Search

We identified 100 scientific questions that, if answered, would have the greatest impact on conservation practice and policy. Representatives from 21 international organizations, regional sections and working groups of the Society for Conservation Biology, and 12 academics, from all continents except Antarctica, compiled 2291 questions of relevance to conservation of biological diversity worldwide. The questions were gathered from 761 individuals through workshops, email requests, and discussions. Voting by email to short-list questions, followed by a 2-day workshop, was used to derive the final list of 100 questions. Most of the final questions were derived through a process of modification and combination as the workshop progressed. The questions are divided into 12 sections: ecosystem functions and services, climate change, technological change, protected areas, ecosystem management and restoration, terrestrial ecosystems, marine ecosystems, freshwater ecosystems, species management, organizational systems and processes, societal context and change, and impacts of conservation interventions. We anticipate that these questions will help identify new directions for researchers and assist funders in directing funds.

We identified 100 scientific questions that, if answered, would have the greatest impact on conservation practice and policy. Representatives from 21 international organizations, regional sections and working groups of the Society for Conservation Biology, and 12 academics, from all continents except Antarctica, compiled 2291 questions of relevance to conservation of biological diversity worldwide. The questions were gathered from 761 individuals through workshops, email requests, and discussions. Voting by email to short-list questions, followed by a 2-day workshop, was used to derive the final list of 100 questions. Most of the final questions were derived through a process of modification and combination as the workshop progressed. The questions are divided into 12 sections: ecosystem functions and services, climate change, technological change, protected areas, ecosystem management and restoration, terrestrial ecosystems, marine ecosystems, freshwater ecosystems, species management, organizational systems and processes, societal context and change, and impacts of conservation interventions. We anticipate that these questions will help identify new directions for researchers and assist funders in directing funds.

Background. Conventional wisdom identities blodiversity hotspots as priorities for conservation investment because they capture dense concentrations of species. However, density of species does not necessarily imply conservation ’efficiency'. Here we explicitly consider conservation efficiency in terms of species protected per dollar invested. Methodology/Principal Findings. We apply a dynamic return on investment approach to a global biome and compare it with three alternate priority setting approaches and a random allocation of funding. After twenty years of acquiring habitat, the return on investment approach protects between 32 and 69 more species compared to the other priority setting approaches. To correct for potential inefficiencies of protecting the same species multiple times we account for the complementarity of species, protecting up to three times more distinct vertebrate species than alternate approaches. Conclusions/Significance. Incorporating costs in a return on investment framework expands priorities to include areas not traditionally highlighted as priorities based on conventional irreplaceability and vulnerability approaches.

BACKGROUND: Conventional wisdom identifies biodiversity hotspots as priorities for conservation investment because they capture dense concentrations of species. However, density of species does not necessarily imply conservation 'efficiency'. Here we explicitly consider conservation efficiency in terms of species protected per dollar invested. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We apply a dynamic return on investment approach to a global biome and compare it with three alternate priority setting approaches and a random allocation of funding. After twenty years of acquiring habitat, the return on investment approach protects between 32% and 69% more species compared to the other priority setting approaches. To correct for potential inefficiencies of protecting the same species multiple times we account for the complementarity of species, protecting up to three times more distinct vertebrate species than alternate approaches. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Incorporating costs in a return on investment framework expands priorities to include areas not traditionally highlighted as priorities based on conventional irreplaceability and vulnerability approaches.

Global conservation needs far exceed the available resources, so scarce resources must be used cost-effectively. Although many conservation priory-setting frameworks used by NGO's or public agencies explicitly claim to emphasize efficiency or wise investment, none actually incorporates costs in a formal return-on-investment (ROI) framework. We illustrate here how an ROI framework can be applied to real world resource allocation decisions faced by conservation organizations. We present two examples: (1) allocating resources to purchase land in 21 ecoregions that make up the Temperate Forest Habitat in the US; (2) allocating resources among a variety of conservation actions (not just land purchase) in Mediterranean habitats, with rates of habitat loss factored into the analysis. An important feature of both case studies is that costs vary by orders of magnitude, depending on where or how one is doing conservation. Second, because costs and biodiversity are not well correlated, enormous savings are possible by applying an ROI analysis. Moreover, recommended priorities after including costs in the calculations often deviate substantially from priorities based solely on biodiversity measures. Hence we argue that a major effort of conservationist biologists should be to include and record the costs of conservation actions. If serious attention is not given to returns on investment, it implies that "money is no object.". © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Conservation priority-setting schemes have not yet combined geographic priorities with a framework that can guide the allocation of funds among alternate conservation actions that address specific threats. We develop such a framework, and apply it to 17 of the world's 39 Mediterranean ecoregions. This framework offers an improvement over approaches that only focus on land purchase or species richness and do not account for threats. We discover that one could protect many more plant and vertebrate species by investing in a sequence of conservation actions targeted towards specific threats, such as invasive species control, land acquisition, and off-reserve management, than by relying solely on acquiring land for protected areas. Applying this new framework will ensure investment in actions that provide the most cost-effective outcomes for biodiversity conservation. This will help to minimise the misallocation of scarce conservation resources. © 2007 Wilson et al.

Conservation priority-setting schemes have not yet combined geographic priorities with a framework that can guide the allocation of funds among alternate conservation actions that address specific threats. We develop such a framework, and apply it to 17 of the world's 39 Mediterranean ecoregions. This framework offers an improvement over approaches that only focus on land purchase or species richness and do not account for threats. We discover that one could protect many more plant and vertebrate species by investing in a sequence of conservation actions targeted towards specific threats, such as invasive species control, land acquisition, and off-reserve management, than by relying solely on acquiring land for protected areas. Applying this new framework will ensure investment in actions that provide the most cost-effective outcomes for biodiversity conservation. This will help to minimise the misallocation of scarce conservation resources.

Conservation priority-setting schemes have not yet combined geographic priorities with a framework that can guide the allocation of funds among alternate conservation actions that address specific threats. We develop such a framework, and apply it to 17 of the world's 39 Mediterranean ecoregions. This framework offers an improvement over approaches that only focus on land purchase or species richness and do not account for threats. We discover that one could protect many more plant and vertebrate species by investing in a sequence of conservation actions targeted towards specific threats, such as invasive species control, land acquisition, and off-reserve management, than by relying solely on acquiring land for protected areas. Applying this new framework will ensure investment in actions that provide the most cost-effective outcomes for biodiversity conservation. This will help to minimise the misallocation of scarce conservation resources.

The use of parameter estimation techniques for partial differential equations is illustrated using a predator-prey model. These techniques will be general useful for any interaction and redistribution model in ecology, and can even be used to treat spatially and/or temporally varying diffusion and directed movement. When applied to field data from a ladybird beetle (Coccinella septempunctata) and aphid (Uroleucon nigrotuberculatum) interaction, parameter estimation algorithms can be employed to identify models that explain better than 80% of the observed variance in aphid and ladybird densities. Parameter estimation is an approach that can bridge the gap between detail-rich experimental studies and abstract mathematical models. By relating the particular best-fit models identified from our experimental data to other information on Coccinella behavior, it is concluded that a term describing local taxis of ladybirds towards prey (aphids in this case) is needed in the model.

The authors develop techniques for estimating the coefficients, boundary data, and initial data associated with transport equations (or more generally, parabolic distributed models). Their estimation schemes are based on cubic spline approximations, for which convergence results are given. They discuss the performance of these techniques in two investigations of biological interest: (1) transport of labeled sucrose in brain tissue white matter, and (2) insect dispersal that cannot be modeled by a random diffusion mechanism alone. (Author), Sponsored in part by Grant NSF-MCS79-05774-05.

The authors present convergence arguments for algorithms developed to estimate spatially and/or time dependent coefficients and boundary parameters in general transport (diffusion, advection, sink/source) models in a bounded domain Omega C R sub 2. A brief summary of numerical results obtained using the algorithms is given. (Author), Sponsored in part by Grants NSF-MCS82-00883 and NSF-DEB82-07117.

The authors describe techniques for estimating temporally and spatially dependent parameters (including coefficients) that appear in general transport models. Convergence properties of the resulting algorithms are given and sample computational findings with test examples are presented. The authors conclude with a summary of their use of the methods analyzing experiments on the movements of marked flea beetles in cultivated arrays of the cole crop, collards (Brassica oleraceae). (Author), Sponsored in part by Grants NSF-MCS82-00883 and NSF-DEB82-07117.