Conservation Biology最新文献

{"title":"Expanding the human–wildlife interaction framework of Galindo-González 2023","authors":"Sebastiano Salvidio","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14374","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cobi.14374","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"38 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cobi.14374","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142125082","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Effect of uneven tolerance to human disturbance on dominance interactions of top predators.","authors":"Pablo Villalva, Francisco Palomares, Marina Zanin","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14364","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14364","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Anthropogenic activities may alter felid assemblage structure, facilitating the persistence of tolerant species (commonly mesopredators), excluding ecologically demanding ones (top predators) and, consequently, changing coexistence rules. We aimed to determine how human activities influence intraguild relationships among top predators and their cascading effects on mesopredators, which remain poorly understood despite evidence of top carnivore decline. We used structural equation modeling at a continental scale to investigate how habitat quality and quantity, livestock density, and other human pressures modified the intraguild relations of the 3 species that are at the top of the food chain in the Neotropics: jaguars (Panthera onca), pumas (Puma concolor), and ocelots (Leopardus pardalis). We included presence-absence data derived from systematic studies compiled in Neocarnivores data set for these felid species at 0.0833° resolution. Human disturbance reduced the probability of jaguar occurrence by -0.35 standard deviations. Unexpectedly, the presence of sheep (Ovis aries) or goats (Capra aegagrus hircus) and jaguars was positively related to the presence of pumas, whereas puma presence was negatively related to the presence of ocelots. Extent of forest cover had more of an effect on jaguar (β = 0.23) and ocelot (β = 0.12) occurrences than the extent of protected area, which did not have a significant effect. The lack of effect of human activities on puma presence and the positive effect of small livestock supports the notion that pumas are more adaptable to habitat disturbance than jaguars. Our findings suggest that human disturbance has the potential to reverse the hierarchical competition dominance among large felids, leading to an unbalanced community structure. This shift disadvantages jaguars and elevates the position of pumas in the assemblage hierarchy, resulting in the exclusion of ocelots, despite their relatively lower susceptibility to anthropogenic disturbance. Our results suggest that conservation efforts should extend beyond protected areas to encompass the surrounding landscape, where complexities and potential conflicts are more pronounced.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14364"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142119166","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Quantifying regulatory limits for multiple stressors in an open and transparent way.","authors":"Rick J Stoffels, Richard S A White","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14375","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14375","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Biodiversity is confronted globally by multiple stressors. Environmental policies must regulate these stressors to achieve targets, but how should that be done when the outcomes of limits on one stressor are contingent on other stressors, about which there is imperfect knowledge? Deriving regulatory frameworks that incorporate these contingencies is an emerging challenge at the science-policy interface. To be fit for implementation, these frameworks need to facilitate the inherently sociopolitical process of policy implementation and account transparently for uncertainty, such that practitioners and other stakeholders can more realistically anticipate the range of potential outcomes to policy. We developed an approach to quantify stressor limits that explicitly accounts for multistressor contingencies. Using an invertebrate data set collected over 30 years throughout New Zealand, we combined ecological and ecotoxicological models to predict biodiversity loss as a function of one stressor, treating multistressor contingencies as a form of uncertainty about the outcomes of limits on that stressor. We transparently accounted for that uncertainty by presenting regulatory limits as bands bounded between optimistic and pessimistic views that practitioners may have about the local context within which limits are applied. In addition to transparently accounting for uncertainties, our framework also leaves room for practitioners to build stakeholder consensus when refining limits to suit different local contexts. A criticism of this open, transparent approach is that it creates too much scope for choosing limits that are lenient on polluters, paralyzing on-the-ground management of multiple stressors, but we demonstrate that this is not necessarily the case.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14375"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142119168","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Understanding author choices in the current conservation publishing landscape.","authors":"Natalie Yoh, Mukhlish Jamal Musa Holle, Jasmin Willis, Lauren F Rudd, Iain M Fraser, Diogo Veríssimo","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14369","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14369","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Conservation literature addresses a broad spectrum of interdisciplinary questions and benefits. Conservation science benefits most when a diverse range of authors are represented, particularly those from countries where much conservation work is focused. In other disciplines, it is well known that barriers and biases exist in the academic publishing sphere, which can affect research dissemination and an author's career development. We used a discrete choice experiment to determine how 7 journal attributes affect authors' choices of where to publish in conservation. We targeted authors directly by contacting authors published in 18 target journals and indirectly via communication channels for conservation organizations. We only included respondents who had previously published in a conservation-related journal. We used a multinomial logit model and a latent class model to investigate preferences for all respondents and distinct subpopulations. We identified 3 demographic groups across 1038 respondents (older authors from predominantly middle-income countries, younger authors from predominantly middle-income countries, and younger authors from high-income countries) who had published in conservation journals. Each group exhibited different publishing preferences. Only 2 attributes showed a consistent response across groups: cost to publish negatively affected journal choice, including authors in high-income countries, and authors had a consistent preference for double-blind review. Authors from middle-income countries were willing to pay more for society-owned journals, unlike authors from high-income countries. Journals with a broad geographical scope that were open access and that had relatively high impact factors were preferred by 2 of the 3 demographic groups. However, journal scope and open access were more important in dictating journal choice than impact factor. Overall, different demographics had different preferences for journals and were limited in their selection based on attributes such as open access policy. However, the scarcity of respondents from low-income countries (2% of respondents) highlights the pervasive barriers to representation in conservation research. We recommend journals offer double-blind review, reduce or remove open access fees, investigate options for free editorial support, and better acknowledge the value of local-scale single-species studies. Academic societies in particular must reflect on how their journals support conservation and conservation professionals.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14369"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142119170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Capability of big data to capture threatened vertebrate diversity in protected areas.","authors":"Javier M Cordier, Luis Osorio-Olvera, Pablo Y Huais, Ana N Tomba, Fabricio Villalobos, Javier Nori","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14371","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14371","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Protected areas (PAs) are an essential tool for conservation amid the global biodiversity crisis. Optimizing PAs to represent species at risk of extinction is crucial. Vertebrate representation in PAs is assessed using species distribution databases from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). Evaluating and addressing discrepancies and biases in these data sources are vital for effective conservation strategies. Our objective was to gain insights into the potential constraints (e.g., differences and biases) of these global repositories to objectively depict the diversity of threatened vertebrates in the global system of PAs. We assessed differences in species richness (SR) of threatened vertebrates as reported by IUCN and GBIF in PAs globally and then compared how biased this information was with reports from independent sources for a subset of PAs. Both databases showed substantial differences in SR in PAs (t = -62.35, p ≤ 0.001), but differences varied among regions and vertebrate groups. When these results were compared with data from independent assessments, IUCN overestimated SR by 575% on average and GBIF underestimated SR by 63% on average, again with variable results among regions and groups. Our results indicate the need to improve analyses of the representativeness of threatened vertebrates in PAs such that robust and unbiased assessments of PA effectiveness can be conducted. The scientific community and decision makers should consider these regional and taxonomic disparities when using IUCN and GBIF distributional data sources in PA assessment. Overall, supplementing information in these databases could lead to more robust and reliable analyses. Additional efforts to acquire more comprehensive and unbiased data on species distributions to support conservation decisions are clearly needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14371"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142119165","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evaluating models of expert judgment to inform assessment of ecosystem viability and collapse.","authors":"Josh Dorrough, Samantha K Travers, James Val, Mitchell L Scott, Claudine J Moutou, Ian Oliver","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14370","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14370","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Expert judgment underpins assessment of threatened ecosystems. However, experts are often narrowly defined, and variability in their judgments may be substantial. Models built from structured elicitation with large diverse expert panels can contribute to more consistent and transparent decision-making. We conducted a structured elicitation under a broad definition of expertise to examine variation in judgments of ecosystem viability and collapse in a critically endangered ecosystem. We explored whether variation in judgments among 83 experts was related to affiliation and management expertise and assessed performance of an average model based on common ecosystem indicators. There were systematic differences among individuals, much of which were not explained by affiliation or expertise. However, of the individuals affiliated with government, those in conservation and environmental departments were more likely to determine a patch was viable than those in agriculture and rural land management. Classification errors from an average model, in which all individuals were weighted equally, were highest among government agriculture experts (27%) and lowest among government conservation experts (12%). Differences were mostly cases in which the average model predicted a patch was viable but the individual thought it was not. These differences arose primarily for areas that were grazed or cleared of mature trees. These areas are often the target of restoration, but they are also valuable for agriculture. These results highlight the potential for conflicting advice and disagreement about policies and actions for conserving and restoring threatened ecosystems. Although adoption of an average model can improve consistency of ecosystem assessment, it can fail to capture and convey diverse opinions held by experts. Structured elicitation and models of ecosystem viability play an important role in providing data-driven evidence of where differences arise among experts to support engagement and discussion among stakeholders and decision makers and to improve the management of threatened ecosystems.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14370"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142119167","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Three-dimensional conservation planning of fish biodiversity metrics to achieve the deep-sea 30×30 conservation target.","authors":"Laetitia Mathon, Florian Baletaud, Anne Lebourges-Dhaussy, Gaël Lecellier, Christophe Menkes, Céline Bachelier, Claire Bonneville, Tony Dejean, Mahé Dumas, Sylvie Fiat, Jacques Grelet, Jérémie Habasque, Stéphanie Manel, Laura Mannocci, David Mouillot, Maëlis Peran, Gildas Roudaut, Christine Sidobre, David Varillon, Laurent Vigliola","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14368","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14368","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Accelerating rate of human impact and environmental change severely affects marine biodiversity and increases the urgency to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 30×30 plan for conserving 30% of sea areas by 2030. However, area-based conservation targets are complex to identify in a 3-dimensional (3D) ocean where deep-sea features such as seamounts have been seldom studied mostly due to challenging methodologies to implement at great depths. Yet, the use of emerging technologies, such as environmental DNA combined with modern modeling frameworks, could help address the problem. We collected environmental DNA, echosounder acoustic, and video data at 15 seamounts and deep island slopes across the Coral Sea. We modeled 7 fish community metrics and the abundances of 45 individual species and molecular operational taxonomic units (MOTUs) in benthic and pelagic waters (down to 600-m deep) with boosted regression trees and generalized joint attribute models to describe biodiversity on seamounts and deep slopes and identify 3D protection solutions for achieving the CBD area target in New Caledonia (1.4 million km²). We prioritized the identified conservation units in a 3D space, based on various biodiversity targets, to meet the goal of protecting at least 30% of the spatial domain, with a focus on areas with high biodiversity. The relationship between biodiversity protection targets and the spatial area protected by the solution was linear. The scenario protecting 30% of each biodiversity metric preserved almost 30% of the considered spatial domain and accounted for the 3D distribution of biodiversity. Our study paves the way for the use of combined data collection methodologies to improve biodiversity estimates in 3D structured marine environments for the selection of conservation areas and for the use of biodiversity targets to achieve area-based international targets.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14368"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142119169","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Incorporating citizen science into IUCN Red List assessments.","authors":"Rachael Gallagher, Erin Roger, Jasmin Packer, Cameron Slatyer, Jodi Rowley, Will Cornwell, Emilie Ens, Sarah Legge, Colin Simpfendorfer, Ruby Stephens, Thomas Mesaglio","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14329","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14329","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many citizen scientists are highly motivated to help address the current extinction crisis. Their work is making valuable contributions to protecting species by raising awareness, identifying species occurrences, assessing population trends, and informing direct management actions, such as captive breeding. However, clear guidance is lacking about how to use existing citizen science data sets and how to design effective citizen science programs that directly inform extinction risk assessments and resulting conservation actions based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List criteria. This may be because of a mismatch between what citizen science can deliver to address extinction risk and the reality of what is needed to inform threatened species listing based on IUCN criteria. To overcome this problem, we examined each IUCN Red List criterion (A-E) relative to the five major types of citizen science outputs relevant to IUCN assessments (occurrence data, presence-absence observations, structured surveys, physical samples, and narratives) to recommend which outputs are most suited to use when applying the IUCN extinction risk assessment process. We explored real-world examples of citizen science projects on amphibians and fungi that have delivered valuable data and knowledge for IUCN assessments. We found that although occurrence data are routinely used in the assessment process, simply adding more observations of occurrence from citizen science information may not be as valuable as inclusion of more nuanced data types, such as presence-absence data or information on threats from structured surveys. We then explored the characteristics of citizen science projects that have already delivered valuable data to support assessments. These projects were led by recognized experts who champion and validate citizen science data, thereby giving greater confidence in its accuracy. We urge increased recognition of the value of citizen science data within the assessment process.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14329"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142079426","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Book reviewers (August 2021 to December 2022)","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14365","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cobi.14365","url":null,"abstract":"<p>We thank the following colleagues for providing <i>Conservation Biology</i> with book reviews:</p><p>*Author wrote more than one review.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"38 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cobi.14365","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142202341","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Noted with Interest","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14330","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cobi.14330","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Restoring the balance: What wolves tell us about our relationship with nature&lt;/b&gt;. Vucetich, J. A. 2024. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. US$52.00 (hardcover). 416 pp. ISBN 978-1-4214-4908-1.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The story of the wolves (&lt;i&gt;Canis lupus&lt;/i&gt;) of Isle Royale is about the challenges this population of large carnivore faced on this island, but above all it is a story about the responsibility of our species to other species. Isle Royale's wolves and moose (&lt;i&gt;Alces americanus&lt;/i&gt;) have been (and still are) the subject of the longest continuous study of a predator–prey system in the world, but the fate of these species is uncertain today. This is mainly because of the number of exogenous factors that undermined their persistence on the island, many of them anthropogenic. Extirpation has loomed for these wolves many times during this study, but, as Vucetich reports, the threats were far from natural. They were linked not only to anthropogenic global processes, such as climate change, but also to mining and tourism on the island in the first decades of the 20th century. Vucetich guides the reader through the history, explains—in his original writing style—the science behind it, and touches on some common prejudices we have toward nature and on the political values that are intrinsically woven into any wildlife conservation project. Several chapters are enriched with pictures and graphs that clearly portray the topics discussed. This book is a pleasant read both for the public and scientists in the field.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Birds &amp; flowers—An intimate 50 million year relationship&lt;/b&gt;. Ollerton, J. 2024. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, UK. viii+312 pp. £22.00 (hardcover). ISBN 978-1-78427-451-1.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;i&gt;Birds &amp; Flowers&lt;/i&gt;, Jeff Ollerton masterfully explores the intricate evolutionary dance between avian species and the floral world. Covering 74 bird families and nearly 1390 species, the book highlights how these birds interact with thousands of plant species, showing their crucial role in ecosystems from tropical rainforests to coastal mangroves. Ollerton's passion and expertise shine through his accessible and engaging writing, making complex scientific concepts understandable to all readers. The book also serves as a cultural exploration, tracing the historical and ongoing significance of bird–flower relationships to humanity. Notable aspects are the detailed examination of the ecological significance of these interactions and the pressing problems they face, such as disease, habitat destruction, and climate change. Despite some species being extinct, Ollerton offers hope through stories of successful conservation and restoration projects, emphasizing nature's resilience and the vital role of human intervention. The 19 chapters, with intriguing titles like “Hitchhikers, Drunks, and Killers” and “Bad Birds and Feral Flowers,” break the subject into manageable chunks. While the photo collection in the middle of the book is a wonderful a","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"38 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cobi.14330","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142202332","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}