Towards a general framework for predicting threat status of data-deficient species from phylogenetic, spatial and environmental information

In taxon-wide assessments of threat status many species remain not included owing to lack of data. Here, we present a novel spatial-phylogenetic statistical framework that uses a small set of readily available or derivable characteristics, including phylogenetically imputed body mass and remotely sensed human encroachment, to provide initial baseline predictions of threat status for data-deficient species. Applied to assessed mammal species worldwide, the approach effectively identifies threatened species and predicts the geographical variation in threat. For the 483 data-deficient species, the models predict highly elevated threat, with 69% ‘at-risk’ species in this set, compared with 22% among assessed species. This results in 331 additional potentially threatened mammals, with elevated conservation importance in rodents, bats and shrews, and countries like Colombia, Sulawesi and the Philippines. These findings demonstrate the future potential for combining phylogenies and remotely sensed data with species distributions to identify species and regions of conservation concern

"Words matter." A Response to Jørgensen's Treatment of Historic Range and Definitions of Reintroduction

According to Jørgensen, the definition of reintroductions is crucial to their proper implementation and she highlights a number of ambiguities in existing definitions, particularly associated with the concept of historic range. We could not agree more and have incorporated her suggested term of "indigenous range" rather than "historic range" into the current revision of the InternationalUnion for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Guidelines for Reintroductions and other Conservation Translocations (in preparation by IUCN Species Survival Commission Reintroduction and Invasive Species Specialist Groups). We also agree with Jørgensen's interpretation that reintroductions are not always necessitated by humans causing the extirpation of species. However, we disagree with other aspects of Jørgensen's argument such as the critique of Seddon, the interpretation of previous IUCN guidance documents, and the recommendation that the conservation community "rethink the basic definition of reintroduction" rather than moving toward other translocation-based interventions. With regard to the latter point, we emphasize that reintroductions are part of a spectrum of translocations and to focus on reintroductions alone would overlook the fact that introductions beyond a species' indigenous range are being attempted. The new revision of the IUCN guidelines incorporates the whole conservation translocation spectrum and aims to avoid the ambiguities of previous definitions highlighted by Jørgensen. © 2013 Society for Ecological Restoration

Ark or park: the need to predict relative effectiveness of ex situ and in situ conservation before attempting captive breeding

1. When species face extinction, captive breeding may be appropriate. However, captive breeding may be unsuccessful, while reducing motivation and resources for in situ conservation and impacting wild source populations. Despite such risks, decisions are generally taken without rigorous evaluation. We develop an individual-based, stochastic population model to evaluate the potential effectiveness of captive-breeding and release programmes, illustrated by the Critically Endangered Ardeotis nigriceps Vigors great Indian bustard. 2. The model was parameterized from a comprehensive review of captive breeding and wild demography of large bustards. To handle uncertainty in the standards of captive-breeding performance that may be achieved we explored four scenarios of programme quality: ‘full-range’ (parameters sampled across the observed range), ‘below-average’, ‘above-average’ and ‘best possible’ (performance observed in exemplary breeding programmes). Results are evaluated examining i) the probability of captive population extirpation within 50 years and ii) numbers of adult females subsequently established in the wild following release, compared to an alternative strategy of in situ conservation without attempting captive breeding. 3. Successful implementation of captive breeding, involving permanent retention of 20 breeding females and release of surplus juveniles, required collection of many wild eggs and consistent ‘best possible’ performance across all aspects of the programme. Under ‘full-range’ and ‘above-average’ scenarios captive population extirpation probabilities were 73–88% % and 23‒51%% respectively, depending on egg collection rates. 4. Although most (73‒92%) ‘best possible’ programmes supported releases, re-establishment of free-living adults also required effective in situ conservation. Incremental implementation of effective conservation measures over the initial 10 years resulted in more free-living adults within 35 years if eggs were left in the wild without attempting captive breeding. 5. Synthesis and applications. For the great Indian bustard Ardeotis nigriceps, rapid implementation of in situ conservation offers a better chance to avoid extinction than captive breeding. Demographic modelling should be used to examine whether captive breeding is likely to bring net benefits to conservation programmes

Refining area of occupancy to address the modifiable areal unit problem in ecology and conservation

The ‘modifiable areal unit problem’ is prevalent across many aspects of spatial analysis within ecology and conservation. The problem is particularly manifest when calculating metrics for extinction risk estimation, for example, area of occupancy (AOO).Although embedded into the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List criteria, AOO is often not used or is poorly applied. Here we evaluate new and existing methods for calculating AOO from occurrence records and present a method for determining the minimum AOO using a uniform grid. We evaluate the grid cell shape, grid origin and grid rotation with both real-world and simulated data, reviewing the effects on AOO values, and possible impacts for species already assessed on the IUCN Red List. We show that AOO can vary by up to 80% and a ratio of cells to points of 1:1.21 gives the maximum variation in the number of occupied cells. These findings potentially impact 3% of existing species on the IUCN Red List, as well as species not yet assessed. We show that a new method that combines both grid rotation and moving grid origin gives fast, robust and reproducible results and, in the majority of cases, achieves the minimum AOO. As well as reporting minimum AOO, we outline a confidence interval which should be incorporated in to existing tools that support species risk assessment. We also make further recommendations for reporting AOO and other areal measurements within ecology, leading to more robust methods for future species risk assessment

Introducing New Guidelines on Geoheritage Conservation in Protected and Conserved Areas

The Cultural Heritage Administration, Republic of Korea, funded the design and publication of the Guidelines on which this paper is based.This paper introduces newly published guidelines on geoheritage conservation in protected and conserved areas within the “IUCN WCPA Best Practice Guidelines” series. It explains the need for the guidelines and outlines the ethical basis of geoheritage values and geoconservation principles as the fundamental framework within which to advance geoheritage conservation. Best practice in establishing and managing protected and conserved areas for geoconservation is described with examples from around the world. Particular emphasis is given to the methodology and practice for dealing with the many threats to geoheritage, highlighting in particular how to improve practice for areas with caves and karst, glacial and periglacial, and volcanic features and processes, and for palaeontology and mineral sites. Guidance to improve education and communication to the public through modern and conventional means is also highlighted as a key stage in delivering effective geoconservation. A request is made to geoconservation experts to continue to share best practice examples of developing methodologies and best practice in management to guide non-experts in their work. Finally, a number of suggestions are made on how geoconservation can be further promoted.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Global trends of habitat destruction and consequences for parrot conservation

Human advance on natural habitats is a major cause of biodiversity loss. This transformation process represents a profound change in wooded environments, disrupting original communities of flora and fauna. Many species are highly dependent on forests, especially parrots (Psittaciformes) with almost a third of their species threatened by extinction. Most parrot species occur in tropical and subtropical forests, and given the forest dependence of most species, this is the main reason why habitat loss has been highlighted as the main threat for the group. Such habitat loss acts in synergy with other important threats (e.g., logging and poaching), which become especially problematic in certain developing countries along tropical latitudes. In this study, we used available information on parrot distributions, species traits, IUCN assessment, habitat loss and timber extraction for different periods, and distribution of protected areas, to determine conservation hotspots for the group, and analyze potential changes in the conservation status of these species. We detected four conservation hotspots for parrots: two in the Neotropics and two in Oceania, all of them facing different degrees of threat in regard of current habitat loss and agricultural trends. Our results suggest that the future of the group is subject to policymaking in specific regions, especially in the northeastern Andes and the Atlantic Forest. In addition, we predicted that agricultural expansion will have a further negative effect on the conservation status of parrots, pushing many parrot species to the edge of extinction in the near future. Our results have conservation implications by recommending protected areas in specific parrot conservation hotspots. Our recommendations to mitigate conservation risks to this group of umbrella species would also benefit many other coexisting species as well.Fil: Vergara Tabares, David Lautaro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto de Diversidad y Ecología Animal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto de Diversidad y Ecología Animal; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Centro de Zoología Aplicada; ArgentinaFil: Cordier, Javier Maximiliano. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto de Diversidad y Ecología Animal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto de Diversidad y Ecología Animal; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Centro de Zoología Aplicada; ArgentinaFil: Landi, Marcos Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto de Diversidad y Ecología Animal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto de Diversidad y Ecología Animal; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Centro de Zoología Aplicada; ArgentinaFil: Olah, George. Wildlife Messengers; Estados UnidosFil: Nori, Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto de Diversidad y Ecología Animal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto de Diversidad y Ecología Animal; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Centro de Zoología Aplicada; Argentin

Why and how might genetic and phylogenetic diversity be reflected in the identification of key biodiversity areas?

‘Key biodiversity areas' are defined as sites contributing significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity. The identification of these sites builds from existing approaches based on measures of species and ecosystem diversity and process. Here, we therefore build from the work of Sgró et al. (2011 Evol. Appl. 4, 326–337. (doi:10.1111/j.1752-4571.2010.00157.x)) to extend a framework for how components of genetic diversity might be considered in the identification of key biodiversity areas. We make three recommendations to inform the ongoing process of consolidating a key biodiversity areas standard: (i) thresholds for the threatened species criterion currently consider a site's share of a threatened species' population; expand these to include the proportion of the species' genetic diversity unique to a site; (ii) expand criterion for ‘threatened species' to consider ‘threatened taxa’ and (iii) expand the centre of endemism criterion to identify as key biodiversity areas those sites holding a threshold proportion of the compositional or phylogenetic diversity of species (within a taxonomic group) whose restricted ranges collectively define a centre of endemism. We also recommend consideration of occurrence of EDGE species (i.e. threatened phylogenetic diversity) in key biodiversity areas to prioritize species-specific conservation actions among sites

A Policy Maker’s Guide to Designing Payments for Ecosystem Services

Over the past five years, there has been increasing interest around the globe in payment schemes for the provision of ecosystem services, such as water purification, carbon sequestration, flood control, etc. Written for an Asian Development Bank project in China, this report provides a user-friendly guide to designing payments for the provision of ecosystem services. Part I explains the different types of ecosystem services, different ways of assessing their value, and why they are traditionally under-protected by law and policy. This is followed by an analysis of when payments for services are a preferable approach to other policy instruments. Part II explains the design issues underlying payments for services. These include identification of the service as well as potential buyers and sellers, the level of service needed, payment timing, payment type, and risk allocation. Part II contains a detailed analysis of the different types of payment mechanisms, ranging from general subsidy and certification to mitigation and offset payments. Part III explores the challenges to designing a payment scheme. These include the ability to monitor service provision, secure property rights, perverse incentives, supporting institutions, and poverty alleviation