Search

Managing human use of ecosystems in an era of rapid environmental change requires an understanding of diverse stakeholders' behaviors and perceptions to enable effective prioritization of actions to mitigate multiple threats. Specifically, research examining how threat perceptions are shared or diverge among stakeholder groups and how these can evolve through time is increasingly important. We investigated environmental threat perceptions related to Australia's Great Barrier Reef and explored their associations before and after consecutive years of mass coral bleaching. We used data from surveys of commercial fishers, tourism operators, and coastal residents (n = 5254) conducted in 2013 and 2017. Threats perceived as most serious differed substantially among groups before bleaching but were strongly aligned after bleaching. Climate change became the most frequently reported threat by all stakeholder groups following the coral bleaching events, and perceptions of fishing and poor water quality as threats also ranked high. Within each of the 3 stakeholder groups, fishers, tourism operators, and coastal residents, the prioritization of these 3 threats tended to diverge in 2013, but convergence occurred after bleaching. These results indicate an emergence of areas of agreement both within and across stakeholder groups. Changes in perceptions were likely influenced by high‐profile environmental‐disturbance events and media representations of threats. Our results provide insights into the plasticity of environmental‐threat perceptions and highlight how their convergence in response to major events may create new opportunities for strategic public engagement and increasing support for management. Article impact statement: High‐profile environmental crises shape public perceptions and may create new opportunities to engage people with mitigation and adaptation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many marine invertebrate species facing potential extinction have uncertain taxonomies and poorly known demographic and ecological traits. Uncertainties are compounded when potential extinction drivers are climate and ocean changes whose effects on even widespread and abundant species are only partially understood. The U.S. Endangered Species Act mandates conservation management decisions founded on the extinction risk to species based on the best available science at the time of consideration-requiring prompt action rather than awaiting better information. We developed an expert-opinion threat-based approach that entails a structured voting system to assess extinction risk from climate and ocean changes and other threats to 82 coral species for which population status and threat response information was limited. Such methods are urgently needed because constrained budgets and manpower will continue to hinder the availability of desired data for many potentially vulnerable marine species. Significant species-specific information gaps and uncertainties precluded quantitative assessments of habitat loss or population declines and necessitated increased reliance on demographic characteristics and threat vulnerabilities at genus or family levels. Adapting some methods (e.g., a structured voting system) used during other assessments and developing some new approaches (e.g., integrated assessment of threats and demographic characteristics), we rated the importance of threats contributing to coral extinction risk and assessed those threats against population status and trend information to evaluate each species' extinction risk over the 21st century. This qualitative assessment resulted in a ranking with an uncertainty range for each species according to their estimated likelihood of extinction. We offer guidance on approaches for future biological extinction risk assessments, especially in cases of data-limited species likely to be affected by global-scale threats. Incorporación del Cambio Climático y Oceánico en Estudios de Riesgo de Extinción para 82 Especies de Coral [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has been suggested that transgenics and vertebrate cloning have a role to play in conservation. Now is the time to evaluate their risks and benefits, before these technologies are widely implemented in our field. Direct risks of transgenics include escape and introgression of transgenes into wild populations; weedy invasion by transgenic organisms; toxicity or pathogenicity of engineered organisms and their products; and human error in the field testing and tracking of transgenic organisms. Indirect risks include environmental effects of increased herbicide use; the danger that engineered organisms may aid the development of bioweapons; the likelihood that gene patenting will lead to the privatization of natural resources; and the diversion of support from less glamorous forms of conservation. Formal risk assessments are commonly used to evaluate transgenic procedures, but our incomplete understanding of both ecosystem processes and the action of transgenes renders most of these assessments scientifically and socially unjustified. Nevertheless, a few, low-risk applications of transgenics may be possible: for example, “super-sterile” ornamental cultivars. Vertebrate cloning poses little risk to the environment, but it can consume scarce conservation resources, and its chances of success in preserving species seem poor. To date, the conservation benefits of transgenics and vertebrate cloning remain entirely theoretical, but many of the risks are known and documented. Conservation biologists should devote their research and energies to the established methods of conservation, none of which require transgenics or vertebrate cloning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]