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     

Current Status of Marine Protected Areas in Latin America and the Caribbean

Abstract: Marine protected areas (MPAs), including no‐take marine reserves (MRs), play an important role in the conservation of marine biodiversity. We document the status of MPAs and MRs in Latin America and the Caribbean, where little has been reported on the scope of such protection. Our survey of protected area databases, published and unpublished literature, and Internet searches yielded information from 30 countries and 12 overseas territories. At present more than 700 MPAs have been established, covering more than 300,000 km² or 1.5% of the coastal and shelf waters. We report on the status of 3 categories of protection: MPAs (limited take throughout the area), MRs (no‐take throughout the area), and mixed‐use (a limited‐take MPA that contains an MR). The majority of protected areas in Latin America and the Caribbean are MPAs, which allow some or extensive extractive activities throughout the designated area. These 571 sites cover 51,505 km² or 0.3% of coastal and shelf waters. There are 98 MRs covering 16,862 km² or 0.1% of the coastal and shelf waters. Mixed‐use MPAs are the fewest in number (87), but cover the largest area (236,853 km², 1.2%). Across Latin America and the Caribbean, many biogeographic provinces are underrepresented in these protected areas. Large coastal regions remain unprotected, in particular, the southern Pacific and southern Atlantic coasts of South America. Our analysis reveals multiple opportunities to strengthen marine conservation in Latin America and the Caribbean by improving implementation, management, and enforcement of existing MPAs; adding new MPAs and MRs strategically to enhance connectivity and sustainability of existing protection; and establishing new networks of MPAs and MRs or combinations thereof to enhance protection where little currently exists.     

Limited contributions of released animals from zoos to North American conservation translocations

With the loss of biodiversity accelerating, conservation translocations such as reintroductions are becoming an increasingly common conservation tool. Conservation translocations must source individuals for release from either wild or captive-bred populations. We asked what proportion of North American conservation translocations rely on captive breeding and to what extent zoos and aquaria (hereafter zoos) fulfill captive breeding needs. We searched for mention of captive breeding and zoo involvement in all 1863 articles included in the North American Conservation Translocations database, which comprises journal articles and grey literature published before 2014 on conservation translocations in Canada, the United States, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central America before 2014 as identified by a comprehensive literature review. Conservation translocations involved captive breeding for 162 (58%) of the 279 animal species translocated. Fifty-four zoos contributed animals for release. The 40 species of animals bred for release by zoos represented only 14% of all animal species for which conservation translocations were published and only 25% of all animal species that were bred for releases occurring in North America. Zoo contributions varied by taxon, ranging from zoo-bred animals released in 42% of amphibian conservation translocations to zero contributions for marine invertebrates. Proportional involvement of zoos in captive-breeding programs for release has increased from 1974 to 2014 (r = 0.325, p = 0.0313) as has the proportion of translocation-focused scientific papers coauthored by zoo professionals (from 0% in 1974 to 42% in 2013). Although zoos also contribute to conservation translocations through education, funding, and professional expertise, increasing the contribution of animals for release in responsible conservation translocation programs presents a future conservation need and opportunity. We especially encourage increased dialogue and planning between the zoo community, academic institutions, and governments to optimize the direct contribution zoos can make to wildlife conservation through conservation translocations.     

A geological perspective on the degradation and conservation of western Atlantic coral reefs

Continuing coral‐reef degradation in the western Atlantic is resulting in loss of ecological and geologic functions of reefs. With the goal of assisting resource managers and stewards of reefs in setting and measuring progress toward realistic goals for coral‐reef conservation and restoration, we examined reef degradation in this region from a geological perspective. The importance of ecosystem services provided by coral reefs—as breakwaters that dissipate wave energy and protect shorelines and as providers of habitat for innumerable species—cannot be overstated. However, the few coral species responsible for reef building in the western Atlantic during the last approximately 1.5 million years are not thriving in the 21st century. These species are highly sensitive to abrupt temperature extremes, prone to disease infection, and have low sexual reproductive potential. Their vulnerability and the low functional redundancy of branching corals have led to the low resilience of western Atlantic reef ecosystems. The decrease in live coral cover over the last 50 years highlights the need for study of relict (senescent) reefs, which, from the perspective of coastline protection and habitat structure, may be just as important to conserve as the living coral veneer. Research is needed to characterize the geological processes of bioerosion, reef cementation, and sediment transport as they relate to modern‐day changes in reef elevation. For example, although parrotfish remove nuisance macroalgae, possibly promoting coral recruitment, they will not save Atlantic reefs from geological degradation. In fact, these fish are quickly nibbling away significant quantities of Holocene reef framework. The question of how different biota covering dead reefs affect framework resistance to biological and physical erosion needs to be addressed. Monitoring and managing reefs with respect to physical resilience, in addition to ecological resilience, could optimize the expenditure of resources in conserving Atlantic reefs and the services they provide.