Explore the vast range of titles available.

In the USA, Species Conservation Banking is a prominent example of compensatory biodiversity impact mitigation, with an annual market value estimated at US$354.2 million. Species Conservation Banking represents a useful case study of a well‐established program that can provide empirical insights into the practicalities of implementing quantitative compensatory biodiversity mitigation on‐the‐ground. Using semi‐structured key‐informant interviews structured around well‐established technical challenges to compensatory mitigation, this study aimed to understand (i) how and why these challenges are or are not addressed in practice; and (ii) how these challenges relate to practical challenges faced by conservation banking stakeholders on‐the‐ground. Challenges identified included: (i) defining trading currencies and equivalence, (ii) regulatory and political uncertainty, (iii) regulatory agency capacity, will and knowledge, (iv) lack of policies, standards, and competition with other mitigation mechanisms, (v) long‐term uncertainty/longevity, and (vi) lack of species knowledge and data transparency. These challenges are numerous, diverse, interlinked and transdisciplinary, and collectively inhibit the ability of practitioners to resolve underlying technical challenges—a finding likely applicable to related biodiversity offset programs. To help address challenges and navigate this complexity, we formulate several recommendations for conservation banking stakeholders to improve the chances of beneficial biodiversity outcomes being achieved.

The generally negative effect of anthropogenic disturbance on the quality of habitats for species viability makes it a common focus of conservation assessment and prioritization efforts. Although many available spatial models and metrics (e.g., distance to or density of disturbance) characterize impact patterns of anthropogenic disturbance on the landscape, a general evaluation of model performance against empirical measurements of ecological integrity is lacking. We tested both distance‐based and disturbance‐density models in relation to ecological indicators. The models included roads, residential and commercial development, agricultural land use, mining, energy development infrastructure, and transmission structures as disturbance sources. Model parameters were based on expert input and results from the published literature. The disturbance models were tested against two disparate and independent measures of habitat quality: a floristic quality index and measures of greater sage‐grouse population integrity. Floristic quality scores were significantly lower in vegetation plots closer to disturbances in a general distance‐based disturbance model across Colorado. Although the proportion of variation in floristic quality explained by anthropogenic disturbance was relatively low (8.5–11.8%), it appeared to represent a ubiquitous baseline negative effect of proximity to anthropogenic disturbance on the quality of vegetation communities. For both distance‐ and density‐based greater sage‐grouse models, modeled disturbance indices were significantly lower (10–12 times) near active than historic leks, and numbers of males counted at leks increased significantly (3.2–3.4 times) as modeled disturbance decreased. Our findings indicate that as a general class, geospatial models can depict effects of anthropogenic disturbance on both plant communities and individual animal species. Empirical validation of disturbance models focused on other species or regions is recommended to further evaluate the utility and reliability of these methods.

What makes a flagship species effective in engaging conservation donors? Large, charismatic mammals are typically selected as ambassadors, but a few studies suggest butterflies—and monarchs in particular—may be even more appealing. To gather more information about people’s responses to monarchs, we conducted an empirical study of member submissions to a successful conservation campaign, the Monarch Story Campaign, conducted by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). The set of 691 stories along with their associated demographic and donation data was analyzed in a mixed-methods study using qualitative analysis and tests of association. The results showed that people often described encounters with monarchs in childhood and as adults. They expressed strong, positive emotions, and lauded the monarch’s beauty and other “awe-inspiring” qualities and expressed wonder at their lifecycle (i.e., metamorphosis and migration). They also raised conservation themes of distress at monarch loss, calls for action, and caretaking, such as being “fragile” and “in need.” Sharing personal encounters was associated with current efforts to save the species and more past financial donations, while a second pattern tied more donations to awe at the monarch’s mass migration. These results imply that conservation campaigns built around species people encounter may build lifelong awareness, concern, and actions towards conservation.

Biodiversity mitigation is a cornerstone of applied conservation. Mitigation encompasses a suite of practices, ranging from planned avoidance of impacts to creation of new natural habitats. Accurate and appropriate metrics quantifying impacts to natural systems and the effectiveness of restoration are necessary to measure the success of different mitigation strategies. Because effective mitigation requires adequate metrics, we developed a Biodiversity Metrics Framework to assist practitioners and policy makers in assessing biodiversity mitigation metrics. Based on Noss’Hierarchy of Biodiversity, the Scorecard highlights the mismatch between scientifically defined best practices and metrics required by policy. The Framework may serve a vital role in standardizing and validating mitigation projects into the future.

Black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) are a key component of the disturbance regime in semi-arid grasslands of central North America. Many studies have compared community and ecosystem characteristics on prairie dog colonies to grasslands without prairie dogs, but little is known about landscape-scale patterns of disturbance that prairie dog colony complexes may impose on grasslands over long time periods. We examined spatiotemporal dynamics in two prairie dog colony complexes in southeastern Colorado (Comanche) and northcentral Montana (Phillips County) that have been strongly influenced by plague, and compared them to a complex unaffected by plague in northwestern Nebraska (Oglala). Both plague-affected complexes exhibited substantial spatiotemporal variability in the area occupied during a decade, in contrast to the stability of colonies in the Oglala complex. However, the plague-affected complexes differed in spatial patterns of colony movement. Colonies in the Comanche complex in shortgrass steppe shifted locations over a decade. Only 10% of the area occupied in 1995 was still occupied by prairie dogs in 2006. In 2005 and 2006 respectively, 74 and 83% of the total area of the Comanche complex occurred in locations that were not occupied in 1995, and only 1% of the complex was occupied continuously over a decade. In contrast, prairie dogs in the Phillips County complex in mixed-grass prairie and sagebrush steppe primarily recolonized previously occupied areas after plague-induced colony declines. In Phillips County, 62% of the area occupied in 1993 was also occupied by prairie dogs in 2004, and 12% of the complex was occupied continuously over a decade. Our results indicate that plague accelerates spatiotemporal movement of prairie dog colonies, and have significant implications for landscape-scale effects of prairie dog disturbance on grassland composition and productivity. These findings highlight the need to combine landscape-scale measures of habitat suitability with long-term measures of colony locations to understand the role of plague-affected prairie dogs as a grassland disturbance process.