Conservation Biology最新文献

{"title":"Socioeconomic drivers of wild meat consumption in the city of Iquitos, Peru","authors":"Fiorella Briceño Huerta,&nbsp;Michael P. Gilmore,&nbsp;Mark Bowler,&nbsp;Brian M. Griffiths","doi":"10.1111/cobi.70056","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cobi.70056","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Wild meat represents a vital source of micro- and macronutrients for forest-dwelling people; however, city dwellers with access to animal protein from different animals may also consume large amounts of wild meat as part of their customs and traditions, to diversify their diets, to maintain connections to their rural kin, and to access meat without having to pay the high prices of domestic meat in the city. The aggregate urban and rural demand for wild meat consumption demonstrates a great risk for overhunting highly preferred and vulnerable species and degrading already fragile Amazonian ecosystems and the food security of people in rural areas. We assessed the effects of socioeconomics factors on wild meat consumption in the city of Iquitos in the Peruvian Amazon. We conducted 1548 interviews with consumers across the city of Iquitos and collected socioeconomic and wild meat consumption data. We used a double hurdle model to estimate simultaneously the probability of a consumer eating wild meat each week and their consumption rate based on 10 variables. In final parsimonious models, monthly income, location in the city (district and distance to market), amount of education, and amount of time spent in Iquitos were all important factors determining consumption rate. We predicted that consumption rates would vary across the city and in some areas would be as high as &gt;7 kg·person⁻¹·year⁻¹. The spatial distribution of wild meat consumption showed that people in newer, rapidly growing parts of the city consumed more wild meat and were therefore more dependent on sustainable supply chains. We recommend that consumers who have very high predicted consumption rates may be useful targets for conservation efforts to reduce that consumption, such as culturally relevant, informal educational programs. In our study, these people migrated from rural areas and live along the Iquitos–Nauta Road and are wealthy consumers in downtown Iquitos.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"39 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cobi.70056","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144224618","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":"Conservation by those who live on and from the land","authors":"Zsolt Molnár","doi":"10.1111/cobi.70081","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cobi.70081","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Wildlife stewardship &lt;span&gt;&lt;i&gt;on&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/span&gt; tribal lands. Our place is in our soul&lt;/b&gt;. Hoagland, S, J., and S. Albert, editors. 2023. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. xxix+401 pp. US$69.95 (hardcover). ISBN 978-1-4214-4657-8.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;What does &lt;i&gt;wildlife&lt;/i&gt; mean to you? “It means home. … We feel our place in our soul,” answered Vern Northrup, a retired wildland fire operation specialist and Lake Superior Chippewa. This quote from &lt;i&gt;Wildlife Stewardship&lt;/i&gt; &lt;span&gt;on&lt;/span&gt; &lt;i&gt;Tribal Lands. Our Place Is in Our Soul&lt;/i&gt; is short and dense and expresses well how local land stewards can think about their relationship with a place, with its living creatures, in particular, perhaps, how Indigenous people think about human–nature relationships (Figure 1).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The book, edited by S. Hoagland and S. Albert, is a milestone, with almost 100 contributors, and serves as a resource on tribal wildlife management, for the education of the coming generation of wildlife experts, on how best to incorporate Native methods, and on how to work effectively with tribal stakeholders in wildlife management. The book starts with 14 pages of brief self-introductions of the authors. This may seem unusual, but they are worth reading because they give the reader an overview of who these people are who share their experiences with tribal wildlife management.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I am not an Indigenous person and not a citizen of the United States. Being a Hungarian botanist and ethnoecologist, I work in Central Europe and Central Asia with traditional knowledge holders to coproduce knowledge to help maintain traditional herding vital for local livelihoods and beneficial for biodiversity and to help resolve conflicts with conservationists. My position may have helped me identify the global relevance of the stories, experiences, and messages in this book, although they may also have prevented me from understanding properly the fine details of Native histories and the legal environment in the United States.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The 574 federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages manage approximately 9 million hectares of land, more than the U.S. National Park Service manages. Tribes have substantial—though often invisible—research experience and management expertise and, seeking to manage wildlife in ecologically and culturally sustainable ways, have been developing some of the most innovative wildlife management programs in the United States. Do not, however, expect a conservation biology textbook. This book is not about nature conservation in a conservation biology sense, but the reader can learn about wise and sustainable use of biodiversity by and for those people who live on tribal lands.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Tribal wisdom among Native Americans is passed along orally and visually. Many knowledge holders have never communicated their views and knowledge in written form, so for several of the authors of this book, this is their first academic publication experience. So, also do no","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"39 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cobi.70081","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145111330","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":"Exploring gaps, biases, and research priorities in the evidence for reptile conservation actions","authors":"Oliver Speight,&nbsp;William H. Morgan,&nbsp;Thomas B. White,&nbsp;Katie A. Sainsbury,&nbsp;Amos Bouskila,&nbsp;Guy Rotem,&nbsp;Rebecca K. Smith,&nbsp;William J. Sutherland,&nbsp;Maggie J. Watson,&nbsp;Alec P. Christie","doi":"10.1111/cobi.70073","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cobi.70073","url":null,"abstract":"<p>With over 21% of reptile species threatened with extinction, there is an urgent need to ensure conservation actions to protect and restore populations are informed by relevant, reliable evidence. We examined the geographic and taxonomic distribution of 707 studies that tested the effects of actions to conserve reptiles synthesized in Conservation Evidence's Reptile Conservation synopsis. More studies were conducted in countries with higher gross domestic product per capita, more reptile species, and higher proportions of threatened reptile species. Studies were clustered in the United States (43%) and Australia (15%), and no studies were conducted in large parts of Southeast Asia, South America, and sub-Saharan Africa. Taxonomically, 47% of 90 reptile families (mostly Squamata) were not studied at all. Although Squamata and Testudines species featured in approximately 50% of studies, 7 of the 10 most-studied reptiles (constituting 36% of studies) were turtles or tortoises, and there were significantly more studies per species on Testudines than Squamata. There were also significantly more studies on species: classified as least concern (as opposed to all other International Union for Conservation of Nature categories apart from near threatened); not categorized as endemic or insular; with more Wikipedia page views; and lacking data on venomousness. There was no significant relationship between the number of studies and the evolutionary distinctiveness or body mass of species. Our results highlight pressing evidence needs, particularly for underrepresented regions and threatened and data-deficient species (e.g., evolutionarily distinct and globally endangered reptiles in South America, sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia). To overcome evidence gaps and a lack of basic ecological data, future work should explore how the effects of actions transfer across taxa and regions. We call for greater efforts to coordinate and increase testing and reporting in a strategic manner to inform more effective and efficient conservation actions globally.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"39 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cobi.70073","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144224601","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":"Bridging conservation gaps under climate change at multiple scales to protect 30% of Earth's surface by 2030","authors":"Hui Wu,&nbsp;Le Yu,&nbsp;Xiaoli Shen,&nbsp;James E. M. Watson,&nbsp;Huawei Wan,&nbsp;Yue Cao,&nbsp;Ting Hua,&nbsp;Tao Liu,&nbsp;Jianqiao Zhao,&nbsp;Jianguo Liu,&nbsp;Jixi Gao,&nbsp;Keping Ma","doi":"10.1111/cobi.70054","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cobi.70054","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The 30×30 commitment outlined in the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF) offers a critical opportunity for enhancing global biodiversity conservation. However, KM-GBF's efforts to address climate change impacts remain limited. We developed 1-km-resolution hotspot maps for climate change vulnerability with the exposure–sensitivity–adaptation framework, species distribution for 4 terrestrial vertebrate taxa, and carbon stock capacity including organic and biomass carbon, for 2030. Then, we developed a systematic conservation planning approach that, beyond the 3 conservation features mentioned, also considered human activities, connectivity, and Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. The plan included the identification of conservation priorities and gaps for China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations region (China-ASEAN) at regional, national, and biogeographical scales. We found that 6.59% of the land in China-ASEAN overlapped all 3 hotspots, primarily in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Cambodia. Across all 3 spatial scales, newly identified conservation priorities were concentrated in low-elevation areas, particularly between 10° S and 10° N at the regional scale. Currently, protected areas cover 15.49% of China-ASEAN's land, representing 7.00% of climate change vulnerability hotspots, 12.45% of species distribution potential hotspots, and 14.56% of carbon stock capacity hotspots for 2030. If the 30×30 commitment is realized at a regional scale, these percentages are expected to increase to 22.93%, 33.15%, and 34.75%, respectively. Areas of conservation priority identified with our framework were significantly affected by the scale of protection coordination, yet they remained stable across Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, indicating their effectiveness in diverse future scenarios. The biogeographical scale had the smallest average conservation gap for all 12 countries (13.14%). Financial challenges are highest for Indonesia at the regional scale and for Malaysia at the national and biogeographical scales. Precise conservation based on appropriate scales is essential to achieving the 30×30 commitment and maximizing its conservation effectiveness under climate change.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"39 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144224597","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":"A habitat-based approach to reporting the direct impacts of an organization on biodiversity.","authors":"Karel Mokany, Chris Ware, Roozbeh Valavi, Katherine Giljohann, Simon Ferrier, Cara Stitzlein, Gonzalo Mata","doi":"10.1111/cobi.70071","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70071","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is a rapidly growing need for efficient but rigorous methods for organizations to assess and disclose their biodiversity impacts. We devised a habitat-based analytical approach for estimating the direct impacts of an organization on biodiversity. In our broad approach, we considered the time series of an organization's spatial footprint and assumed its biodiversity position was the accumulated positive and negative impacts over space and time. We demonstrated the approach by assessing the biodiversity position of CSIRO-Australia's national science agency, which has owned or controlled 50 sites across Australia since 1916, covering >460,000 ha. We applied 3 complementary habitat-based biodiversity indicators (effective habitat area, species extinction risk, and threatened species habitat), all with a fine resolution annual (1987-2023) time series of ecosystem condition as their basis. At the end of the most recent observation year, the CSIRO was in a negative biodiversity position in terms of all 3 biodiversity indicators. Over the time series considered, the activities of CSIRO were estimated to have led to an increase in the extinction risk for all native species by 1.0 species; a reduction in effective habitat area of 11,945 ha and a reduction in threatened species habitat of 22,307 species hectares (i.e., condition-weighted amount of habitat available to threatened species). Although the magnitude of the biodiversity position for CSIRO was strongly influenced by a single very large site (Murchison), the vast majority of the CSIRO sites were also in a negative position when considered separately. We demonstrated how future-looking scenario analysis can be linked with this biodiversity assessment approach, with a single natural regeneration action across the large Murchison site estimated to return CSIRO's biodiversity position close to neutral within 50 years.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e70071"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144224594","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":"Call for new criteria for monitoring and registering Natura 2000 species data","authors":"Meritxell Genovart,&nbsp;Roberto Salguero-Gomez,&nbsp;Fernando Colchero,&nbsp;Francisco Guil,&nbsp;Joan Rabassa-Juvanteny,&nbsp;Julia Uriach-Dasca,&nbsp;Dalia Amor Conde,&nbsp;Jean Michel Gaillard,&nbsp;Tim Coulson","doi":"10.1111/cobi.70064","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cobi.70064","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The European Union's Birds and Habitats Directives are intended to guarantee the persistence of species and natural habitats across member states. To achieve this laudable aim, the Natura 2000 network of protected areas was established in 1992. Since then, member states are required to regularly monitor species and habitats and report findings to the European Commission, which requires substantial investment from all countries. The Natura 2000 network is an invaluable example of a large-scale coordinated network developed to address major conservation issues. Based on our analysis of the 2020 Species Natura 2000 database and on expert opinions by Natura 2000 executives, we found that the network is failing to adequately show biodiversity status and guide conservation because it does not allow cross-border comparisons of species’ and populations’ conservation status. The main contributing factor to this failure is that member states frequently fail to follow reporting EU guidelines, resulting in heterogeneity in criteria for monitoring and registering species among Natura 2000 areas. We advocate developing new unified and realistic criteria for monitoring and reporting species data that correctly allow cross-border comparisons and conservation diagnosis. We propose that monitoring protocols and current criteria be modified slightly by considering species’ life-history strategies, distribution, and conservation status. We do not suggest a major overhaul of the directives; rather, we propose debate on how relatively small changes in guidelines could improve the utility of the huge amount of data collected from the Natura 2000 network.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"39 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cobi.70064","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144224598","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":"Identifying priority areas for conservation to promote connectivity and mitigate the impacts of anthropogenic disturbance.","authors":"Edmond Sacre, Ulf Bergström, Charlotte Berkström","doi":"10.1111/cobi.70083","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70083","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As nations seek to expand protected area (PA) networks to cover 30% of land and seas by 2030 (30×30), there is an urgent need for systematic conservation planning and spatial prioritization that considers the broad range of ecological and socioeconomic factors influencing the persistence of biodiversity. A remaining challenge in spatial prioritization is identifying areas that not only contribute to ecological connectivity but also are vulnerable to isolation and connectivity decline caused by anthropogenic disturbance. We devised an approach to assess PA networks and prioritize areas for conservation action and applied it to the Swedish coastal Baltic Sea area as an example. We developed connectivity models for 16 key fish species to identify habitats that provide the greatest contributions to maintaining network connectivity. We then incorporated spatial data on anthropogenic disturbance into the connectivity models to identify habitats for which human activities may hinder dispersal and recruitment, making them vulnerable to local population declines. We assessed the adequacy of the marine protected area (MPA) network in protecting these biodiversity features. Using spatial prioritization with explicit objectives to protect these biodiversity features, we then identified important areas for future protection. Although the Swedish MPA network provided a reasonable level of protection for these key habitats, their protection in stricter MPA categories (International Union for Conservation of Nature categories Ia, Ib, and II) was poor. Expanding the MPA network from its current coverage (10.5% of the study area) to 11%, the mean protection level across features increased from 25% to 48%. Expanding to 15% coverage increased mean protection across features to over 90%. Our approach to conservation planning incorporated not only biodiversity data (e.g., habitats and connectivity) but also the pressures these elements of biodiversity are susceptible to from human activities.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e70083"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144224612","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":"Impacts of bat use of anthropogenic structures on bats and humans.","authors":"Ella A Sippola, Joseph S Johnson, Stefano Mammola, Grzegorz Apoznański, Ilze Brila, Ignacio Fernández Latapiat, Piia Lundberg, Mariia Matlova, Veronica Nanni, Reilly T Jackson, Janette Perez-Jimenez, Sonia Sánchez-Navarro, Elena Tena, Tanya S Troitsky, Thomas M Lilley, Melissa B Meierhofer","doi":"10.1111/cobi.70037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70037","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Human-induced landscape modifications and climate change are forcing wildlife into closer contact with humans as the availability of natural habitats decreases. Although the importance of anthropogenic structures for the conservation of species is widely recognized, negative narratives surrounding bats may impede conservation efforts in human-dominated landscapes. We conducted a global systematic literature review to summarize research pertaining to bats in anthropogenic structures and analyze the impacts of occupancy of these structures on bats and humans. We extracted data from 735 publications and included 8 that provided a total of 29 quantitative estimates in meta-analyses assessing the consequences of roost selection by bats in anthropogenic and natural habitats. Additionally, information from all 735 publications was used for summaries. Research focused on the Northern Hemisphere, despite the highest diversity of bat species occurring near the equator. Of the 13 identified impacts on bats from the use of anthropogenic structures, disturbance (caused by, e.g., visitation, renovations, artificial lighting) was the most frequently reported. Effects of bat presence on humans were primarily associated with pathogens or other microorganisms of zoonotic interest. Buildings were the most frequently identified anthropogenic roost, and the use of buildings differed across biogeographic realms. Although impacts varied across realms and structures, the Nearctic and Palearctic had the highest incidence of impacts. Few studies compared anthropogenic roosts with natural roosts, but our meta-analyses broadly identified differences in the effects of artificial versus natural roosts on bat behavior, roost temperature, and bat health and occupancy. We found that research is not focused currently on areas where bat-human interactions are most likely to intensify with the growing rate of urbanization. Although many effects on bats from roosting in anthropogenic structures were documented or mentioned, most studies did not measure these effects and few compared them with natural roosts. Quantifying impacts could help in the design of management practices that would benefit bats and humans.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e70037"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144224613","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":"Reconstructing historical catch trends of threatened sharks and rays based on fisher ecological knowledge","authors":"Guido Leurs,&nbsp;Rima W. Jabado,&nbsp;Assana Camará,&nbsp;Lilísio Dos Santos,&nbsp;Diosnes Manuel Nonque,&nbsp;Thije J. Zuidewind,&nbsp;Iça Barry,&nbsp;Pierre Campredon,&nbsp;Benja Blaschke,&nbsp;Karin de Boer,&nbsp;Nadia Hijner,&nbsp;Han Olff,&nbsp;Samuel Ledo Pontes,&nbsp;Aissa Regalla,&nbsp;Matthew Bjerregaard Walsh,&nbsp;Laura L. Govers","doi":"10.1111/cobi.70059","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cobi.70059","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Small-scale fisheries often lack historical shark and ray catch information, hampering their management. We reconstructed historical catch trends and current fishing pressure by combining local ecological knowledge, satellite-based vessel counts, and a short-term landing-site survey. To test the effectiveness of this method, we focused on the Bijagós Archipelago (Guinea-Bissau, West Africa), where historical fisheries data are lacking. Benthic rays (stingrays [Dasyatidae] and butterfly rays [<i>Gymnura</i> spp.]), benthopelagic rays (duckbill eagle rays [<i>Aetomylaeus bovinus</i>] and cownose rays [<i>Rhinoptera marginata</i>]), guitarfish (<i>Glaucostegus</i> and <i>Rhinobatos</i> spp.), requiem sharks (Carcharhinidae), and hammerhead sharks (<i>Sphyrna</i> spp.) declined in abundance by 81.5–96.7% (species dependent) from 1960 to 2020. Fishing effort increased annually: fishing trip duration by 42.0% (SE 3.4), numbers of fishing vessels at sea as perceived by fishers by 36.3% (1.0) (1960–2020), and number of vessels by 12.0% (1.1) (2007–2022). We estimated that in 2020, fishing vessels collectively captured 61–264 sharks and 522–2194 rays per day in the archipelago, depending on the proportion of the fishing fleet that was active (i.e., low fleet activity of 18% and high fleet activity of 80%). We advocate for reducing shark and ray catches by regulating fleet size, reinforcing boundaries of protected areas, and collecting fisher-dependent information on shark and ray landings to safeguard these vulnerable species and coastal livelihoods. We demonstrated the effectiveness of using this 3-pronged approach to provide baseline data on shark fisheries, a common challenge in areas with small-scale fisheries and limited research capacity.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"39 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cobi.70059","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144224617","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":"Assessing limits of sustainable seed harvest in wild plant populations","authors":"Anna Bucharova,&nbsp;Oliver Bossdorf,&nbsp;J. F. Scheepens,&nbsp;Roberto Salguero-Gómez","doi":"10.1111/cobi.70075","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cobi.70075","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Seed harvesting from wild plant populations is key for ecological restoration, but it may threaten the persistence of the source populations. Consequently, several countries have set guidelines limiting the proportions of harvestable seeds. However, these guidelines are inconsistent and lack a solid empirical basis. We used matrix population models based on 280 wild plant species, stored in he COMPADRE Plant Matrix Database, to model the demographic consequences of seed harvesting. Current guidelines do not protect populations of annuals and short-lived perennials because maximal allowed harvest drew all annual species included in our study to extinction. In contrast, current guidelines are overly restrictive for long-lived plants because these plants could tolerate even higher seed removal than currently allowed. The maximum possible fraction of seed production that can be harvested without compromising the long-term persistence of populations was strongly related to generation time of the target species. When harvesting seeds every year, the fraction of seeds that was safe to harvest (safe seed fraction) ranged from 80% in long-lived species to 2% in most annuals. Less frequent seed harvesting substantially increased the safe seed fraction. In the most vulnerable annual species, it was safe to harvest 5%, 10%, or 30% of a population's seed production when harvesting every 2, 5, or 10 years, respectively. Our results provide a quantitative basis for seed harvesting legislation, based on the generation times of species and harvesting regime.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"39 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cobi.70075","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144224596","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}