More Like this

1. An applied ecology of fear framework: linking theory to conservation practice

   https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12629  

   Gaynor, Kaitlyn M.; Cherry, Michael J.; Gilbert, Sophie L.; Kohl, Michel T.; Larson, Courtney L.; Newsome, Thomas M.; Prugh, Laura R.; Suraci, Justin P.; Young, Julie K.; Smith, Justine A. (August 2020, Animal Conservation)

   null (Ed.)

   Research on the ecology of fear has highlighted the importance of perceived risk from predators and humans in shaping animal behavior and physiology, with potential demographic and ecosystem-wide consequences. Despite recent conceptual advances and potential management implications of the ecology of fear, theory and conservation practices have rarely been linked. Many challenges in animal conservation may be alleviated by actively harnessing or compensating for risk perception and risk avoidance behavior in wild animal populations. Integration of the ecology of fear into conservation and management practice can contribute to the recovery of threatened populations, human–wildlife conflict mitigation, invasive species management, maintenance of sustainable harvest and species reintroduction plans. Here, we present an applied framework that links conservation interventions to desired outcomes by manipulating ecology of fear dynamics. We discuss how to reduce or amplify fear in wild animals by manipulating habitat structure, sensory stimuli, animal experience (previous exposure to risk) and food safety trade-offs to achieve management objectives. Changing the optimal decision-making of individuals in managed populations can then further conservation goals by shaping the spatiotemporal distribution of animals, changing predation rates and altering risk effects that scale up to demographic consequences. We also outline future directions for applied research on fear ecology that will better inform conservation practices. Our framework can help scientists and practitioners anticipate and mitigate unintended consequences of management decisions, and highlight new levers for multi-species conservation strategies that promote human–wildlife coexistence. 

   more » « less
2. Whose intentions? What consequences? Interrogating “Intended Consequences” for conservation with environmental biotechnology

   https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.406  

   Barnhill‐Dilling, S_Kathleen; Delborne, Jason_A (April 2021, Conservation Science and Practice)

   Abstract Novel genetic interventions may offer innovative solutions to environmental conservation challenges, but they also represent new kinds of risks and concerns for diverse publics. Yet, by focusing on potential negative outcomes of emerging technologies like gene editing, their potential utility in species protection could lead to overblown fears of unknown and unanticipated consequences. In response, Revive and Restore organized a workshop in June 2020 entitled, “Intended Consequences,” to highlight conservation successes in the discourse and governance of genomic interventions. This article argues that if we seek to emphasize Intended Consequences to embolden innovative conservation efforts, we must simultaneously query whose intentions are included and what consequences are considered to ensure that environmental goals are accompanied by the goals of responsibility, democracy, and justice. These questions reveal that the governance and management of conservation interventions always rest upon value judgements. Inspired and informed by the Responsible Research and Innovation framework, we encourage anticipation of potential outcomes, reflection on assumptions and intentions, inclusion of diverse stakeholders and perspectives, and a commitment to responding thoughtfully to concerns and preferences of communities and broader publics. 

   more » « less
3. Predicting and Prioritising Community Assembly: Learning Outcomes via Experiments

   https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.14535  

   Blonder, Benjamin_W; Lim, Michael_H; Godoy, Oscar (October 2024, Ecology Letters)

   ABSTRACT Community assembly provides the foundation for applications in biodiversity conservation, climate change, invasion, restoration and synthetic ecology. However, predicting and prioritising assembly outcomes remains difficult. We address this challenge via a mechanism‐free approach useful when little data or knowledge exist (LOVE; Learning Outcomes Via Experiments). We carry out assembly experiments (‘actions’, here, random combinations of species additions) potentially in multiple environments, wait, and measure abundance outcomes. We then train a model to predict outcomes of novel actions or prioritise actions that would yield the most desirable outcomes. Across 10 single‐ and multi‐environment datasets, when trained on 89 randomly selected actions,LOVEpredicts outcomes with 0.5%–3.4% mean error, and prioritises actions for maximising richness, maximising abundance, or removing unwanted species, with 94%–99% mean true positive rate and 10%–84% mean true negative rate across tasks.LOVEcomplements existing mechanism‐first approaches for community ecology and may help address numerous applied challenges. 

   more » « less
4. Beneficial Spillover Effects of Antipredation Interventions Support Human–Carnivore Coexistence

   https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.13085  

   Salerno, Jonathan; Warrier, Rekha; Breck, Stewart W; Carter, Neil H; Berger, Joel; Barrett, Brendan J; Lukumay, Justine Robert; Kaduma, Joseph Francis; Grau, Ana; Dickman, Amy J; et al (March 2025, Conservation Letters)

   ABSTRACT Reducing human–wildlife conflict is critical for global biodiversity conservation and supporting livelihoods in landscapes where people and wildlife co‐occur. Interventions intended to reduce conflicts and their negative outcomes are diverse and widespread, yet there is often a dearth of empirical evidence regarding effectiveness, particularly at appropriate spatiotemporal scales. We investigate an underappreciated question relevant to large carnivore–livestock systems globally regarding spillover effects of anti‐conflict interventions: Do fortified livestock enclosures modify carnivore predation on livestock for neighbors who lack such interventions? We use ca. 25,000 monthly reports from agropastoralists in an East African landscape critical for large carnivore conservation. Results from Bayesian multilevel statistical models demonstrate robust effects of fortified livestock enclosures in reducing reported predation not only in target households, but also in neighboring households that lack such fortification—a beneficial spillover effect. Results provide empirical evidence for policy and practice regarding tools to reduce large carnivore conflicts while pointing to the important role of complex‐systems processes in determining coexistence outcomes. 

   more » « less
5. Improving Ecological Restoration to Curb Biotic Invasion—A Practical Guide

   https://doi.org/10.1017/inp.2018.29  

   Guo, Qinfeng; Brockway, Dale G.; Larson, Diane L.; Wang, Deli; Ren, Hai (December 2018, Invasive Plant Science and Management)

   Abstract Common practices for invasive species control and management include physical, chemical, and biological approaches. The first two approaches have clear limitations and may lead to unintended (negative) consequences, unless carefully planned and implemented. For example, physical removal rarely completely eradicates the targeted invasive species and can cause disturbances that facilitate new invasions by nonnative species from nearby habitats. Chemical treatments can harm native, and especially rare, species through unanticipated side effects. Biological methods may be classified as biocontrol and the ecological approach. Similar to physical and chemical methods, biocontrol also has limitations and sometimes leads to unintended consequences. Therefore, a relatively safer and more practical choice may be the ecological approach, which has two major components: (1) restoration of native species and (2) biomass manipulation of the restored community, such as selective grazing or prescribed burning (to achieve and maintain viable population sizes). Restoration requires well-planned and implemented planting designs that consider alpha-, beta-, and gamma-diversity and the abundance of native and invasive component species at local, landscape, and regional levels. Given the extensive destruction or degradation of natural habitats around the world, restoration could be most effective for enhancing ecosystem resilience and resistance to biotic invasions. At the same time, ecosystems in human-dominated landscapes, especially those newly restored, require close monitoring and careful intervention (e.g., through biomass manipulation), especially when successional trajectories are not moving as intended. Biomass management frequently uses prescribed burning, grazing, harvesting, and thinning to maintain overall ecosystem health and sustainability. Thus, the resulting optimal, balanced, and relatively stable ecological conditions could more effectively limit the spread and establishment of invasive species. Here we review the literature (especially within the last decade) on ecological approaches that involve biodiversity, biomass, and productivity, three key community/ecosystem variables that reciprocally influence one another. We focus on the common and most feasible ecological practices that can aid in resisting new invasions and/or suppressing the dominance of existing invasive species. We contend that, because of the strong influences from neighboring areas (i.e., as exotic species pools), local restoration and management efforts in the future need to consider the regional context and projected climate changes. 

   more » « less