A picture is worth a thousand words, they say. That may be true! Today we’re swamped with information. Images can say a lot with a little. That said, we’re in the digital revolution. So now we’re flooded with zillions of photos and memes. We like and tag images on social media. News websites have photos of current events. We share our own lives with selfies, food or pet pictures.

In today’s firehose of images are powerful stories about nature. Facts and figures are vital. But to connect with the widest audience we must nature’s story. Visual media are the most effective way to do that. Images transcend language. They evoke emotions in ways that words and data cannot. Human devastation, and our natural world’s fragility and beauty are best shown through biodiversity images like the ones you see here. Together they show human impacts on biodiversity, wildlife, the environment, and natural resources. Threats include global warming, deforestation, pollution and wildlife exploitation.

Help to tell the story of biodiversity

To help you share these stories, we’ve put together ten amazing images and graphics. We encourage you to share these images as widely as possible (including appropriate credit). It’s vital now more than ever to tell the story of biodiversity. It’s the only way we’re truly going to make a difference.

In all cases, we have strived to provide appropriate credit to the creators and copyright holders. Please contact us if you recognize an image and additional or alternative attribution is required.

The post The 10 Most Powerful Biodiversity Images appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.

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.

This article serves to introduce biodiversity professionals to contemporary environmental philosophy. It is a discipline that could play an important role in (re)shaping the objectives conservation organisations set for themselves. It deals with complex questions that cannot be disregarded if we aim for conservation to stand the test of time.

Lessons from history

Nature conservation in any of its forms can only be effective if there is consensus on what nature is, and how we want to conserve it. This seems no difficult job: most people we know would associate ‘true’ nature with concepts such as ‘pristine land’, ‘undisturbed areas’ or ‘wilderness’.

Similarly, the important Wilderness Act of 1964 (USA) considers wilderness ‘untrammelled by man’ and ‘where man is a visitor who does not remain’. Although such definitions speak to the imagination of lovers of nature, many critics now agree that they are ethnocentric. What was defined as ‘untrammelled by man’ in North America, had long been home to millions of indigenous North Americans. By excluding them from the definition applied to these lands, the removal of Native Americans from their homelands was further facilitated.

This might seem a merely historical argument, but unfortunately it is still relevant: practices like these continued, sad examples being the nomadic Penans in Malaysia and the African Masai tribes. It is highly ironic how some large Western conservation organisations fail to put a stop to the destruction of the remnants of biodiversity hotspots in industrialised Europe, but sometimes accuse various ‘primitive’ populations of being a threat to an endangered species in Third World countries. Fortunately, many other organisations have realised the importance of striking a balance between nature conservation and the rights of indigenous people.

Contemporary problems related to the definition of nature

Wilderness paradoxes still occur to this day. For example: conservation organisations often clear woodland, in order to restore the land to its ‘original state’. For example, in Belgium and the Netherlands, these are often heathland restoration projects. But what exactly is the ‘original state’ of the land? Heathland used to be abundant exactly because of the clearing of woodland in order to make room for agriculture. Thus, heathland is by definition nothing like wilderness. Many would rightly argue that making room for both woodlands and heathland benefits biodiversity. However, do we want to pursue higher biodiversity if it is not strictly natural?

Surely, we rather not have ourselves to be the ‘architects of nature’, establishing nature in a way linked to the highest possible biodiversity. Is leaving natural succession to swallow up a large number of heathlands a good alternative then? Only because that is how it would be without human intervention, we would risk the loss of species typical of these biotopes. This does not seem like a good idea either.Important as the concept is, we have to avoid biodiversity to become a dogma of nature conservation. It is not up to us to protect or restore the biodiversity of nature no matter what. It is up to us to prohibit or reverse excessive human impact upon nature: human impact that is often accompanied by the decline of biodiversity.

Reversing our past impacts on nature?

But even if we agree that we ought to reverse human impact, the question rises to what extent we should. Do we try to reverse the huge changes we have forced upon the land since the industrial evolution? Or do we go further back, and try to restore nature to the way it was before agriculture was widespread? This choice could imply the sacrifice of large areas of biodiverse heathland to natural succession. One might even argue that we should support the development of ‘de-extinction’ technologies? After all, animals like the woolly mammoth and sabre-toothed cats might have gone extinct due to human hunting activities.

This is one of only many difficult questions investigated in the field of environmental philosophy. It handles questions that can be complex and often have no unambiguous answer. Still, the ways in which we answer them shapes the practice of nature conservation.

–Merijn van den Bosch

Sources

Much of the content of ‘Lessons from history’ is found in:
-Callicott, J.B and Nelson, M.P., The Great New Wilderness Debate. Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1998, 697 p.
-Callicott, J.B and Nelson, M.P., The Wilderness Debate Rages On. Continuing the Great New Wilderness Debate. Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 2008, 723 p.

The post How our definition of nature shapes conservation efforts appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.

(Image credit: BAM Construction and CIRIA)

With construction and development essential for continued economic growth, it is crucial that the current upward trend does not come at the expense of the natural environment. Further awareness of the relationship between natural systems and a strong economy has led to organisations developing plans and strategies that integrate both economic and environmental targets.

An essential part of an organisation meeting environmental targets is to ensure that biodiversity becomes an integrated part of construction planning and projects. At present there is still some uncertainty surrounding incorporating biodiversity into projects with many viewing it as a topic only suited to technical experts.

This is where the BIG Biodiversity Challenge plays a unique role, allowing organisations to reach environmental targets whilst raising awareness and training members of staff. The challenge has a simple message of ‘do one thing’ for biodiversity which demonstrates that enhancements can be simple, affordable and achievable. These biodiversity enhancements can range from installing bat boxes and bug hotels through to detailed action plans and management strategies.

Now in its third year the challenge has continued to grow with new award categories launched to reflect the dynamic nature of the industry and focusing on the core areas of infrastructure, urban development and mineral extraction.

The 2016 award categories include:

• Client Award
• Community Engagement Award
• Large Scale Permanent Award
• Medium Scale Permanent Award
• Small Scale Permanent Award
• Maintenance & Management Award
• Pollinator Award
• Temporary Award

The BIG Biodiversity Challenge is free to enter and the deadline is August 8, with the 2016 awards ceremony taking place on September 15 in a central London venue. There are also fantastic sponsorship opportunities for organisations wanting to be involved in this year’s Awards ceremony. For further information on how to enter, and to be inspired by last year’s entries, please click to visit www.bigchallenge.info

Michael Small, Project Manager, CIRIA

The post The BIG Biodiversity Challenge 2016 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.

Researcher with wild chinchilla, Chile.

Their conservation status is due to exploitation of the animal for fur. According to Meadow (1969), “…the disappearance of the once beautiful chinchilla alarmed the South American governments of Chile, Peru, Bolivia, and Argentina. By 1918 all of them had placed an embargo on exportation of chinchilla furs, and had laws against trapping the animal.” Both species were thought to be extinct in the wild.

In the mid-1970’s, long-tailed chinchillas were re-discovered near Illapel, Chile. This discovery led to a reserve being created in 1983. However, the long-tailed chinchillas’ wild population continues to decline. Its habitat is threatened by human land alterations. Less than half of the wild population lives within the National Chinchilla Reserve. The areas where we have made habitat have seen expansion in these colonies, outside of protected areas.

The short-tailed chinchillas were re-discovered in 2001 in Chile. Of the 11 known, six were taken into the lab for experiments. They were supposed to be returned to the wild. The ones that did not die were given to fur farmers to improve the genetic captive stock.

Researcher with wild chinchilla, Chile.

Thank you so much for your support!

Amy Deane, Scientist
Save the Wild Chinchillas, Inc.
www.wildchinchillas.org
International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Species Survival Commission http://www.iucn.org/
Small Mammals Specialist Group http://www.small-mammals.org/

PLEASE SIGN ONE OF THESE PETITIONS
English http://www.thepetitionsite.com/es-es/957/633/004/demand-the-protection-of-the-wild-chinchillas-in-chile/

Spanish http://www.thepetitionsite.com/es-es/803/812/650/la-demanda-de-proteccin-de-chinchillas-salvajes-en-chile/

The post Petition to save the wild chinchilla 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.