Is there evidence of shifting baseline syndrome in environmental managers? An assessment using perceptions of bird population targets in UK nature reserves

Shifting baseline syndrome (SBS) describes changing perceptions of biological conditions due to a loss of historical knowledge. Perceptions of ‘normal’ environmental conditions are continually updated, leading to underestimation of the true magnitude of long-term ecological change and potential setting of unambitious management targets. There has been speculation as to the presence and impacts of SBS within conservation management since Daniel Pauly's seminal paper in 1995, which outlined the potential effects of SBS on target-setting in fisheries management. Previous case studies have suggested that SBS may not occur in management, despite empirical evidence of SBS in other systems. In this study, 44 professionals and volunteers involved in bird species management, monitoring and target-setting across England were interviewed. Interviews asked for personal perceptions of current, maximum and target abundance, long-term trends, and perceived conservation priority for six bird species. Using paired tests, this study found no significant effect of experience on perceptions of current, maximum or target abundance of all species, despite differences in national abundance and trends, and differences in participant experience. Further power analysis indicated that even if SBS was statistically detectible with a larger sample, the practical implications of the syndrome would be minimal due to small effect sizes. Finally, the effect of experience on individual perceptions of species conservation priority varied between species, with generational amnesia in the form of ‘lifting baselines’ suggested for only one of the six species. This study suggests that shifting baseline syndrome may not be as significant a threat in conservation management as first thought

Five challenges to reconcile agricultural land use and forest ecosystem services in Southeast Asia

Southeast Asia possesses the highest rates of tropical deforestation globally and exceptional levels of species richness and endemism. Many countries in the region are also recognized for their food insecurity and poverty, making the reconciliation of agricultural production and forest conservation a particular priority. This reconciliation requires recognition of the trade-offs between competing land-use values and the subsequent incorporation of this information into policy making. To date, such reconciliation has been relatively unsuccessful across much of Southeast Asia. We propose an ecosystem services (ES) value-internalization framework that identifies the key challenges to such reconciliation. These challenges include lack of accessible ES valuation techniques; limited knowledge of the links between forests, food security, and human well-being; weak demand and political will for the integration of ES in economic activities and environmental regulation; a disconnect between decision makers and ES valuation; and lack of transparent discussion platforms where stakeholders can work toward consensus on negotiated land-use management decisions. Key research priorities to overcome these challenges are developing easy-to-use ES valuation techniques; quantifying links between forests and well-being that go beyond economic values; understanding factors that prevent the incorporation of ES into markets, regulations, and environmental certification schemes; understanding how to integrate ES valuation into policy making processes, and determining how to reduce corruption and power plays in land-use planning processes

Five challenges to reconcile agricultural land use and forest ecosystem services in Southeast Asia

Southeast Asia possesses the highest rates of tropical deforestation globally and exceptional levels of species richness and endemism. Many countries in the region are also recognized for their food insecurity and poverty, making the reconciliation of agricultural production and forest conservation a particular priority. This reconciliation requires recognition of the trade-offs between competing land-use values and the subsequent incorporation of this information into policy making. To date, such reconciliation has been relatively unsuccessful across much of Southeast Asia. We propose an ecosystem services (ES) value-internalization framework that identifies the key challenges to such reconciliation. These challenges include lack of accessible ES valuation techniques; limited knowledge of the links between forests, food security, and human well-being; weak demand and political will for the integration of ES in economic activities and environmental regulation; a disconnect between decision makers and ES valuation; and lack of transparent discussion platforms where stakeholders can work toward consensus on negotiated land-use management decisions. Key research priorities to overcome these challenges are developing easy-to-use ES valuation techniques; quantifying links between forests and well-being that go beyond economic values; understanding factors that prevent the incorporation of ES into markets, regulations, and environmental certification schemes; understanding how to integrate ES valuation into policy making processes, and determining how to reduce corruption and power plays in land-use planning processes

The in vitro phosphorylation of the co-chaperone mSTI1 by cell cycle kinases substantiates a predicted casein kinase II-p34(cdc2)-NLS(CcN) motif

The co-chaperone murine stress-inducible protein 1 (mSTI1), a Hsp70/Hsp90 organizing protein (Hop) homolog, functions as a physical link between Hsp70 and Hsp90 by mediating the formation of the mSTI1/ Hsp70/Hsp90 chaperone heterocomplex. We show here that mSTI1 is an in vitro substrate of cell cycle kinases. Casein kinase II (CKII) phosphorylates mSTI1 at S189, and cdc2 kinase (p34cdc2) at T198, substantiating a predicted CKII-p34cdc2-NLS (CcN) motif. The possible implications of this phosphorylation as a cell cycle checkpoint are discussed

A Severe Lack of Evidence Limits Effective Conservation of the World's Primates

Threats to biodiversity are well documented. However, to effectively conserve species and their habitats, we need to know which conservation interventions do (or do not) work. Evidence-based conservation evaluates interventions within a scientific framework. The Conservation Evidence project has summarized thousands of studies testing conservation interventions and compiled these as synopses for various habitats and taxa. In the present article, we analyzed the interventions assessed in the primate synopsis and compared these with other taxa. We found that despite intensive efforts to study primates and the extensive threats they face, less than 1% of primate studies evaluated conservation effectiveness. The studies often lacked quantitative data, failed to undertake postimplementation monitoring of populations or individuals, or implemented several interventions at once. Furthermore, the studies were biased toward specific taxa, geographic regions, and interventions. We describe barriers for testing primate conservation interventions and propose actions to improve the conservation evidence base to protect this endangered and globally important taxon