首页 > 最新文献

Conservation Biology最新文献

英文 中文
COP16 and the process of consolidating an inclusive conservation paradigm 第十六次缔约方会议和巩固包容性保护范式的进程。
IF 5.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Pub Date : 2025-01-14 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14438
Christopher B. Anderson
<p>The Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD) 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) approved the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), legitimizing a paradigm shift for conservation to link decisions and outcomes with diverse social actors (CBD, <span>2022</span>). For example, target 3 aims to protect 30% of the planet by 2030. However, this 30×30 target must be met via equitable governance that recognizes and respects the rights and values of Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPs&LCs). Furthermore, the GBF incorporates non-Western understandings of nature and people−nature relationships (e.g., Mother Earth, nature's gifts, living in harmony with nature). Recently, COP16 was to implement this inclusive vision, but parties did not reach a consensus on a new financing mechanism besides the Global Environmental Facility and a comprehensive monitoring system for national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) (Affinito et al., <span>2024</span>). So, was COP16 a failure?</p><p>To staunch biodiversity loss, conservation biologists have striven to transcend biology (Soulé, <span>1985</span>), and despite its legacy (i.e., Global North, natural sciences), conservation increasingly has incorporated more perspectives (Mace, <span>2014</span>). Soulé’s foundational treatise detailed biological subdisciplines needed for conservation (e.g., genetics, population biology, physiology), but delimited social aspects to practical issues (e.g., natural resource management), general social sciences, and ecophilosophy. Subsequently, however, these human dimensions have flourished (Bennett et al., <span>2016</span>, <span>2017</span>). Furthermore, other disciplines and traditions have been working at this interface from other starting points (e.g., decades ago, the International Society for Ethnobiology's <i>Declaration of Belem</i> affirmed the link between biological and cultural diversity) (ISE, <span>1988</span>).</p><p>Conservation policy displays a similar process. Approved in 1992, the CBD's preamble detailed a range of biodiversity values, including intrinsic, ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational, and aesthetic. It also enumerated some issues concerning diverse actors (e.g., protecting customary use of biological resources based on traditional cultural practices compatible with conservation). However, the CBD's NBSAPs generally have not incorporated plurality in actions and indicators (Murali et al., <span>2024</span>). Nonetheless, at least in their NBSAPs, developing nations, particularly in Africa, have been better than developed ones at mainstreaming biodiversity conservation across sectors and incorporating more stakeholders (Whitehorn et al., <span>2019</span>).</p><p>Broadly, conservation has morphed from “nature for itself” and “nature despite people” to “nature for people” and “nature and people” (Mace, <span>2014</span>). Although ways of thinking and doin
{"title":"COP16 and the process of consolidating an inclusive conservation paradigm","authors":"Christopher B. Anderson","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14438","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cobi.14438","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;The Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD) 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) approved the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), legitimizing a paradigm shift for conservation to link decisions and outcomes with diverse social actors (CBD, &lt;span&gt;2022&lt;/span&gt;). For example, target 3 aims to protect 30% of the planet by 2030. However, this 30×30 target must be met via equitable governance that recognizes and respects the rights and values of Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPs&amp;LCs). Furthermore, the GBF incorporates non-Western understandings of nature and people−nature relationships (e.g., Mother Earth, nature's gifts, living in harmony with nature). Recently, COP16 was to implement this inclusive vision, but parties did not reach a consensus on a new financing mechanism besides the Global Environmental Facility and a comprehensive monitoring system for national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) (Affinito et al., &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;). So, was COP16 a failure?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;To staunch biodiversity loss, conservation biologists have striven to transcend biology (Soulé, &lt;span&gt;1985&lt;/span&gt;), and despite its legacy (i.e., Global North, natural sciences), conservation increasingly has incorporated more perspectives (Mace, &lt;span&gt;2014&lt;/span&gt;). Soulé’s foundational treatise detailed biological subdisciplines needed for conservation (e.g., genetics, population biology, physiology), but delimited social aspects to practical issues (e.g., natural resource management), general social sciences, and ecophilosophy. Subsequently, however, these human dimensions have flourished (Bennett et al., &lt;span&gt;2016&lt;/span&gt;, &lt;span&gt;2017&lt;/span&gt;). Furthermore, other disciplines and traditions have been working at this interface from other starting points (e.g., decades ago, the International Society for Ethnobiology's &lt;i&gt;Declaration of Belem&lt;/i&gt; affirmed the link between biological and cultural diversity) (ISE, &lt;span&gt;1988&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Conservation policy displays a similar process. Approved in 1992, the CBD's preamble detailed a range of biodiversity values, including intrinsic, ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational, and aesthetic. It also enumerated some issues concerning diverse actors (e.g., protecting customary use of biological resources based on traditional cultural practices compatible with conservation). However, the CBD's NBSAPs generally have not incorporated plurality in actions and indicators (Murali et al., &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;). Nonetheless, at least in their NBSAPs, developing nations, particularly in Africa, have been better than developed ones at mainstreaming biodiversity conservation across sectors and incorporating more stakeholders (Whitehorn et al., &lt;span&gt;2019&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Broadly, conservation has morphed from “nature for itself” and “nature despite people” to “nature for people” and “nature and people” (Mace, &lt;span&gt;2014&lt;/span&gt;). Although ways of thinking and doin","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cobi.14438","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142977930","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Optimizing automated photo identification for population assessments. 优化人口评估的自动照片识别。
IF 5.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Pub Date : 2025-01-14 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14436
Philip T Patton, Krishna Pacifici, Robin W Baird, Erin M Oleson, Jason B Allen, Erin Ashe, Aline Athayde, Charla J Basran, Elsa Cabrera, John Calambokidis, Júlio Cardoso, Emma L Carroll, Amina Cesario, Barbara J Cheney, Ted Cheeseman, Enrico Corsi, Jens J Currie, John W Durban, Erin A Falcone, Holly Fearnbach, Kiirsten Flynn, Trish Franklin, Wally Franklin, Bárbara Galletti Vernazzani, Tilen Genova, Marie Hill, David R Johnston, Erin L Keene, Claire Lacey, Sabre D Mahaffy, Tamara L McGuire, Liah McPherson, Catherine Meyer, Robert Michaud, Anastasia Miliou, Grace L Olson, Dara N Orbach, Heidi C Pearson, Marianne H Rasmussen, William J Rayment, Caroline Rinaldi, Renato Rinaldi, Salvatore Siciliano, Stephanie H Stack, Beatriz Tintore, Leigh G Torres, Jared R Towers, Reny B Tyson Moore, Caroline R Weir, Rebecca Wellard, Randall S Wells, Kymberly M Yano, Jochen R Zaeschmar, Lars Bejder

Several legal acts mandate that management agencies regularly assess biological populations. For species with distinct markings, these assessments can be conducted noninvasively via capture-recapture and photographic identification (photo-ID), which involves processing considerable quantities of photographic data. To ease this burden, agencies increasingly rely on automated identification (ID) algorithms. Identification algorithms present agencies with an opportunity-reducing the cost of population assessments-and a challenge-propagating misidentifications into abundance estimates at a large scale. We explored several strategies for generating capture histories with an ID algorithm, evaluating trade-offs between labor costs and estimation error in a hypothetical population assessment. To that end, we conducted a simulation study informed by 39 photo-ID datasets representing 24 cetacean species. We fed the results into a custom optimization tool to discern the optimal strategy for each dataset. Our strategies included choosing between truly and partially automated photo-ID and, in the case of the latter, choosing the number of suggested matches to inspect. True automation was optimal for datasets for which the algorithm identified individuals well. As identification performance declined, the optimization recommended that users inspect more suggested matches from the ID algorithm, particularly for small datasets. False negatives (i.e., individual was resighted but erroneously marked as a first capture) strongly predicted estimation error. A 2% increase in the false negative rate translated to a 5% increase in the relative bias in abundance estimates. Our framework can be used to estimate expected error of the abundance estimate, project labor effort, and find the optimal strategy for a dataset and algorithm. We recommend estimating a strategy's false negative rate before implementing the strategy in a population assessment. Our framework provides organizations with insights into the conservation benefits and consequences of automation as conservation enters a new era of artificial intelligence for population assessments.

一些法律法案要求管理机构定期评估生物种群。对于具有独特标记的物种,这些评估可以通过捕获-再捕获和照片识别(photo-ID)进行无创评估,这涉及到处理大量的照片数据。为了减轻这种负担,各机构越来越依赖于自动识别(ID)算法。识别算法为机构提供了一个机会——减少人口评估的成本——以及一个挑战——将错误识别传播到大规模的丰度估计中。我们探索了几种使用ID算法生成捕获历史的策略,在假设的人口评估中评估劳动力成本和估计误差之间的权衡。为此,我们利用代表24种鲸类动物的39个照片id数据集进行了模拟研究。我们将结果输入到定制的优化工具中,以识别每个数据集的最佳策略。我们的策略包括在完全自动化和部分自动化的照片id之间进行选择,在后者的情况下,选择要检查的建议匹配的数量。真正的自动化对于算法能很好地识别个体的数据集是最优的。随着识别性能的下降,优化建议用户检查更多来自ID算法的建议匹配,特别是对于小数据集。假阴性(即,个体被重新观察,但错误地标记为第一个捕获)强烈预测估计误差。假阴性率增加2%意味着丰度估计的相对偏差增加5%。我们的框架可用于估计丰度估计的期望误差、项目劳动努力,并为数据集和算法找到最佳策略。我们建议在人口评估中实施一项战略之前估计一项战略的假阴性率。随着保护进入人工智能种群评估的新时代,我们的框架为组织提供了对自动化保护效益和后果的见解。
{"title":"Optimizing automated photo identification for population assessments.","authors":"Philip T Patton, Krishna Pacifici, Robin W Baird, Erin M Oleson, Jason B Allen, Erin Ashe, Aline Athayde, Charla J Basran, Elsa Cabrera, John Calambokidis, Júlio Cardoso, Emma L Carroll, Amina Cesario, Barbara J Cheney, Ted Cheeseman, Enrico Corsi, Jens J Currie, John W Durban, Erin A Falcone, Holly Fearnbach, Kiirsten Flynn, Trish Franklin, Wally Franklin, Bárbara Galletti Vernazzani, Tilen Genova, Marie Hill, David R Johnston, Erin L Keene, Claire Lacey, Sabre D Mahaffy, Tamara L McGuire, Liah McPherson, Catherine Meyer, Robert Michaud, Anastasia Miliou, Grace L Olson, Dara N Orbach, Heidi C Pearson, Marianne H Rasmussen, William J Rayment, Caroline Rinaldi, Renato Rinaldi, Salvatore Siciliano, Stephanie H Stack, Beatriz Tintore, Leigh G Torres, Jared R Towers, Reny B Tyson Moore, Caroline R Weir, Rebecca Wellard, Randall S Wells, Kymberly M Yano, Jochen R Zaeschmar, Lars Bejder","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14436","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14436","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Several legal acts mandate that management agencies regularly assess biological populations. For species with distinct markings, these assessments can be conducted noninvasively via capture-recapture and photographic identification (photo-ID), which involves processing considerable quantities of photographic data. To ease this burden, agencies increasingly rely on automated identification (ID) algorithms. Identification algorithms present agencies with an opportunity-reducing the cost of population assessments-and a challenge-propagating misidentifications into abundance estimates at a large scale. We explored several strategies for generating capture histories with an ID algorithm, evaluating trade-offs between labor costs and estimation error in a hypothetical population assessment. To that end, we conducted a simulation study informed by 39 photo-ID datasets representing 24 cetacean species. We fed the results into a custom optimization tool to discern the optimal strategy for each dataset. Our strategies included choosing between truly and partially automated photo-ID and, in the case of the latter, choosing the number of suggested matches to inspect. True automation was optimal for datasets for which the algorithm identified individuals well. As identification performance declined, the optimization recommended that users inspect more suggested matches from the ID algorithm, particularly for small datasets. False negatives (i.e., individual was resighted but erroneously marked as a first capture) strongly predicted estimation error. A 2% increase in the false negative rate translated to a 5% increase in the relative bias in abundance estimates. Our framework can be used to estimate expected error of the abundance estimate, project labor effort, and find the optimal strategy for a dataset and algorithm. We recommend estimating a strategy's false negative rate before implementing the strategy in a population assessment. Our framework provides organizations with insights into the conservation benefits and consequences of automation as conservation enters a new era of artificial intelligence for population assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14436"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142977934","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Survival of Eurasian lynx in the human-dominated landscape of Europe. 欧亚猞猁在人类主导的欧洲景观中的生存。
IF 5.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Pub Date : 2025-01-14 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14439
J Premier, M L Bastianelli, J Oeser, O Anders, H Andren, M Aronsson, G Bagrade, E Belotti, C Breitenmoser-Würsten, L Bufka, R Černe, J Červený, N Drouet-Hoguet, M Ďuľa, C Fuxjäger, M Herdtfelder, L Hočevar, W Jędrzejewski, R Kont, P Koubek, R Kowalczyk, M Krofel, J Krojerová-Prokešová, J Kubala, J Kusak, M Kutal, J D C Linnell, J Mattisson, T L Middelhoff, D Melovski, A Molinari-Jobin, J Odden, H Okarma, A Ornicāns, N Pagon, J Persson, K Schmidt, M Sindičić, V Slijepčević, B Tám, F Zimmermann, S Kramer-Schadt, M Heurich

Survival and cause-specific mortality rates are vital for evidence-based population forecasting and conservation, particularly for large carnivores, whose populations are often vulnerable to human-caused mortalities. It is therefore important to know the relationship between anthropogenic and natural mortality causes to evaluate whether they are additive or compensatory. Further, the relation between survival and environmental covariates could reveal whether specific landscape characteristics influence demographic performance. We used telemetry data on 681 Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), a model apex predator with large spatial requirements, that were tracked across their European distribution. Through time-to-event analyses, we sought to determine the variables associated with differences in their survival. Illegal killing was the main cause of mortality (33.8%), and mortality rates were similar in protected and hunted populations (8.6% and 7.0% per year, respectively). Survival varied greatly across populations (70-95% per year). Across all study sites, higher hunting and anthropogenic mortality rates were partially compensated by lower rates of other mortality causes but not by natural mortality alone. Variation in survival depended on sex (female survival was 1.5 times greater than male survival) and seasonality (highest risk during hunting season and winter), and lower survival rates were correlated with higher human modification of landscapes at both coarse (home range composition) and fine (habitat use within home range) scales. Some variation in survival was driven by unobserved factors, which, given the high rates of human-caused mortalities, including illegal killing, are of foremost concern. Due to the low natural mortality rates in protected and hunted populations, we conclude that anthropogenic causes of mortality are likely close to additive, such that maintaining or increasing refuge habitat with little human disturbance is critical to lynx conservation.

存活率和特定原因死亡率对于基于证据的种群预测和保护至关重要,特别是对于大型食肉动物而言,它们的种群往往容易受到人为死亡的影响。因此,了解人为死亡原因和自然死亡原因之间的关系,以评估它们是相加性的还是代偿性的,是很重要的。此外,生存与环境协变量之间的关系可以揭示特定景观特征是否影响人口统计学表现。我们使用了681只欧亚猞猁(猞猁)的遥测数据,追踪了它们在欧洲的分布。通过时间-事件分析,我们试图确定与他们生存差异相关的变量。非法捕杀是死亡的主要原因(33.8%),受保护种群和被猎杀种群的死亡率相似(分别为每年8.6%和7.0%)。不同种群的存活率差异很大(每年70-95%)。在所有的研究地点,较高的狩猎和人为死亡率被其他原因较低的死亡率部分补偿,但不是单纯的自然死亡率。存活率的变化取决于性别(雌性存活率是雄性存活率的1.5倍)和季节(狩猎季节和冬季的风险最高),而较低的存活率与人类在粗(栖息地组成)和细(栖息地利用)尺度上对景观的高度修改相关。生存的一些变化是由未观察到的因素造成的,考虑到包括非法杀戮在内的人为死亡率很高,这些因素是最令人关切的。由于受保护和狩猎种群的自然死亡率较低,我们得出结论,人为死亡原因可能接近于加法,因此维持或增加庇护所栖息地,减少人为干扰对猞猁的保护至关重要。
{"title":"Survival of Eurasian lynx in the human-dominated landscape of Europe.","authors":"J Premier, M L Bastianelli, J Oeser, O Anders, H Andren, M Aronsson, G Bagrade, E Belotti, C Breitenmoser-Würsten, L Bufka, R Černe, J Červený, N Drouet-Hoguet, M Ďuľa, C Fuxjäger, M Herdtfelder, L Hočevar, W Jędrzejewski, R Kont, P Koubek, R Kowalczyk, M Krofel, J Krojerová-Prokešová, J Kubala, J Kusak, M Kutal, J D C Linnell, J Mattisson, T L Middelhoff, D Melovski, A Molinari-Jobin, J Odden, H Okarma, A Ornicāns, N Pagon, J Persson, K Schmidt, M Sindičić, V Slijepčević, B Tám, F Zimmermann, S Kramer-Schadt, M Heurich","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14439","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14439","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Survival and cause-specific mortality rates are vital for evidence-based population forecasting and conservation, particularly for large carnivores, whose populations are often vulnerable to human-caused mortalities. It is therefore important to know the relationship between anthropogenic and natural mortality causes to evaluate whether they are additive or compensatory. Further, the relation between survival and environmental covariates could reveal whether specific landscape characteristics influence demographic performance. We used telemetry data on 681 Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), a model apex predator with large spatial requirements, that were tracked across their European distribution. Through time-to-event analyses, we sought to determine the variables associated with differences in their survival. Illegal killing was the main cause of mortality (33.8%), and mortality rates were similar in protected and hunted populations (8.6% and 7.0% per year, respectively). Survival varied greatly across populations (70-95% per year). Across all study sites, higher hunting and anthropogenic mortality rates were partially compensated by lower rates of other mortality causes but not by natural mortality alone. Variation in survival depended on sex (female survival was 1.5 times greater than male survival) and seasonality (highest risk during hunting season and winter), and lower survival rates were correlated with higher human modification of landscapes at both coarse (home range composition) and fine (habitat use within home range) scales. Some variation in survival was driven by unobserved factors, which, given the high rates of human-caused mortalities, including illegal killing, are of foremost concern. Due to the low natural mortality rates in protected and hunted populations, we conclude that anthropogenic causes of mortality are likely close to additive, such that maintaining or increasing refuge habitat with little human disturbance is critical to lynx conservation.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14439"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142977980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Conservation benefits of a large marine protected area network that spans multiple ecosystems. 跨越多个生态系统的大型海洋保护区网络的保护效益。
IF 5.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Pub Date : 2025-01-09 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14435
Joshua G Smith, Cori Lopazanski, Christopher M Free, Julien Brun, Clarissa Anderson, Mark H Carr, Joachim Claudet, Jenifer E Dugan, Jacob G Eurich, Tessa B Francis, David A Gill, Scott L Hamilton, Kristin Kaschner, David Mouillot, Peter T Raimondi, Richard M Starr, Shelby L Ziegler, Daniel Malone, Michelle L Marraffini, Avrey Parsons-Field, Barbara Spiecker, Mallarie Yeager, Kerry J Nickols, Jennifer E Caselle

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are widely implemented tools for long-term ocean conservation and resource management. Assessments of MPA performance have largely focused on specific ecosystems individually and have rarely evaluated performance across multiple ecosystems either in an individual MPA or across an MPA network. We evaluated the conservation performance of 59 MPAs in California's large MPA network, which encompasses 4 primary ecosystems (surf zone, kelp forest, shallow reef, deep reef) and 4 bioregions, and identified MPA attributes that best explain performance. Using a meta-analytic framework, we evaluated the ability of MPAs to conserve fish biomass, richness, and diversity. At the scale of the network and for 3 of 4 regions, the biomass of species targeted by fishing was positively associated with the level of regulatory protection and was greater inside no-take MPAs, whereas species not targeted by fishing had similar biomass in MPAs and areas open to fishing. In contrast, species richness and diversity were not as strongly enhanced by MPA protection. The key features of conservation effectiveness included MPA age, preimplementation fisheries pressure, and habitat diversity. Important drivers of MPA effectiveness for single MPAs were consistent across MPAs in the network, spanning regions and ecosystems. With international targets aimed at protecting 30% of the world's oceans by 2030, MPA design and assessment frameworks should consider conservation performance at multiple ecologically relevant scales, from individual MPAs to MPA networks.

海洋保护区(MPAs)是广泛实施的长期海洋养护和资源管理工具。对MPA绩效的评估主要集中在单个特定生态系统上,很少评估单个MPA或MPA网络中多个生态系统的绩效。我们评估了加州大型MPA网络中59个MPA的保护绩效,该网络包括4个主要生态系统(冲浪区、海带林、浅礁、深礁)和4个生物区,并确定了最能解释绩效的MPA属性。利用元分析框架,我们评估了海洋保护区保护鱼类生物量、丰富度和多样性的能力。在网络规模和4个区域中的3个区域,捕捞目标物种的生物量与监管保护水平呈正相关,并且在禁止捕捞的海洋保护区内更大,而在海洋保护区和开放捕捞地区,非捕捞目标物种的生物量相似。相比之下,MPA保护对物种丰富度和多样性的提高并不明显。保护效果的主要特征包括海洋保护区年龄、实施前渔业压力和栖息地多样性。单个海洋保护区有效性的重要驱动因素在跨区域和生态系统的海洋保护区网络中是一致的。鉴于到2030年保护全球30%海洋的国际目标,保护区设计和评估框架应考虑从单个海洋保护区到海洋保护区网络等多个生态相关尺度的保护绩效。
{"title":"Conservation benefits of a large marine protected area network that spans multiple ecosystems.","authors":"Joshua G Smith, Cori Lopazanski, Christopher M Free, Julien Brun, Clarissa Anderson, Mark H Carr, Joachim Claudet, Jenifer E Dugan, Jacob G Eurich, Tessa B Francis, David A Gill, Scott L Hamilton, Kristin Kaschner, David Mouillot, Peter T Raimondi, Richard M Starr, Shelby L Ziegler, Daniel Malone, Michelle L Marraffini, Avrey Parsons-Field, Barbara Spiecker, Mallarie Yeager, Kerry J Nickols, Jennifer E Caselle","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14435","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14435","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Marine protected areas (MPAs) are widely implemented tools for long-term ocean conservation and resource management. Assessments of MPA performance have largely focused on specific ecosystems individually and have rarely evaluated performance across multiple ecosystems either in an individual MPA or across an MPA network. We evaluated the conservation performance of 59 MPAs in California's large MPA network, which encompasses 4 primary ecosystems (surf zone, kelp forest, shallow reef, deep reef) and 4 bioregions, and identified MPA attributes that best explain performance. Using a meta-analytic framework, we evaluated the ability of MPAs to conserve fish biomass, richness, and diversity. At the scale of the network and for 3 of 4 regions, the biomass of species targeted by fishing was positively associated with the level of regulatory protection and was greater inside no-take MPAs, whereas species not targeted by fishing had similar biomass in MPAs and areas open to fishing. In contrast, species richness and diversity were not as strongly enhanced by MPA protection. The key features of conservation effectiveness included MPA age, preimplementation fisheries pressure, and habitat diversity. Important drivers of MPA effectiveness for single MPAs were consistent across MPAs in the network, spanning regions and ecosystems. With international targets aimed at protecting 30% of the world's oceans by 2030, MPA design and assessment frameworks should consider conservation performance at multiple ecologically relevant scales, from individual MPAs to MPA networks.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14435"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142945952","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Assessing how restoration can facilitate 30×30 goals for climate-resilient coastal ecosystems in the United States. 评估恢复如何促进30×30美国气候适应性沿海生态系统的目标。
IF 5.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Pub Date : 2024-12-31 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14429
Rachel K Gittman, Christopher J Baillie, Annick Cros, Jonathan H Grabowski, Mary-Margaret McKinney, Vienna R Saccomanno, Carter S Smith, Bryan DeAngelis

Ecosystems globally have reached critical tipping points because of climate change, urbanization, unsustainable resource consumption, and pollution. In response, international agreements have set targets for conserving 30% of global ecosystems and restoring 30% of degraded lands and waters by 2030 (30×30). In 2021, the United States set a target to jointly conserve and restore 30% of US lands and waters by 2030, with a specific goal to restore coastal ecosystems, namely wetlands, seagrasses, coral and oyster reefs, and mangrove and kelp forests, to increase resilience to climate change. Although US efforts to conserve and restore coastal ecosystems have increased in recent decades, critical knowledge gaps about the effectiveness of past and current efforts remain. To address key knowledge gaps, we first collated information on current and historic extent and drivers of change for wetlands, seagrasses, coral and oyster reefs, and mangrove and kelp forests in the United States. We then synthesized guiding principles from the literature for restoration practitioners to evaluate ecosystem trade-offs, sustain and enhance ecosystem connectivity, bolster climate resilience, and promote social equity. Significant investment in standardized ecosystem mapping and monitoring and multispecies, landscape-scale restoration efforts can improve resilience of coastal ecosystems to climate change and help the United States achieve its 30×30 target.

由于气候变化、城市化、不可持续的资源消耗和污染,全球生态系统已经达到了关键的临界点。为此,国际协议制定了到2030年保护全球30%的生态系统和恢复30%退化土地和水域的目标(30×30)。2021年,美国制定了到2030年共同保护和恢复30%美国土地和水域的目标,具体目标是恢复沿海生态系统,即湿地、海草、珊瑚和牡蛎礁、红树林和海带林,以增强应对气候变化的能力。尽管近几十年来美国在保护和恢复沿海生态系统方面的努力有所增加,但关于过去和当前努力的有效性的关键知识差距仍然存在。为了解决关键的知识空白,我们首先整理了有关美国湿地、海草、珊瑚和牡蛎礁、红树林和海带林的当前和历史程度和变化驱动因素的信息。然后,我们从文献中综合了恢复从业者评估生态系统权衡、维持和增强生态系统连通性、增强气候适应能力和促进社会公平的指导原则。在标准化的生态系统制图和监测以及多物种、景观尺度的恢复工作上进行大量投资,可以提高沿海生态系统对气候变化的适应能力,并帮助美国实现其30×30目标。
{"title":"Assessing how restoration can facilitate 30×30 goals for climate-resilient coastal ecosystems in the United States.","authors":"Rachel K Gittman, Christopher J Baillie, Annick Cros, Jonathan H Grabowski, Mary-Margaret McKinney, Vienna R Saccomanno, Carter S Smith, Bryan DeAngelis","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14429","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14429","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ecosystems globally have reached critical tipping points because of climate change, urbanization, unsustainable resource consumption, and pollution. In response, international agreements have set targets for conserving 30% of global ecosystems and restoring 30% of degraded lands and waters by 2030 (30×30). In 2021, the United States set a target to jointly conserve and restore 30% of US lands and waters by 2030, with a specific goal to restore coastal ecosystems, namely wetlands, seagrasses, coral and oyster reefs, and mangrove and kelp forests, to increase resilience to climate change. Although US efforts to conserve and restore coastal ecosystems have increased in recent decades, critical knowledge gaps about the effectiveness of past and current efforts remain. To address key knowledge gaps, we first collated information on current and historic extent and drivers of change for wetlands, seagrasses, coral and oyster reefs, and mangrove and kelp forests in the United States. We then synthesized guiding principles from the literature for restoration practitioners to evaluate ecosystem trade-offs, sustain and enhance ecosystem connectivity, bolster climate resilience, and promote social equity. Significant investment in standardized ecosystem mapping and monitoring and multispecies, landscape-scale restoration efforts can improve resilience of coastal ecosystems to climate change and help the United States achieve its 30×30 target.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14429"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142909359","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Classification of direct threats to the conservation of ecosystems and species 4.0. 对生态系统和物种保护的直接威胁分类4.0。
IF 5.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Pub Date : 2024-12-31 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14434
Nick Salafsky, Claire Relton, Bruce E Young, Philippe Lamarre, Monika Böhm, Maxime Chénier, Erica Cochrane, Mark Dionne, Kevin K He, Craig Hilton-Taylor, Charles Latrémouille, John Morrison, Calla V Raymond, Mary Seddon, Varsha Suresh

Identifying and assessing the magnitude of direct threats to ecosystems and species are critical steps to prioritizing, planning, implementing, and assessing conservation actions. Just as medical clinicians and researchers need a standard way to talk about human diseases, conservation practitioners and scientists need a common and comprehensive language to talk about the threats they are facing to facilitate joint action, evaluation, and learning. To meet this need, in 2008 the IUCN Species Survival Commission and the Conservation Measures Partnership produced the first version of a common threats classification with the understanding that it would be periodically updated to take into account new information and learning. We present version 4.0 of this classification. For this latest update, we reviewed existing versions and derivatives of the original classification, over 1000 citations of the classification, threats data from over 2900 real-world conservation projects, and comments from many users. Based on our findings, we made changes to the threats classification scheme, including addition of a level 0 threat class, refinement of levels 1 and 2 threat categories, and addition of the threat "Fencing & walls" to level 2. Also added were level 3 threat types and modifiers that provide a more detailed description of different types of direct threats and thus allow users to fine-tune analyses and actions. The update also clarifies how to treat various stressors, including natural disaster events and climate change. As a result of these changes, we revised the formal definition of direct threats. They include human actions that are the direct cause of ecosystem or species-population degradation and loss, such as agriculture, transport, natural resource use, and ecosystem management. They also include ultimate stressors in natural systems whose dynamics have been altered by the effects of current or historical human actions, such as invasive or problematic native species, pollution, natural disasters, and climate change.

识别和评估对生态系统和物种的直接威胁的程度是确定保护行动的优先顺序、规划、实施和评估的关键步骤。正如医学临床医生和研究人员需要一种标准的方式来谈论人类疾病一样,环境保护从业者和科学家需要一种共同的、全面的语言来谈论他们面临的威胁,以促进联合行动、评估和学习。为了满足这一需求,2008年,世界自然保护联盟物种生存委员会和保护措施伙伴关系制定了第一版常见威胁分类,并达成共识,将定期更新,以考虑到新的信息和学习。我们提出了这个分类的4.0版本。为了这次最新的更新,我们审查了原始分类的现有版本和衍生版本,超过1000次的分类引用,来自2900多个现实世界保护项目的威胁数据,以及许多用户的评论。根据我们的发现,我们对威胁分类方案进行了更改,包括增加了0级威胁类别,细化了1级和2级威胁类别,并将威胁“Fencing & walls”添加到2级。还增加了3级威胁类型和修改符,提供了不同类型直接威胁的更详细描述,从而允许用户微调分析和操作。更新还澄清了如何处理各种压力源,包括自然灾害事件和气候变化。由于这些变化,我们修订了直接威胁的正式定义。它们包括直接导致生态系统或物种种群退化和丧失的人类活动,如农业、运输、自然资源利用和生态系统管理。它们还包括自然系统中的最终压力源,其动态已被当前或历史人类活动的影响所改变,如入侵或有问题的本地物种、污染、自然灾害和气候变化。
{"title":"Classification of direct threats to the conservation of ecosystems and species 4.0.","authors":"Nick Salafsky, Claire Relton, Bruce E Young, Philippe Lamarre, Monika Böhm, Maxime Chénier, Erica Cochrane, Mark Dionne, Kevin K He, Craig Hilton-Taylor, Charles Latrémouille, John Morrison, Calla V Raymond, Mary Seddon, Varsha Suresh","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14434","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14434","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Identifying and assessing the magnitude of direct threats to ecosystems and species are critical steps to prioritizing, planning, implementing, and assessing conservation actions. Just as medical clinicians and researchers need a standard way to talk about human diseases, conservation practitioners and scientists need a common and comprehensive language to talk about the threats they are facing to facilitate joint action, evaluation, and learning. To meet this need, in 2008 the IUCN Species Survival Commission and the Conservation Measures Partnership produced the first version of a common threats classification with the understanding that it would be periodically updated to take into account new information and learning. We present version 4.0 of this classification. For this latest update, we reviewed existing versions and derivatives of the original classification, over 1000 citations of the classification, threats data from over 2900 real-world conservation projects, and comments from many users. Based on our findings, we made changes to the threats classification scheme, including addition of a level 0 threat class, refinement of levels 1 and 2 threat categories, and addition of the threat \"Fencing & walls\" to level 2. Also added were level 3 threat types and modifiers that provide a more detailed description of different types of direct threats and thus allow users to fine-tune analyses and actions. The update also clarifies how to treat various stressors, including natural disaster events and climate change. As a result of these changes, we revised the formal definition of direct threats. They include human actions that are the direct cause of ecosystem or species-population degradation and loss, such as agriculture, transport, natural resource use, and ecosystem management. They also include ultimate stressors in natural systems whose dynamics have been altered by the effects of current or historical human actions, such as invasive or problematic native species, pollution, natural disasters, and climate change.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14434"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142909362","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Frontiers of conservation. 保护的前沿。
IF 5.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Pub Date : 2024-12-22 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14432
Yves Meinard, Jean-Yves Georges

Action-oriented conservation sciences are crippled by 3 false assumptions. First, although it is recognized in theory that natural and anthropic components of ecosystems are tightly intertwined, in practice, many conservation policies and actions are still based on the assumption that human and nonhuman stakes should be dealt with in deeply different ways. Second, although the anchorage of environmental sciences in values is amply demonstrated, many conservation scientists still assume they will lose their scientific credentials if they actively participate in decision-making. Finally, although there is much scientific evidence of the permeability-to both protected entities and threats-of static geographic frontiers delimiting protected areas, many conservation policies are still based on the assumption that these frontiers in themselves produce relevant protections. To overcome these false assumptions, it is useful to articulate them in terms of frontiers based on 2 ideas associated with the term. As a synonym of border, frontier materializes a limit whose crossing can have high stakes. As used in phrases such as frontiers of knowledge, the term also refers to the ever-moving horizon of what should be overcome. These 2 ideas capture the reasons current attempts at overcoming the 3 assumptions remain unsatisfactory. They are also useful for elaborating a new vision of conservation to simultaneously break from the 3 assumptions. Instead of taking fixed geographic frontiers of protected areas for granted, conservation scientists should participate, along with stakeholders and Indigenous peoples, in the collective identification of the conservation problems that need to be addressed. For these problems, decision committees that include representatives of concerned humans and representatives of concerned nonhumans should be formed to determine the temporal and spatial scope of relevant conservation actions. The result would be multidimensional protected areas dynamically fine-tuned to the conservation issues they address and to changing environmental conditions.

以行动为导向的保护科学被3个错误假设所削弱。首先,尽管人们在理论上认识到生态系统的自然成分和人为成分是紧密交织在一起的,但在实践中,许多保护政策和行动仍然基于人类和非人类利益应该以截然不同的方式处理的假设。第二,尽管环境科学在价值上的锚定得到了充分的证明,但许多保护科学家仍然认为,如果他们积极参与决策,他们将失去科学资格。最后,尽管有很多科学证据表明,划定保护区的静态地理边界对受保护实体和威胁具有渗透性,但许多保护政策仍然基于这些边界本身产生相关保护的假设。为了克服这些错误的假设,基于与术语相关的两个概念,用边界来表达它们是有用的。作为border的同义词,frontier是一个界限,跨越它可能会有很高的风险。在“知识的前沿”等短语中,这个词也指需要克服的东西的不断变化的地平线。这两个观点抓住了目前试图克服这三个假设仍然不令人满意的原因。它们也有助于阐述一种新的保护视角,同时打破这三个假设。保护科学家不应该理所当然地认为保护区的地理边界是固定的,而应该与利益相关者和土著人民一起参与集体确定需要解决的保护问题。针对这些问题,应成立由相关人类代表和相关非人类代表组成的决策委员会,以确定相关保护行动的时空范围。结果将是多维的保护区,动态地调整它们所处理的保护问题和不断变化的环境条件。
{"title":"Frontiers of conservation.","authors":"Yves Meinard, Jean-Yves Georges","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14432","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14432","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Action-oriented conservation sciences are crippled by 3 false assumptions. First, although it is recognized in theory that natural and anthropic components of ecosystems are tightly intertwined, in practice, many conservation policies and actions are still based on the assumption that human and nonhuman stakes should be dealt with in deeply different ways. Second, although the anchorage of environmental sciences in values is amply demonstrated, many conservation scientists still assume they will lose their scientific credentials if they actively participate in decision-making. Finally, although there is much scientific evidence of the permeability-to both protected entities and threats-of static geographic frontiers delimiting protected areas, many conservation policies are still based on the assumption that these frontiers in themselves produce relevant protections. To overcome these false assumptions, it is useful to articulate them in terms of frontiers based on 2 ideas associated with the term. As a synonym of border, frontier materializes a limit whose crossing can have high stakes. As used in phrases such as frontiers of knowledge, the term also refers to the ever-moving horizon of what should be overcome. These 2 ideas capture the reasons current attempts at overcoming the 3 assumptions remain unsatisfactory. They are also useful for elaborating a new vision of conservation to simultaneously break from the 3 assumptions. Instead of taking fixed geographic frontiers of protected areas for granted, conservation scientists should participate, along with stakeholders and Indigenous peoples, in the collective identification of the conservation problems that need to be addressed. For these problems, decision committees that include representatives of concerned humans and representatives of concerned nonhumans should be formed to determine the temporal and spatial scope of relevant conservation actions. The result would be multidimensional protected areas dynamically fine-tuned to the conservation issues they address and to changing environmental conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14432"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142876454","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Drivers of mangrove area change and suppression in Brazil from 2000 to 2020. 2000 - 2020年巴西红树林面积变化与抑制的驱动因素
IF 5.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Pub Date : 2024-12-20 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14426
Gabriel Tofanelo Vanin, Eduardo Ribeiro Lacerda, Gustavo Maruyama Mori

Mangrove area loss is increasing globally, and drivers of loss differ depending not only on natural conditions but also on national and regional policies. Some countries with the most mangrove area, for instance, Brazil, lack broad systematic quantification of specific drivers of mangrove land-use and land-cover (LULC) change dynamics. We investigated the direct conversion (i.e., replacement) of mangrove forests due to changes in 21 types of LULC across Brazil from 2000 to 2020 based on annual LULC maps developed by the MapBiomas project. We quantified the area changes at national, regional, and state scales. We also determined and quantified mangrove forest conversion for each of the 21 LULC types with a pixel comparison analysis and identified temporal trends with a time-series analysis. The total conversion of mangrove area (3429 km2) was offset by a gain that was twice as large (6776 km2). Forest formations and water bodies, which may be interpreted as natural or indirect anthropogenic changes, were associated with most of the areas where mangrove cover was lost. Land-use modifications, mainly creation of pastures, accounted for 4% of direct mangrove conversions. We found that changes in LULC categories and patterns of gain and loss of mangrove areas differed among Brazilian states and regions. Based on other research, they also differ between Brazil and other countries. Thus, integrated mangrove forest conservation and management efforts that transcend political boundaries are essential to effectively address negative impacts on mangrove forests. We provide an interactive map to allow qualitative assessments of mangrove conversion drivers by different stakeholders, such as managers, policymakers, and nongovernmental organizations.

在全球范围内,红树林面积的损失正在增加,损失的驱动因素不仅取决于自然条件,而且取决于国家和区域政策。一些拥有最多红树林面积的国家,例如巴西,缺乏对红树林土地利用和土地覆盖(LULC)变化动态的具体驱动因素的广泛系统量化。基于MapBiomas项目开发的年度LULC地图,我们调查了2000年至2020年巴西21种类型的LULC变化导致的红树林的直接转换(即替代)。我们量化了国家、地区和州尺度上的面积变化。我们还通过像素比较分析确定和量化了21种LULC类型中每一种的红树林转换,并通过时间序列分析确定了时间趋势。红树林面积的总变化(3429平方公里)被两倍的增长(6776平方公里)所抵消。森林的形成和水体可能被解释为自然或间接的人为变化,它们与红树林覆盖丧失的大多数地区有关。土地利用的改变,主要是建立牧场,占红树林直接转化的4%。我们发现,巴西不同州和地区的红树林地区的LULC类别和增减模式的变化有所不同。根据其他研究,巴西和其他国家之间也存在差异。因此,超越政治界限的红树林综合保护和管理工作对于有效解决对红树林的负面影响至关重要。我们提供了一个交互式地图,允许不同利益相关者(如管理者、决策者和非政府组织)对红树林转换驱动因素进行定性评估。
{"title":"Drivers of mangrove area change and suppression in Brazil from 2000 to 2020.","authors":"Gabriel Tofanelo Vanin, Eduardo Ribeiro Lacerda, Gustavo Maruyama Mori","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14426","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14426","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Mangrove area loss is increasing globally, and drivers of loss differ depending not only on natural conditions but also on national and regional policies. Some countries with the most mangrove area, for instance, Brazil, lack broad systematic quantification of specific drivers of mangrove land-use and land-cover (LULC) change dynamics. We investigated the direct conversion (i.e., replacement) of mangrove forests due to changes in 21 types of LULC across Brazil from 2000 to 2020 based on annual LULC maps developed by the MapBiomas project. We quantified the area changes at national, regional, and state scales. We also determined and quantified mangrove forest conversion for each of the 21 LULC types with a pixel comparison analysis and identified temporal trends with a time-series analysis. The total conversion of mangrove area (3429 km<sup>2</sup>) was offset by a gain that was twice as large (6776 km<sup>2</sup>). Forest formations and water bodies, which may be interpreted as natural or indirect anthropogenic changes, were associated with most of the areas where mangrove cover was lost. Land-use modifications, mainly creation of pastures, accounted for 4% of direct mangrove conversions. We found that changes in LULC categories and patterns of gain and loss of mangrove areas differed among Brazilian states and regions. Based on other research, they also differ between Brazil and other countries. Thus, integrated mangrove forest conservation and management efforts that transcend political boundaries are essential to effectively address negative impacts on mangrove forests. We provide an interactive map to allow qualitative assessments of mangrove conversion drivers by different stakeholders, such as managers, policymakers, and nongovernmental organizations.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14426"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142863324","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Fundamental principles of the effect of habitat fragmentation on species with different movement rates. 生境破碎化对不同迁移速率物种影响的基本原理。
IF 5.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Pub Date : 2024-12-19 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14424
Jamaal Jacobs, Yurij Salmaniw, King-Yeung Lam, Lu Zhai, Hao Wang, Bo Zhang

Habitat loss and fragmentation have independent impacts on biodiversity; thus, field studies are needed to distinguish their impacts. Moreover, species with different locomotion rates respond differently to fragmentation, complicating direct comparisons of the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation across differing taxa and landscapes. To overcome these challenges, we combined mechanistic mathematical modeling and laboratory experiments to compare how species with different locomotion rates were affected by low (∼80% intact) and high (∼30% intact) levels of habitat loss. In our laboratory experiment, we used Caenorhabditis elegans strains with different locomotion rates and subjected them to the different levels of habitat loss and fragmentation by placing Escherichia coli (C. elegans food) over different proportions of the Petri dish. We developed a partial differential equation model that incorporated spatial and biological phenomena to predict the impacts of habitat arrangement on populations. Only species with low rates of locomotion declined significantly in abundance as fragmentation increased in areas with low (p = 0.0270) and high (p = 0.0243) levels of habitat loss. Despite that species with high locomotion rates changed little in abundance regardless of the spatial arrangement of resources, they had the lowest abundance and growth rates in all environments because the negative effect of fragmentation created a mismatch between the population distribution and the resource distribution. Our findings shed new light on incorporating the role of locomotion in determining the effects of habitat fragmentation.

生境丧失和破碎化对生物多样性有独立的影响;因此,需要实地研究来区分它们的影响。此外,不同运动速率的物种对破碎化的反应不同,这使得在不同分类群和景观中直接比较栖息地丧失和破碎化的影响变得复杂。为了克服这些挑战,我们将机械数学模型和实验室实验结合起来,比较了低(80%完整)和高(30%完整)栖息地丧失水平对不同运动速度的物种的影响。在我们的实验室实验中,我们使用不同运动速率的秀丽隐杆线虫菌株,通过将大肠杆菌(秀丽隐杆线虫食物)放置在不同比例的培养皿上,对其进行不同程度的栖息地丧失和破碎化。我们建立了一个结合空间和生物现象的偏微分方程模型来预测生境安排对种群的影响。在低(p = 0.0270)和高(p = 0.0243)生境丧失水平区,只有低迁移率物种的丰度随着破碎化程度的增加而显著下降。尽管高迁移率物种的丰度变化不大,但由于破碎化的负面效应造成种群分布与资源分布之间的不匹配,它们在所有环境中的丰度和生长率都是最低的。我们的研究结果揭示了在确定栖息地破碎化的影响中纳入运动的作用。
{"title":"Fundamental principles of the effect of habitat fragmentation on species with different movement rates.","authors":"Jamaal Jacobs, Yurij Salmaniw, King-Yeung Lam, Lu Zhai, Hao Wang, Bo Zhang","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14424","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14424","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Habitat loss and fragmentation have independent impacts on biodiversity; thus, field studies are needed to distinguish their impacts. Moreover, species with different locomotion rates respond differently to fragmentation, complicating direct comparisons of the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation across differing taxa and landscapes. To overcome these challenges, we combined mechanistic mathematical modeling and laboratory experiments to compare how species with different locomotion rates were affected by low (∼80% intact) and high (∼30% intact) levels of habitat loss. In our laboratory experiment, we used Caenorhabditis elegans strains with different locomotion rates and subjected them to the different levels of habitat loss and fragmentation by placing Escherichia coli (C. elegans food) over different proportions of the Petri dish. We developed a partial differential equation model that incorporated spatial and biological phenomena to predict the impacts of habitat arrangement on populations. Only species with low rates of locomotion declined significantly in abundance as fragmentation increased in areas with low (p = 0.0270) and high (p = 0.0243) levels of habitat loss. Despite that species with high locomotion rates changed little in abundance regardless of the spatial arrangement of resources, they had the lowest abundance and growth rates in all environments because the negative effect of fragmentation created a mismatch between the population distribution and the resource distribution. Our findings shed new light on incorporating the role of locomotion in determining the effects of habitat fragmentation.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14424"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142853452","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Conservation and coexistence at a crossroads 保护与共存处于十字路口。
IF 5.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Pub Date : 2024-12-19 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14433
Simon Pooley
<p>Conservationists continue to wrestle with antithetical urges toward universality and diversity. A quest for blueprints for saving biodiversity exists sympatrically with acknowledgment of the plurality of ways of living in the natural world. Current attempts to integrate emergent thinking on human–wildlife coexistence into the requirements of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) bring this into sharp focus. This is a moment worthy of pause and consideration of the implications of integrating coexistence into existing conservation paradigms.</p><p>Conservation biology has evolved into conservation science, enlarging its remit to grapple with the undeniable ascendancy of humans in driving the planet out of the Holocene. Despite this, the field is still firmly rooted in the natural sciences, seeking better scientific descriptions of natural systems and species, sophisticated models, and general laws for social–ecological systems (so conceived) in quest of evidence-based, generalizable approaches for averting biodiversity loss. These aspirations are consistent with those of international policy makers aiming to regulate humanity out of planetary disaster.</p><p>The GBF requires measurable steps toward solving specific biodiversity-related challenges. Meeting the 23 targets for 2030 (notably those relating to tools and solutions) requires agreement on concepts, indicators, standards, and best processes and practices (Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD], <span>2024</span>) to facilitate uniform assessments across all 168 signatory countries.</p><p>Yet, even social scientists adopting generalizable social–ecological systems frameworks caution policy makers that there are no panaceas for social–ecological challenges. They urge recognition of institutional diversity in the same ways others celebrate and defend biological diversity (Ostrom, <span>2005</span>). What is more, despite the normative ecosystem services framework of the CBD, every major biodiversity status report calls for transformative change (e.g., Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [IPBES], <span>2019</span>). The importance of cultural (or biocultural) diversity and different ways of valuing and relating to the natural world has been belatedly recognized in conservation (IPBES, <span>2022</span>). In addition, there is the perverse individuality of human beings, history, and questions of free will and counterfactuals to contend with (Pooley, <span>2018</span>).</p><p>Incorporating the study of humans into conservation studies requires careful consideration of the language and concepts that conservation biology hardwired into the field. The languages of physics and systems science still carry authority in areas they have little business in. A decade ago, when I began thinking about human–wildlife coexistence, I was struck by Carter and Linnell's (<span>2016</span>) formulation of coexistence with predators as a resilien
{"title":"Conservation and coexistence at a crossroads","authors":"Simon Pooley","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14433","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cobi.14433","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Conservationists continue to wrestle with antithetical urges toward universality and diversity. A quest for blueprints for saving biodiversity exists sympatrically with acknowledgment of the plurality of ways of living in the natural world. Current attempts to integrate emergent thinking on human–wildlife coexistence into the requirements of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) bring this into sharp focus. This is a moment worthy of pause and consideration of the implications of integrating coexistence into existing conservation paradigms.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Conservation biology has evolved into conservation science, enlarging its remit to grapple with the undeniable ascendancy of humans in driving the planet out of the Holocene. Despite this, the field is still firmly rooted in the natural sciences, seeking better scientific descriptions of natural systems and species, sophisticated models, and general laws for social–ecological systems (so conceived) in quest of evidence-based, generalizable approaches for averting biodiversity loss. These aspirations are consistent with those of international policy makers aiming to regulate humanity out of planetary disaster.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The GBF requires measurable steps toward solving specific biodiversity-related challenges. Meeting the 23 targets for 2030 (notably those relating to tools and solutions) requires agreement on concepts, indicators, standards, and best processes and practices (Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD], &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;) to facilitate uniform assessments across all 168 signatory countries.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Yet, even social scientists adopting generalizable social–ecological systems frameworks caution policy makers that there are no panaceas for social–ecological challenges. They urge recognition of institutional diversity in the same ways others celebrate and defend biological diversity (Ostrom, &lt;span&gt;2005&lt;/span&gt;). What is more, despite the normative ecosystem services framework of the CBD, every major biodiversity status report calls for transformative change (e.g., Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [IPBES], &lt;span&gt;2019&lt;/span&gt;). The importance of cultural (or biocultural) diversity and different ways of valuing and relating to the natural world has been belatedly recognized in conservation (IPBES, &lt;span&gt;2022&lt;/span&gt;). In addition, there is the perverse individuality of human beings, history, and questions of free will and counterfactuals to contend with (Pooley, &lt;span&gt;2018&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Incorporating the study of humans into conservation studies requires careful consideration of the language and concepts that conservation biology hardwired into the field. The languages of physics and systems science still carry authority in areas they have little business in. A decade ago, when I began thinking about human–wildlife coexistence, I was struck by Carter and Linnell's (&lt;span&gt;2016&lt;/span&gt;) formulation of coexistence with predators as a resilien","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11780208/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142853394","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Conservation Biology
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1