Evidence synthesis for environmental management

The Foundation for Research on Biodiversity has the pleasure of hosting the 2nd International Collaboration for Environmental Evidence conference in France in 2018. The methods of CEE evidence synthesis (systematic reviews, systematic mapping, etc.) and the results of these syntheses will be presented in different domains such as Health and Environment, Forests, Fisheries, Agriculture, Ecotoxicology, and many others. Training workshops will also help to familiarize oneself with the latest tools and methodological advances.

The CEE 2018 conference aims at effectively promoting an evidence-based approach to environmental management by facilitating the conduct and dissemination of high quality syntheses of evidence. Such synthesis will inform decision making to better conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services for global benefit. To accomplish this, the conference will cover scientific and policy-oriented topics and practice. Topics may be of interest at various scales, from local to global.

You are invited to join us in Paris at CEE2018. The calls for training events, sessions, and abstracts have gone out and can be found on the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence website.

The conference will be held in Paris, France at Ecole des Ponts ParisTech, Champs sur Marne, Paris, France from April 16-20th 2018. More information can be found on the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence conference website.

For more information please contact: Barbara Livoreil & Ludivine Boursier cee2018@fondationbiodiversite.com

Important dates:

• Deadline for submitting a session proposal: November 15th 2017
• Deadline for submitting a training event proposal: November 15th 2017
• Notification of acceptance of sessions and training events: December 1st 2017
• Deadline for submission of abstracts (talks and posters): December 15th 2017
• Notification of acceptance of talks and posters: January 10th< 2018
• Registration opens: December 2017
• Deadline for early bird registration: February 2018

Follow us on Twitter at @EnvEvidence and @FRBiodiv

The post Second International Conference of the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.

Citizen Science Coordinator Caitlin Kenney, a Student Conservation Association (SCA) intern, poses with an amphibian in the backcountry of Mount Rainier National Park. (Photo courtesy of NPS)

1. Citizen scientists help increase project reach

With the potential to amass millions of citizen scientists from around the globe, the amount of data that can be collected is unimaginable. Having so many individuals in the field at varying times may lead to exotic or innovative discoveries. “Enlisting input from a network of volunteer citizen scientists expands the reach of a project, sometimes beyond what scientists can imagine,” says National Geographic writer Karen de Seve.

2. Citizen science helps to stretch limited funding

Citizen scientists allow far greater amounts of data to be collected at little to no cost. Such economies of scale free up funds. Researchers have more time to be spent on data analysis. Andrea Korte reported in an AAAS article, “The work of the 2.3 million volunteer citizen scientists who contribute to biodiversity research have an economic value of up to $2.5 billion per year.”

3. Citizen scientists help raise local and governmental awareness

There’s no doubt that when enough people start to ask questions, others start to listen. Engaging citizens spreads the word of shrinking biodiversity. According to the European Environment Agency, “Involving people in monitoring gives them a basic understanding of the underlying threat to biodiversity…” Furthermore, such involvement “…can facilitate a willingness to contribute to solving the problem.” World-changing movements always start with people’s passionate interest in a problem. Impassioned citizen scientists have the power to alter the world around them. They can bring problems to the attention of people with the ability to enact change.

4. Citizen scientists may experience transformative learning

TD Jakes said it best, “There is nothing as powerful as a changed mind.” When an individual momentarily exits their busy lifestyle, taking time to study the world around them, what they learn can change their life. Many people are unaware of how their choices affect the world around them. The clothing they wear, the food they eat, their mode of transportation can all impact their local environment. A citizen scientist can help biodiversity by changing the way they live and inspiring those around them.

5. Citizen science can help to prevent extinctions

The loss of many species populations goes largely unnoticed until it is far too late. UCLA recently called for greater public participation in citizen science. According to their report, monitoring by citizen scientists can lead to “early detection of species decline.” Identifying a problem is the first step towards rectification. Training citizen scientists to participate in conservation research increases the efficiency of our work to protect biodiversity.

We see the potential for citizen science in such initiatives as Bioblitzes. Conservationists must now take advantage. Here is their opportunity to conduct more research—cheaper and faster—while at the same time connecting people across the world in a common purpose. We, as members of the human race, all share the responsibility to be stewards of our planet’s biodiversity for economic, aesthetic and moral reasons. Climate is changing. Human population is increasing. Cities expand while species vanish into extinction. It is now more important now than ever to take action.

The post 5 Reasons Citizen Science Can Help To Save Biodiversity appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.

State Vegetation Type Map for New South Wales (NSW), Australia. The map shows color-coded Plant Community Types (PCTs). Click for the full size image.

To better manage our native vegetation, the New South Wales government is delivering a comprehensive and complete state-wide baseline for the extent and distribution of the different groupings or types of vegetation – the State Vegetation Type Map (SVT Map).

The SVT is based on site surveys, a standard classification system and high resolution spatial representation. With a complete vegetation type map for NSW, for the first time government, business and the community will be able to see what we currently know about the distribution of Plant Community Types for all of NSW. This approach will provide a wide-ranging basis to set conservation priorities instead of just localized and incomplete information.

Plant Community Types (PCTs) are the agreed foundation level for classifying vegetation in NSW and are intended to provide the most ecologically relevant grouping of plant species for a range of purposes not just mapping. For example, site assessments will use this classification unit to describe the vegetation present and compare their current condition with related benchmarks.

Plant communities are complex and dynamic entities that can be challenging to map or even recognize on the ground especially where they have been significantly modified through clearing or logging. Some closely related PCTs can share common species or differ by a particular layer. Boundaries between types are not always distinct. Our understanding of PCTs will continue to change as more site survey data is collected especially in poorly sampled areas.

With the support of the NSW Environmental Trust, a major project was initiated to accelerate the creation of a complete and consistent reference layer for the extent and distribution of the approximately 1300 (PCTs) in NSW–the State Vegetation Type Map.

The State Vegetation Map cannot be expected to be a perfect and timeless representation of the landscape. Rather, it is designed to provide a common basis for vegetation information in NSW that can be readily updated without the need for producing entirely new maps. The underlying skeleton can more easily incorporate new site information and more detailed special-purpose vegetation maps (where compatible) to continuously improve the state wide picture.

For more information about vegetation information please visit our website at: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/vegetation/vinfo.htm

Bob Denholm
Senior Team Leader Vegetation Mapping
Native Vegetation Information Science Branch
Science Division
Office of Environment and Heritage

The post State Vegetation Type Map for NSW Australia appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.

Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm, Sweden.

CEE is an open collaboration with a global mission to provide the best available evidence to inform decision making in the environmental sector. We are witnessing the beginning of a new age—the Anthropocene. Whether you are a scientist, policy maker, activist or concerned citizen, the challenges we are facing are enormous. Evidence about what works and what doesn’t in environmental management is needed to meet these challenges and CEE has developed to collate, synthesize and disseminate reliable evidence to meet this need.

We hope that this conference serves to raise awareness and facilitate increased adoption among policy makers, scientists, donor agencies, and concerned citizens of the work of CEE and the knowledge we currently have.

So who is this conference for? Anyone who believes that information about what works and what doesn’t. Better evidence is needed for people to make informed choices. Better decisions are needed about how to create a better environment, making the world a better place.

We hope that this conference will be the start of an ongoing conversation between CEE and the diverse actors at the science-policy interface and will raise awareness about methods used in obtaining high-level evidence as well as the value of evidence-informed decision-making.

Full details of the conference can be found at www.environmentalevidence.org/meetings

Please print out the flyer below and post on your notice boards and in your office.

First Announcement CEE Conference (PDF)

The post First International Conference of the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.

Lake Bohinj, Triglav National Park, Slovenia. (Photo by David Matthews)

However, despite the apparent optimism, the application of DNA technologies to address environmental challenges does not seem to have fully realized its potential to date.

Having developed a particular interest in this area through my involvement in ecological consulting, I have made this topic the focus of a short research project as part of an MSc in Environmental Management. The project hypothesis is that there are barriers to the adoption of DNA technologies that are delaying or preventing deployment. The research questions that the project is seeking to address include:

• What opportunities exist for the application of DNA-based technologies to biodiversity assessment, for environmental protection, decision-making and conservation?
• What barriers exist to the adoption of DNA technologies in biodiversity assessment, for environmental protection?

The research project is using a number of approaches to investigate these questions further, including semi-structured interviews, further literature analysis, and the completion of a short on-line survey. This survey can be found at: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/DNA_Applications

I would welcome your input. The survey should take no more than 10 minutes to complete, and I would be happy to share the findings.

The post Can advances in DNA technologies provide solutions for biodiversity assessment, conservation and environmental protection? appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.

Introduced mallard ducks (left) regularly mate with native grey ducks (right) in New Zealand. Males of either species often opt to mate with females of the other species. Is this mutual appreciation for the exotic wayward, or do they have something to teach us? (Images courtesy of Wikipedia Creative Commons)

Many of us have built entire careers out of identifying which introduced species inconvenience natives. We explore and quantify their effects, and then crow about how important it is to rid ourselves of these ‘invasive’ nuisances.

So, for some, it is with considerable trepidation that they witness this complacent formula starting to unravel in recent years. Study after study, across discipline after discipline, is showing that introduced species are not, and never were, as bad as we thought.

An aging rear guard has devoted itself to the defense of old-school nativism, with all its irregularities, quirks and eccentricities. But many of us can now see that that ship was flawed all along and is now best abandoned.

Let’s learn to live with introduced species, not because it’s a novel or contrarian view, but because it has become the most compelling and sane thing to do.

Reasons to appreciate introduced species

Here are five good reasons why:

1. More diversity. In general, introduced species increase local and regional species richness. Most islands, for example, have doubled their lists of plant species through introductions. Longstanding nightmares of ecosystems dominated by single species, while common in agricultural landscapes, are the exception in the wild. Let’s stop talking about species like kudzu as if they were representative.
2. More uniqueness. A fixation on species-level biodiversity has fostered the impression that we are losing uniqueness. This assumption is flawed. While species have gone extinct (sometimes due, in part, to introduced species), our ecosystems are every bit as unique as they always were. Native ecosystems are unique, but so too are novel ecosystems, comprising biota that have never lived in the same configurations in history.
3. More evolution. Change is continuous and countless recent studies investigating rates of evolution show that it happens a lot faster than we used to think. Both native and introduced species don’t care about our historical baselines and are actively breeding and (de)selecting themselves away from them. Much like technological innovation in times of crisis, evolution seems to be speeding up in response to the environmental changes we have wrought. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that this is a good thing and that trying to stop it might actually be damaging to the vitality of future ecosystems.
4. More nature. We ask people to explore and cherish nature, but so much of the nature they experience around them is the ‘wrong’ kind. Introduced genes, species, and ecosystems are everywhere, permeating everything.
   The search for purity is more than an embarrassment now. We risk disenfranchising a whole generation of people by constantly pointing to the belief that real nature is always somewhere else.
5. More compassion. Over the last few decades, people have blamed introduced species for just about every environmental malady you could think of. We have been told (and told ourselves) that they are the perpetrators of undesirable processes and states again and again.

The truth is that introduced species are as much the victims of globalisation as native species, having little choice over their location, and no choice over their valuation, but having to suffer the consequences all the same. Scapegoating introduced species is a tired, unethical pastime.

For a more detailed examination of the arguments raised in this article consider reading my recently completed PhD thesis: The Reconciliation of Introduced Species in New Zealand.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone.

The post 5 Reasons To Love Introduced Species appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.

Indigenous communities can play a pivotal role in the success of a conservation program. (Image courtesy of junglephotos.com)

However, many officially protected areas suffer from neglect, poor management, and corruption. This new research emphasizes the pivotal role local communities could play in addressing these shortcomings. From their analysis of villages in a region in Papua New Guinea, the researchers conclude: “…local monitoring contributes to effective protection and deters unregulated exploitation,” and that, “Clearly, local people are effective in protecting large areas in a relatively natural state.”

Giving local people a stake in the protection and restoration of their surrounding area could make all the difference, even to established conservation programs. The bottom-up approach can provide the community with much-needed jobs through ecotourism, sustainable harvesting and conservation area protection. In turn, local jobs help to prevent migration to urban areas, and lessen the pressure to engage in slash-and-burn agriculture or to sell out to the highest bidder, which may be a mining or lumber company, or big agriculture.

We certainly need new and thoughtful approaches, since the past half century of business as usual has got us nowhere.

References
Sheil, D., M. Boissière, and G. Beaudoin. 2015. Unseen sentinels: local monitoring and control in conservation’s blind spots. Ecology and Society 20(2): 39.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07625-200239
See also Mongabay: Local stewardship: conservation’s ‘vast blind spot’

The post Conservationists must engage local communities appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.

Up to now, conservationists (and their donors) have assumed that conserving the maximum biodiversity also stores the most carbon. It’s supposedly a win-win. But two new studies turn this assumption its head.

In a July 2015 paper in Nature, the authors report that only a few “hyperdominant” species are responsible for most of the carbon stored in biomass, based on research in the Amazon rainforest. (Mongabay’s article on the Amazon carbon sequestration study provides a good synopsis of the paper.)

This work is consistent with another study on REDD and biodiversity published in Conservation Biology. This research highlights how meeting REDD+ targets will not substantially support biodiversity conservation. (The study is summarized in a blog article on the CIFOR website.)

The conclusion? Preserving the most species by leaving rainforest intact, or attempting to restore original biodiversity to degraded areas, is not the most efficient way to store carbon. That carbon would otherwise enter the atmosphere and contribute to global warming.

The findings present conservation organizations with a conundrum, especially those that emphasize carbon storage as a benefit of biodiversity conservation. Do they carry on business as usual, hoping that their donors and the public won’t care about the science? That would be disingenuous, if not dishonest. A better approach would be to switch focus and emphasize the importance of biodiversity conservation in its own right.

I’ve never been a big fan of tying biodiversity conservation to carbon storage because conflating the two amounts to a compromise that neither benefits conservation in the long run, nor significantly reduces carbon emissions. Indeed, paying a conservation organization to “offset” our personal carbon emissions simply assuages our guilt. Directly minimizing our personal carbon footprint by driving less and reducing power consumption is much more effective and empowering.

The point here is that carbon is essentially an economic and political problem, not a conservation problem. There are many ways to reduce emissions before we ever need conservation to be part of the solution. So should conservation organizations completely disentangle themselves from the carbon offset business? It may well be time to do so.

References
Sophie Fauset, S. et al. (2015) Hyperdominance in Amazonian forest carbon cycling. Nature Communications 6: 6857 doi:10.1038/ncomms7857
Murray, J. P. et al. (2015) Spatial patterns of carbon, biodiversity, deforestation threat, and REDD+ projects in Indonesia. Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12500

The post Carbon storage vs. biodiversity conservation appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.

Deforestation of peat swamp forest for oil palm plantation in Indragiri Hulu, Riau Province, Sumatra. (Image and caption courtesy of Wikipedia.)

While the study was conducted in Indonesia (which has suffered among the fastest rates of deforestation in recent decades), its findings have broad implications for other regions.

Perhaps the main take home of this work is that just as the causes of deforestation are complex, so are the solutions. Simply fencing off an area and limiting human access is not enough. Protection of forested areas must be supported by other approaches. Community engagement is crucial, in particular, education and buy-in of local people on the benefits of intact forest. Enforcement of existing laws, likewise needs to complement conservation efforts. And again, these must support other conservation strategies, such as restoration of degraded land adjacent to protected areas. (Conservation organization SavingSpecies is an example of this approach being implemented.)

There is no one solution to deforestation. It is a complex and ever-changing mix of different approaches. Only by understanding this, and developing the necessary tools and models, can we hope to ever conserve Earth’s fast-dwindling biodiversity.

The post Protecting forest is not enough to prevent deforestation appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.

Seedlings of tropical trees growing in a nursery in Brazil, South America. (© Luiz Claudio Marigo / naturepl.com)

Cost analysis supports restoration strategies

Could this approach have a significant impact? I believe it could, because scientists are struggling to find workable solutions to resolve the biodiversity crisis. The eminent biologist, E. O. Wilson has called for setting aside 50% of Earth for conservation, but this may be unrealistic (Bawden 2014). A more practical approach has been suggested by David Attenborough, who proposes simply using every available patch of land for conservation (Vidal 2014). In this paradigm, restoration strategy makes perfect sense. Rather than trying to fence off half the land, we can use a scientific approach to determine which habitats to focus on and how much of them are needed to conserve the maximum biodiversity. According to Stokstad’s report, “The most important message is that restoration can be targeted in a way that minimizes costs and has a greater likelihood of delivering lasting environmental benefits.”

Implementing restoration strategies

However, obstacles to using the restoration strategy extensively may be more a function of corporate culture than of implementing sound science. Large conservation organizations are heavily invested in an existing fundraising model, which is based on purchase and protection of pristine habitat. The stark reality is that such habitat is becoming increasingly scarce. We need new conservation organizations to step up to the plate and implement restoration measures.

One example of such an organization is SavingSpecies, established in 2009 by Duke University professor Stuart Pimm. Pimm has recently made the headlines through a paper published in Science which highlights a current extinction rate one thousand times the natural background rate (Pimm, et al. 2014). In that paper Pimm mentions SavingSpecies as an example of how new ways of evaluating biodiversity can be used to prioritize biodiversity conservation. In his approach, Pimm emphasizes how SavingSpecies uses restoration as a primary element of its conservation strategy.

SavingSpecies is small and has yet to make a major difference to the current extinction trajectory. But if we are to do that, we need fresh thinking, new technology, better business models and a more informed public (hence conscientious politicians). When all these pieces are in place we will have the new conservation paradigm that is so badly needed. Can it happen? Time will tell.

(Disclosure: Author Roger Harris is a board member of SavingSpecies.)

References
Stokstad, E (2014) An affordable price tag for saving Brazil’s Atlantic rainforest. ScienceInsider, 29 August 2014.
http://news.sciencemag.org/environment/2014/08/affordable-price-tag-saving-brazils-atlantic-rainforest
Bawden, T (2014) Pulitzer-winning scientist warns wildlife face a ‘biological holocaust’ The Independent, 25 August 2014.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pulitzerwinning-scientist-warns-wildlife-face-a-biological-holocaust-9689902.html
Vidal, J (2014) Reserves and parks not enough to protect nature – David Attenborough, 3 September 2014.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/03/david-attenborough-nature-conservation-wildlife
Pimm, SL, CN Jenkins, R Abell, TM Brooks, JL Gittleman, L Joppa, PH Raven, CM Roberts, JO Sexton (2014) The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344:6187 doi/10.1126/science.1246752 (PDF)

The post Restoration for conservation: toward a new paradigm appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.