Conservation prioritization can resolve the flagship species conundrum

Conservation strategies based on charismatic flagship species, such as tigers, lions, and elephants, successfully attract funding from individuals and corporate donors. However, critics of this species-focused approach argue it wastes resources and often does not benefit broader biodiversity. If true, then the best way of raising conservation funds excludes the best way of spending it. Here we show that this conundrum can be resolved, and that the flagship species approach does not impede cost-effective conservation. Through a tailored prioritization approach, we identify places containing flagship species while also maximizing global biodiversity representation (based on 19,616 terrestrial and freshwater species). We then compare these results to scenarios that only maximized biodiversity representation, and demonstrate that our flagship-based approach achieves 79−89% of our objective. This provides strong evidence that prudently selected flagships can both raise funds for conservation and help target where these resources are best spent to conserve biodiversity

Simple rules can guide whether land or ocean based conservation will best benefit marine ecosystems

Coastal marine ecosystems can be managed by actions undertaken both on the land and in the ocean. Quantifying and comparing the costs and benefits of actions in both realms is therefore necessary for efficient management. Here, we quantify the link between terrestrial sediment run-off and a downstream coastal marine ecosystem, and contrast the cost-effectiveness of marine and land-based conservation actions. We use a dynamic land- and sea-scape model to determine whether limited funds should be directed to one of four alternative conservation actions – protection on land, protection in the ocean, restoration on land, or restoration in the ocean – to maximise the extent of light-dependent marine benthic habitats, across decadal time-scales. We apply the model to a case study seagrass meadow in Australia. We find that marine restoration is the most cost-effective action over decadal time-scales in this system, based on a conservative estimate of the rate at which seagrass can expand into new habitat. The optimal decision will vary in different social-ecological contexts, but some basic information can guide optimal investments to counteract land and ocean based stressors: (1) marine restoration should be prioritised if the rates of marine ecosystem decline and expansion are similar and low; (2) marine protection should take precedence if the rate of marine ecosystem decline is high, or if the adjacent catchment is relatively intact and has a low rate of vegetation decline; (3) land-based actions are optimal when the ratio of marine ecosystem expansion to decline is >1.4, with terrestrial restoration typically the most cost effective; and (4) land protection should be prioritised if the catchment is relatively intact, but the rate of vegetation decline is high. These rules-of-thumb illustrate how cost-effective conservation outcomes for connected land-ocean systems can proceed without complex modelling