Search

One Health is a cross‐sectoral and transdisciplinary approach that emphasizes the fundamental ways in which the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, fungi, plants, microbes, and natural and built ecosystems are interdependent. One Health approaches recognize the links between human health and a range of environmental concerns including biodiversity, climate, freshwater, food, harmful chemicals, and healthy oceans. Yet the conservation community and its broad interest in biodiversity and the natural world has been notably lacking in discussions about One Health. Partly as a result, both policy and practice have been narrowly focused on one or a few links between human and other healths, such as the human and wildlife health nexus. We provide a set of principles and components that will balance existing discussions by including the natural world and biodiversity and provide a framework for more active involvement by the conservation community. Incorporating these principles and components will enable One Health practice to guide inclusive, multidisciplinary, and cross‐sectoral efforts that consider the shared costs and benefits of human, animal, plant, and ecosystem health and help readjust humanity's pursuit of a green, just, and equitable sustainability pathway. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although recent advances are changing this, microbes are harder to count with traditional conservation methods (they cannot be observed via satellite), making them even further outside the comfort zone for traditional conservation. Keywords: bacteria; conservation; microbes; microbial world; virus EN bacteria conservation microbes microbial world virus 1 2 2 05/31/23 20230601 NES 230601 Global assessments of biodiversity pay scant attention to the microbial world, and many conservation organizations are largely uninterested in extending their work to microbes. Finally, engage with the synthetic biology community in collaborative work on potential conservation applications of engineered microbes and the imperative to invest in microbial conservation. [Extracted from the article]

Abstract: Conservation practice has demonstrated an increasing desire for accountability of actions, particularly with respect to effectiveness, efficiency, and impact to clearly identified objectives. This has been accompanied by increased attention to achieving adaptive management. In 2002, practitioners representing several prominent conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) launched a community of practice called the Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP). The partnership CMP has worked to establish standards of conservation practice to improve accountability of conservation actions through adaptive management. The focal organizing framework for CMP has been the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (OS). We evaluated, through an online survey and personal interviews, the first decade of CMP and the OS. The CMP has garnered a positive reputation among agencies, NGOs, and funders and has succeeded in developing a large user base of the OS. However, CMP has not fully achieved its goal of making the OS standard operating procedure for the largest NGOs (e.g., The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund), despite it being widely used within these organizations. This lack of institutionalization is attributable to multiple causes, including an increase in the number of partially overlapping decision‐support frameworks and challenges achieving full‐cycle adaptive management. Users strongly believed the OS fosters better conservation practice and highly valued the OS for improving their practice. A primary objective of the OS is to assist practitioners to achieve full‐cycle adaptive management to better integrate learning into improving the effectiveness and efficiency of actions. However, most practitioners had not yet achieved cycle completion for their projects. To improve the effectiveness of CMP, OS, and conservation practice in general, we recommend collaborative efforts among the proponents of multiple decision‐support frameworks to foster strong institutional adoption of a common set of adaptive‐management standards for conservation accountability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A divergence of values has become apparent in recent debates between conservationists who focus on ecosystem services that can improve human well-being and those who focus on avoiding the extinction of species. These divergent points of view fall along a continuum from anthropocentric to biocentric values, but most conservationists are relatively closer to each other than to the ends of the spectrum. We have some concerns with both positions but emphasize that conservation for both people and all other species will be most effective if conservationists focus on articulating the values they all share, being respectful of divergent values, and collaborating on common interests. The conservation arena is large enough to accommodate many people and organizations whose diverse values lead them to different niches that can, with good will and foresight, be far more complementary than competitive. Los Nichos Complementarios de los Conservacionistas Antropocéntricos y Biocéntricos [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unsustainable hunting in tropical forests threatens biodiversity and rural livelihoods, yet managing these harvests in remote forests with low scientific capacity and funding is challenging. In response, some conservationists propose managing harvests through spatial management, a system of establishing no-take zones where hunting is not allowed. Spatial management was commonly used in customary management and is increasingly used for fisheries management today, but is not yet widely implemented in tropical forests. Through this review, we trace the development of spatial management and examine its proposed benefits in tropical forests. We find that while spatial management offers promise for managing the complex, multispecies harvests common in tropical forests, designing no-take zones will require more investment in ecological research and monitoring. Given these challenges, a reasonable first goal of no-take zones is to protect resident wildlife populations, not enhance harvests through dispersal. A greater understanding of socioeconomic impacts will also be required to ensure successful implementation. Past work in marine fisheries offers valuable insights for management in tropical forests, and greater integration between the bodies of literature should be pursued. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many wide-ranging mammal species have experienced significant declines over the last 200 years; restoring these species will require long-term, large-scale recovery efforts. We highlight 5 attributes of a recent range-wide vision-setting exercise for ecological recovery of the North American bison (Bison bison ) that are broadly applicable to other species and restoration targets. The result of the exercise, the “Vermejo Statement” on bison restoration, is explicitly (1) large scale, (2) long term, (3) inclusive, (4) fulfilling of different values, and (5) ambitious. It reads, in part, “Over the next century, the ecological recovery of the North American bison will occur when multiple large herds move freely across extensive landscapes within all major habitats of their historic range, interacting in ecologically significant ways with the fullest possible set of other native species, and inspiring, sustaining and connecting human cultures.” We refined the vision into a scorecard that illustrates how individual bison herds can contribute to the vision. We also developed a set of maps and analyzed the current and potential future distributions of bison on the basis of expert assessment. Although more than 500,000 bison exist in North America today, we estimated they occupy <1% of their historical range and in no place express the full range of ecological and social values of previous times. By formulating an inclusive, affirmative, and specific vision through consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, we hope to provide a foundation for conservation of bison, and other wide-ranging species, over the next 100 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Before widespread, informed collaboration can take place in conservation there must be a process of understanding the different approaches employed by different conservation organizations to conserve biodiversity. To begin this process and to help build understanding and collaboration, we provide a conceptual map of 21 approaches currently being implemented by 13 conservation organizations. We examined each of these approaches according to (1) the nature of the conservation target—the object(s) of the conservation action; ( 2 ) whether the question addressed is where conservation should be done or how conservation should be done; ( 3 ) the scale ( both grain and extent ) of the approach; and (4 ) the principles that underlie the approach. These questions provide a good way of distinguishing between most of the approaches and reveal that there is less competition between them than is assumed. We conclude that only with explicit understanding can the conservation community and its supporters critically compare approaches and come to a consensus about a set of metrics for measuring and achieving global conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International conservation planning at the end of the twentieth century is dominated by coarse-filter, supra-organismal approaches to conservation that may be insufficient to conserve certain species such as the jaguar ( Panthera onca ). If we are to retain broadly distributed species into the next century, we need to plan explicitly for their survival across their entire geographic range and through political boundaries while recognizing the variety of ecological roles the species plays in different habitats. In March 1999 the Wildlife Conservation Society sponsored a priority-setting and planning exercise for the jaguar across its range, from northern Mexico to northern Argentina. Field scientists from 18 countries reached consensus on four types of information: (1) the spatial extent of their jaguar knowledge, (2) the known, currently occupied range of jaguars, (3) areas with substantial jaguar populations, adequate habitat, and a stable and diverse prey base, and (4) point localities where jaguars have been observed during the last 10 years. During the exercise, these experts also conducted a range-wide assessment of the long-term survival prospects of the jaguar and developed an algorithm for prioritizing jaguar conservation units occurring in major habitat types. From this work, we learned that the known, occupied range of the jaguar has contracted to approximately 46% of estimates of its 1900 range. Jaguar status and distribution is unknown in another 12% of the jaguar's former range, including large areas in Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil. But over 70% of the area where jaguars are thought to still occur was rated as having a high probability of supporting their long-term survival. Fifty-one jaguar conservation units representing 30 different jaguar geographic regions were prioritized as the basis for a comprehensive jaguar conservation program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous studies of the sustainability of wildlife hunting in the Neotropics have not considered the potential dispersal of animals into hunted areas. A literature review of studies of subsistence hunting in the Neotropics suggests that hunting is often conducted in areas adjacent to relatively undisturbed habitat that may act as sources of animals for the hunted sites. We compared studies of tapir ( Tapirus terrestris) hunting at different sites to illustrate the potential bias of sustainability evaluations based on local productivity. The limited information available suggests that dispersal could have a key role in rebuilding animal populations depleted by hunting. Thus, factors that strongly affect dispersal—such as spatial distribution and size of areas with and without hunting, population size in source areas, and social behavior—should be considered when the sustainability of hunting is evaluated in areas with heterogeneous hunting pressure. We suggest the application of two models that use spatial controls (recognizing the potential source-sink nature of some hunted systems and protecting unhunted refugia) to avoid wildlife overexploitation when biological data and enforcement capabilities to regulate harvests are limited. This approach may produce more reliable evaluations of sustainability, provide information on the dynamics of hunting systems, and help local communities and policymakers conserve key areas (including protected areas) that may act as game sources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biodiversity conservation has become the stated objective of national governments, state agencies, local communities, and scientific organizations. Yet despite this attention the term biodiversity remains poorly defined. One of the unfortunate consequences of this lack of definition is a proliferation of claims that biodiversity can be both used and conserved. This claim is difficult to assess without a more precise way of defining biodiversity. We offer a heuristic framework for measuring the consequences of human use for biodiversity. Our definition of biodiversity includes three components: genetic, population/species, and community/ecosystem. Each component has its own three attributes: composition, structure, and function. Using this definition, we assessed the effects of different types of human use on the different components and attributes of biodiversity. We show that (1) different degrees of human use or alteration result in differential conservation of biodiversity components; (2) some components and attributes of biodiversity are more sensitive to human use than others; and (3) only extremely limited use or virtually no alteration will protect all components. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors discus the role of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) in conservation science. The authors mention the IPBES functions including identification of scientific information, doing assessments on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and supporting policy formulation and implementation. They add that IPBES has the ability to give conservation science the visibility given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to climate science.

The author reflects on the significance of researches about human microbiome. He states that researches on microorganisms including bacteria, Archaea, and fungi found on human bodies are significant in understanding human health. He mentions that every human has more than 100 trillion microbial symbionts. He suggests that studies conducted on human microbiome be also applied in to meet the challenges of conservation of native plant and animal life.

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics related to conservation science including how to boost the success of conservation in the next 25 years, conservation professionals' consensus on conservation strategies, and societal priorities.

Comments on an article by S. Schwartzman, D. Nepstad and A. Moreira in the October 2000 issue of 'Conservation Biology,' on tropical forest conservation. Points raised in the paper which could be politically dangerous for both conservation and forest-dwelling peoples; Weakness in the authors' argument about the evidence supporting the effect of human hunting on animals.

Target 3 in the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) calls for protecting at least 30% of the world's lands and waters in area‐based conservation approaches by 2030. This ambitious 30×30 target has spurred great interest among policy makers, practitioners, and researchers in defining and measuring the effectiveness of these types of approaches. But along with this broad interest, there has also been a proliferation of terms and their accompanying abbreviations used to describe different types of conservation areas and their governance, planning, management, and monitoring. The lack of standard terms is hindering the use and assessment of area‐based approaches to conserve the world's biodiversity. It is difficult to track progress toward GBF Target 3 or to share learning with other practitioners if different groups of people are using different words to describe the same concept or similar words to talk about different concepts. To address this problem, the International Union for Conservation of Nature's World Commission on Protected Areas commissioned a task force to review existing terms and recommend a standard English‐language lexicon for this field based on key criteria. The results were definitions of 37 terms across 6 categories, including types of protected and additional conservation areas (e.g., protected area, additional conservation area), sets of these areas (protected area network, protected area system), their governance and management (governance, rightsholders), assessment (effectiveness, equitability), spatial planning (key biodiversity area), and action planning (value, outcome, objective). Our standard lexicon can provide a common language for people who want to use it and a shared reference point that can be used to translate various terms used by different groups. The common understanding provided by the lexicon can serve as a foundation for collaborative efforts to improve the policies, implementation, assessments, research, and learning about this important set of conservation approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses the practice of augury by the humans that looks for signs of what the future will bring. He is critical about the results of the studies done by the Psychologists which states that that the humans often try to predict the future by sampling from the past and projecting that sample onto the future. He discusses the importance of synthetic biology. He discusses the role of nature to seek the future of humans in the discoveries of humans.

The authors reflect on the long-term issues of animal conservation. They discuss the definition of fads that embraces enthusiastically and part of conservation on human endeavor whether in business, economics or psychology. They also explores the evidence of fads that relates to biological diversity conservation. It notes that fads include various fields of ecotourism, reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) and payment for ecosystem or environmental services (PES).

A response by William M. Adams to a letter to the editor about his article "Payment for Ecosystem Services and the Challenge of Saving Nature" that was published in the previous issue is presented.

The article offers information on the publication's new directions for book reviews. It states that the publication will be adopting a new scheme of reviewing sets of books. It suggests that conservation professionals who are trained in the natural sciences should learn about books published in other disciplines from which conservation has much to learn.

Understanding the spatial dimensions of hunting and prey population dynamics is important in order to estimate the sustainability of hunting in tropical forests. We investigated how hunting offtake of vertebrates differed in mixed forest and monodominant forest (composed of Gilbertiodendron dewevrei) and over different spatial extents within the hunting catchment around the logging town of Kabo, Congo. In 9 months of recall surveys with hunters, we gathered information on over 1500 hunting trips in which ungulates were 65% of the species killed and 82% of harvested biomass. Hunters supplied information on animals killed and the hunting trip, including the area visited (i.e., hunting zone; 11 separate zones within a 506 km catchment or commonly hunted area). Over 65% of all animals were killed in monodominant forest, which made up 28% of the hunting catchment, and zones with small amounts of monodominant forest were used most frequently by hunters. Given the large offtakes from monodominant forests, we suggest that animal dispersal may be maintaining high, localized harvests in these areas. We believe hunters preferred to hunt in monodominant forest because the understory was accessible and that areas with small amounts of monodominant forest and large amounts of mixed forest were more productive. The variation in hunting pressure we found between and within hunting zones differs from past examinations of spatial variation in hunting offtake, where entire hunting catchments were considered population sinks and areas with low to no hunting (no-take zones) were outside hunting catchments. Future use of no-take zones to manage hunting should incorporate variability in offtake within hunting catchments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Effective conservation requires addressing three fundamental questions whose answers can only be sought in conservation practice: (1) What should our goals be and how do we measure progress in reaching them? (2) How can we most effectively take action to achieve conservation? and (3) How can we learn to do conservation better? This essay provides a conceptual framework and research agenda for a conservation science that uses the principles of adaptive management to answer these questions. The framework is based on a general model of a conservation project. The conservation target involves defining the specific area or population the project is trying to influence. This target is affected by direct and indirect threats and opportunities; we provide a table of potential direct threats. Conservation actions that are taken to counter these threats can be divided into approaches, strategies, and specific tools; we present a comprehensive table of potential approaches. Finally, the practicioners that take these actions include individuals, organizations, project alliances, and networks; we define the specific functional roles necessary to achieve effective adaptive management. We then use this framework to outline a research agenda for conservation science that involves defining clear and practical measures of conservation success, determining sound guiding principles for using conservation strategies and tools, and developing the knowledge and skills in individuals and organizations for good adaptive management and thus for making conservation more effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The northern white rhino (Ceratotherium simum cottoni) is functionally extinct with only two females left alive. However, cryopreserved material from a number of individuals represents the potential to produce additional individuals using advanced reproductive and genetic rescue technologies and perhaps eventually a population to return to their native range. If this could and were done, how should it be done responsibly and thoughtfully. What issues and questions of a technical, bioethical, and societal nature will it raise that need to be anticipated and addressed? Such issues are explored in this article by an interdisciplinary team assembled to provide context to the northern white rhino project of the San Diego Zoo Global. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public agencies sometimes seek outside guidance when capacity to achieve their mission is limited. Through a cooperative agreement and collaborations with the U.S. National Park Service (NPS), we developed recommendations for a conservation program for migratory species. Although NPS manages ∼36 million hectares of land and water in 401 units, there is no centralized program to conserve wild animals reliant on NPS units that also migrate hundreds to thousands of kilometers beyond parks. Migrations are imperiled by habitat destruction, unsustainable harvest, climate change, and other impediments. A successful program to counter these challenges requires public support, national and international outreach, and flourishing migrant populations. We recommended two initial steps. First, in the short term, launch or build on a suite of projects for high-profile migratory species that can serve as proof to demonstrate the centrality of NPS units to conservation at different scales. Second, over the longer term, build new capacity to conserve migratory species. Capacity building will entail increasing the limited knowledge among park staff about how and where species or populations migrate, conditions that enable migration, and identifying species' needs and resolving them both within and beyond parks. Building capacity will also require ensuring that park superintendents and staff at all levels support conservation beyond statutory borders. Until additional diverse stakeholders and a broader American public realize what can be lost and do more to protect it and engage more with land management agencies to implement actions that facilitate conservation, long distance migrations are increasingly likely to become phenomena of the past. Optimismo y Retos para la Conservación Científicamente Basada de Especies Migratorias Dentro y Fuera de Parques Nacionales de E.U.A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Article impact statement: Conservation values are unlikely to change through intentional efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]