Using a cognitive model to understand crowdsourced data from citizen scientists.

Threatened species monitoring can produce enormous quantities of acoustic and visual recordings which must be searched for animal detections. Data coding is extremely time-consuming for humans and even though machine algorithms are emerging as useful tools to tackle this task, they too require large amounts of known detections for training. Citizen scientists are often recruited via crowd-sourcing to assist. However, the results of their coding can be difficult to interpret because citizen scientists lack comprehensive training and typically each codes only a small fraction of the full dataset. Competence may vary between citizen scientists, but without knowing the ground truth of the dataset, it is difficult to identify which citizen scientists are most competent. We used a quantitative cognitive model, cultural consensus theory, to analyze both empirical and simulated data from a crowdsourced analysis of audio recordings of Australian frogs. Several hundred citizen scientists were asked whether the calls of nine frog species were present on 1260 brief audio recordings, though most only coded a fraction of these recordings. Through modeling, characteristics of both the citizen scientist cohort and the recordings were estimated. We then compared the model's output to expert coding of the recordings and found agreement between the cohort's consensus and the expert evaluation. This finding adds to the evidence that crowdsourced analyses can be utilized to understand large-scale datasets, even when the ground truth of the dataset is unknown. The model-based analysis provides a promising tool to screen large datasets prior to investing expert time and resources.

Complex Organisms Must Deal with Complex Threats: How Does Amphibian Conservation Deal with Biphasic Life Cycles?

The unprecedented rate of global amphibian decline is attributed to The Anthropocene, with human actions triggering the Sixth Mass Extinction Event. Amphibians have suffered some of the most extreme declines, and their lack of response to conservation actions may reflect challenges faced by taxa that exhibit biphasic life histories. There is an urgent need to ensure that conservation measures are cost-effective and yield positive outcomes. Many conservation actions have failed to meet their intended goals of bolstering populations to ensure the persistence of species into the future. We suggest that past conservation efforts have not considered how different threats influence multiple life stages of amphibians, potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes for their conservation. Our review highlights the multitude of threats amphibians face at each life stage and the conservation actions used to mitigate these threats. We also draw attention to the paucity of studies that have employed multiple actions across more than one life stage. Conservation programs for biphasic amphibians, and the research that guides them, lack a multi-pronged approach to deal with multiple threats across the lifecycle. Conservation management programs must recognise the changing threat landscape for biphasic amphibians to reduce their notoriety as the most threatened vertebrate taxa globally.

The effect of salt dosing for chytrid mitigation on tadpoles of a threatened frog, Litoria aurea.

The novel fungal pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (chytrid) is one of the greatest threats to amphibians worldwide. Small increases in water salinity (up to ca. 4 ppt) have been shown to limit chytrid transmission between frogs, potentially providing a way to create environmental refugia to reduce its impact at a landscape scale. However, the effect of increasing water salinity on tadpoles, a life stage confined to water, is highly variable. Increased water salinity can lead to reduced size and altered growth patterns in some species, with flow-on effects to vital rates such as survival and reproduction. It is thus important to assess potential trade-offs caused by increasing salinity as a tool to mitigate chytrid in susceptible frogs. We conducted laboratory experiments to examine the effects of salinity on the survival and development of tadpoles of a threatened frog (Litoria aurea), previously demonstrated as a suitable candidate for trialling landscape manipulations to mitigate chytrid. We exposed tadpoles to salinity ranging from 1 to 6 ppt and measured survival, time to metamorphosis, body mass and locomotor performance of post-metamorphic frogs as a measure of fitness. Survival and time to metamorphosis did not differ between salinity treatments or controls reared in rainwater. Body mass was positively associated with increasing salinity in the first 14 days. Juvenile frogs from three salinity treatments also showed the same or better locomotor performance compared to rainwater controls, confirming that environmental salinity may influence life history traits in the larval stage, potentially as a hormetic response. Our research suggests that salt concentrations in the range previously shown to improve survival of frogs in the presence of chytrid are unlikely to impact larval development of our candidate threatened species. Our study lends support to the idea of manipulating salinity to create environmental refugia from chytrid for at least some salt-tolerant species.

Compassionate Conservation Clashes With Conservation Biology: Should Empathy, Compassion, and Deontological Moral Principles Drive Conservation Practice?

"Compassionate Conservation" is an emerging movement within conservation science that is gaining attention through its promotion of "ethical" conservation practices that place empathy and compassion and the moral principles of "first, do no harm" and "individuals matter" at the forefront of conservation practice. We have articulated elsewhere how Compassionate Conservation, if adopted, could be more harmful for native biodiversity than any other conservation action implemented thus far, while also causing more net harm to individuals than it aims to stop. Here, we examine whether empathy, compassion and inflexible adherence to moral principles form a solid basis upon which to meet the goals of conservation biology as specified by pioneers in the discipline. Specifically, we examine a large empirical literature demonstrating that empathy is subject to significant biases and that inflexible adherence to moral rules can result in a "do nothing" approach. In light of this literature, we argue that our emotional systems have not evolved to provide a reliable basis for making decisions as to how best to ensure the long-term persistence of our planet. Consequently, in its most radical form, the Compassionate Conservation philosophy should not be enshrined as a legalized guiding principle for conservation action.

Deconstructing compassionate conservation.

Compassionate conservation focuses on 4 tenets: first, do no harm; individuals matter; inclusivity of individual animals; and peaceful coexistence between humans and animals. Recently, compassionate conservation has been promoted as an alternative to conventional conservation philosophy. We believe examples presented by compassionate conservationists are deliberately or arbitrarily chosen to focus on mammals; inherently not compassionate; and offer ineffective conservation solutions. Compassionate conservation arbitrarily focuses on charismatic species, notably large predators and megaherbivores. The philosophy is not compassionate when it leaves invasive predators in the environment to cause harm to vastly more individuals of native species or uses the fear of harm by apex predators to terrorize mesopredators. Hindering the control of exotic species (megafauna, predators) in situ will not improve the conservation condition of the majority of biodiversity. The positions taken by so-called compassionate conservationists on particular species and on conservation actions could be extended to hinder other forms of conservation, including translocations, conservation fencing, and fertility control. Animal welfare is incredibly important to conservation, but ironically compassionate conservation does not offer the best welfare outcomes to animals and is often ineffective in achieving conservation goals. Consequently, compassionate conservation may threaten public and governmental support for conservation because of the limited understanding of conservation problems by the general public.

Deconstrucción de la Conservación Compasiva Resumen La conservación compasiva se enfoca en cuatro principios: no causar daño; los individuos importan; la integración de los animales individualmente; y la coexistencia pacífica entre los humanos u los animales. Recientemente, la conservación compasiva ha sido promovida como una alternativa a la filosofía convencional de la conservación. Creemos que los ejemplos presentados por los conservacionistas compasivos han sido elegidos arbitraria o deliberadamente por estar enfocados en los mamíferos; por ser inherentes y no compasivos; y por ofrecer soluciones de conservación poco efectivas. La conservación compasiva se enfoca arbitrariamente en las especies carismáticas, principalmente los grandes depredadores y los megaherbívoros. La filosofía no es compasiva cuando deja que los depredadores invasores dentro del ambiente causen daño a un vasto número de individuos nativos o usa el miedo al daño por superdepredadores para aterrorizar a los mesodepredadores. El entorpecimiento del control de especies exóticas (megafauna, depredadores) in situ no mejorará las condiciones de conservación de la mayoría de la biodiversidad, incluso si los conservacionistas compasivos no dañan a los individuos exóticos. Las posiciones que toman los llamados conservacionistas compasivos sobre especies particulares y sobre las acciones de conservación podrían extenderse para entorpecer otros tipos de conservación, incluyendo las reubicaciones, el encercado para la conservación y el control de la fertilidad. El bienestar animal es increíblemente importante para la conservación e irónicamente, la conservación compasiva no ofrece los mejores resultados de bienestar para los animales y comúnmente es poco efectiva en el logro de los objetivos de conservación. Como consecuencia, la conservación compasiva puede poner en peligro el apoyo público y del gobierno que tiene la conservación debido al entendimiento poco limitado que tiene el público general sobre los problemas de conservación.