A standard lexicon of terms for area-based conservation version 1.0.

Target 3 in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) calls for protecting at least 30% of the world's lands and waters in area-based conservation approaches by 2030. This ambitious 30×30 target has spurred great interest among policy makers, practitioners, and researchers in defining and measuring the effectiveness of these types of approaches. But along with this broad interest, there has also been a proliferation of terms and their accompanying abbreviations used to describe different types of conservation areas and their governance, planning, management, and monitoring. The lack of standard terms is hindering the use and assessment of area-based approaches to conserve the world's biodiversity. It is difficult to track progress toward GBF Target 3 or to share learning with other practitioners if different groups of people are using different words to describe the same concept or similar words to talk about different concepts. To address this problem, the International Union for Conservation of Nature's World Commission on Protected Areas commissioned a task force to review existing terms and recommend a standard English-language lexicon for this field based on key criteria. The results were definitions of 37 terms across 6 categories, including types of protected and additional conservation areas (e.g., protected area, additional conservation area), sets of these areas (protected area network, protected area system), their governance and management (governance, rightsholders), assessment (effectiveness, equitability), spatial planning (key biodiversity area), and action planning (value, outcome, objective). Our standard lexicon can provide a common language for people who want to use it and a shared reference point that can be used to translate various terms used by different groups. The common understanding provided by the lexicon can serve as a foundation for collaborative efforts to improve the policies, implementation, assessments, research, and learning about this important set of conservation approaches.

Un léxico estandarizado de términos para la conservación basada en áreas versión 10 Resumen El objetivo 3 del Marco Global para la Biodiversidad de Kunming­Montreal (GBF) establece la protección de al menos el 30% de los suelos y aguas del planeta con estrategias de conservación basada en áreas para el 2030. Este objetivo ambicioso de 30x30 ha provocado un gran interés por definir y medir la eficiencia de este tipo de estrategias entre quienes hacen las políticas, los practicantes y los investigadores. Junto con este interés generalizado también ha habido una proliferación de términos y abreviaciones usados para describir los diferentes tipos de áreas de conservación y su gestión, planeación, manejo y monitoreo. La falta de términos estandarizados dificulta el uso y la evaluación de las estrategias basadas en áreas para conservar la biodiversidad mundial. Es difícil registrar los avances hacia el Objetivo 3 del GBF o compartir el aprendizaje con otros practicantes si diferentes grupos de personas usan diferentes palabras para describir el mismo concepto o palabras similares para hablar de conceptos distintos. Para abordar este problema, la Comisión Mundial de Áreas Protegidas de la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza comisionó un grupo de trabajo para que revise los términos existentes y recomiende un léxico estandarizado en inglés para este campo con base en criterios clave. Como resultado obtuvieron la definición para 37 términos de seis categorías, incluyendo los tipos de área protegida y las áreas adicionales de conservación (p. ej.: área protegida, área adicional de conservación), los conjuntos de estas áreas (p. ej.: red de áreas protegidas, sistema de áreas protegidas), su gestión y manejo (gobernanza, derechohabientes), evaluación (efectividad, equidad), planeación espacial (área clave de biodiversidad) y plan de acción (valor, resultado, objetivo). Nuestro léxico estandarizado puede proporcionar un lenguaje común para la gente que quiera usarlo y una referencia compartida que puede usarse para traducir varios términos que usan los diferentes grupos. El conocimiento común proporcionado por el léxico puede fungir como una base para que los esfuerzos colaborativos mejoren las políticas, implementación, evaluación, investigación y aprendizaje sobre este conjunto importante de estrategias de conservación.

Captive and urban environments are associated with distinct gut microbiota in deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus).

Animals in captive and urban environments encounter evolutionarily novel conditions shaped by humans, such as altered diets, exposure to human-associated bacteria, and, potentially, medical interventions. Captive and urban environments have been demonstrated to affect gut microbial composition and diversity independently but have not yet been studied together. By sequencing the gut microbiota of deer mice living in laboratory, zoo, urban and natural settings, we sought to identify (i) whether captive deer mouse gut microbiota have similar composition regardless of husbandry conditions and (ii) whether captive and urban deer mice have similar gut microbial composition. We found that the gut microbiota of captive deer mice were distinct from those of free-living deer mice, indicating captivity has a consistent effect on the deer mouse microbiota regardless of location, lineage or husbandry conditions for a population. Additionally, the gut microbial composition, diversity and bacterial load of free-living urban mice were distinct from those of all other environment types. Together, these results indicate that gut microbiota associated with captivity and urbanization are likely not a shared response to increased exposure to humans but rather are shaped by environmental features intrinsic to captive and urban conditions.

Species conservation in the era of genomic science.

The exponential increase in the availability of genomic data, derived from sequencing thousands of loci or whole genomes, provides exciting new insights into the diversity of life. However, it can also challenge established species concepts and existing management regimes derived from these concepts. Genomic data can help inform decisions about how to manage genetic diversity, but policies that protect identified taxonomic entities can generate conflicting recommendations that create challenges for practitioners. We outline three dimensions of management concern that arise when facing new and potentially conflicting interpretations of genomic data: defining conservation entities, deciding how to manage diversity, and evaluating the risks and benefits of management actions. We highlight the often-underappreciated role of values in influencing management choices made by individuals, scientists, practitioners, the public, and other stakeholders. Such values influence choices through mechanisms such as the Rashomon effect, whereby management decisions are complicated by conflicting perceptions of the causes and consequences of the conservation problem. To illustrate how this might operate, we offer a hypothetical example of this effect for the interpretation of genomic data and its implications for conservation management. Such value-based decisions can be challenged by the rigidity of existing management regimes, making it difficult to achieve the necessary flexibility to match the changing biological understanding. We finish by recommending that both conservation geneticists and practitioners reflect on their respective values, responsibilities, and roles in building a more robust system of species management. This includes embracing the inclusion of stakeholders in decision-making because, as in many cases, there are not objectively defensible right or wrong decisions.

Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation.

The world's biodiversity is in crisis. Synthetic biology has the potential to transform biodiversity conservation, both directly and indirectly, in ways that are negative and positive. However, applying these biotechnology tools to environmental questions is fraught with uncertainty and could harm cultures, rights, livelihoods, and nature. Decisions about whether or not to use synthetic biology for conservation should be understood alongside the reality of ongoing biodiversity loss. In 2022, the 196 Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity are negotiating the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework that will guide action by governments and other stakeholders for the next decade to conserve the worlds' biodiversity. To date, synthetic biologists, conservationists, and policy makers have operated in isolation. At this critical time, this review brings these diverse perspectives together and emerges out of the need for a balanced and inclusive examination of the potential application of these technologies to biodiversity conservation.

Ecological Function Analysis: Incorporating Species Roles into Conservation.

Effective conservation strategies must ensure that species remain not just extant, but able to maintain key roles in species interactions and in the maintenance of communities and ecosystems. Such ecological functions, however, have not been well incorporated into management or policy. We present a framework for quantifying ecological function that is complementary to population viability analysis (PVA) and that allows function to be integrated into strategic planning processes. Ecological function analysis (EFA) focuses on preventing secondary extinctions and maintaining ecosystem structure, biogeochemical processes, and resiliency. EFA can use a range of modeling approaches and, because most species interactions are relatively weak, EFA needs to be performed for relatively few species or functions, making it a realistic way to improve conservation management.

Assessment of the Conservation Measures Partnership's effort to improve conservation outcomes through adaptive management.

Conservation practice has demonstrated an increasing desire for accountability of actions, particularly with respect to effectiveness, efficiency, and impact to clearly identified objectives. This has been accompanied by increased attention to achieving adaptive management. In 2002, practitioners representing several prominent conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) launched a community of practice called the Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP). The partnership CMP has worked to establish standards of conservation practice to improve accountability of conservation actions through adaptive management. The focal organizing framework for CMP has been the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (OS). We evaluated, through an online survey and personal interviews, the first decade of CMP and the OS. The CMP has garnered a positive reputation among agencies, NGOs, and funders and has succeeded in developing a large user base of the OS. However, CMP has not fully achieved its goal of making the OS standard operating procedure for the largest NGOs (e.g., The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund), despite it being widely used within these organizations. This lack of institutionalization is attributable to multiple causes, including an increase in the number of partially overlapping decision-support frameworks and challenges achieving full-cycle adaptive management. Users strongly believed the OS fosters better conservation practice and highly valued the OS for improving their practice. A primary objective of the OS is to assist practitioners to achieve full-cycle adaptive management to better integrate learning into improving the effectiveness and efficiency of actions. However, most practitioners had not yet achieved cycle completion for their projects. To improve the effectiveness of CMP, OS, and conservation practice in general, we recommend collaborative efforts among the proponents of multiple decision-support frameworks to foster strong institutional adoption of a common set of adaptive-management standards for conservation accountability.

Is It Time for Synthetic Biodiversity Conservation?

Evidence indicates that, despite some critical successes, current conservation approaches are not slowing the overall rate of biodiversity loss. The field of synthetic biology, which is capable of altering natural genomes with extremely precise editing, might offer the potential to resolve some intractable conservation problems (e.g., invasive species or pathogens). However, it is our opinion that there has been insufficient engagement by the conservation community with practitioners of synthetic biology. We contend that rapid, large-scale engagement of these two communities is urgently needed to avoid unintended and deleterious ecological consequences. To this point we describe case studies where synthetic biology is currently being applied to conservation, and we highlight the benefits to conservation biologists from engaging with this emerging technology.

Secondary extinctions of biodiversity.

Extinctions beget further extinctions when species lose obligate mutualists, predators, prey, or hosts. Here, we develop a conceptual model of species and community attributes affecting secondary extinction likelihood, incorporating mechanisms that buffer organisms against partner loss. Specialized interactors, including 'cryptic specialists' with diverse but nonredundant partner assemblages, incur elevated risk. Risk is also higher for species that cannot either evolve new traits following partner loss or obtain novel partners in communities reorganizing under changing environmental conditions. Partner loss occurs alongside other anthropogenic impacts; multiple stressors can circumvent ecological buffers, enhancing secondary extinction risk. Stressors can also offset each other, reducing secondary extinction risk, a hitherto unappreciated phenomenon. This synthesis suggests improved conservation planning tactics and critical directions for research on secondary extinctions.

The complementary niches of anthropocentric and biocentric conservationists.

A divergence of values has become apparent in recent debates between conservationists who focus on ecosystem services that can improve human well-being and those who focus on avoiding the extinction of species. These divergent points of view fall along a continuum from anthropocentric to biocentric values, but most conservationists are relatively closer to each other than to the ends of the spectrum. We have some concerns with both positions but emphasize that conservation for both people and all other species will be most effective if conservationists focus on articulating the values they all share, being respectful of divergent values, and collaborating on common interests. The conservation arena is large enough to accommodate many people and organizations whose diverse values lead them to different niches that can, with good will and foresight, be far more complementary than competitive.

Optimism and challenge for science-based conservation of migratory species in and out of U.S. National Parks.

Public agencies sometimes seek outside guidance when capacity to achieve their mission is limited. Through a cooperative agreement and collaborations with the U.S. National Park Service (NPS), we developed recommendations for a conservation program for migratory species. Although NPS manages ∼ 36 million hectares of land and water in 401 units, there is no centralized program to conserve wild animals reliant on NPS units that also migrate hundreds to thousands of kilometers beyond parks. Migrations are imperiled by habitat destruction, unsustainable harvest, climate change, and other impediments. A successful program to counter these challenges requires public support, national and international outreach, and flourishing migrant populations. We recommended two initial steps. First, in the short term, launch or build on a suite of projects for high-profile migratory species that can serve as proof to demonstrate the centrality of NPS units to conservation at different scales. Second, over the longer term, build new capacity to conserve migratory species. Capacity building will entail increasing the limited knowledge among park staff about how and where species or populations migrate, conditions that enable migration, and identifying species' needs and resolving them both within and beyond parks. Building capacity will also require ensuring that park superintendents and staff at all levels support conservation beyond statutory borders. Until additional diverse stakeholders and a broader American public realize what can be lost and do more to protect it and engage more with land management agencies to implement actions that facilitate conservation, long distance migrations are increasingly likely to become phenomena of the past.