Search

Introduced species threaten native biodiversity, but whether exotic species can competitively displace native species remains contested. Building on theory that predicts multi-species coexistence based on a competition-colonisation tradeoff, we derive a mechanistic basis by which human-mediated species invasions could cause extinctions through competitive displacement. In contrast to past invasions, humans principally introduce modern invaders, repeatedly and in large quantities, and in ways that can facilitate release from enemies and competitors. Associated increases in exotic species' propagule rain, survival and competitive ability could enable some introduced species to overcome the tradeoffs that constrain all other species. Using evidence from metacommunity models, we show how species introductions could disrupt species coexistence, generating extinction debts, especially when combined with other forms of anthropogenic environmental change. Even though competing species have typically coexisted following past biogeographic migrations, the multiplicity and interactive impacts of today's threats could change some exotic species into agents of extinction.

To counteract global species decline, modern biodiversity conservation engages in large projects, spends billions of dollars, and includes many organizations working simultaneously within regions. To add to this complexity, the conservation sector has hierarchical structure, where conservation actions are often outsourced by funders (foundations, government, etc.) to local organizations that work on-the-ground. In contrast, conservation science usually assumes that a single organization makes resource allocation decisions. This discrepancy calls for theory to understand how the expected biodiversity outcomes change when interactions between organizations are accounted for. Here, we used a game theoretic model to explore how biodiversity outcomes are affected by vertical and horizontal interactions between 3 conservation organizations: a funder that outsourced its actions and 2 local conservation organizations that work on-the-ground. Interactions between the organizations changed the spending decisions made by individual organizations, and thereby the magnitude and direction of the conservation benefits. We showed that funders would struggle to incentivize recipient organizations with set priorities to perform desired actions, even when they control substantial amounts of the funding and employ common contracting approaches to enhance outcomes. Instead, biodiversity outcomes depended on priority alignment across the organizations. Conservation outcomes for the funder were improved by strategic interactions when organizational priorities were well aligned, but decreased when priorities were misaligned. Meanwhile, local organizations had improved outcomes regardless of alignment due to additional funding in the system. Given that conservation often involves the aggregate actions of multiple organizations with different objectives, strategic interactions between organizations need to be considered if we are to predict possible outcomes of conservation programs or costs of achieving conservation targets., (© 2016 Society for Conservation Biology.)

Protected area networks are designed to restrict anthropogenic pressures in areas of high biodiversity. Resource users respond by seeking to replace some or all of the lost resources from locations elsewhere in the landscape. Protected area networks thereby perturb the pattern of human pressures by displacing extractive effort from within protected areas into the broader landscape, a process known as leakage. The negative effects of leakage on conservation outcomes have been empirically documented and modeled using homogeneous descriptions of conservation landscapes. Human resource use and biodiversity vary greatly in space, however, and a theory of leakage must describe how this heterogeneity affects the magnitude, pattern, and biodiversity impacts of leakage. We combined models of household utility, adaptive human foraging, and biodiversity conservation to provide a bioeconomic model of leakage that accounts for spatial heterogeneity. Leakage had strong and divergent impacts on the performance of protected area networks, undermining biodiversity benefits but mitigating the negative impacts on local resource users. When leakage was present, our model showed that poorly designed protected area networks resulted in a substantial net loss of biodiversity. However, the effects of leakage can be mitigated if they are incorporated ex-ante into the conservation planning process. If protected areas are coupled with nonreserve policy instruments such as market subsidies, our model shows that the trade-offs between biodiversity and human well-being can be further and more directly reduced., (© 2014 Society for Conservation Biology.)

Ecologists are often required to estimate the number of species in a region or designated area. A number of diversity indices are available for this purpose and are based on sampling the area using quadrats or other means, and estimating the total number of species from these samples. In this paper, a novel theory and method for estimating the number of species is developed. The theory involves the use of the Laplace method for approximating asymptotic integrals. The method is shown to be successful by testing random simulated datasets. In addition, several real survey datasets are tested, including forests that contain a large number (tens to hundreds) of tree species, and an aquatic system with a large number of fish species. The method is shown to give accurate results, and in almost all cases found to be superior to existing tools for estimating diversity.

Although ecological assemblages frequently depart from neutral model predictions, these discrepancies have not been unambiguously attributed to neutral theory's core assumption: that community structure is primarily the result of chance variation in birth, death, speciation, and dispersal, rather than the manifestation of demographic differences among species. Using coral communities in Barbados from four time periods during the Pleistocene, we demonstrate that the neutral theory cannot explain coral community similarity distributions, species' regional abundance distributions, or their local occupancy. Furthermore, discrepancies between the neutral theory and the observed communities can be attributed to violation of the core assumption of species equivalence. In particular, species' variable growth rates are driving departures from neutral predictions. Our results reinforce an understanding of reef coral community assembly that invokes trade-offs in species' demographic strategies. The results further suggest that conservation management actions will fail if they are based on the neutral assumption that different coral species are equally able to create live coral cover in the shallow-water reef environment. These findings highlight the importance of developing biodiversity theory that can parsimoniously incorporate species differences in coral reef communities, rather than further elaborating neutral theory.

The coexistence of multiple species on a smaller number of limiting resources is an enduring ecological paradox. The mechanisms that maintain such biodiversity are of great interest to ecology and of central importance to conservation. We describe and prove a unique and robust mechanism for coexistence: Species that differ only in their dispersal abilities can coexist, if habitat patches are distributed at irregular distances. This mechanism is straightforward and ecologically intuitive, but can nevertheless create complex coexistence patterns that are robust to substantial environmental stochasticity. The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is noted for its diversity of reef fish species and its complex arrangement of reef habitat. We demonstrate that this mechanism can allow fish species with different pelagic larval durations to stably coexist in the GBR. Further, coexisting species on the GBR often dominate different subregions, defined primarily by cross-shelf position. Interspecific differences in dispersal ability generate similar coexistence patterns when dispersal is influenced by larval behavior and variable oceanographic conditions. Many marine and terrestrial ecosystems are characterized by patchy habitat distributions and contain coexisting species that have different dispersal abilities. This coexistence mechanism is therefore likely to have ecological relevance beyond reef fish.

Global declines in biodiversity and the widespread degradation of ecosystem services have led to urgent calls to safeguard both. Responses to this urgency include calls to integrate the needs of ecosystem services and biodiversity into the design of conservation interventions. The benefits of such integration are purported to include improvements in the justification and resources available for these interventions. Nevertheless, additional costs and potential trade-offs remain poorly understood in the design of interventions that seek to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services. We sought to investigate the synergies and trade-offs in safeguarding ecosystem services and biodiversity in South Africa's Little Karoo. We used data on three ecosystem services--carbon storage, water recharge, and fodder provision--and data on biodiversity to examine several conservation planning scenarios. First, we investigated the amount of each ecosystem service captured incidentally by a conservation plan to meet targets for biodiversity only while minimizing opportunity costs. We then examined the costs of adding targets for ecosystem services into this conservation plan. Finally, we explored trade-offs between biodiversity and ecosystem service targets at a fixed cost. At least 30% of each ecosystem service was captured incidentally when all of biodiversity targets were met. By including data on ecosystem services, we increased the amount of services captured by at least 20% for all three services without additional costs. When biodiversity targets were reduced by 8%, an extra 40% of fodder provision and water recharge were obtained and 58% of carbon could be captured for the same cost. The opportunity cost (in terms of forgone production) of safeguarding 100% of the biodiversity targets was about US$500 million. Our results showed that with a small decrease in biodiversity target achievement, substantial gains for the conservation of ecosystem services can be achieved within our biodiversity priority areas for no extra cost.

Priorities for conservation investment at a global scale that are based on a single taxon have been criticized because geographic richness patterns vary taxonomically. However, these concerns focused only on biodiversity patterns and did not consider the importance of socioeconomic factors, which must also be included if conservation funding is to be allocated efficiently. In this article, we create efficient global funding schedules that use information about conservation costs, predicted habitat loss rates, and the endemicity of seven different taxonomic groups. We discover that these funding allocation schedules are less sensitive to variation in taxon assessed than to variation in cost and threat. Two-thirds of funding is allocated to the same regions regardless of the taxon, compared with only one-fifth if threat and cost are not included in allocation decisions. Hence, if socioeconomic factors are considered, we can be more confident about global-scale decisions guided by single taxonomic groups.

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.

One of the most pressing issues facing the global conservation community is how to distribute limited resources between regions identified as priorities for biodiversity conservation. Approaches such as biodiversity hotspots, endemic bird areas and ecoregions are used by international organizations to prioritize conservation efforts globally. Although identifying priority regions is an important first step in solving this problem, it does not indicate how limited resources should be allocated between regions. Here we formulate how to allocate optimally conservation resources between regions identified as priorities for conservation--the 'conservation resource allocation problem'. Stochastic dynamic programming is used to find the optimal schedule of resource allocation for small problems but is intractable for large problems owing to the "curse of dimensionality". We identify two easy-to-use and easy-to-interpret heuristics that closely approximate the optimal solution. We also show the importance of both correctly formulating the problem and using information on how investment returns change through time. Our conservation resource allocation approach can be applied at any spatial scale. We demonstrate the approach with an example of optimal resource allocation among five priority regions in Wallacea and Sundaland, the transition zone between Asia and Australasia.

The land-sparing versus land-sharing debate centers around how different intensities of habitat use can be coordinated to satisfy competing demands for biodiversity persistence and food production in agricultural landscapes. We apply the broad concepts from this debate to the sea and propose it as a framework to inform marine zoning based on three possible management strategies, establishing: no-take marine reserves, regulated fishing zones, and unregulated open-access areas. We develop a general model that maximizes standing fish biomass, given a fixed management budget while maintaining a minimum harvest level. We find that when management budgets are small, sea-sparing is the optimal management strategy because for all parameters tested, reserves are more cost-effective at increasing standing biomass than traditional fisheries management. For larger budgets, the optimal strategy switches to sea-sharing because, at a certain point, further investing to grow the no-take marine reserves reduces catch below the minimum harvest constraint. Our intention is to illustrate how general rules of thumb derived from plausible, single-purpose models can help guide marine protected area policy under our novel sparing and sharing framework. This work is the beginning of a basic theory for optimal zoning allocations and should be considered complementary to the more specific spatial planning literature for marine reserve as nations expand their marine protected area estates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Payments to private landholders for providing biodiversity land can improve conservation outside protected areas. Input‐based payments are widely used despite evidence they are often ineffective at improving biodiversity outcomes. Meanwhile, little has been done to assess how to use outcome‐based payments to maximize biodiversity, despite growing academic interest. We compare different outcome‐based allocation methods to assess which returns the greatest benefits for biodiversity. We predicted the likely landholder actions in response to outcome‐based payments. We incorporated strategic interactions between landholders under four different funding allocation methods: the commonly applied “set‐price” allocation method; capacity‐based payments; proportional payment; and payment for change. We compared biodiversity outcomes (percentage change in abundance of a species of conservation interest), return on investment and cost‐effectiveness of each method. The set‐price allocation method, despite its common usage, is the least cost‐effective method that we test. Regardless of cost, it only results in better biodiversity outcomes than other methods under a very narrow range of conditions (high initial target species abundance and low profitability). The profitability of the property, and to a lesser degree initial population size, will influence which allocation method will perform best. Most perform well when the initial population of the species of conservation interest is very small and profitability negligible. Only one method—based on change in population—performs well across all scenarios. This method outperforms the others particularly when the property has a higher profitability and low initial numbers of animals. Policy implications. Pursuing conservation on private land using outcome‐based payments for biodiversity can result in varied levels of success depending on the allocation methods used to support payment decisions. Allocation method choice should be based on a transparent analysis that incorporates both the dynamics of the ecological system and interactions between individual landholders. This analysis can guide adoption of funding allocation methods that greatly increase biodiversity outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Decision-makers increasingly use life-cycle assessment ( LCA) as a tool to measure the environmental sustainability of products. LCA is of particular importance in globalized agricultural supply chains, which have environmental effects in multiple and spatially dispersed locations., Incorporation of impacts on biodiversity that arise from agricultural production systems into environmental assessment methods is an emerging area of work in LCA, and current approaches have limitations, including the need for (i) improved assessment of impacts to biodiversity associated with agricultural production, (ii) inclusion of new biodiversity indicators (e.g. conservation value, functional diversity, ecosystem services) and (iii) inclusion of previously unaccounted modelling variables that go beyond land-use impacts (e.g. climate change, water and soil quality)., Synthesis and applications. Ecological models and understanding can contribute to address the limitations of current life-cycle assessment (LCA) methods in agricultural production systems and to make them more ecologically relevant. This will be necessary to ensure that biodiversity is not neglected in decision-making that relies on LCA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Islands are global hotspots of both biodiversity and extinction. Invasive species are a primary threat, and the majority of islands have been invaded by more than one. Multispecies eradications are essential for conserving the biodiversity of these islands, but experience has shown that eradicating species at the wrong time can be disastrous for endemic species., Managers not only have to decide how to eradicate each invasive species, they need to determine when to target each species, and how to control multiple species with a limited budget. We use dynamic control theory to show that, when resources are limited, species should be eradicated in a particular order (an eradication schedule). We focus on a common invaded island ecosystem motif, where one invasive predator consumes two prey species (one endemic, one invasive), and managers wish to eradicate both invasives while ensuring the persistence of the endemic species. We identify the optimal eradication schedule for this entire class of problem. To illustrate the application of our solution, we also analyse a particular case study from California's Channel Islands., For any island ecosystem that shares this motif, managers should begin by allocating all of their resources towards invasive predator control. Only later should resources be shifted towards controlling the invasive prey. This shift should ideally be gradual, but an abrupt shift is very close to optimal. The Channel Islands case study confirms these findings. Targeting both species simultaneously is substantially suboptimal., We reach the robust conclusion that the same eradication schedule should be applied to any island with this ecosystem motif, even if the ecosystem contains different species to the Channel Islands case study., Synthesis and applications. Although very numerous, the world's invaded island ecosystems could be described by a limited range of invaded ecosystem motifs. By calculating robust optimal eradication schedules for each motif, the approach defined in this study could offer rapid decision-support for a large number of future conservation projects where specific data are scarce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ecologists are often required to estimate the number of species in a region or designated area. A number of diversity indices are available for this purpose and are based on sampling the area using quadrats or other means, and estimating the total number of species from these samples. In this paper, a novel theory and method for estimating the number of species is developed. The theory involves the use of the Laplace method for approximating asymptotic integrals. The method is shown to be successful by testing random simulated datasets. In addition, several real survey datasets are tested, including forests that contain a large number (tens to hundreds) of tree species, and an aquatic system with a large number of fish species. The method is shown to give accurate results, and in almost all cases found to be superior to existing tools for estimating diversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

REDD+ presents novel options for conservation in the tropics, yet it is unclear how biodiversity-focused organizations or actors should react to these carbon-focused opportunities. Here, we critically assess for the first time the expected outcomes of five contrasting scenarios of engagement between a biodiversity actor and REDD+. We discover that in the Berau regency, Indonesia, it is usually beneficial for a biodiversity actor to react in some way to REDD+, but the preferred reaction depends on whether a REDD+ project is already developing in the region, and the scale and type of conservation objectives. In general, from a strict biodiversity perspective, the most cost efficient reaction to the presence of REDD+ is to use biodiversity funds to protect areas neglected by REDD+. Our results demonstrate that if biodiversity actors fail to adapt the way they pursue conservation in the tropics, REDD+ opportunities could go largely untapped. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim The critically endangered Cross River gorilla is a patchily distributed taxon for which habitat selection has been modelled only at coarse spatial scales, using remotely sensed landscape data and large-scale species distribution maps. These coarse-scale models fail to explain why Cross River gorillas ( CRG) display a highly fragmented distribution within what appears to be a large, continuous area of suitable habitat. This study aimed to refine our understanding of CRG habitat use to inform conservation planning both for the subspecies and for other fragmented species of conservation concern. Location Cross River gorillas occur only in a discontinuous distribution in the southern portion of the Cameroon- Nigeria border region, an area that represents one of Africa's biodiversity hotspots. This study was carried out in the Northern Mone- Mt. Oko region, part of the Mone/ Mbulu forest system located in the Manyu division of the South-west Province of Cameroon. Methods We used resource selection functions to understand habitat use by CRG at multiple scales. Specifically, we employed generalized additive models at the scale of the annual subpopulation range and conditional logistic regression at the scale of individual movements. Results Cross River gorillas habitat selection is highly scale dependent. Localized measures of habitat quality strongly influenced selection at the subpopulation or landscape scale, while human activity and food availability were the best predictors of selection at finer scales. Main conclusions Understanding why CRG do not occur in seemingly suitable habitat is crucial for designating critical habitat both within and between CRG subpopulations. Our results indicate that conservation planning to maintain critical habitat and connectivity among CRG populations will require an integrative, multi-scale planning approach incorporating large-scale landscape characteristics, human use patterns and CRG food availability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Addressing the vulnerability of areas to habitat loss remains a challenge for conservation planners. Different areas are often assumed equally vulnerable to habitat loss or, worse, conservation attention focuses on remote, unproductive areas contributing little to minimizing biodiversity loss. Understanding vulnerability is crucial to planning but gathering the required information can be time consuming and expensive; and any data on vulnerability will be uncertain. We investigated the circumstances in which including vulnerability data produces better conservation decisions. We found that it is best to use existing information on vulnerability only when uncertainty is less than 20%-30%. With higher uncertainty and large spatial variance in vulnerability, it is best to improve vulnerability data before making conservation decisions. Otherwise, it is best to ignore vulnerability and consider only biodiversity value. Other important factors are whether reservation displaces or inhibits habitat loss and the correlation between biodiversity value and vulnerability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conservation decisions often involve uncertainty about the underlying ecological and social systems and, in particular, how these systems will respond to the implementation of conservation actions. Future decision making can be improved by learning more about these systems and their responses to past conservation actions, by evaluating the performance of the actions being undertaken. This is a "passive" adaptive management approach to conservation. However, the purposeful and experimental application of different conservation actions can yield greater knowledge through more rapid and targeted learning. This is an "active" adaptive management approach to conservation. Improving future management decisions through learning should be viewed as essential to all conservation plans. Unfortunately, the incorporation of explicit learning processes within the greater framework of conservation planning processes is rare. Here, we provide an overview of factors to consider when attempting the implementation of an adaptive approach to conservation planning, along with ideas for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agencies charged with nature conservation and protecting built-assets from fire face a policy dilemma because management that protects assets can have adverse impacts on biodiversity. Although conservation is often a policy goal, protecting built-assets usually takes precedence in fire management implementation. To make decisions that can better achieve both objectives, existing trade-offs must first be recognized, and then policies implemented to manage multiple objectives explicitly. We briefly review fire management actions that can conflict with biodiversity conservation. Through this review, we find that common management practices might not appreciably reduce the threat to built-assets but could have a large negative impact on biodiversity. We develop a framework based on decision theory that could be applied to minimize these conflicts. Critical to this approach is (1) the identification of the full range of management options and (2) obtaining data for evaluating the effectiveness of those options for achieving asset protection and conservation goals. This information can be used to compare explicitly the effectiveness of different management choices for conserving species and for protecting assets, given budget constraints. The challenge now is to gather data to quantify these trade-offs so that fire policy and practices can be better aligned with multiple objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Land acquisition is a common approach to biodiversity conservation but is typically subject to property availability on the public market. Consequently, conservation plans are often unable to be implemented as intended. When properties come on the market, conservation agencies must make a choice: purchase immediately, often without a detailed knowledge of its biodiversity value; survey the parcel and accept the risk that it may be removed from the market during this process; or not purchase and hope a better parcel comes on the market at a later date. We describe both an optimal method, using stochastic dynamic programming, and a simple rule of thumb for making such decisions. The solutions to this problem illustrate how optimal conservation is necessarily dynamic and requires explicit consideration of both the time period allowed for implementation and the availability of properties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The optimal allocation of conservation resources between biodiverse conservation regions has generally been calculated using stochastic dynamic programming, or using myopic heuristics. These solutions are hard to interpret and may not be optimal. To overcome these two limitations, this paper approaches the optimal conservation resource allocation problem using optimal control theory. A solution using Pontryagin's maximum principle provides novel insight into the general properties of efficient conservation resource allocation strategies, and allows more extensive testing of the performance of myopic heuristics. We confirmed that a proposed heuristic (minimize short-term loss) yields near-optimal results in complex allocation situations, and found that a qualitative allocation feature observed in previous analyses (bang-bang allocation) is a general property of the optimal allocation strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much of conservation planning has focused on how we should prioritize areas for protection based on biodiversity and cost, but less is known about how we should prioritize areas based upon the level of threat they face. We discuss two opposing threat prioritization strategies: frontier conservation (prioritizing high‐threat areas) and wilderness conservation (prioritizing low‐threat areas). Using a temporally explicit model, we demonstrate that the best strategy depends on a variety of factors, including protection costs, heterogeneity in biodiversity, biodiversity–area relationships, the rate of biodiversity recovery, the rate of change in threats through time, and the timeframe within which we measure conservation outcomes. By quantitatively comparing the impact of these strategies, we aim to shift the debate away from a simple dichotomy of frontier versus wilderness, toward an understanding of the context‐specific benefits of each option, and a discussion of how threat combines with other factors to determine spatial conservation priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]