Prioritizing islands for the eradication of invasive vertebrates in the United Kingdom overseas territories

Invasive alien species are one of the primary threats to native biodiversity on islands worldwide. Consequently, eradicating invasive species from islands has become a mainstream conservation practice. Deciding which islands have the highest priority for eradication is of strategic importance to allocate limited resources to achieve maximum conservation benefit. Previous island prioritizations focused either on a narrow set of native species or on a small geographic area. We devised a prioritization approach that incorporates all threatened native terrestrial vertebrates and all invasive terrestrial vertebrates occurring on 11 U.K. overseas territories, which comprise over 2000 islands ranging from the sub‐Antarctic to the tropics. Our approach includes eradication feasibility and distinguishes between the potential and realistic conservation value of an eradication, which reflects the benefit that would accrue following eradication of either all invasive species or only those species for which eradication techniques currently exist. We identified the top 25 priority islands for invasive species eradication that together would benefit extant populations of 155 native species including 45 globally threatened species. The 5 most valuable islands included the 2 World Heritage islands Gough (South Atlantic) and Henderson (South Pacific) that feature unique seabird colonies, and Anegada, Little Cayman, and Guana Island in the Caribbean that feature a unique reptile fauna. This prioritization can be rapidly repeated if new information or techniques become available, and the approach could be replicated elsewhere in the world. Priorización de Islas para la Erradicación de Vertebrados Invasores en los Territorios Exteriores del Reino Unido     

Edge effects on trophic cascades in tropical rainforests

The cascading effects of biodiversity loss on ecosystem functioning of forests have become more apparent. However, how edge effects shape these processes has yet to be established. We assessed how edge effects alter arthropod populations and the strength of any resultant trophic cascades on herbivory rate in tropical forests of Brazil. We established 7 paired forest edge and interior sites. Each site had a vertebrate-exclosure, procedural (exclosure framework with open walls), and control plot (total 42 plots). Forest patches were surrounded by pasture. Understory arthropods and leaf damage were sampled every 4 weeks for 11 months. We used path analysis to determine the strength of trophic cascades in the interior and edge sites. In forest interior exclosures, abundance of predaceous and herbivorous arthropods increased by 326% and 180%, respectively, compared with control plots, and there were significant cascading effects on herbivory. Edge-dwelling invertebrates responded weakly to exclusion and there was no evidence of trophic cascade. Our results suggest that the vertebrate community at forest edges controls invertebrate densities to a lesser extent than it does in the interior. Edge areas can support vertebrate communities with a smaller contingent of insectivores. This allows arthropods to flourish and indirectly accounts for higher levels of plant damage at these sites. Increased herbivory rates may have important consequences for floristic community composition and primary productivity, as well as cascading effects on nutrient cycling. By interspersing natural forest patches with agroforests, instead of pasture, abiotic edge effects can be softened and prevented from penetrating deep into the forest. This would ensure a greater proportion of forest remains habitable for sensitive species and could help retain ecosystem functions in edge zones.     

Global reforestation and biodiversity conservation

The loss of forest is a leading cause of species extinction, and reforestation is 1 of 2 established interventions for reversing this loss. However, the role of reforestation for biodiversity conservation remains debated, and lacking is an assessment of the potential contribution that reforestation could make to biodiversity conservation globally. We conducted a spatial analysis of overlap between 1,550 forest-obligate threatened species’ ranges and land that could be reforested after accounting for socioeconomic and ecological constraints. Reforestation on at least 43% (∼369 million ha) of reforestable area was predicted to potentially benefit threatened vertebrates. This is approximately 15% of the total area where threatened vertebrates occur. The greatest opportunities for conserving threatened vertebrate species are in the tropics, particularly Brazil and Indonesia. Although reforestation is not a substitute for forest conservation, and most of the area containing threatened vertebrates remains forested, our results highlight the need for global conservation strategies to recognize the potentially significant contribution that reforestation could make to biodiversity conservation. If implemented, reforestation of ∼369 million ha would also contribute substantially to climate-change mitigation, offering a way to achieve multiple sustainability commitments at once. Countries must now work to overcome key barriers (e.g., unclear revenue streams, high transaction costs) to investment in reforestation.     

Importance of health assessments for conservation in noncaptive wildlife

Wildlife health assessments help identify populations at risk of starvation, disease, and decline from anthropogenic impacts on natural habitats. We conducted an overview of available health assessment studies in noncaptive vertebrates and devised a framework to strategically integrate health assessments in population monitoring. Using a systematic approach, we performed a thorough assessment of studies examining multiple health parameters of noncaptive vertebrate species from 1982 to 2020 (n = 261 studies). We quantified trends in study design and diagnostic methods across taxa with generalized linear models, bibliometric analyses, and visual representations of study location versus biodiversity hotspots. Only 35% of studies involved international or cross-border collaboration. Countries with both high and threatened biodiversity were greatly underrepresented. Species that were not listed as threatened on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List represented 49% of assessed species, a trend likely associated with the regional focus of most studies. We strongly suggest following wildlife health assessment protocols when planning a study and using statistically adequate sample sizes for studies establishing reference ranges. Across all taxa blood analysis (89%), body composition assessments (81%), physical examination (72%), and fecal analyses (24% of studies) were the most common methods. A conceptual framework to improve design and standardize wildlife health assessments includes guidelines on the experimental design, data acquisition and analysis, and species conservation planning and management implications. Integrating a physiological and ecological understanding of species resilience toward threatening processes will enable informed decision making regarding the conservation of threatened species.     

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.     

Determining the drivers of population structure in a highly urbanized landscape to inform conservation planning

Understanding the environmental contributors to population structure is of paramount importance for conservation in urbanized environments. We used spatially explicit models to determine genetic population structure under current and future environmental conditions across a highly fragmented, human‐dominated environment in Southern California to assess the effects of natural ecological variation and urbanization. We focused on 7 common species with diverse habitat requirements, home‐range sizes, and dispersal abilities. We quantified the relative roles of potential barriers, including natural environmental characteristics and an anthropogenic barrier created by a major highway, in shaping genetic variation. The ability to predict genetic variation in our models differed among species: 11–81% of intraspecific genetic variation was explained by environmental variables. Although an anthropogenically induced barrier (a major highway) severely restricted gene flow and movement at broad scales for some species, genetic variation seemed to be primarily driven by natural environmental heterogeneity at a local level. Our results show how assessing environmentally associated variation for multiple species under current and future climate conditions can help identify priority regions for maximizing population persistence under environmental change in urbanized regions.     

Synergies and trade‐offs in achieving global biodiversity targets

After their failure to achieve a significant reduction in the global rate of biodiversity loss by 2010, world governments adopted 20 new ambitious Aichi biodiversity targets to be met by 2020. Efforts to achieve one particular target can contribute to achieving others, but different targets may sometimes require conflicting solutions. Consequently, lack of strategic thinking might result, once again, in a failure to achieve global commitments to biodiversity conservation. We illustrate this dilemma by focusing on Aichi Target 11. This target requires an expansion of terrestrial protected area coverage, which could also contribute to reducing the loss of natural habitats (Target 5), reducing human‐induced species decline and extinction (Target 12), and maintaining global carbon stocks (Target 15). We considered the potential impact of expanding protected areas to mitigate global deforestation and the consequences for the distribution of suitable habitat for >10,000 species of forest vertebrates (amphibians, birds, and mammals). We first identified places where deforestation might have the highest impact on remaining forests and then identified places where deforestation might have the highest impact on forest vertebrates (considering aggregate suitable habitat for species). Expanding protected areas toward locations with the highest deforestation rates (Target 5) or the highest potential loss of aggregate species’ suitable habitat (Target 12) resulted in partially different protected area network configurations (overlapping with each other by about 73%). Moreover, the latter approach contributed to safeguarding about 30% more global carbon stocks than the former. Further investigation of synergies and trade‐offs between targets would shed light on these and other complex interactions, such as the interaction between reducing overexploitation of natural resources (Targets 6, 7), controlling invasive alien species (Target 9), and preventing extinctions of native species (Target 12). Synergies between targets must be identified and secured soon and trade‐offs must be minimized before the options for co‐benefits are reduced by human pressures.     

Wildlife Connectivity Approaches and Best Practices in U.S. State Wildlife Action Plans

As habitat loss and fragmentation threaten biodiversity on large geographic scales, creating and maintaining connectivity of wildlife populations is an increasingly common conservation objective. To assess the progress and success of large‐scale connectivity planning, conservation researchers need a set of plans that cover large geographic areas and can be analyzed as a single data set. The state wildlife action plans (SWAPs) fulfill these requirements. We examined 50 SWAPs to determine the extent to which wildlife connectivity planning, via linkages, is emphasized nationally. We defined linkage as connective land that enables wildlife movement. For our content analysis, we identified and quantified 6 keywords and 7 content criteria that ranged in specificity and were related to linkages for wide‐ranging terrestrial vertebrates and examined relations between content criteria and statewide data on focal wide‐ranging species, spending, revenue, and conserved land. Our results reflect nationwide disparities in linkage conservation priorities and highlight the continued need for wildlife linkage planning. Only 30% or less of the 50 SWAPs fulfilled highly specific content criteria (e.g., identifying geographic areas for linkage placement or management). We found positive correlations between our content criteria and statewide data on percent conserved land, total focal species, and spending on parks and recreation. We supplemented our content analysis with interviews with 17 conservation professionals to gain specific information about state‐specific context and future directions of linkage conservation. Based on our results, relevant literature, and interview responses, we suggest the following best practices for wildlife linkage conservation plans: collect ecologically meaningful background data; be specific; establish community‐wide partnerships; and incorporate sociopolitical and socioeconomic information. Acercamientos a la Conectividad de Vida Silvestre y las Mejores Prácticas en los Planes de Acción de Vida Silvestre Estatales en los Estados Unidos     

Effects of rarity form on species’ responses to land use

Anthropogenic land-use change causes substantial changes in local and global biodiversity. Rare and common species can differ in sensitivity to land-use change; rare species are expected to be affected more negatively. Rarity may be defined in terms of geographic range size, population density, or breadth of habitat requirements. How these 3 forms of rarity interact in determining global responses to land use is yet to be assessed. Using global data representing 912 vertebrate species, we tested for differences in responses to land use of species characterized by different types of rarity. Land-use responses were fitted using generalized linear mixed-effects models, allowing responses to vary among groups of species with different forms of rarity. Species considered rare with respect to all 3 forms of rarity showed particularly strong declines in disturbed land uses (>40% of species and 30% of individuals in the most disturbed land uses). In contrast, species common both geographically and numerically and with broad habitat requirements showed strong increases (up to 90% increase in species and 40% in abundance in some land uses). Our results suggest that efforts to understand the vulnerability of species to environmental changes should account for different types of rarity where possible. Our results also have potentially important implications for ecosystem functioning, given that rare species may play unique roles within ecosystems.     

International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control

Human–wildlife conflicts are commonly addressed by excluding, relocating, or lethally controlling animals with the goal of preserving public health and safety, protecting property, or conserving other valued wildlife. However, declining wildlife populations, a lack of efficacy of control methods in achieving desired outcomes, and changes in how people value animals have triggered widespread acknowledgment of the need for ethical and evidence‐based approaches to managing such conflicts. We explored international perspectives on and experiences with human–wildlife conflicts to develop principles for ethical wildlife control. A diverse panel of 20 experts convened at a 2‐day workshop and developed the principles through a facilitated engagement process and discussion. They determined that efforts to control wildlife should begin wherever possible by altering the human practices that cause human–wildlife conflict and by developing a culture of coexistence; be justified by evidence that significant harms are being caused to people, property, livelihoods, ecosystems, and/or other animals; have measurable outcome‐based objectives that are clear, achievable, monitored, and adaptive; predictably minimize animal welfare harms to the fewest number of animals; be informed by community values as well as scientific, technical, and practical information; be integrated into plans for systematic long‐term management; and be based on the specifics of the situation rather than negative labels (pest, overabundant) applied to the target species. We recommend that these principles guide development of international, national, and local standards and control decisions and implementation.