most non‐native plants and significantly reduced vegetation cover, height, and seed production, reflecting findings from the enclosure study. The tortoises generally did not eat native species, although they consumed those native species that increased in abundance following the eradication of mammalian herbivores. Our results suggest that introduced non‐native tortoises are a more cost‐effective approach to control non‐native vegetation than manual weeding. Numerous long‐term outcomes (e.g., change in species composition and soil seed bank) are possible following tortoise releases. Monitoring and adaptive management are needed to ensure that the replacement herbivores promote the recovery of native plants. Estudiando el Potencial para Restaurar Ecosistemas Históricos de Forrajeo con Reemplazos Ecológicos de Tortugas Terrestres     

Trajectories of rewilding: A taxonomy of wildland management

Rewilding, though a young term, already has numerous meanings. We use Q-methodology to investigate understandings and practices of rewilding amongst managers of wildland on 17 estates in the Scottish uplands. The estates, covering 207,200 ha, include all the main land ownership types in Scotland. All respondents value wildness and biodiversity highly, but the Q-study reveals significant divergence in the interpretations and practices of rewilding, especially concerning (i) the value of naturalness, (ii) the use of management interventions, (iii) the value of cultural heritage and traditional land uses, and (iv) the place of people within wildland. A tripartite taxonomy of wildland management approaches is developed, identifying three ‘centres of gravity’ along the continuum of viewpoints, emphasising, respectively, nature's autonomy, active restoration, and the maintenance of wildness within cultural landscapes. The taxonomy provides an analytic framework for evaluating the diverse and often conflicting aspirations for the management of wild places.