Explore the vast range of titles available.

World governments have committed to halting human-induced extinctions and safeguarding important sites for biodiversity by 2020, but the financial costs of meeting these targets are largely unknown. We estimate the cost of reducing the extinction risk of all globally threatened bird species (by > 1 International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List category) to be U.S. $0.875 to $1.23 billion annually over the next decade, of which 12% is currently funded. Incorporating threatened nonavian species increases this total to U.S. $3.41 to $4.76 billion annually. We estimate that protecting and effectively managing all terrestrial sites of global avian conservation significance (11,731 Important Bird Areas) would cost U.S. $ 65.1 billion annually. Adding sites for other taxa increases this to U.S. $76.1 billion annually. Meeting these targets will require conservation funding to increase by at least an order of magnitude.

There are many barriers to using science to inform conservation policy and practice. Conservation scientists wishing to produce management-relevant science must balance this goal with the imperative of demonstrating novelty and rigor in their science. Decision makers seeking to make evidence-based decisions must balance a desire for knowledge with the need to act despite uncertainty. Generating science that will effectively inform management decisions requires that the production of information (the components of knowledge) be salient (relevant and timely), credible (authoritative, believable, and trusted), and legitimate (developed via a process that considers the values and perspectives of all relevant actors) in the eyes of both researchers and decision makers. We perceive 3 key challenges for those hoping to generate conservation science that achieves all 3 of these information characteristics. First, scientific and management audiences can have contrasting perceptions about the salience of research. Second, the pursuit of scientific credibility can come at the cost of salience and legitimacy in the eyes of decision makers, and, third, different actors can have conflicting views about what constitutes legitimate information. We highlight 4 institutional frameworks that can facilitate science that will inform management: boundary organizations (environmental organizations that span the boundary between science and management), research scientists embedded in resource management agencies, formal links between decision makers and scientists at research-focused institutions, and training programs for conservation professionals. Although these are not the only approaches to generating boundary-spanning science, nor are they mutually exclusive, they provide mechanisms for promoting communication, translation, and mediation across the knowledge-action boundary. We believe that despite the challenges, conservation science should strive to be a boundary science, which both advances scientific understanding and contributes to decision making. Hay muchas barreras para utilizar ciencia para informar a la política y práctica de la conservación. Los científicos de la conservación que desean producir ciencia relevante para el manejo deben equilibrar esta meta con el imperativo de demostrar novedad y rigor en su ciencia. Los tomadores de decisiones que buscan que sus decisiones se basen en evidencias deben equilibrar el deseo de conocimientos con la necesidad de actuar a pesar de la incertidumbre. La generación de ciencia que informe efectivamente a las decisiones de manejo requiere que la producción de información (los componentes del conocimiento) sea sobresaliente (relevante y oportuna), creíble (autoritativa, verosímil y confiable) y legítima (desarrollada mediante un proceso que considera los valores y perspectivas de todos los actores relevantes) a la vista tanto de investigadores como de tomadores de decisiones. Percibimos tres retos clave para quienes desean generar ciencia de la conservación que logre estas tres características de la información. Primero, las audiencias científicas y de manejo pueden tener percepciones contrastantes sobre la relevancia de la investigación. Segundo, la credibilidad se puede lograr a costa de la relevancia y legitimidad a la vista de los tomadores de decisiones y tercero, los diferentes actores pueden tener percepciones conflictivas sobre los que constituye información legítima. Resaltamos cuatro marcos institucionales que pueden facilitar que la ciencia informe al manejo: organizaciones de frontera (organizaciones ambientales que trasponen la frontera entre la ciencia y el manejo), investigadores científicos insertados en agencias de manejo de recursos, vínculos formales entre tomadores de decisiones y científicos en instituciones enfocadas a la investigación, y programas de capacitación para profesionales de la conservación. Aunque estos no son los únicos métodos para generar ciencia que traspone fronteras, ni son mutuamente excluyentes, proporcionan mecanismos que promueven la comunicación, traslación y mediación para trasponer la frontera conocimiento-acción. Consideramos que no obstante los retos, la ciencia de la conservación debería pugnar por ser una ciencia de frontera, que incrementa el entendimiento científico y contribuye a la toma de decisiones.

International trade in exotic pets is an important and increasing driver of biodiversity loss and often compromises the standards required for good animal welfare. We systematically reviewed the scientific and gray literature and used the United Nations Environment Programme - World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) trade database to establish temporal and geographical trade patterns of live exotic birds, mammals, and reptiles and to describe trends in research, taxonomic representation, and level of threat and legal protection of species traded. Birds were the most species-rich and abundant class reported in trade; reptiles were second most abundant but unusually the most studied in this context; and mammals were least abundant in trade. Mammalian and reptilian species traded as pets were more likely to be threatened than expected by random. There have been a substantial number of Appendix 1 listed captive-bred mammals and birds and wild-caught birds and reptiles reported in trade to CITES. We identified the Middle East's emerging role as a driver of demand for exotic pets of all taxa alongside the well-established and increasing role of South America and Southeast Asia in the market. Europe, North America, and the Middle East featured most heavily in trade reports to CITES, whereas trade involving South America and Southeast Asia were given most emphasis in the literature. For effective monitoring of and appropriate response to the international exotic pet trade, it is imperative that the reliability and detail of CITES trade reports improve and that scientific research be directed toward those taxa and locations that are most vulnerable. El mercado internacional de mascotas exóticas es un factor importante y creciente de pérdida de la biodiversidad y continuamente compromete los estándares requeridos para un buen bienestar animal. Sistemáticamente revisamos la literatura cientifica y gris y usamos la base de datos de mercados de UNEPWCMC CITES para establecer patrones temporales y geográficos del mercado de aves, mamíferos y reptiles exóticos vivos y describir las tendencias en la investigación, la representación taxonómica y el nivel de amenaza y la protección legal de las especies comercializadas. Las aves fueron la clase con mayor riqueza de especies y la más abundante; los reptiles fueron la segunda más abundante pero inusualmente la más estudiada en este contexto; los mamíferos fueron los menos abundantes en el mercado. Las especies de mamíferos y reptiles comercializadas como mascotas tuvieron mayor probabilidad de estar amenazadas que lo esperado por el azar. Ha babido un número sustancial de especies de mamíferos y aves criados en cautiverio y listados en el Apéndice-I de aves y reptiles capturados en vida silvestre reportados en el mercado a CITES. Identificamos el papel emergente del Oriente Medio como conductor de la demanda de mascotas exóticas de todos los taxones junto con el bien establecido y creciente papel de América del Sur y el Sureste Asiático en el mercado. Europa, América del Norte y el Oriente Medio figuraron más en los reportes de mercado bechos a CITES, mientras que al mercado en América del Sur y el Sureste Asiático se le dio más énfasis en la literatura. Para un monitoreo efectivo de y una respuesta apropiada al mercado internacional de mascotas exóticas, es imperativo que la confiabilidad y el detalle de los reportes de mercado de CITES mejoren y que la investigación científica sea dirigida hacia esos taxones y las localidades que sean más vulnerables.

Many populations of threatened mammals persist outside formally protected areas, and their survival depends on the willingness of communities to coexist with them. An understanding of the attitudes, and specifically the tolerance, of individuals and communities and the factors that determine these is therefore fundamental to designing strategies to alleviate human-wildlife conflict. We conducted a meta-analysis to identify factors that affected attitudes toward 4 groups of terrestrial mammals. Elephants (65%) elicited the most positive attitudes, followed by primates (55%), ungulates (53%), and carnivores (44%). Urban residents presented the most positive attitudes (80%), followed by commercial farmers (51%) and communal farmers (26%). A tolerance to damage index showed that human tolerance of ungulates and primates was proportional to the probability of experiencing damage while elephants elicited tolerance levels higher than anticipated and carnivores elicited tolerance levels lower than anticipated. Contrary to conventional wisdom, experiencing damage was not always the dominant factor determining attitudes. Communal farmers had a lower probability of being positive toward carnivores irrespective of probability of experiencing damage, while commercial farmers and urban residents were more likely to be positive toward carnivores irrespective of damage. Urban residents were more likely to be positive toward ungulates, elephants, and primates when probability of damage was low, but not when it was high. Commercial and communal farmers had a higher probability of being positive toward ungulates, primates, and elephants irrespective of probability of experiencing damage. Taxonomic bias may therefore be important. Identifying the distinct factors explaining these attitudes and the specific contexts in which they operate, inclusive of the species causing damage, will be essential for prioritizing conservation investments. Muchas poblaciones de mamíferos amenazados persisten fuera de áreas protegidas formales y su supervivencia depende de la buena voluntad de las comunidades que coexisten con ellos. Un entendimiento de las posturas, y específicamente de la tolerancia, de los individuos y las comunidades y los factores que los determinan es fundamental para diseñar estrategias que alivien el conflicto humano - vida silvestre. Llevamos a cabo un meta-análisis para identificar los factores que afectaron las posturas hacia cuatro grupos de mamíferos terrestres. Los elefantes (65%) provocaron las posturas más positivas. Los siguieron los primates (55%), los ungulados (53%) y los carnívoros (44%). Los residentes urbanos presentaron las posturas más positivas (80%), seguidos por los granjeros comerciales (51%) y los granjeros comunales (26%). Un índice de tolerancia a los daños mostró que la tolerancia humana a los ungulados y primates fue proporcional a la probabilidad de experimentar daños mientras que los elefantes provocaron niveles de tolerancia más altos de lo esperado y los carnívoros provocaron niveles de tolerancia más bajos de lo esperado. Contrario a la sabiduría convencional, experimentar daños no fue siempre el factor dominante para determinar las posturas. Los granjeros comunales tuvieron una baja probabilidad de ser positivos hacia los carnívoros independientemente de la probabilidad de experimentar daños, mientras que los granjeros comerciales y los residentes urbanos tuvieron mayor probabilidad de ser positivos hacia los carnívoros independientemente de los daños. Los residentes urbanos tuvieron mayor probabilidad de ser positivos hacia los ungulados, los elefantes y los primates cuando la probabilidad de daños fue baja, pero no cuando fue alta. Los granjeros comerciales y comunales tuvieron una mayor probabilidad de ser positivos hacia los ungulados, los primates y los elefantes independientemente de la probabilidad de experimentar daños. El prejuicio taxonómico por eso puede ser importante. El identificar los distintos factores que explican estas posturas y los contextos específicos en los cuales operan, inclusivo de especies que causan daños, será esencial para priorizar las inversiones en la conservación.

A vast number of prioritization schemes have been developed to help conservation navigate tough decisions about the allocation of finite resources. However, the application of quantitative approaches to setting priorities in conservation frequently includes mistakes that can undermine their authors' intention to be more rigorous and scientific in the way priorities are established and resources allocated. Drawing on well-established principles of decision science, we highlight 6 mistakes commonly associated with setting priorities for conservation: not acknowledging conservation plans are prioritizations; trying to solve an illdefined problem; not prioritizing actions; arbitrariness; hidden value judgments; and not acknowledging risk of failure. We explain these mistakes and offer a path to help conservation planners avoid making the same mistakes in future prioritizations. Se ha desarrollado un vasto número de esquemas de priorización para ayudar a que la conservación navegue entre decisiones difíciles en cuanto a la asignación de recursos finitos. Sin embargo, la aplicación de métodos cuantitativos para la definición de prioridades en la conservación frecuentemente incluye errores que pueden socavar la intención de sus autores de ser más rigurosos y científicos en la manera en que se establecen las prioridades y se asignan los recursos. Con base en los bien establecidos principios de la ciencia de la decisión, resaltamos seis errores comúnmente asociados con la definición de prioridades para la conservación: no reconocer que los planes de conservación son priorizaciones; tratar de resolver un problema mal definido; no priorizar acciones; arbitrariedad; juicios de valor ocultos y no reconocer el riesgo de fracasar. Explicamos estos errores y ofrecemos un camino para que planificadores de la conservación no cometan los mismos errores en priorizaciones futuras.

Protected areas (PAs) are key elements for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services. Brazil has the largest PA system in the world, covering approximately 220 million ha. This system expanded rapidly in the mid‐1990s to the mid‐2000s. Recent events in Brazil, however, have led to an increase in PA downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD). Does this reflect a shift in the country's PA policy? We analyzed the occurrence, frequency, magnitude, type, spatial distribution, and causes of changes in PA boundaries and categories in Brazil. We identified 93 PADDD events from 1981 to 2012. Such events increased in frequency since 2008 and were ascribed primarily to generation and transmission of electricity in Amazonia. In Brazilian parks and reserves, 7.3 million ha were affected by PADDD events, and of these, 5.2 million ha were affected by downsizing or degazetting. Moreover, projects being considered by the Federal Congress may degazette 2.1 million ha of PA in Amazonia alone. Relaxing the protection status of existing PAs is proving to be politically easy in Brazil, and the recent increase in frequency and extension of PADDD reflects a change in governmental policy. By taking advantage of chronic deficiencies in financial and personnel resources and surveillance, disputes over land tenure, and the slowness of the Brazilian justice, government agencies have been implementing PADDD without consultation of civil society. If parks and reserves are to maintain their integrity, there will need to be investments in Brazilian PAs and a better understanding of the benefits PAs provide. Degradación, Reajuste, Eliminacióm de las Listas y Reclasificación de Áreas Protegidas en Brasil

Protected areas in tropical countries are managed under different governance regimes, the relative effectiveness of which in avoiding deforestation has been the subject of recent debates. Participants in these debates answer appeals for more strict protection with the argument that sustainable use areas and indigenous lands can balance deforestation pressures by leveraging local support to create and enforce protective regulations. Which protection strategy is more effective can also depend on (i) the level of deforestation pressures to which an area is exposed and (ii) the intensity of government enforcement. We examine this relationship empirically, using data from 292 protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. We show that, for any given level of deforestation pressure, strictly protected areas consistently avoided more deforestation than sustainable use areas. Indigenous lands were particularly effective at avoiding deforestation in locations with high deforestation pressure. Findings were stable across two time periods featuring major shifts in the intensity of government enforcement. We also observed shifting trends in the location of protected areas, documenting that between 2000 and 2005 strictly protected areas were more likely to be established in high-pressure locations than in sustainable use areas and indigenous lands. Our findings confirm that all protection regimes helped reduce deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.

1. Knowledge of species distribution is critical to ecological management and conservation biology. Effective management requires the detection of populations, which can sometimes be at low densities and is usually based on visual detection and counting. 2. Recently, there has been considerable interest in the detection of short species-specific environmental DNA (eDNA) fragments to allow aquatic species monitoring within different environments due to the potential of greater sensitivity over traditional survey methods which can be time-consuming and costly. 3. Environmental DNA analysis is increasingly being used in the detection of rare or invasive species and has also been applied to eDNA persistence studies and estimations of species biomass and distribution. When combined with next-generation sequencing methods, it has been demonstrated that entire faunas can be identified. 4. Different environments require different sampling methodologies, but there remain areas where laboratory methodologies could be standardized to allow results to be compared across studies. 5. Synthesis and applications. We review recently published studies that use eDNA to monitor aquatic populations, discuss the methodologies used and the application of eDNA analysis as a survey tool in ecology. We include innovative ideas for how eDNA can be used for conservation and management citing test cases, for instance, the potential for on-site analyses, including the application of eDNA analysis to carbon nanotube platforms or laser transmission spectroscopy to facilitate rapid on-site detections. The use of eDNA monitoring is already being adopted in the UK for ecological surveys.

Inadequate funding levels are a major impediment to effective global biodiversity conservation and are likely associated with recent failures to meet United Nations biodiversity targets. Some countries are more severely underfunded than others and therefore represent urgent financial priorities. However, attempts to identify these highly underfunded countries have been hampered for decades by poor and incomplete data on actual spending, coupled with uncertainty and lack of consensus over the relative size of spending gaps. Here, we assemble a global database of annual conservation spending. We then develop a statistical model that explains 86% of variation in conservation expenditures, and use this to identify countries where funding is robustly below expected levels. The 40 most severely underfunded countries contain 32% of all threatened mammalian diversity and include neighbors in some of the world’s most biodiversity-rich areas (Sundaland, Wallacea, and Near Oceania). However, very modest increases in international assistance would achieve a large improvement in the relative adequacy of global conservation finance. Our results could therefore be quickly applied to limit immediate biodiversity losses at relatively little cost.

Expert knowledge is used widely in the science and practice of conservation because of the complexity of problems, relative lack of data, and the imminent nature of many conservation decisions. Expert knowledge is substantive information on a particular topic that is not widely known by others. An expert is someone who holds this knowledge and who is often deferred to in its interpretation. We refer to predictions by experts of what may happen in a particular context as expert judgments. In general, an expert-elicitation approach consists of five steps: deciding how information will be used, determining what to elicit, designing the elicitation process, performing the elicitation, and translating the elicited information into quantitative statements that can be used in a model or directly to make decisions. This last step is known as encoding. Some of the considerations in eliciting expert knowledge include determining how to work with multiple experts and how to combine multiple judgments, minimizing bias in the elicited information, and verifying the accuracy of expert information. We highlight structured elicitation techniques that, if adopted, will improve the accuracy and information content of expert judgment and ensure uncertainty is captured accurately. We suggest four aspects of an expert elicitation exercise be examined to determine its comprehensiveness and effectiveness: study design and context, elicitation design, elicitation method, and elicitation output. Just as the reliability of empirical data depends on the rigor with which it was acquired so too does that of expert knowledge. El conocimiento de expertos es utilizado ampliamente en la ciencia y práctica de la conservación por la complejidad de los problemas, la falta relativa de datos y la naturaleza inminente de muchas decisiones de conservación. El conocimiento de expertos es información sustancial sobre un tópico particular que no es conocido ampliamente por otros. Un experto es alguien que tiene ese conocimiento y a quien se recurre a menudo para su interpretación. Nos referimos a las predicciones de expertos de lo que puede suceder en un contexto particular como juicio de expertos. En general, un método de obtención de expertos consiste en cinco pasos: decidir como se utilizará la información, determinar que se va a obtener, diseñar el proceso de obtención, llevar a cabo la obtención y traducir la información obtenida en datos cuantitativos que puedan ser utilizados directamente o en un modelo para tomar decisiones. Este último paso es conocido como codificación. Algunas de las consideraciones en la obtención de conocimiento de expertos incluyen determinar como trabajar con múltiples expertos y como combinar múltiples juicios, minimizando el sesgo en la información obtenida, y verificando la precisión de la información de expertos. Resaltamos técnicas estructuradas de obtención que, de ser adoptadas, mejorarán la precisión y contenido de información del juicio de expertos y asegurarán que la incertidumbre sea capturada con precisión. Sugerimos que se examinen cuatro aspectos de un ejercicio de obtención de expertos para determinar su amplitud y efectividad: estudiar el diseño y el contexto, diseño de la obtención, método de obtención y resultado de la obtención. Tal como la confiabilidad de los datos empíricos depende del rigor con que fueron obtenidos, también lo es para el conocimiento de expertos.