Search

Habitat destruction has driven many once-contiguous animal populations into remnant patches of varying size and isolation. The underlying framework for the conservation of fragmented populations is founded on the principles of island biogeography, wherein the probability of species occurrence in habitat patches varies as a function of patch size and isolation. Despite decades of research, the general importance of patch area and isolation as predictors of species occupancy in fragmented terrestrial systems remains unknown because of a lack of quantitative synthesis. Here, we compile occupancy data from 1,015 bird, mammal, reptile, amphibian, and invertebrate population networks on 6 continents and show that patch area and isolation are surprisingly poor predictors of occupancy for most species. We examine factors such as improper scaling and biases in species representation as explanations and find that the type of land cover separating patches most strongly affects the sensitivity of species to patch area and isolation. Our results indicate that patch area and isolation are indeed important factors affecting the occupancy of many species, but properties of the intervening matrix should not be ignored. Improving matrix quality may lead to higher conservation returns than manipulating the size and configuration of remnant patches for many of the species that persist in the aftermath of habitat destruction.

The monitoring of trends in the status of species or habitats is routine in developed countries, where it is funded by the state or large nongovernmental organizations and often involves large numbers of skilled amateur volunteers. Far less monitoring of natural resources takes place in developing countries, where state agencies have small budgets, there are fewer skilled professionals or amateurs, and socioeconomic conditions prevent development of a culture of volunteerism. The resulting lack of knowledge about trends in species and habitats presents a serious challenge for detecting, understanding, and reversing declines in natural resource values. International environmental agreements require signatories undertake systematic monitoring of their natural resources, but no system exists to guide the development and expansion of monitoring schemes. To help develop such a protocol, we suggest a typology of monitoring categories, defined by their degree of local participation, ranging from no local involvement with monitoring undertaken by professional researchers to an entirely local effort with monitoring undertaken by local people. We assessed the strengths and weaknesses of each monitoring category and the potential of each to be sustainable in developed or developing countries. Locally based monitoring is particularly relevant in developing countries, where it can lead to rapid decisions to solve the key threats affecting natural resources, can empower local communities to better manage their resources, and can refine sustainable-use strategies to improve local livelihoods. Nevertheless, we recognize that the accuracy and precision of the monitoring undertaken by local communities in different situations needs further study and field protocols need to be further developed to get the best from the unrealized potential of this approach. A challenge to conservation biologists is to identify and establish the monitoring system most relevant to a particular situation and to develop methods to integrate outputs from across the spectrum of monitoring schemes to produce wider indices of natural resources that capture the strengths of each.

Protected areas (PAs) have long been criticized as creations of and for an elite few, where associated costs, but few benefits, are borne by marginalized rural communities. Contrary to predictions of this argument, we found that average human population growth rates on the borders of 306 PAs in 45 countries in Africa and Latin America were nearly double average rural growth, suggesting that PAs attract, rather than repel, human settlement. Higher population growth on PA edges is evident across ecoregions, countries, and continents and is correlated positively with international donor investment in national conservation programs and an index of park-related funding. These findings provide insight on the value of PAs for local people, but also highlight a looming threat to PA effectiveness and biodiversity conservation.

“Extinction filters” help visualize complex threats faced by wildlife in protected areas.

Scent marking is ubiquitous among the dwarf antelope and gazelles of Africa, but its function has been the subject of debate. This study examined preorbital gland scent marking in the oribi, Ourebia ourebi, a territorial African antelope. Several hypotheses for the function of scent marking by territorial antelope were tested with observational data. Of these, the hypotheses that scent marking is driven by intrasexual competition between neighbouring males, and that marks serve as an honest advertisement of a male's ability to defend his territory from rivals, were supported best. Thirty-three territorial male oribi on 23 territories marked most at borders shared with other territorial males, and territorial males marked more often at borders shared with multimale groups than at borders shared with a single male. This suggests that males perceived neighbouring male groups as a greater threat to territory ownership than neighbouring males that defended their territories without the aid of adult subordinates. Marking rate was unrelated to territory size or the number of females on adjacent territories, but males with many male neighbours marked at higher rates than those with fewer male neighbours. These results suggest that the presence of male neighbours has a greater effect on the scent marking behaviour of territorial antelope than has been considered previously. Copyright 1999 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.

Faeces may be ideal substances for scent marking because they have a minimal energetic cost to the signaller. However, marking with faeces is also constrained by the animal's ability to produce faeces. This study examined whether limits on the volume of faeces produced by oribi Ourebia ourebi, in Serengeti National Park, Tanzania, caused territorial males to regulate their output and prioritize the placement of faecal marks. Territorial males marked with faeces more often, and with a smaller volume per defecation, than did juvenile males and females. Territorial males also defecated only on established dung middens along borders shared with other territorial males or on top of a female's urine and faeces. In contrast, juvenile males and females defecated randomly with regard to their location in territories. Territorial males with larger harems marked with faeces at higher rates and less volume than males with few or no females. This difference suggests that when males overmark female excretions they reduce the amount of faeces available for marking other preferred sites, such as along territory borders shared with other males. Dominant males with adult subordinates marked with faeces less often, and with a greater volume per mark, than males that defended territories without the aid of subordinates. Dominant males also reduced the volume of marks less as the number of females on their territory increased than did males without subordinates. Territories occupied by more than one adult male also were marked with faeces at higher rates, and with marks of greater volume, than territories held by single males. These results suggest that the presence of subordinate males reduced the demand on dominant males to regulate the volume and placement of faecal marks. Overall, these results suggest that territorial male oribi regulate their faecal marking behaviour in response to a limited supply of faeces. Copyright 1999 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.

Species distribution models (SDMs) are increasingly used for extrapolation, or predicting suitable regions for species under new geographic or temporal scenarios. However, SDM predictions may be prone to errors if species are not at equilibrium with climatic conditions in the current range and if training samples are not representative. Here the controversial "Pleistocene rewilding" proposal was used as a novel example to address some of the challenges of extrapolating modeled species-climate relationships outside of current ranges. Climatic suitability for three proposed proxy species (Asian elephant, African cheetah and African lion) was extrapolated to the American southwest and Great Plains using Maxent, a machine-learning species distribution model. Similar models were fit for Oryx gazella, a species native to Africa that has naturalized in North America, to test model predictions. To overcome biases introduced by contracted modern ranges and limited occurrence data, random pseudo-presence points generated from modern and historical ranges were used for model training. For all species except the oryx, models of climatic suitability fit to training data from historical ranges produced larger areas of predicted suitability in North America than models fit to training data from modern ranges. Four naturalized oryx populations in the American southwest were correctly predicted with a generous model threshold, but none of these locations were predicted with a more stringent threshold. In general, the northern Great Plains had low climatic suitability for all focal species and scenarios considered, while portions of the southern Great Plains and American southwest had low to intermediate suitability for some species in some scenarios. The results suggest that the use of historical, in addition to modern, range information and randomly sampled pseudo-presence points may improve model accuracy. This has implications for modeling range shifts of organisms in response to climate change.

BACKGROUND The pace and magnitude of human-caused global change has accelerated dramatically over the past 50 years, overwhelming the capacity of many ecosystems and species to maintain themselves as they have under the more stable conditions that prevailed for at least 11,000 years. The next few decades threaten even more rapid transformations because by 2050, the human population is projected to grow by 3 billion while simultaneously increasing per capita consumption. Thus, to avoid losing many species and the crucial aspects of ecosystems that we need—for both our physical and emotional well-being—new conservation paradigms and integration of information from conservation biology, paleobiology, and the Earth sciences are required. ADVANCES Rather than attempting to hold ecosystems to an idealized conception of the past, as has been the prevailing conservation paradigm until recently, maintaining vibrant ecosystems for the future now requires new approaches that use both historical and novel conservation landscapes, enhance adaptive capacity for ecosystems and organisms, facilitate connectedness, and manage ecosystems for functional integrity rather than focusing entirely on particular species. Scientific breakthroughs needed to underpin such a paradigm shift are emerging at the intersection of ecology and paleobiology, revealing (i) which species and ecosystems will need human intervention to persist; (ii) how to foster population connectivity that anticipates rapidly changing climate and land use; (iii) functional attributes that characterize ecosystems through thousands to millions of years, irrespective of the species that are involved; and (iv) the range of compositional and functional variation that ecosystems have exhibited over their long histories. Such information is necessary for recognizing which current changes foretell transitions to less robust ecological states and which changes may signal benign ecosystem shifts that will cause no substantial loss of ecosystem function or services. Conservation success will also increasingly hinge on choosing among different, sometimes mutually exclusive approaches to best achieve three conceptually distinct goals: maximizing biodiversity, maximizing ecosystem services, and preserving wilderness. These goals vary in applicability depending on whether historical or novel ecosystems are the conservation target. Tradeoffs already occur—for example, managing to maximize certain ecosystem services upon which people depend (such as food production on farm or rangelands) versus maintaining healthy populations of vulnerable species (such as wolves, lions, or elephants). In the future, the choices will be starker, likely involving decisions such as which species are candidates for managed relocation and to which areas, and whether certain areas should be off limits for intensive management, even if it means losing some species that now live there. Developing the capacity to make those choices will require conservation in both historical and novel ecosystems and effective collaboration of scientists, governmental officials, nongovernmental organizations, the legal community, and other stakeholders. OUTLOOK Conservation efforts are currently in a state of transition, with active debate about the relative importance of preserving historical landscapes with minimal human impact on one end of the ideological spectrum versus manipulating novel ecosystems that result from human activities on the other. Although the two approaches are often presented as dichotomous, in fact they are connected by a continuum of practices, and both are needed. In most landscapes, maximizing conservation success will require more integration of paleobiology and conservation biology because in a rapidly changing world, a long-term perspective (encompassing at least millennia) is necessary to specify and select appropriate conservation targets and plans. Although adding this long-term perspective will be essential to sustain biodiversity and all of the facets of nature that humans need as we continue to rapidly change the world over the next few decades, maximizing the chances of success will also require dealing with the root causes of the conservation crisis: rapid growth of the human population, increasing per capita consumption especially in developed countries, and anthropogenic climate change that is rapidly pushing habitats outside the bounds experienced by today’s species.