Deconstructing compassionate conservation

Compassionate conservation focuses on 4 tenets: first, do no harm; individuals matter; inclusivity of individual animals; and peaceful coexistence between humans and animals. Recently, compassionate conservation has been promoted as an alternative to conventional conservation philosophy. We believe examples presented by compassionate conservationists are deliberately or arbitrarily chosen to focus on mammals; inherently not compassionate; and offer ineffective conservation solutions. Compassionate conservation arbitrarily focuses on charismatic species, notably large predators and megaherbivores. The philosophy is not compassionate when it leaves invasive predators in the environment to cause harm to vastly more individuals of native species or uses the fear of harm by apex predators to terrorize mesopredators. Hindering the control of exotic species (megafauna, predators) in situ will not improve the conservation condition of the majority of biodiversity. The positions taken by so-called compassionate conservationists on particular species and on conservation actions could be extended to hinder other forms of conservation, including translocations, conservation fencing, and fertility control. Animal welfare is incredibly important to conservation, but ironically compassionate conservation does not offer the best welfare outcomes to animals and is often ineffective in achieving conservation goals. Consequently, compassionate conservation may threaten public and governmental support for conservation because of the limited understanding of conservation problems by the general public

Are novel ecosystems the only novelty of rewilding?

Since the introduction of the term “rewilding” in 1998, several definitions have been proposed, sparking debate around terminology and how (or if) rewilding differs from restoration. Many papers attempt to distinguish between the two terms through a series of descriptive attributes: historic baselines, landscape-driven transformation, ongoing human intervention, the connection of people with nature, and the creation of novel ecosystems. Here, we discuss the overlap between these terms and illustrate that the creation of novel ecosystems provides the clearest distinction between rewilding and restoration. If the definition of rewilding is distilled down to its most unique component, the creation of novel ecosystems, perhaps scientists can then work to produce a clear framework for rewilding that is based on best conservation practice.https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/1526100xhj2021Mammal Research Institut

Tagging tadpoles:Retention rates and impacts of visible implant elastomer (VIE) tags from the larval to adult amphibian stages

Population demographics for amphibian larvae are rarely estimated due to marking technique limitations on small body size, morphological change (metamorphosis), and the associated habitat changes (aquatic to terrestrial environments). A technique that may meet some of these limitations is visible implant elastomer (VIE) tagging. In this study, we report on the efficacy of VIE tagging a tree frog (Hylidae) at the tadpole stage for cohort identification across metamorphosis to the adult stage, in a field environment. During our preliminary captive trial, post-metamorphosis tag retention was 100% over three months, with no adverse effects observed on survival, growth or time to metamorphosis. During our field study tag retention in recaptured Litoria aurea was 95% for tadpoles and 88% across metamorphosis. By 200 days post-tagging, retention declined to 75% in the adult stage and stabilised around 50% by 300 days. Post metamorphosis the retention rate was less reliable and dependent upon sex and life-stage. Females showed the highest retention rate (max. 62%, 760 days post tagging), followed by juveniles (max. 45%, 400 days post tagging) and males (max. 20%, 760 days post tagging). We conclude that VIE tagging is a viable method for studying cohort larval movements and population demographics of amphibians up to a 50 day post-metamorphosis stage

Factors driving the distribution of an endangered amphibian toward an industrial landscape in Australia

Although human-modified habitats often result in a loss of biodiversity, some have been found to serve as habitat refuges for threatened species. Given the globally declining status of amphibians, understanding why some species are found in heavily modified environments is of considerable interest. We used the endangered green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea) as a model to investigate the factors influencing their distribution toward industrial areas within a landscape. The number of permanent waterbodies within a kilometer of surveyed sites was the best predictor of L. aurea occupancy, abundance and reproduction. It appears that industrial activities, such as dredging and waste disposal inadvertently created refuge habitat for L. aurea to fortuitously persist in a heavily modified landscape. Future conservation plans should mimic the positive effects of industrialization, such as increasing the number of permanent waterbodies, especially in areas containing ephemeral or isolated waterbodies and threatened with drought. Our findings also suggest that despite amphibians being relatively small animals, some species may require a larger landscape than anticipated. Recognizing life history traits, in combination with a landscape-based approach toward species with perceived limited motility, may result in more successful conservation outcomes. Identifying why threatened species persist in heavily disturbed landscapes, such as industrial sites, can provide direction toward future conservation efforts to prevent and reverse their decline