Search

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]

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.

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).

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]