Conservation Biology最新文献

{"title":"Conservation benefits of a large marine protected area network that spans multiple ecosystems.","authors":"Joshua G Smith, Cori Lopazanski, Christopher M Free, Julien Brun, Clarissa Anderson, Mark H Carr, Joachim Claudet, Jenifer E Dugan, Jacob G Eurich, Tessa B Francis, David A Gill, Scott L Hamilton, Kristin Kaschner, David Mouillot, Peter T Raimondi, Richard M Starr, Shelby L Ziegler, Daniel Malone, Michelle L Marraffini, Avrey Parsons-Field, Barbara Spiecker, Mallarie Yeager, Kerry J Nickols, Jennifer E Caselle","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14435","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14435","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Marine protected areas (MPAs) are widely implemented tools for long-term ocean conservation and resource management. Assessments of MPA performance have largely focused on specific ecosystems individually and have rarely evaluated performance across multiple ecosystems either in an individual MPA or across an MPA network. We evaluated the conservation performance of 59 MPAs in California's large MPA network, which encompasses 4 primary ecosystems (surf zone, kelp forest, shallow reef, deep reef) and 4 bioregions, and identified MPA attributes that best explain performance. Using a meta-analytic framework, we evaluated the ability of MPAs to conserve fish biomass, richness, and diversity. At the scale of the network and for 3 of 4 regions, the biomass of species targeted by fishing was positively associated with the level of regulatory protection and was greater inside no-take MPAs, whereas species not targeted by fishing had similar biomass in MPAs and areas open to fishing. In contrast, species richness and diversity were not as strongly enhanced by MPA protection. The key features of conservation effectiveness included MPA age, preimplementation fisheries pressure, and habitat diversity. Important drivers of MPA effectiveness for single MPAs were consistent across MPAs in the network, spanning regions and ecosystems. With international targets aimed at protecting 30% of the world's oceans by 2030, MPA design and assessment frameworks should consider conservation performance at multiple ecologically relevant scales, from individual MPAs to MPA networks.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14435"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142945952","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":"Assessing how restoration can facilitate 30×30 goals for climate-resilient coastal ecosystems in the United States.","authors":"Rachel K Gittman, Christopher J Baillie, Annick Cros, Jonathan H Grabowski, Mary-Margaret McKinney, Vienna R Saccomanno, Carter S Smith, Bryan DeAngelis","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14429","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14429","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ecosystems globally have reached critical tipping points because of climate change, urbanization, unsustainable resource consumption, and pollution. In response, international agreements have set targets for conserving 30% of global ecosystems and restoring 30% of degraded lands and waters by 2030 (30×30). In 2021, the United States set a target to jointly conserve and restore 30% of US lands and waters by 2030, with a specific goal to restore coastal ecosystems, namely wetlands, seagrasses, coral and oyster reefs, and mangrove and kelp forests, to increase resilience to climate change. Although US efforts to conserve and restore coastal ecosystems have increased in recent decades, critical knowledge gaps about the effectiveness of past and current efforts remain. To address key knowledge gaps, we first collated information on current and historic extent and drivers of change for wetlands, seagrasses, coral and oyster reefs, and mangrove and kelp forests in the United States. We then synthesized guiding principles from the literature for restoration practitioners to evaluate ecosystem trade-offs, sustain and enhance ecosystem connectivity, bolster climate resilience, and promote social equity. Significant investment in standardized ecosystem mapping and monitoring and multispecies, landscape-scale restoration efforts can improve resilience of coastal ecosystems to climate change and help the United States achieve its 30×30 target.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14429"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142909359","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":"Classification of direct threats to the conservation of ecosystems and species 4.0.","authors":"Nick Salafsky, Claire Relton, Bruce E Young, Philippe Lamarre, Monika Böhm, Maxime Chénier, Erica Cochrane, Mark Dionne, Kevin K He, Craig Hilton-Taylor, Charles Latrémouille, John Morrison, Calla V Raymond, Mary Seddon, Varsha Suresh","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14434","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14434","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Identifying and assessing the magnitude of direct threats to ecosystems and species are critical steps to prioritizing, planning, implementing, and assessing conservation actions. Just as medical clinicians and researchers need a standard way to talk about human diseases, conservation practitioners and scientists need a common and comprehensive language to talk about the threats they are facing to facilitate joint action, evaluation, and learning. To meet this need, in 2008 the IUCN Species Survival Commission and the Conservation Measures Partnership produced the first version of a common threats classification with the understanding that it would be periodically updated to take into account new information and learning. We present version 4.0 of this classification. For this latest update, we reviewed existing versions and derivatives of the original classification, over 1000 citations of the classification, threats data from over 2900 real-world conservation projects, and comments from many users. Based on our findings, we made changes to the threats classification scheme, including addition of a level 0 threat class, refinement of levels 1 and 2 threat categories, and addition of the threat \"Fencing & walls\" to level 2. Also added were level 3 threat types and modifiers that provide a more detailed description of different types of direct threats and thus allow users to fine-tune analyses and actions. The update also clarifies how to treat various stressors, including natural disaster events and climate change. As a result of these changes, we revised the formal definition of direct threats. They include human actions that are the direct cause of ecosystem or species-population degradation and loss, such as agriculture, transport, natural resource use, and ecosystem management. They also include ultimate stressors in natural systems whose dynamics have been altered by the effects of current or historical human actions, such as invasive or problematic native species, pollution, natural disasters, and climate change.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14434"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142909362","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":"Frontiers of conservation.","authors":"Yves Meinard, Jean-Yves Georges","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14432","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14432","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Action-oriented conservation sciences are crippled by 3 false assumptions. First, although it is recognized in theory that natural and anthropic components of ecosystems are tightly intertwined, in practice, many conservation policies and actions are still based on the assumption that human and nonhuman stakes should be dealt with in deeply different ways. Second, although the anchorage of environmental sciences in values is amply demonstrated, many conservation scientists still assume they will lose their scientific credentials if they actively participate in decision-making. Finally, although there is much scientific evidence of the permeability-to both protected entities and threats-of static geographic frontiers delimiting protected areas, many conservation policies are still based on the assumption that these frontiers in themselves produce relevant protections. To overcome these false assumptions, it is useful to articulate them in terms of frontiers based on 2 ideas associated with the term. As a synonym of border, frontier materializes a limit whose crossing can have high stakes. As used in phrases such as frontiers of knowledge, the term also refers to the ever-moving horizon of what should be overcome. These 2 ideas capture the reasons current attempts at overcoming the 3 assumptions remain unsatisfactory. They are also useful for elaborating a new vision of conservation to simultaneously break from the 3 assumptions. Instead of taking fixed geographic frontiers of protected areas for granted, conservation scientists should participate, along with stakeholders and Indigenous peoples, in the collective identification of the conservation problems that need to be addressed. For these problems, decision committees that include representatives of concerned humans and representatives of concerned nonhumans should be formed to determine the temporal and spatial scope of relevant conservation actions. The result would be multidimensional protected areas dynamically fine-tuned to the conservation issues they address and to changing environmental conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14432"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142876454","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":"Drivers of mangrove area change and suppression in Brazil from 2000 to 2020.","authors":"Gabriel Tofanelo Vanin, Eduardo Ribeiro Lacerda, Gustavo Maruyama Mori","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14426","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14426","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Mangrove area loss is increasing globally, and drivers of loss differ depending not only on natural conditions but also on national and regional policies. Some countries with the most mangrove area, for instance, Brazil, lack broad systematic quantification of specific drivers of mangrove land-use and land-cover (LULC) change dynamics. We investigated the direct conversion (i.e., replacement) of mangrove forests due to changes in 21 types of LULC across Brazil from 2000 to 2020 based on annual LULC maps developed by the MapBiomas project. We quantified the area changes at national, regional, and state scales. We also determined and quantified mangrove forest conversion for each of the 21 LULC types with a pixel comparison analysis and identified temporal trends with a time-series analysis. The total conversion of mangrove area (3429 km²) was offset by a gain that was twice as large (6776 km²). Forest formations and water bodies, which may be interpreted as natural or indirect anthropogenic changes, were associated with most of the areas where mangrove cover was lost. Land-use modifications, mainly creation of pastures, accounted for 4% of direct mangrove conversions. We found that changes in LULC categories and patterns of gain and loss of mangrove areas differed among Brazilian states and regions. Based on other research, they also differ between Brazil and other countries. Thus, integrated mangrove forest conservation and management efforts that transcend political boundaries are essential to effectively address negative impacts on mangrove forests. We provide an interactive map to allow qualitative assessments of mangrove conversion drivers by different stakeholders, such as managers, policymakers, and nongovernmental organizations.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14426"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142863324","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":"Fundamental principles of the effect of habitat fragmentation on species with different movement rates.","authors":"Jamaal Jacobs, Yurij Salmaniw, King-Yeung Lam, Lu Zhai, Hao Wang, Bo Zhang","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14424","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14424","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Habitat loss and fragmentation have independent impacts on biodiversity; thus, field studies are needed to distinguish their impacts. Moreover, species with different locomotion rates respond differently to fragmentation, complicating direct comparisons of the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation across differing taxa and landscapes. To overcome these challenges, we combined mechanistic mathematical modeling and laboratory experiments to compare how species with different locomotion rates were affected by low (∼80% intact) and high (∼30% intact) levels of habitat loss. In our laboratory experiment, we used Caenorhabditis elegans strains with different locomotion rates and subjected them to the different levels of habitat loss and fragmentation by placing Escherichia coli (C. elegans food) over different proportions of the Petri dish. We developed a partial differential equation model that incorporated spatial and biological phenomena to predict the impacts of habitat arrangement on populations. Only species with low rates of locomotion declined significantly in abundance as fragmentation increased in areas with low (p = 0.0270) and high (p = 0.0243) levels of habitat loss. Despite that species with high locomotion rates changed little in abundance regardless of the spatial arrangement of resources, they had the lowest abundance and growth rates in all environments because the negative effect of fragmentation created a mismatch between the population distribution and the resource distribution. Our findings shed new light on incorporating the role of locomotion in determining the effects of habitat fragmentation.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14424"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142853452","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":"Conservation and coexistence at a crossroads","authors":"Simon Pooley","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14433","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cobi.14433","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Conservationists continue to wrestle with antithetical urges toward universality and diversity. A quest for blueprints for saving biodiversity exists sympatrically with acknowledgment of the plurality of ways of living in the natural world. Current attempts to integrate emergent thinking on human–wildlife coexistence into the requirements of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) bring this into sharp focus. This is a moment worthy of pause and consideration of the implications of integrating coexistence into existing conservation paradigms.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Conservation biology has evolved into conservation science, enlarging its remit to grapple with the undeniable ascendancy of humans in driving the planet out of the Holocene. Despite this, the field is still firmly rooted in the natural sciences, seeking better scientific descriptions of natural systems and species, sophisticated models, and general laws for social–ecological systems (so conceived) in quest of evidence-based, generalizable approaches for averting biodiversity loss. These aspirations are consistent with those of international policy makers aiming to regulate humanity out of planetary disaster.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The GBF requires measurable steps toward solving specific biodiversity-related challenges. Meeting the 23 targets for 2030 (notably those relating to tools and solutions) requires agreement on concepts, indicators, standards, and best processes and practices (Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD], &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;) to facilitate uniform assessments across all 168 signatory countries.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Yet, even social scientists adopting generalizable social–ecological systems frameworks caution policy makers that there are no panaceas for social–ecological challenges. They urge recognition of institutional diversity in the same ways others celebrate and defend biological diversity (Ostrom, &lt;span&gt;2005&lt;/span&gt;). What is more, despite the normative ecosystem services framework of the CBD, every major biodiversity status report calls for transformative change (e.g., Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [IPBES], &lt;span&gt;2019&lt;/span&gt;). The importance of cultural (or biocultural) diversity and different ways of valuing and relating to the natural world has been belatedly recognized in conservation (IPBES, &lt;span&gt;2022&lt;/span&gt;). In addition, there is the perverse individuality of human beings, history, and questions of free will and counterfactuals to contend with (Pooley, &lt;span&gt;2018&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Incorporating the study of humans into conservation studies requires careful consideration of the language and concepts that conservation biology hardwired into the field. The languages of physics and systems science still carry authority in areas they have little business in. A decade ago, when I began thinking about human–wildlife coexistence, I was struck by Carter and Linnell's (&lt;span&gt;2016&lt;/span&gt;) formulation of coexistence with predators as a resilien","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11780208/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142853394","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":"Biodiversity conservation, consistency, and Mus musculus.","authors":"Yasha Rohwer, Clare Palmer, Jeremy B Searle","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14427","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14427","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The house mouse (Mus musculus) is often thought of as a pest species in biological conservation, in agriculture, and in urban areas. As a result, populations are frequently targeted for control and eradication. However, M. musculus has notable within-species biodiversity: it has genetically, morphologically, and behaviorally distinct subpopulations. Conserving biodiversity is usually considered the paramount goal of conservation biology, not least because biodiversity is claimed to have intrinsic value. But the biodiversity in mouse populations is often overlooked. In particular, conservationists do not call for the unique diversity represented by threatened mouse populations to be protected. This is illustrative of the inconsistent valuing of biodiversity in conservation. If biodiversity is intrinsically valuable, then it should be valued; however, it reveals itself. And yet, in examples presented here, unique populations of house mice with clear biodiversity value are threatened by eradication campaigns on islands and by changing agricultural practices on the Swiss-Italian border. The inconsistent valuing of biodiversity in the case of M. musculus raises important questions about whether the intrinsic value of biodiversity in conservation is, in practice, conditional on other implicit assumptions.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14427"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142783699","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":"Effects of land cover and protected areas on flying insect diversity.","authors":"James S Sinclair, Dominik Buchner, Mark O Gessner, Jörg Müller, Steffen U Pauls, Stefan Stoll, Ellen A R Welti, Claus Bässler, Jörn Buse, Frank Dziock, Julian Enss, Thomas Hörren, Robert Künast, Yuanheng Li, Andreas Marten, Carsten Morkel, Ronny Richter, Sebastian Seibold, Martin Sorg, Sönke Twietmeyer, Dirk Weis, Wolfgang Weisser, Benedikt Wiggering, Martin Wilmking, Gerhard Zotz, Mark Frenzel, Florian Leese, Peter Haase","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14425","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14425","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Widespread insect losses are a critical global problem. Mitigating this problem requires identifying the principal drivers across different taxa and determining which insects are covered by protected areas. However, doing so is hindered by missing information on most species owing to extremely high insect diversity and difficulties in morphological identification. To address this knowledge gap, we used one of the most comprehensive insect DNA metabarcoding data sets assembled (encompassing 31,846 flying insect species) in which data were collected from a network of 75 Malaise traps distributed across Germany. Collection sites encompass gradients of land cover, weather, and climate, along with differences in site protection status, which allowed us to gain broader insights into how insects respond to these factors. We examined changes in total insect biomass, species richness, temporal turnover, and shifts in the composition of taxa, key functional groups (pollinators, threatened species, and invasive species), and feeding traits. Lower insect biomass generally equated to lower richness of all insects and higher temporal turnover, suggesting that biomass loss translates to biodiversity loss and less stable communities. Spatial variability in insect biomass and composition was primarily driven by land cover, rather than weather or climate change. As vegetation and land-cover heterogeneity increased, insect biomass increased by 50% in 2019 and 56% in 2020 and total species richness by 58% and 33%, respectively. Similarly, areas with low-vegetation habitats exhibited the highest richness of key taxa, including pollinators and threatened species, and the widest variety of feeding traits. However, these habitats tended to be less protected despite their higher diversity. Our results highlight the value of heterogeneous low vegetation for promoting overall insect biomass and diversity and that better protection of insects requires improved protection and management of unforested areas, where many biodiversity hotspots and key taxa occur.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14425"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142766986","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":"Association between attitudes toward wildlife and patterns of risk of human-wildlife conflict near Giant Panda National Park.","authors":"Lan Qiu, Qiang Dai, Yihong Wang, Zejun Zhang, Zhisong Yang, Dunwu Qi, Haijun Gu, Xiaodong Gu, Xuyu Yang, Wei Wei","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14428","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14428","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) is an escalating humanitarian issue and a conservation concern. In terms of protection and management, areas at high risk of HWC are not necessarily afforded the same resources as areas prioritized for protection. To improve allocation of limited protection resources and HWC mitigation efficiency, we determined management priorities based on HWC risk and people's attitudes toward wildlife around the Giant Panda National Park. We constructed an ensemble species distribution model with 1959 species' distribution loci and 337 conflict event records. This model was used to simulate the spatial distribution patterns of HWC risk and to evaluate the influence of diverse environmental factors. A survey of people's attitudes toward wildlife was conducted in 155 villages around the Giant Panda National Park. Priority areas for HWC management were concentrated near protected areas, where wildlife habitats and populations were recovering and expanding. We obtained 947 questionnaires, which showed that some residents were highly aware of conservation and had a high tolerance for wildlife, even when they were living in areas at high risk of HWC. However, people who had encountered conflicts with wild boar were more likely to have negative attitudes toward other wildlife, even giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). Thus, HWC may lead to the generalization of negative attitudes toward wildlife conservation. In our study area, environmental (e.g., building fences and changing crop types) and social measures (e.g., insurance and ecocompensation) have been implemented to mitigate HWC. Our results can provide an important basis for the allocation of compensation resources and improvement of HWC management in areas of high conservation priority. Future studies should further explore how to develop more personalized HWC management plans based on the characteristics of different regions.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14428"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142766982","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}