Search

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., (© 2024 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.)

Evidence indicates that, despite some critical successes, current conservation approaches are not slowing the overall rate of biodiversity loss. The field of synthetic biology, which is capable of altering natural genomes with extremely precise editing, might offer the potential to resolve some intractable conservation problems (e.g., invasive species or pathogens). However, it is our opinion that there has been insufficient engagement by the conservation community with practitioners of synthetic biology. We contend that rapid, large-scale engagement of these two communities is urgently needed to avoid unintended and deleterious ecological consequences. To this point we describe case studies where synthetic biology is currently being applied to conservation, and we highlight the benefits to conservation biologists from engaging with this emerging technology., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Extinctions beget further extinctions when species lose obligate mutualists, predators, prey, or hosts. Here, we develop a conceptual model of species and community attributes affecting secondary extinction likelihood, incorporating mechanisms that buffer organisms against partner loss. Specialized interactors, including 'cryptic specialists' with diverse but nonredundant partner assemblages, incur elevated risk. Risk is also higher for species that cannot either evolve new traits following partner loss or obtain novel partners in communities reorganizing under changing environmental conditions. Partner loss occurs alongside other anthropogenic impacts; multiple stressors can circumvent ecological buffers, enhancing secondary extinction risk. Stressors can also offset each other, reducing secondary extinction risk, a hitherto unappreciated phenomenon. This synthesis suggests improved conservation planning tactics and critical directions for research on secondary extinctions., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2014 Society for Conservation Biology.)

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., (© 2014 Society for Conservation Biology.)

The huge conservation interest that mammals attract and the large datasets that have been collected on them have propelled a diversity of global mammal prioritization schemes, but no comprehensive global mammal conservation strategy. We highlight some of the potential discrepancies between the schemes presented in this theme issue, including: conservation of species or areas, reactive and proactive conservation approaches, conservation knowledge and action, levels of aggregation of indicators of trend and scale issues. We propose that recently collected global mammal data and many of the mammal prioritization schemes now available could be incorporated into a comprehensive global strategy for the conservation of mammals. The task of developing such a strategy should be coordinated by a super-partes, authoritative institution (e.g. the International Union for Conservation of Nature, IUCN). The strategy would facilitate funding agencies, conservation organizations and national institutions to rapidly identify a number of short-term and long-term global conservation priorities, and act complementarily to achieve them.

Synthetic biology is a broad and fast-moving field of innovation involving the design and construction of new biological parts, and the redesign of existing, natural biological systems to address real world problems. It has many potential applications that may change human relations to the natural world. Synthetic biology is virtually unknown to the conservation community. Based on a meeting in 2013 that brought together these two communities we consider first the differences between the two fields, and second the kinds of opportunities and risks that arise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights: [•] We use a review of other fields to propose a “burden of proof” in conservation. [•] This will help decision makers decide what “standard of proof” they need to meet. [•] A burden of proof standard will enable conservationists to act when appropriate. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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]

In this paper we provide an empirically-based way to address the general question of the broad-scale spatial relationship between poverty occurrence and areas of interest to those seeking conservation of large wild areas. We address the question of the spatial relationship between poor people and areas less impacted by human activity by asking three questions about the global spatial relationship between poor people and ecological intactness and how it varies by major biome and geographical region. We use infant mortality rate as a proxy for poverty and the Human Footprint as a proxy for ecological intactness, comparing global terrestrial maps of both. The analysis shows that the vast majority of the world's poor people live in extremely urban and very transformed (pen-transformed) areas. Only a small percentage of the world's most poor are found in areas that are somewhat or extremely wild: about 0.25% of the world's population. This fact has implications for the calls being made for conservation organizations to under- take poverty alleviation, suggesting that at a global scale those groups with interest in conserving wild areas would be able to contribute little to globally significant poverty alleviation efforts. However, these conservation groups are well positioned to develop new partnerships for delivery of benefits to some of the least accessible poor people in the wildest places of the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reports the lessons learned from implementing the planning framework of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) as a model for the agencies and institutions around the world facing challenges in conservation planning. Discussion of the TNC seven-step plan, which identifies a network of lands and waters for conserving the elements of biodiversity within an ecoregion; Citation of relevant scientific literature that supports the importance of each step; Benefits of the conservation plan.

Copyright of Conservation Biology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Conservation Biology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Before European settlement the plains bison (Bison bison bison) numbered in the tens of millions across most of the temperate region of North America. Within the span of a few decades during the mid-to late-1800s its numbers were reduced by hunting and other factors to a few hundred. The plight of the plains bison led to one of the first major movements in North America to save an endangered species. A few individuals and the American Bison Society rescued the remaining animals. Attempts to hybridize cattle and bison when bison numbers were low resulted in extensive cattle gene introgression in bison. Today, though approximately 500,000 plains bison exist in North America, few are free of cattle gene introgression, 96% are subject to anthropogenic selection for commodity production, and only 4% are in herds managed primarily for conservation purposes. Small herd size, artificial selection, cattle-gene introgression, and other factors threaten the diversity and integrity of the bison genome. In addition, the bison is for all practical purposes ecologically extinct across its former range, with multiple consequences for grassland biodiversity. Urgent measures are needed to conserve the wild bison genome and to restore the ecological role of bison in grassland ecosystems. Socioeconomic trends in the Great Plains, combined with new information about bison conservation needs and new conservation initiatives by both the public and public sectors, have set the stage for significant progress in bison conservation over the next few years. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]