How to prioritize species recovery after a megafire.

Due to climate change, megafires are increasingly common and have sudden, extensive impacts on many species over vast areas, leaving decision makers uncertain about how best to prioritize recovery. We devised a decision-support framework to prioritize conservation actions to improve species outcomes immediately after a megafire. Complementary locations are selected to extend recovery actions across all fire-affected species' habitats. We applied our method to areas burned in the 2019-2020 Australian megafires and assessed its conservation advantages by comparing our results with outcomes of a site-richness approach (i.e., identifying areas that cost-effectively recover the most species in any one location). We found that 290 threatened species were likely severely affected and will require immediate conservation action to prevent population declines and possible extirpation. We identified 179 subregions, mostly in southeastern Australia, that are key locations to extend actions that benefit multiple species. Cost savings were over AU$300 million to reduce 95% of threats across all species. Our complementarity-based prioritization also spread postfire management actions across a wider proportion of the study area compared with the site-richness method (43% vs. 37% of the landscape managed, respectively) and put more of each species' range under management (average 90% vs. 79% of every species' habitat managed). In addition to wildfire response, our framework can be used to prioritize conservation actions that will best mitigate threats affecting species following other extreme environmental events (e.g., floods and drought).

Debido al cambio climático, los mega incendios son cada vez más comunes y tienen un impacto repentino y extenso sobre muchas especies en inmensas superficies, lo que deja a los tomadores de decisiones con incertidumbre sobre cuál es la mejor manera de priorizar la recuperación. Diseñamos un marco de apoyo a las decisiones para priorizar las acciones de conservación para mejorar los resultados para las especies inmediatamente después de un mega incendio. Para esto, se seleccionan localidades complementarias para extender las acciones de recuperación por todos los hábitats de las especies afectadas por el incendio. Aplicamos nuestro método a las áreas afectadas por los mega incendios de 2019-2020 en Australia y analizamos las ventajas de conservación del método mediante la comparación entre nuestros resultados y aquellos de un enfoque en la riqueza de especies (es decir, la identificación de las áreas que recuperan de manera rentable la mayor cantidad de especies en cualquier localidad única). Encontramos que 290 especies amenazadas estuvieron probablemente afectadas de manera severa y requerirán acciones inmediatas de conservación para prevenir la declinación poblacional y la posible eliminación. Identificamos 179 subregiones, la mayoría en el sureste de Australia, que son localidades clave para extender las acciones que benefician a muchas especies. El ahorro en los gastos fue de más de AU$300 millones para reducir el 95% de las amenazas para todas las especies. Nuestra priorización basada en la complementariedad también extendió las acciones de manejo posterior al incendio a una mayor proporción del área de estudio en comparación con el método de riqueza de especies (43% versus 37% del paisaje gestionado, respectivamente) y colocó más de la distribución de cada especie bajo manejo (en promedio 90% versus 79% del hábitat manejado de cada especie). Además de la respuesta a los incendios, nuestro marco puede usarse para priorizar las acciones de conservación que mitiguen de mejor manera las amenazas que afectan a las especies después de otros eventos ambientales extremos (p. ej., inundaciones y sequía).

A decision tree for assessing the risks and benefits of publishing biodiversity data.

Inadequate information on the geographical distribution of biodiversity hampers decision-making for conservation. Major efforts are underway to fill knowledge gaps, but there are increasing concerns that publishing the locations of species is dangerous, particularly for species at risk of exploitation. While we recognize that well-informed control of location data for highly sensitive taxa is necessary to avoid risks, such as poaching or habitat disturbance by recreational visitors, we argue that ignoring the benefits of sharing biodiversity data could unnecessarily obstruct conservation efforts for species and locations with low risks of exploitation. We provide a decision tree protocol for scientists that systematically considers both the risks of exploitation and potential benefits of increased conservation activities. Our protocol helps scientists assess the impacts of publishing biodiversity data and aims to enhance conservation opportunities, promote community engagement and reduce duplication of survey efforts.

Conservation Research Is Not Happening Where It Is Most Needed.

Target 19, set by the Convention on Biological Diversity, seeks to improve the knowledge, science base, and technologies relating to biodiversity. We will fail to achieve this target unless prolific biases in the field of conservation science are addressed. We reveal that comparatively less research is undertaken in the world's most biodiverse countries, the science conducted in these countries is often not led by researchers based in-country, and these scientists are also underrepresented in important international fora. Mitigating these biases requires wide-ranging solutions: reforming open access publishing policies, enhancing science communication strategies, changing author attribution practices, improving representation in international processes, and strengthening infrastructure and human capacity for research in countries where it is most needed.

Effects of threat management interactions on conservation priorities.

Decisions need to be made about which biodiversity management actions are undertaken to mitigate threats and about where these actions are implemented. However, management actions can interact; that is, the cost, benefit, and feasibility of one action can change when another action is undertaken. There is little guidance on how to explicitly and efficiently prioritize management for multiple threats, including deciding where to act. Integrated management could focus on one management action to abate a dominant threat or on a strategy comprising multiple actions to abate multiple threats. Furthermore management could be undertaken at sites that are in close proximity to reduce costs. We used cost-effectiveness analysis to prioritize investments in fire management, controlling invasive predators, and reducing grazing pressure in a bio-diverse region of southeastern Queensland, Australia. We compared outcomes of 5 management approaches based on different assumptions about interactions and quantified how investment needed, benefits expected, and the locations prioritized for implementation differed when interactions were taken into account. Managing for interactions altered decisions about where to invest and in which actions to invest and had the potential to deliver increased investment efficiency. Differences in high priority locations and actions were greatest between the approaches when we made different assumptions about how management actions deliver benefits through threat abatement: either all threats must be managed to conserve species or only one management action may be required. Threatened species management that does not consider interactions between actions may result in misplaced investments or misguided expectations of the effort required to mitigate threats to species.

Informed actions: where to cost effectively manage multiple threats to species to maximize return on investment.

Conservation practitioners, faced with managing multiple threats to biodiversity and limited funding, must prioritize investment in different management actions. From an economic perspective, it is routine practice to invest where the highest rate of return is expected. This return-on-investment (ROI) thinking can also benefit species conservation, and researchers are developing sophisticated approaches to support decision-making for cost-effective conservation. However, applied use of these approaches is limited. Managers may be wary of "black-box" algorithms or complex methods that are difficult to explain to funding agencies. As an alternative, we demonstrate the use of a basic ROI analysis for determining where to invest in cost-effective management to address threats to species. This method can be applied using basic geographic information system and spreadsheet calculations. We illustrate the approach in a management action prioritization for a biodiverse region of eastern Australia. We use ROI to prioritize management actions for two threats to a suite of threatened species: habitat degradation by cattle grazing, and predation by invasive red foxes (Vulpes vulpes). We show how decisions based on cost-effective threat management depend upon how expected benefits to species are defined and how benefits and costs co-vary. By considering a combination of species richness, restricted habitats, species vulnerability, and costs of management actions, small investments can result in greater expected benefit compared with management decisions that consider only species richness. Furthermore, a landscape management strategy that implements multiple actions is more efficient than managing only for one threat, or more traditional approaches that don't consider ROI. Our approach provides transparent and logical decision support for prioritizing different actions intended to abate threats associated with multiple species; it is of use when managers need a justifiable and repeatable approach to investment.