Explore the vast range of titles available.

Worldwide, many species are responding to ongoing climate change with shifts in distribution, abundance, phenology, or behavior. Consequently, natural‐resource managers face increasingly urgent conservation questions related to biodiversity loss, expansion of invasive species, and deteriorating ecosystem services. We argue that our ability to address these questions is hampered by the lack of explicit consideration of species’ adaptive capacity (AC). AC is the ability of a species or population to cope with climatic changes and is characterized by three fundamental components: phenotypic plasticity, dispersal ability, and genetic diversity. However, few studies simultaneously address all elements; often, AC is confused with sensitivity or omitted altogether from climate‐change vulnerability assessments. Improved understanding, consistent definition, and comprehensive evaluations of AC are needed. Using classic ecological‐niche theory as an analogy, we propose a new paradigm that considers fundamental and realized AC: the former reflects aspects inherent to species, whereas the latter denotes how extrinsic factors constrain AC to what is actually expressed or observed. Through this conceptualization, we identify ecological attributes contributing to AC, outline areas of research necessary to advance understanding of AC, and provide examples demonstrating how the inclusion of AC can better inform conservation and natural‐resource management.

The researcher's lament is shared by many environmental and conservation scientists who complain about the little support they receive for their research proposals during the review and selection process. Understandably, any hopes of having their anticipated scientific findings applied toward the formulation of environmental management decisions or natural resource policy action are shattered. They attribute this lack of endorsement to shortcomings and limitations among decision makers and proposal selection officials when, in many cases, the rejection of project proposals is often a function of a handful of self‐inflicted failures by applied scientists who anchor themselves stubbornly to doomed approaches. Familiar deficiencies in their research proposals perpetuate the disconnect between the enterprise of science and real‐world resource management challenges. Researchers themselves can affect conditions that turn up the appetite for their scientific endeavors as a more meaningful component of the decision‐making process, namely, to stage and deliver science that is more readily “actionable.” Perhaps it is time for them to consider a course correction to improve the viability of their actionable science proposals. A few basic steps may help rejigger the science planning process in this direction and, consequently, help avoid the researcher's lament. The likelihood of gaining support during the proposal review and award adjudication process, and securing practical application of scientific products, increases when the products are (1) the result of active engagement of researchers with decision makers; (2) better connected to social and political priorities; (3) clearly designed to inform specific management decisions; and (4) tailored to fit the needs of targeted end users. These considerations and activities exist beyond the comfort zone of many environmental or conservation scientists. Yet, those who adopt them will spend less time lamenting rejection and become more influential in the production of actionable knowledge.

Europe is one of the world's most densely populated continents and has a long history of human-dominated land- and seascapes. Europe is also at the forefront of developing and implementing multinational conservation efforts. In this contribution, we describe some top policy issues in Europe that need to be informed by high-quality conservation science. These include evaluation of the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 network of protected sites, implications of rapid economic and subsequent land-use change in Central and Eastern Europe, conservation of marine biodiversity and sustainability of fisheries, the effect of climate change on movement of species in highly fragmented landscapes, and attempts to assess the economic value of ecosystem services and biodiversity. Broad policy issues such as those identified are not easily amenable to scientific experiment. A key challenge at the science-policy interface is to identify the research questions underlying these problem areas so that conservation science can provide evidence to underpin future policy development.

A primary barrier to translation of clinical research discoveries into care delivery and population health is the lack of sustainable infrastructure bringing researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and communities together to reduce silos in knowledge and action. As National Institutes of Healthʼs (NIH) mechanism to advance translational research, Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) awardees are uniquely positioned to bridge this gap. Delivering on this promise requires sustained collaboration and alignment between research institutions and public health and healthcare programs and services. We describe the collaboration of seven CTSA hubs with city, county, and state healthcare and public health organizations striving to realize this vision together. Partnership representatives convened monthly to identify key components, common and unique themes, and barriers in academic–public collaborations. All partnerships aligned the activities of the CTSA programs with the needs of the city/county/state partners, by sharing resources, responding to real-time policy questions and training needs, promoting best practices, and advancing community-engaged research, and dissemination and implementation science to narrow the knowledge-to-practice gap. Barriers included competing priorities, differing timelines, bureaucratic hurdles, and unstable funding. Academic–public health/health system partnerships represent a unique and underutilized model with potential to enhance community and population health.

Oceania is a diverse region encompassing Australia, Melanesia, Micronesia, New Zealand, and Polynesia, and it contains six of the world's 39 hotspots of diversity. It has a poor record for extinctions, particularly for birds on islands and mammals. Major causes include habitat loss and degradation, invasive species, and overexploitation. We identified six major threatening processes (habitat loss and degradation, invasive species, climate change, overexploitation, pollution, and disease) based on a comprehensive review of the literature and for each developed a set of conservation policies. Many policies reflect the urgent need to deal with the effects of burgeoning human populations (expected to increase significantly in the region) on biodiversity. There is considerable difference in resources for conservation, including people and available scientific information, which are heavily biased toward more developed countries in Oceania. Most scientific publications analyzed for four threats (habitat loss, invasive species, overexploitation, and pollution) are from developed countries: 88.6% of Web of Science publications were from Australia (53.7%), New Zealand (24.3%), and Hawaiian Islands (10.5%). Many island states have limited resources or expertise. Even countries that do (e.g., Australia, New Zealand) have ongoing and emerging significant challenges, particularly with the interactive effects of climate change. Oceania will require the implementation of effective policies for conservation if the region's poor record on extinctions is not to continue.

This reflection is on a health education professional’s rotation from professor in a school of public health to a government position and back parallels that of Professor Howard Koh’s journey to Assistant Secretary of Health, one level higher in the same federal bureaucracy. We both acknowledge the steep learning curve and some bureaucratic hassles and mazes that can attend government service, but similarly conclude that “… it was worth it.” In this personalized case, I weigh some of the specific learning experiences and challenges I faced while in the government against the needs of the field of health promotion for more such revolving-door experiences among academic public health professionals. From my argument that to get more evidence-based practice we need more practice-based evidence, I conclude that more experience in practice among those returning to academia will render their teaching and research more relevant to the needs for evidence in policy and practice.

With about half the world's human population and booming economies, Asia faces numerous challenges to its biodiversity. The Asia Section of the Society for Conservation Biology has identified some key policy issues in which significant progress can be made. These include developing new sources of funding for forest conservation; identifying potential impacts of energy alternatives on the conservation of biodiversity; curbing the trade in endangered species of plants and animals; a special focus on the conservation of mountain biodiversity; enhancing relevant research; ensuring that conservation biology contributes to major international conventions and funding mechanisms; using conservation biology to build a better understanding of zoonotic diseases; more effectively addressing human-animal conflicts; enhancing community-based conservation; and using conservation biology to help address the pervasive water-deficit problems in much of Asia. These challenges can be met through improved regional cooperation among the relevant stakeholders.

Developed nations intervened in conservation policy across Africa during the 20th century to address needs to protect species and biodiversity that were based on their own perceptions and priorities. In the 21st century, conservationists in Africa have revised these perceptions and begun the process of identifying conservation priorities from an African perspective and in consideration of Africans' priorities. Although foreign conservation interveners struggled to identify mechanisms to which local people would respond, African conservationists are now demonstrating how to integrate the continent's unique socioeconomic circumstances into efforts to protect biodiversity. In Africa effective conservation policy must include the generation of wealth, reduction of disease and hunger, and support of traditional land-use practices.

The Austral and Neotropical America (ANA) section of the Society for Conservation Biology includes a vast territory with some of the largest relatively pristine ecosystems in the world. With more than 573 million people, the economic growth of the region still depends strongly on natural resource exploitation and still has high rates of environmental degradation and biodiversity loss. A survey among the ANA section membership, with more than 700 members, including most of the section's prominent ecologists and conservationists, indicates that lack of capacity building for conservation, corruption, and threats such as deforestation and illegal trade of species, are among the most urgent problems that need to be addressed to improve conservation in the region. There are, however, strong universities and ecology groups taking the lead in environmental research and conservation, a most important issue to enhance the ability of the region to solve conservation and development conflicts.

A number of international treaties address the conservation of marine resources. The declining state of the world's oceans suggests that these treaties are not succeeding and could use improvement. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) is increasingly embracing the conservation of marine species. We examine the evolution of marine species protection under CITES and illuminate some of the mechanisms used and challenges faced in implementing CITES protection. We found that clarification is needed on when and where CITES applies and how CITES should work with other treaties and institutions. The Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) can contribute to increased effectiveness of CITES for marine conservation. Foremost, the SCB community could foster dialogue on creating a broad vision of how CITES should apply to marine species and how it can synergistically interact with other important marine-conservation treaties and institutions. More specific contributions could focus on defining listing criteria for marine species, improving the science behind the nondetriment finding, and offering technical guidance on species proposals. A future role for SCB could be to contribute to the enhanced effectiveness of other marine conservation agreements such as the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, the International Whaling Commission, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.