Quantifying the road‐effect zone for a critically endangered primate

The global road network is expanding at an unprecedented rate, threatening the persistence of many species. Yet, even for the most endangered wildlife, crucial information on the distance up to which roads impact species abundance is lacking. Here we use ecological threshold analysis to quantify the road-effect zone (REZ) for the critically endangered western chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus). We found: (1) the REZ extends 5.4 km (95% CI [4.9–5.8 km]) from minor roads and 17.2 km (95% CI [15.8–18.6]) from major roads, the latter being more than three times wider than a previous estimate of the average REZ for mammals; and (2) only 4.3% of the chimpanzees’ range is not impacted by existing roads. These findings reveal the high sensitivity and susceptibility of nonhuman primates to roads across West Africa, a region undergoing rapid development, and can inform the implementation of more effective guidelines to mitigate road impacts

The nature of the dwarf population in Abell 868

We present the results of a study of the morphology of the dwarf galaxy population in Abell 868, a rich, intermediate redshift (z=0.154) cluster which has a galaxy luminosity function with a steep faint-end slope (alpha=-1.26 +/- 0.05). A statistical background subtraction method is employed to study the B-R colour distribution of the cluster galaxies. This distribution suggests that the galaxies contributing to the faint-end of the measured cluster LF can be split into three populations: dIrrs with B-R<1.4; dEs with 1.4<B-R<2.5; and contaminating background giant ellipticals (gEs) with B-R>2.5. The remvoal of the contribution of the background gEs from the counts only marginally lessens the faint-end slope (alpha=-1.22 +/- 0.16). However, the removal of the contribution of the dIrrs from the counts produces a flat LF (alpha=-0.91 +/- 0.16). The dEs and the dIrrs have similar spatial distributions within the cluster except that the dIrrs appear to be totally absent within a central projected radius of about 0.2 Mpc (Ho=75 km/s /Mpc). The number density of both dEs and dIrrs appear to fall off beyond a projected radius of about 0.35 Mpc. We suggest that the dE and dIrr populations of A868 have been associated with the cluster for similar timescales but that evolutionary processes such as `galaxy harassment' tend to fade the dIrr galaxies while having much less effect on the dE galaxies. The harassement would be expected to have the greatest effect on dwarfs residing in the central parts of the cluster.Comment: 6 pages, 6 figures To be published in The Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Societ

Addressing uncertainty in marine resource management; combining community engagement and tracking technology to characterize human behavior

This study was approved by the University of Exeter Ethics committee and the Ministry of Scientific Research and Technological Innovation in Congo (Permit: No. 023/MRSIT/DGRST/DMAST); and supported by funding from the Darwin Initiative (Projects 20-009 and 23-011) and the Wildlife Conservation Society.Small-scale fisheries provide an essential source of food and employment for coastal communities, yet the availability of detailed information on the spatiotemporal distribution of fishing effort to support resource management at a country level is scarce. Here, using a national-scale study in the Republic of Congo, we engaged with fishers from 23 of 28 small-scale fisheries landing sites along the coast to demonstrate how combining community engagement and relatively low cost Global Positioning System (GPS) trackers can rapidly provide fine-scale information on: (1) the behavioral dynamics of the fishers and fleets that operate within this sector; and (2) the location, size and attributes of important fishing grounds upon which communities are dependent. This multi-disciplinary approach should be considered within a global context where uncertainty over the behavior of marine and terrestrial resource-users can lead to management decisions that potentially compromise local livelihoods, conservation, and resource sustainability goals.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Beach litter sources around Nuuk, Greenland: An analysis by UArctic summer school graduate course students

Modeling studies illustrate the potential for long-range transport of plastics into the Arctic, although the degree to which this occurs remains relatively undocumented. We utilised a teaching exercise at a UArctic summer school graduate course in Nuuk, Greenland to conduct a preliminary in-depth analysis of beach litter sources in the Nuup Kangerlua fjord. Students and instructors collected and analysed 1800 litter items weighing 200 kg from one location in the fjord and another at its mouth. The results suggest a predominance of local sources to macrolitter, rather than long-range transport from Europe. Fisheries-related items and rope were common. Packaging which could be identified was largely suspected to be products distributed in Greenland, and soft plastics, which rarely disperse far from its source, were also common. The results suggest local measures to reduce mismanaged waste and emissions from fisheries are important for reducing marine litter in West Greenland.publishedVersio

Fulfilling global marine commitments; lessons learned from Gabon

As part of the Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework, nations are assessing progress over the past decade in addressing the underlying drivers that influence direct pressures on biodiversity and formulating new policies and strategies for the decade to come. For marine conservation, global marine protected area (MPA) coverage is still falling short of the 10% target set in 2010. Here we show that while this reflects a lack of progress in many low- and middle-income countries, a few of these nations have met or exceeded international commitments. To provide an in-depth explanation of how this was achieved in Gabon, we summarize the lessons learnt by our consortium of policy makers and practitioners who helped implement a comprehensive and ecologically representative network of 20 MPAs. We show the importance of creating a national framework, building long-term stakeholder support, and focusing on research that guides implementation and policy; and outline a four-step approach that countries and donors could use as an example to help meet international commitments. By responding to calls to share lessons learned to inform future Convention on Biological Diversity targets, we show how Gabon's experiences could inform change elsewhere.Output Status: Forthcoming/Available Online Additional co-authors: Tim Collins, Philip D. Doherty, Angela Formia, Mark Gately, Micheline Schummer Gnandji, Innocent Ikoubou, Judicael Régis Kema Kema, Koumba Kombila, Pavlick Etoughe Kongo, Jean Churley Manfoumbi, Sara M. Maxwell, Georges H. Mba Asseko, Catherine M. McClellan, Gianna Minton, Samyra Orianne Ndjimbou, Guylène Nkoane Ndoutoume, Jean Noel Bibang Bi Nguema, Teddy Nkizogho, Jacob Nzegoue, Carmen Karen Kouerey Oliwina, Franck Mbeme Otsagha, Diane Savarit, Stephen K. Pikesley, Philippe du Plessis, Hugo Rainey, Lucienne Ariane Diapoma Kingbell Rockombeny, Howard C. Rosenbaum, Dan Segan, Guy-Philippe Sounguet, Emma J. Stokes, Dominic Tilley, Raul Vilela, Wynand Viljoen, Sam B. Weber, Matthew J. Witt, Brendan J. Godle

Mismatches in Scale Between Highly Mobile Marine Megafauna and Marine Protected Areas

Marine protected areas (MPAs), particularly large MPAs, are increasing in number and size around the globe in part to facilitate the conservation of marine megafauna under the assumption that large-scale MPAs better align with vagile life histories; however, this alignment is not well established. Using a global tracking dataset from 36 species across five taxa, chosen to reflect the span of home range size in highly mobile marine megafauna, we show most MPAs are too small to encompass complete home ranges of most species. Based on size alone, 40% of existing MPAs could encompass the home ranges of the smallest ranged species, while only \u3c 1% of existing MPAs could encompass those of the largest ranged species. Further, where home ranges and MPAs overlapped in real geographic space, MPAs encompassed \u3c 5% of core areas used by all species. Despite most home ranges of mobile marine megafauna being much larger than existing MPAs, we demonstrate how benefits from MPAs are still likely to accrue by targeting seasonal aggregations and critical life history stages and through other management techniques

Mismatches in Scale Between Highly Mobile Marine Megafauna and Marine Protected Areas

Marine protected areas (MPAs), particularly large MPAs, are increasing in number and size around the globe in part to facilitate the conservation of marine megafauna under the assumption that large-scale MPAs better align with vagile life histories; however, this alignment is not well established. Using a global tracking dataset from 36 species across five taxa, chosen to reflect the span of home range size in highly mobile marine megafauna, we show most MPAs are too small to encompass complete home ranges of most species. Based on size alone, 40% of existing MPAs could encompass the home ranges of the smallest ranged species, while only \u3c 1% of existing MPAs could encompass those of the largest ranged species. Further, where home ranges and MPAs overlapped in real geographic space, MPAs encompassed \u3c 5% of core areas used by all species. Despite most home ranges of mobile marine megafauna being much larger than existing MPAs, we demonstrate how benefits from MPAs are still likely to accrue by targeting seasonal aggregations and critical life history stages and through other management techniques

Scaling up from protected areas in England: The value of establishing large conservation areas

Protected areas (PAs) are vital for conserving biodiversity, but many PA networks consist of fragmented habitat patches that poorly represent species and ecosystems. One possible solution is to create conservation landscapes that surround and link these PAs. This often involves working with a range of landowners and agencies to develop large-scale conservation initiatives (LSCIs). These initiatives are being championed by both government and civil society, but we lack data on whether such landscape-level approaches overcome the limitations of more traditional PA networks. Here we expand on a previous gap analysis of England to explore to what extent LSCIs improve the representation of different ecoregions, land-cover types and elevation zones compared to the current PA system. Our results show the traditional PA system covers 6.37% of England, an addition of only 0.07% since 2001, and that it is an ecologically unrepresentative network that mostly protects agriculturally unproductive land. Including LSCIs in the analysis increases the land for conservation more than tenfold and reduces these representation biases. However, only 24% of land within LSCIs is currently under conservation management, mostly funded through agri-environment schemes, and limited monitoring data mean that their contribution to conservation objectives is unclear. There is also a considerable spatial overlap between LSCIs, which are managed by different organisations with different conservation objectives. Our analysis is the first to show how Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs) can increase the representativeness of conservation area networks, and highlights opportunities for increased collaboration between conservation organisations and engagement with landowners

Network analysis of sea turtle movements and connectivity: A tool for conservation prioritization

Aim: Understanding the spatial ecology of animal movements is a critical element in conserving long-lived, highly mobile marine species. Analyzing networks developed from movements of six sea turtle species reveals marine connectivity and can help prioritize conservation efforts. Location: Global. Methods: We collated telemetry data from 1235 individuals and reviewed the literature to determine our dataset's representativeness. We used the telemetry data to develop spatial networks at different scales to examine areas, connections, and their geographic arrangement. We used graph theory metrics to compare networks across regions and species and to identify the role of important areas and connections. Results: Relevant literature and citations for data used in this study had very little overlap. Network analysis showed that sampling effort influenced network structure, and the arrangement of areas and connections for most networks was complex. However, important areas and connections identified by graph theory metrics can be different than areas of high data density. For the global network, marine regions in the Mediterranean had high closeness, while links with high betweenness among marine regions in the South Atlantic were critical for maintaining connectivity. Comparisons among species-specific networks showed that functional connectivity was related to movement ecology, resulting in networks composed of different areas and links. Main conclusions: Network analysis identified the structure and functional connectivity of the sea turtles in our sample at multiple scales. These network characteristics could help guide the coordination of management strategies for wide-ranging animals throughout their geographic extent. Most networks had complex structures that can contribute to greater robustness but may be more difficult to manage changes when compared to simpler forms. Area-based conservation measures would benefit sea turtle populations when directed toward areas with high closeness dominating network function. Promoting seascape connectivity of links with high betweenness would decrease network vulnerability.Fil: Kot, Connie Y.. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Åkesson, Susanne. Lund University; SueciaFil: Alfaro Shigueto, Joanna. Universidad Cientifica del Sur; Perú. University of Exeter; Reino Unido. Pro Delphinus; PerúFil: Amorocho Llanos, Diego Fernando. Research Center for Environmental Management and Development; ColombiaFil: Antonopoulou, Marina. Emirates Wildlife Society-world Wide Fund For Nature; Emiratos Arabes UnidosFil: Balazs, George H.. Noaa Fisheries Service; Estados UnidosFil: Baverstock, Warren R.. The Aquarium and Dubai Turtle Rehabilitation Project; Emiratos Arabes UnidosFil: Blumenthal, Janice M.. Cayman Islands Government; Islas CaimánFil: Broderick, Annette C.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Bruno, Ignacio. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones y Desarrollo Pesquero; ArgentinaFil: Canbolat, Ali Fuat. Hacettepe Üniversitesi; Turquía. Ecological Research Society; TurquíaFil: Casale, Paolo. Università degli Studi di Pisa; ItaliaFil: Cejudo, Daniel. Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria; EspañaFil: Coyne, Michael S.. Seaturtle.org; Estados UnidosFil: Curtice, Corrie. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: DeLand, Sarah. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: DiMatteo, Andrew. CheloniData; Estados UnidosFil: Dodge, Kara. New England Aquarium; Estados UnidosFil: Dunn, Daniel C.. University of Queensland; Australia. The University of Queensland; Australia. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Esteban, Nicole. Swansea University; Reino UnidoFil: Formia, Angela. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados UnidosFil: Fuentes, Mariana M. P. B.. Florida State University; Estados UnidosFil: Fujioka, Ei. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Garnier, Julie. The Zoological Society of London; Reino UnidoFil: Godfrey, Matthew H.. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission; Estados UnidosFil: Godley, Brendan J.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: González Carman, Victoria. Instituto National de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Harrison, Autumn Lynn. Smithsonian Institution; Estados UnidosFil: Hart, Catherine E.. Grupo Tortuguero de las Californias A.C; México. Investigacion, Capacitacion y Soluciones Ambientales y Sociales A.C; MéxicoFil: Hawkes, Lucy A.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Hays, Graeme C.. Deakin University; AustraliaFil: Hill, Nicholas. The Zoological Society of London; Reino UnidoFil: Hochscheid, Sandra. Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn; ItaliaFil: Kaska, Yakup. Dekamer—Sea Turtle Rescue Center; Turquía. Pamukkale Üniversitesi; TurquíaFil: Levy, Yaniv. University Of Haifa; Israel. Israel Nature And Parks Authority; IsraelFil: Ley Quiñónez, César P.. Instituto Politécnico Nacional; MéxicoFil: Lockhart, Gwen G.. Virginia Aquarium Marine Science Foundation; Estados Unidos. Naval Facilities Engineering Command; Estados UnidosFil: López-Mendilaharsu, Milagros. Projeto TAMAR; BrasilFil: Luschi, Paolo. Università degli Studi di Pisa; ItaliaFil: Mangel, Jeffrey C.. University of Exeter; Reino Unido. Pro Delphinus; PerúFil: Margaritoulis, Dimitris. Archelon; GreciaFil: Maxwell, Sara M.. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: McClellan, Catherine M.. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Metcalfe, Kristian. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Mingozzi, Antonio. Università Della Calabria; ItaliaFil: Moncada, Felix G.. Centro de Investigaciones Pesqueras; CubaFil: Nichols, Wallace J.. California Academy Of Sciences; Estados Unidos. Center For The Blue Economy And International Environmental Policy Program; Estados UnidosFil: Parker, Denise M.. Noaa Fisheries Service; Estados UnidosFil: Patel, Samir H.. Coonamessett Farm Foundation; Estados Unidos. Drexel University; Estados UnidosFil: Pilcher, Nicolas J.. Marine Research Foundation; MalasiaFil: Poulin, Sarah. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Read, Andrew J.. Duke University Marine Laboratory; Estados UnidosFil: Rees, ALan F.. University of Exeter; Reino Unido. Archelon; GreciaFil: Robinson, David P.. The Aquarium and Dubai Turtle Rehabilitation Project; Emiratos Arabes UnidosFil: Robinson, Nathan J.. Fundación Oceanogràfic; EspañaFil: Sandoval-Lugo, Alejandra G.. Instituto Politécnico Nacional; MéxicoFil: Schofield, Gail. Queen Mary University of London; Reino UnidoFil: Seminoff, Jeffrey A.. Noaa National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Regional Office; Estados UnidosFil: Seney, Erin E.. University Of Central Florida; Estados UnidosFil: Snape, Robin T. E.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Sözbilen, Dogan. Dekamer—sea Turtle Rescue Center; Turquía. Pamukkale University; TurquíaFil: Tomás, Jesús. Institut Cavanilles de Biodiversitat I Biologia Evolutiva; EspañaFil: Varo Cruz, Nuria. Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria; España. Ads Biodiversidad; España. Instituto Canario de Ciencias Marinas; EspañaFil: Wallace, Bryan P.. University of Duke; Estados Unidos. Ecolibrium, Inc.; Estados UnidosFil: Wildermann, Natalie E.. Texas A&M University; Estados UnidosFil: Witt, Matthew J.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Zavala Norzagaray, Alan A.. Instituto politecnico nacional; MéxicoFil: Halpin, Patrick N.. University of Duke; Estados Unido