To Crowdfund Research, Scientists Must Build an Audience for Their Work.

As rates of traditional sources of scientific funding decline, scientists have become increasingly interested in crowdfunding as a means of bringing in new money for research. In fields where crowdfunding has become a major venue for fundraising such as the arts and technology, building an audience for one's work is key for successful crowdfunding. For science, to what extent does audience building, via engagement and outreach, increase a scientist's abilities to bring in money via crowdfunding? Here we report on an analysis of the #SciFund Challenge, a crowdfunding experiment in which 159 scientists attempted to crowdfund their research. Using data gathered from a survey of participants, internet metrics, and logs of project donations, we find that public engagement is the key to crowdfunding success. Building an audience or "fanbase" and actively engaging with that audience as well as seeking to broaden the reach of one's audience indirectly increases levels of funding. Audience size and effort interact to bring in more people to view a scientist's project proposal, leading to funding. We discuss how projects capable of raising levels of funds commensurate with traditional funding agencies will need to incorporate direct involvement of the public with science. We suggest that if scientists and research institutions wish to tap this new source of funds, they will need to encourage and reward activities that allow scientists to engage with the public.

Raising money for scientific research through crowdfunding.

In this article we discuss the utility of crowdfunding from the perspective of individual scientists or laboratory groups looking to fund research. We address some of the main factors determining the success of crowdfunding campaigns, and compare this approach with the use of traditional funding sources.

Intensive agriculture erodes ß-diversity at large scales.

Biodiversity is declining from unprecedented land conversions that replace diverse, low-intensity agriculture with vast expanses under homogeneous, intensive production. Despite documented losses of species richness, consequences for ß-diversity, changes in community composition between sites, are largely unknown, especially in the tropics. Using a 10-year data set on Costa Rican birds, we find that low-intensity agriculture sustained ß-diversity across large scales on a par with forest. In high-intensity agriculture, low local (α) diversity inflated ß-diversity as a statistical artefact. Therefore, at small spatial scales, intensive agriculture appeared to retain ß-diversity. Unlike in forest or low-intensity systems, however, high-intensity agriculture also homogenised vegetation structure over large distances, thereby decoupling the fundamental ecological pattern of bird communities changing with geographical distance. This ~40% decline in species turnover indicates a significant decline in ß-diversity at large spatial scales. These findings point the way towards multi-functional agricultural systems that maintain agricultural productivity while simultaneously conserving biodiversity.

Using return on investment to maximize conservation effectiveness in Argentine grasslands.

The rapid global loss of natural habitats and biodiversity, and limited resources, place a premium on maximizing the expected benefits of conservation actions. The scarcity of information on the fine-grained distribution of species of conservation concern, on risks of loss, and on costs of conservation actions, especially in developing countries, makes efficient conservation difficult. The distribution of ecosystem types (unique ecological communities) is typically better known than species and arguably better represents the entirety of biodiversity than do well-known taxa, so we use conserving the diversity of ecosystem types as our conservation goal. We define conservation benefit to include risk of conversion, spatial effects that reward clumping of habitat, and diminishing returns to investment in any one ecosystem type. Using Argentine grasslands as an example, we compare three strategies: protecting the cheapest land ("minimize cost"), maximizing conservation benefit regardless of cost ("maximize benefit"), and maximizing conservation benefit per dollar ("return on investment"). We first show that the widely endorsed goal of saving some percentage (typically 10%) of a country or habitat type, although it may inspire conservation, is a poor operational goal. It either leads to the accumulation of areas with low conservation benefit or requires infeasibly large sums of money, and it distracts from the real problem: maximizing conservation benefit given limited resources. Second, given realistic budgets, return on investment is superior to the other conservation strategies. Surprisingly, however, over a wide range of budgets, minimizing cost provides more conservation benefit than does the maximize-benefit strategy.

Sustaining biodiversity in ancient tropical countryside.

With intensifying demands for food and biofuels, a critical threat to biodiversity is agricultural expansion into native tropical ecosystems. Tropical agriculture, particularly intensive agriculture, often supports few native organisms, and consequently has been largely overlooked in conservation planning; yet, recent work in the Neotropics demonstrates that tropical agriculture with certain features can support significant biodiversity, decades after conversion to farmland. It remains unknown whether this conservation value can be sustained for centuries to millennia. Here, we quantify the bird diversity affiliated with agricultural systems in southwest India, a region continuously cultivated for >2,000 years. We show that arecanut palm (Areca catechu) production systems retain 90% of the bird species associated with regional native forest. Two factors promote this high conservation value. First, the system involves intercropping with multiple, usually woody, understory species and, thus, has high vertical structural complexity that is positively correlated with bird species richness. Second, the system encompasses nearby forests, where large quantities of leaf litter are extracted for mulch. The preservation of these forests on productive land traces back to their value in supplying inputs to arecanut cultivation. The long-term biodiversity value of an agricultural ecosystem has not been documented in South and Southeast Asia. Our findings open a new conservation opportunity for this imperiled region that may well extend to other crops. Some of these working lands may be able to sustain native species over long-time scales, indicating that conservation investments in agriculture today could pay off for people and for nature.

Satellite detection of bird communities in tropical countryside.

The future of biodiversity hinges partly on realizing the potentially high conservation value of human-dominated countryside. The characteristics of the countryside that promote biodiversity preservation remain poorly understood, however, particularly at the fine scales at which individual farmers tend to make land use decisions. To address this problem, we explored the use of a rapid remote sensing method for estimating bird community composition in tropical countryside, using a two-step process. First, we asked how fine-grained variation in land cover affected community composition. Second, we determined whether the observed changes in community composition correlated with three easily accessible remote sensing metrics (wetness, greenness, and brightness), derived from performing a tasseled-cap transformation on a Landsat Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus image. As a comparison, we also examined whether the most commonly used remote sensing indicator in ecology, the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), correlated with community composition. We worked within an agricultural landscape in southern Costa Rica, where the land comprised a complex and highly heterogeneous mosaic of remnant native vegetation, pasture, coffee cultivation, and other crops. In this region, we selected 12 study sites (each < 60 ha) that encompassed the range of available land cover possibilities in the countryside. Within each site, we surveyed bird communities within all major land cover types, and we conducted detailed field mapping of land cover. We found that the number of forest-affiliated species increased with forest cover and decreased with residential area across sites. Conversely, the number of agriculture-affiliated species using forest increased with land area devoted to agricultural and residential uses. Interestingly, we found that the wetness and brightness metrics predicted the number of forest- and agriculture-affiliated species within a site as well as did detailed field-generated maps of land cover. In contrast, NDVI and the closely correlated greenness metric did not correlate with land cover or with bird communities. Our study shows the strong potential of the tasseled-cap transformation as a tool for assessing the conservation value of countryside for biodiversity.

When agendas collide: human welfare and biological conservation.

Conservation should benefit ecosystems, nonhuman organisms, and current and future human beings. Nevertheless, tension among these goals engenders potential ethical conflicts: conservationists' true motivations may differ from the justifications they offer for their activities, and conservation projects have the potential to disempower and oppress people. We reviewed the promise and deficiencies of integrating social, economic, and biological concerns into conservation, focusing on research in ecosystem services and efforts in community-based conservation. Despite much progress, neither paradigm provides a silver bullet for conservation's most pressing problems, and both require additional thought and modification to become maximally effective. We conclude that the following strategies are needed to make conservation more effective in our human-dominated world. (1) Conservation research needs to integrate with social scholarship in a more sophisticated manner. (2) Conservation must be informed by a detailed understanding of the spatial, temporal, and social distributions of costs and benefits of conservation efforts. Strategies should reflect this understanding, particularly by equitably distributing conservation's costs. (3) We must better acknowledge the social concerns that accompany biodiversity conservation; accordingly, sometimes we must argue for conservation for biodiversity's sake, not for its direct human benefits.