Conservation - Scientific Papers

[Matias]

@Sully 

You are feeding this topic well. I have been absent for a long time, with sporadic contributions here ... many changes and new occupations in progress.

"Conservation is the key that opens all the topics that compete here, and knowing the biggest problems of conservation is knowing where everything fits"


Thank you. Reply

[Sully]

How many bird and mammal extinctions has recent conservation action prevented?

Abstract

Aichi Target 12 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) contains the aim to ‘prevent extinctions of known threatened species’. To measure the degree to which this was achieved, we used expert elicitation to estimate the number of bird and mammal species whose extinctions were prevented by conservation action in 1993–2020 (the lifetime of the CBD) and 2010–2020 (the timing of Aichi Target 12). We found that conservation action prevented 21–32 bird and 7–16 mammal extinctions since 1993, and 9–18 bird and two to seven mammal extinctions since 2010. Many remain highly threatened and may still become extinct. Considering that 10 bird and five mammal species did go extinct (or are strongly suspected to) since 1993, extinction rates would have been 2.9–4.2 times greater without conservation action. While policy commitments have fostered significant conservation achievements, future biodiversity action needs to be scaled up to avert additional extinctions. Reply

[Sully]

A good interactive piece by the guardian outlining the specifics of conserving half of the earths land mass 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2020/sep/29/planetary-safety-net-could-halt-wildlife-loss-and-slow-climate-breakdown-aoe?CMP=share_btn_tw Reply

[Sully]

Relative efforts of countries to conserve world’s megafauna

Abstract:

Surprisingly little attention has been paid to variation among countries in contributions to conservation. As a first step, we developed a Megafauna Conservation Index (MCI) that assesses the spatial, ecological and financial contributions of 152 nations towards conservation of the world’s terrestrial megafauna. We chose megafauna because they are particularly valuable in economic, ecological and societal terms, and are challenging and expensive to conserve. We categorised these 152 countries as being above- or below-average performers based on whether their contribution to megafauna conservation was higher or lower than the global mean; ‘major’ performers or underperformers were those whose contribution exceeded 1 SD over or under the mean, respectively. Ninety percent of countries in North/Central America and 70% of countries in Africa were classified as major or above-average performers, while approximately one-quarter of countries in Asia (25%) and Europe (21%) were identified as major underperformers. We present our index to emphasise the need for measuring conservation performance, to help nations identify how best they could improve their efforts, and to present a starting point for the development of more robust and inclusive measures (noting how the IUCN Red List evolved over time). Our analysis points to three approaches that countries could adopt to improve their contribution to global megafauna conservation, depending on their circumstances: (1) upgrading or expanding their domestic protected area networks, with a particular emphasis on conserving large carnivore and herbivore habitat, (2) increase funding for conservation at home or abroad, or (3) ‘rewilding’ their landscapes. Once revised and perfected, we recommend publishing regular conservation rankings in the popular media to recognise major-performers, foster healthy pride and competition among nations, and identify ways for governments to improve their performance. Reply

[Sully]

Raptor reintroductions: Cost-effective alternatives to captive breeding

Abstract

Reintroductions are becoming a popular tool to prevent extinctions, although their overall success rate is low. Assessing the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of different reintroduction strategies may help identify and promote efficient practices. Captive-breeding is widely used in animal reintroductions, although concerns have been raised about relatively high failure rates and economic costs. Here, we compared the effectiveness of two simultaneously used strategies in the reintroduction of the Bonelli’s eagle on the island of Mallorca: The release of captive-bred chicks and wild-reared, translocated non-juveniles. To do so, we estimated the main vital rates for individuals released by both strategies and used these to perform population simulations to assess their overall performances. The use of wild-reared non-juveniles showed a trend with higher numbers of breeding pairs 10 years after the end of releases (14.75 pairs, 95% CI 4–25 vs. 11.21 pairs, 95% CI 2–24) and was the only strategy that prevented extinction in the long term. Following that, based on cost estimations of every strategy and different reintroduction budgets, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of releasing wild-reared non-juveniles compared with two captive-breeding alternatives: Releasing chicks either originally from breeding programmes or extracted from nests in natural populations. Again, releasing wild-reared non-juveniles was the only strategy that prevented long-term extinction in all economic scenarios (i.e. low-budget scenario 21.49 pairs, 95% CI 2–25). The use of chicks sourced from captive-breeding programmes did not guarantee long-term persistence even in high-budget scenarios (14.50 pairs, 95% CI 0–25). Releasing wild-reared non-juveniles boosts early recruitment to the breeding population and early reproduction, which can be key for reintroduction success. However, in some scenarios, post-release effects can be stronger in wild-reared individuals, especially because of high translocation stress and post-release dispersal. Hence, we recommend undertaking careful evaluation of the pros and cons of every strategy and embracing adaptive management to choose best strategies. Reply

[Matias]

South Africa’s wildlife ranches can offer solutions to Africa’s growing conservation challenges

Quote:Designated protected areas for wildlife – such as national parks – are the world’s principal conservation strategy. But this model to conserve wildlife in Africa is increasingly coming under pressure. Changing climates, volatile economies and political systems, conflicting sentiments around wildlife management practices (like trophy hunting) and unpredictable events, such as pandemics, are just some of the threats that undermine conservation efforts.

Many protected areas didn’t fare well during the pandemic, particularly across Africa. Ailing economies and restricted travel reduced the funding and tourism revenues on which many parks depend. As a result, half of surveyed parks across 19 African countries reported reductions in the protection of endangered species, field patrols and anti-poaching measures.

These impacts bring into question the resilience of protected areas where conservation is funded by donations, state budgets and, in some cases, ecotourism. Additional conservation models are called for.

One such model is wildlife ranching. We carried out a study which examined how wildlife ranches in South Africa responded to the impact of the pandemic. There are different types of wildlife ranches. They generate revenue from wildlife through a variety of activities including ecotourism, trophy and meat hunting, wildlife trade and meat sales. On some of these ranches, livestock shared sp

I have separated these three studies that are inserted in the article above (Link), which provide a panoramic view of the subject.

The economics and institutional economics of wildlife on private land in Africa

An assessment of the economic, social and conservation value of the wildlife ranching industry and its potential to support the green economy in South Africa

Can integrating wildlife and livestock enhance ecosystem services in central Kenya? Reply

[Matias]

An ecological rule breaker shows the effects of climate change on body size evolution

Quote:"Our study highlights that body size is linked to dynamic and potentially interdependent ecological factors," said lead author Maya Juman, a Ph.D. student at the University of Cambridge. "It is critical to test these patterns in conjunction with one another, and across both space and time. We need to revisit ecogeographical rules in the context of climate change, which may be rewriting them."

"This is the first time a rule reversal like this has been found in any species," said Sargis, professor of anthropology in Yale's Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the director of the Yale Institute for Biospheric Studies (YIBS), and the study's senior author. "The finding shows that body size variation and responses to changing temperature are much more complex than predicted."


The study also found that the two rules are intertwined. While mainland Northern Treeshrews clearly break Bergmann's rule, island-bound individuals adhered to it, tending to be larger at higher latitudes and smaller at lower latitudes. This means that the island rule is upheld at higher latitudes but reversed in warmer latitudes closer to the equator, the researchers noted.

The researchers suggest that Northern Treeshrews likely aren't the only species that break the body size rules.

"Many traditional tests of Bergmann's rule in living species have ignored time, since up until very recently it was assumed body size can't significantly change over the course of decades, and that's the timescale we're stuck with when it comes to specimen-based research," said study coauthor Link E. Olson, curator of mammals and professor of biology at the University of Alaska Museum and both a curatorial affiliate in mammalogy at the Yale Peabody Museum and a former YIBS Bass Distinguished Visiting Environmental Scholar. "I think we're in for many more similar surprises."

Full Version: Recent and rapid ecogeographical rule reversals in Northern Treeshrews Reply

[Matias]

Commercialization of Nature: Can Market-Based Mechanisms Deliver Positive Conservation and Development Outcomes?

Quote:3. Market-Based Approaches to Biodiversity Conservation
Since 1990s, market-based approaches to biodiversity conservation gained popularity in many countries [6] . The market-based conservation is fitted in neoliberalism that aims to reregulate nature through forms of commodification [21] . Neoliberalism “proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets and free trade” ( [22] , p. 2). The neoliberalisation priorities include deregulation, decentralisation, increased private sector involvement and withdrawal of the state in markets [23] . The state’s role in the neoliberal context is to “create and preserve an institutional framework appropriate to such practices” ( [22] , p. 2).

Neoliberal conservation may take many forms, but it reframes conservation in terms of market mechanisms [21] . Neoliberal conservation can be defined as the “decentralisation of environmental governance, or a shift in responsibility for formal resource management from state to local institutions and new forms of commodification and commercialisation of nature that emerge in these contexts in order to fund conservation efforts” ( [24] , p. 10). Advocates of market-based conservation argue that such market will increase conservation fund, increase environment-friendly business practices, promote participatory conservation, protect native property rights, and promote environmental consciousness, thus enhancing more effective and efficient conservation [21] . Market- based conservation has been linked with efforts to empower and economically improve the condition of most disadvantaged people, for example poor farmers, the landless, women and indigenous peoples [25] . Thus, the approach differ from traditional command and control approach to natural resources conservation as it allows actors to undertake actions that have the lowest cost but lead to more cost-effective results.

The main commodities for production and exchange in the market are mainly carbon, wildlife, landscape aesthetics, genetic resources and related knowledge, and ecosystem services. There have been major policy documents supporting this approach. These documents, among others, include: “The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity” [26] and “Towards a green economy” [27] .
The economic rationale of market-based approaches is premised on the assumption that “if biodiversity and other environmental services are assigned market prices, market forces will drive biodiversity conservation ( [28] , p. 2). The requirements in these markets are mainly commodification, privatization, free trade locally, nationally and internationally. The approach is construed as a means to achieve development and environmental conservation in an environmentally sound way [9] .

The main markets include payment for ecosystem services (PES) (also known as payment of environmental services)―focus on maintaining a flow of a specified ecosystem service in exchange for something of economic value. Examples under PES scheme include: carbon trade (Kyoto Protocol)―The Protocol, adopted in Japan in 1997 and entered into force in 2005, is an international treaty that binds “State Parties to reduce greenhouse gases emissions” [29] . This Protocol was the first international attempt to fight climate change through the reduction of greenhouse gases emissions. The carbon trade emerged as an exchange of credits between nations. The trade was designed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. The trade allows countries that have higher carbon emissions to purchase the right to release more CO2 into the atmosphere from countries that have lower carbon emissions [30] . Natural forests and plantation are regarded as an important carbon sinks. Therefore, by allowing landowners to sell the carbon stored in these forests as emission reduction credits, will act as an incentive for forest conservation [6] . This argument has been embraced by the forestry sector in many countries as well as forest plantation companies, and has promoted the afforestation and reforestation projects [28] . Another form of PES is payments for watershed services―payments or direct compensations by the beneficiaries of a watershed service for the maintenance or provision of the service to its providers.

Biodiversity offsets is another form of market where the conservation actions are intended to compensate for the residual, unavoidable harm to biodiversity caused by development projects, so as to ensure “no net loss” of biodiversity. However, before developers contemplate offsets, they should have first sought to avoid and minimise harm to biodiversity [31] .

Forest Certification is another form of market that intends to ensure “sustainable forest management based on environmentally, socially beneficial and economically viable management of forests for present and future generations” ( [32] , p. 5). The certification concept emerged in the 1990s after many campaigns by environmental groups on the impact of timber logging on the environment. Examples of these campaigns include the “Boycott Tropical Timber” and “Save the Rainforest” of the 1970s and 1980s. The campaigns managed to raise awareness amongst consumers as well as putting pressure on the industry to use their purchasing power to influence practices in the trade. Based on this, timber producers, traders and environmentalists consent to establish the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) in the early 1990s. Since then, a mechanism has been put in place to identify timber from genuine sources [33] .

A bit old (2016), but the message is up to date, as far as the subject is concerned. Reply