Conservation Letters最新文献

{"title":"Enabling Nature-Based Solutions by Embracing Their Limits: Insights From Governing in Complexity","authors":"Kerry A. Waylen,&nbsp;Rakhyun E. Kim","doi":"10.1111/con4.70074","DOIUrl":"10.1111/con4.70074","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Nature-based solutions (NbS) have become a central concept in contemporary conservation. While much scholarship and practice aim to refine and upscale NbS, we argue that it is important to recognize their inherent limits, which stem from the complexity of socio-ecological systems. Drawing on literatures about governing in complexity, we identify three fundamental sources of limitation: bounded steerability of complex adaptive systems, inescapable contestation of plural values and power, and persistent cross-scale misfits between ecological and institutional dynamics. These manifest as recurrent limits for NbS, including shifting priorities, unavoidable trade-offs, recurring conflicts, unexpected outcomes, external shocks, and contested knowledge. We outline implications for policy, practice, and research: emphasizing humility, adaptivity, and reflexivity as necessary conditions for advancing NbS without overstating their promise.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"19 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2026-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/con4.70074","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148459310","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":"Cross-Ecosystem Biodiversity Action Is Systemically Overlooked","authors":"Tianna Peller,&nbsp;Florian Altermatt","doi":"10.1111/con4.70067","DOIUrl":"10.1111/con4.70067","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) stands as the world's foremost strategy for biodiversity protection. However, despite emphasizing ecosystem connectivity, the GBF remains largely organized around discrete ecosystem types, biomes, and political jurisdictions. Consequently, it falls short of explicitly addressing a fundamental ecological reality: biodiversity is shaped by biotic and abiotic processes that transcend ecosystem and institutional boundaries. Biodiversity in one type of ecosystem can strongly depend on ecological processes occurring in another, yet these cross-ecosystem dependencies frequently fall outside existing governance structures. In this perspective, we confront the oversight of cross-ecosystem dependencies in biodiversity management and policy as a systemic problem. We present evidence showing how ecological change propagates across ecosystem interfaces (e.g., aquatic-terrestrial) through biotic and abiotic pathways, and how institutional fragmentation undermines coordinated conservation action across these same boundaries and scales. We discuss how failing to account for cross-ecosystem dependencies of biodiversity undermines the GBF's vision for halting and reversing biodiversity loss. Finally, we outline pathways for integrating cross-ecosystem biodiversity dependencies into global biodiversity policy, through creative interpretation of ecosystem connectivity and integrity, implementation within National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, and the development of cross-ecosystem indicators and management frameworks.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"19 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2026-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/con4.70067","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148432249","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":"Sharks, Rays, and MPAs: A Global Assessment of Marine Protected Area Coverage in National Waters Across Species Ranges","authors":"Amanda E. Arnold,&nbsp;Jay H. Matsushiba,&nbsp;Nicholas K. Dulvy","doi":"10.1111/con4.70071","DOIUrl":"10.1111/con4.70071","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Global conservation agreements emphasize protected area coverage targets, such as the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework's 30 × 30 target, yet their effectiveness in safeguarding biodiversity remains uncertain. We measure the intersection between marine protected area (MPA) coverage and the distribution of sharks and rays. Using global range maps and MPA boundaries within national exclusive economic zones, we calculate the percent of species’ ranges within MPAs, focusing on no-take areas. We reveal significant shortfalls in species-level protection. Within national waters, no Critically Endangered species has more than 5% of its range in no-take MPAs, and 79% of threatened species have less than 1%. We also find that the WDPA contains major gaps in take-status reporting, as only one third of countries (34%) report take-status information for any MPAs to the WDPA, further limiting estimates of meaningful protection. These results highlight the implementation gap between global coverage targets and biodiversity outcomes, reinforcing the need for species-focused protection.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"19 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2026-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/con4.70071","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148415580","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":"Priority Actions for the Conservation of Primary and Old-Growth Forests in Europe","authors":"Lyla O'Brien,&nbsp;Fabio Castelli,&nbsp;Adam Felton,&nbsp;Tobias Kuemmerle,&nbsp;Martin Mikoláš,&nbsp;Catalina Munteanu,&nbsp;Francesco Maria Sabatini,&nbsp;Johan Svensson,&nbsp;Miroslav Svoboda,&nbsp;Kris Vandekerkhove,&nbsp;Georg Winkel,&nbsp;Marcus Lindner","doi":"10.1111/con4.70054","DOIUrl":"10.1111/con4.70054","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Primary and old-growth forests are important for nature and society. Although global commitments to their conservation are increasing and the EU has aligned itself with these efforts, these forests remain critically threatened. Consequently, to meet its own targets rooted in global commitments, the EU needs a strategy that ensures their conservation. The Nature Restoration Regulation offers a promising framework for this. We outline four priority actions for the conservation of these forests and explain how they can be achieved under the Regulation: (1) assess progress and address barriers to identifying, mapping, and protecting primary and old-growth forests and implement a logging moratorium; (2) prevent degradation from anthropogenic pressures and protect natural processes; (3) expand strict protection and establish buffer zones; and (4) improve connectivity and create secondary old-growth forests through passive and active restoration. Additionally, we highlight how the Regulation provides an opportunity to address further policy gaps.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"19 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2026-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/con4.70054","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148342524","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":"Social Media and the Illusion of Conservation Impact","authors":"Peter Mikula,&nbsp;Łukasz Dylewski,&nbsp;Piotr Tryjanowski","doi":"10.1111/con4.70070","DOIUrl":"10.1111/con4.70070","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Social media has become embedded in the institutional infrastructure of nature conservation and ecology (Jarić et al. &lt;span&gt;2020&lt;/span&gt;; Correia et al. &lt;span&gt;2021&lt;/span&gt;). Researchers and conservationists use platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, X, and Facebook for outreach, fundraising, advocacy, public engagement and, increasingly, as sources of ecological and social information (Toivonen et al. &lt;span&gt;2019&lt;/span&gt;). Social media can support conservation behavior, funding and policy action, but it can also amplify exploitation, disturbance, illegal trade, and misinformation (Bergman et al. &lt;span&gt;2022&lt;/span&gt;). This dual role has already been well described, and conservation scientists have repeatedly cautioned against treating online engagement as conservation impact (Doughty et al. &lt;span&gt;2021&lt;/span&gt;; Caetano et al. &lt;span&gt;2025&lt;/span&gt;). Yet this caution has not been consistently translated into conservation practice. Conservation still often embraces platform metrics—reach, likes, shares, impressions, and engagement—faster than it has developed standards to evaluate their &lt;i&gt;net conservation impact&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;We argue that the main problem is not a complete lack of evaluative frameworks, but their weak translation into everyday conservation practice. First, the benefits of digital visibility in conservation practice are often assumed rather than demonstrated. As conservation communication is absorbed into the logic of &lt;i&gt;Nature 2.0&lt;/i&gt;, biodiversity, landscapes, and wildlife encounters are increasingly converted into shareable content shaped by likes, algorithms, and personal branding (Büscher &lt;span&gt;2016&lt;/span&gt;). As a consequence, we still routinely celebrate reach, virality, impressions, and engagement, yet much less often ask whether these metrics translate into public behavioral change, policy effects or measurable ecological outcomes (Salazar et al. &lt;span&gt;2019&lt;/span&gt;; Bergman et al. &lt;span&gt;2022&lt;/span&gt;). Sharing, liking, and commenting may feel like participation, but such acts can remain largely performative. In conservation, attention is not impact. What is needed is a disciplined evaluative framework that judges practice across successive levels of effect: (1) platform output (reach, impressions, shares, and comments), (2) audience response (changes in awareness, attitudes or behavior), (3) institutional response (fundraising, management action, enforcement or policy uptake), and ultimately, (4) ecological outcome (measurable change in disturbance, compliance, habitat condition, exploitation pressure or population status). Crucially, this evaluation must explicitly assess plausible harms and externalities alongside intended benefits. The relevant question is not whether a campaign went viral, but whether its net conservation effect was positive.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Second, the potential harms should be treated as externalities of visibility, not as isolated examples, converting wildlife encounters, places and conflicts into attention-generating content. ","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"19 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2026-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/con4.70070","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148314381","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":"Long-Term Drought Exposure Shapes Declines and Range Shifts in Aridland Birds","authors":"M. van den Bosch,&nbsp;H. M. Boone,&nbsp;J. K. Costanza,&nbsp;R. A. Peek,&nbsp;Z. L. Steel","doi":"10.1111/con4.70069","DOIUrl":"10.1111/con4.70069","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Climate change increases drought frequencies and intensities, posing risks to biodiversity. Species inhabiting arid regions may be vulnerable to drought because they live near their physiological limits, while species with low historical drought exposure may lack adaptations to cope with unprecedented drought. Using a breeding bird dataset and the Standardized Precipitation-Evaporation Index, we assessed drought vulnerability of 37 bird species across deserts of the western United States. We tested drought effects on community and species-level relative abundance, how species’ long-term drought exposure influences these effects, and for drought-induced range shifts. Drought was associated with abundance declines and distributional shifts for over 40% of species, with shift directions reflecting regional drought patterns. Species with lower historical drought exposure declined more strongly, though several highly exposed species were among the most vulnerable. These findings demonstrate that climatic history modulates species’ responses to increasing aridity. Under intensifying drought, incorporating regional drought dynamics and climatic legacies into climate change vulnerability assessments is essential for anticipating conservation issues.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"19 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2026-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/con4.70069","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148299513","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":"The Managed Erosion of Conservation Priorities for Pacific Salmon","authors":"Michael H. H. Price,&nbsp;Allison M. Dennert,&nbsp;Gideon J. Mordecai,&nbsp;Mark Cleveland,&nbsp;Aaron Hill,&nbsp;Samantha Vincent,&nbsp;Greg Knox,&nbsp;John D. Reynolds","doi":"10.1111/con4.70068","DOIUrl":"10.1111/con4.70068","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Conservation policies worldwide promise to halt biodiversity loss, yet implementation frequently lags intent. We examine this disconnect through wild Pacific salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus</i> spp.) in Canada, where sustained declines have occurred despite the federal Wild Salmon Policy and legal protections available under the Species at Risk Act. Drawing on population data, policy analyses, and documented governance failures, we show that conservation outcomes have been compromised by declining monitoring capacity, weakened scientific integrity and independence, and limited political willingness to act on evidence. Long-term monitoring has declined substantially, leaving many populations data-deficient and delaying detection of risk. Scientific advice has at times been compromised by political and sectoral pressures that weaken evidence-based decision-making. Governments have repeatedly failed to implement timely protections for at-risk populations despite clear scientific warnings. Together, these failures illustrate how discretionary governance and weak institutional safeguards can undermine conservation commitments. Canada's experience illustrates a broader global challenge: conservation policies lacking accountability mechanisms, enforceable obligations, and safeguards for scientific integrity are unlikely to deliver intended biodiversity outcomes. Preventing further loss will require sustained investment in monitoring and assessment, timely conservation action, and governance systems capable of translating scientific evidence into effective protection.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"19 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2026-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/con4.70068","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148299514","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":"Unsettling Academic Conferences: Authority, Reciprocity, and the Ethics of Place","authors":"Sara E. Cannon,&nbsp;Rebecca Lave,&nbsp;Marc Tadaki","doi":"10.1111/con4.70064","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/con4.70064","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Academic conferences are vital spaces for knowledge exchange and professional development, yet conventional structures often reinforce colonial hierarchies, environmental harm, and exclusionary practices. Here, we suggest an anticolonial reimagining of academic conferencing through the principles of authority and reciprocity. Based on our experiences organizing large scientific meetings, we suggest a place-based approach to conference organizing that centers Indigenous sovereignty and relational accountability, enacting shared authority with local custodians and reciprocal engagement with host communities. Recent conferences illustrate how organizers can materially support Indigenous Peoples, and how conference decisions—particularly regarding timing, location, and services—might help to disrupt rather than sustain extractive tendencies. By unsettling default practices and embracing relational ethics, conferences can become transformative spaces that honor place-based knowledge, strengthen community economies, and advance social and environmental justice.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"19 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2026-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/con4.70064","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148282208","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":"A Patch-Number Null Does Not Rule out Conditional Configuration Effects","authors":"Juan Andrés Martínez-Lanfranco","doi":"10.1111/con4.70063","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/con4.70063","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Daly et al. (&lt;span&gt;2025&lt;/span&gt;) provide an unusually informative test of how forest amount, patch number, and wooded-corridor connectivity relate to biodiversity. Their design is a strength because the same 70 landscapes were selected to reduce pairwise correlations among predictors, and patch number and corridor reachability were fitted as separate spatial-pattern axes. This design supports axis-specific inference. Their near-null forest amount × patch-number interaction is therefore axis-specific, not a general absence of cover-dependent configuration effects.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The same dataset contains a sign-reversing conditional response on the corridor axis. One subdivision metric returned a weak conditional signal, while a reachability metric returned a strong cover-dependent signal. Daly et al.’s methods therefore implement the metric distinction needed for inference. A non-detected interaction for patch number is compatible with genuine amount-only invariance for that metric, but also with a metric that does not capture the operative mechanism, a sampled gradient outside the region where the mechanism is expressed, or an assemblage in which sensitive taxa no longer express the response. These alternatives have different implications for conservation, even though they can appear identical when reduced to a detected-or-not-detected interaction.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Existing theory predicts more than one cover × fragmentation pattern. Threshold arguments predict stronger fragmentation effects as habitat becomes scarce (Andrén &lt;span&gt;1994&lt;/span&gt;), whereas colonization–competition models predict sign reversals across the cover gradient (Rybicki et al. &lt;span&gt;2020&lt;/span&gt;). Daly et al.’s own results reflect this plurality more than a binary null. The patch-number axis was weak, but the corridor-reachability axis was strongly conditional. Read as a reachability result, this is not peripheral to the fragmentation debate. It shows that biodiversity responses to spatial pattern can depend on forest amount when the fitted metric tracks the operative process.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The cited null canon also warrants closer reading. Trzcinski et al. (&lt;span&gt;1999&lt;/span&gt;) reported weak and variable species responses to fragmentation, including significant interactions in opposite directions, rather than a single invariant pattern. Ritchie et al. (&lt;span&gt;2009&lt;/span&gt;) tested the threshold interaction with patch size in a fine-grained forest mosaic where edge contrast and patch boundaries were weak, and where landscape composition and non-habitat matrix were stronger predictors than configuration. Smith et al. (&lt;span&gt;2011&lt;/span&gt;) fit core forest, which is oriented opposite to fragmentation per se. After accounting for metric orientation, their interaction results are threshold-consistent, with core-forest effects strongest where forest amount was low. Smith et al. discussed this pattern as supporting a fragmentation threshold.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Conservation recommendations derived from metric-specific nulls shou","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"19 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2026-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/con4.70063","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148282209","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":"The Paradox of Success in Conservation Performance Payments: Rising Costs and Declining Trust in Sweden's Carnivore Policy","authors":"Hanna L. Pettersson,&nbsp;Malin Aronsson,&nbsp;Jens Persson","doi":"10.1111/con4.70057","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/con4.70057","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Human–wildlife coexistence is central to global biodiversity agendas, yet can impose substantial costs on affected communities. Conservation Performance Payments (CPPs), which reward participants for wildlife presence, aim to redistribute these costs and reduce conflicts. Sweden's state-funded CPP for Indigenous Sámi reindeer herders to share space with wolverines, lynx, and wolves is the oldest scheme of its kind and widely hailed as best practice for coexistence. Drawing on interviews, ecological data, and policy records spanning nearly three decades, we assess its operation in Norrbotten County, a hotspot for wolverines and herding communities. We show that scheme effectiveness has not been sustained: Payments do not match rising coexistence costs, monitoring methods have become unreliable under changing climate conditions, and participants’ trust in the system has eroded. The resulting loss of legitimacy coincides with a reversal of the regional wolverine recovery previously enabled by the scheme. Our findings illuminate a dilemma for results-based payments: success increases costs, demanding sustained institutional accountability and adaptive management. Without this, pressure mounts on local communities, undermining social justice and conservation goals. We conclude that CPPs can be a valuable complementary tool for coexistence, if designed to adapt to socio-ecological change, rising costs, and participants’ needs over time.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"19 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2026-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/con4.70057","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148166923","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}