Global shortfalls in documented actions to conserve biodiversity.

Threatened species are by definition species that are in need of assistance. In the absence of suitable conservation interventions, they are likely to disappear soon1. There is limited understanding of how and where conservation interventions are applied globally, or how well they work2,3. Here, using information from the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List and other global databases, we find that for species at risk from three of the biggest drivers of biodiversity loss-habitat loss, overexploitation for international trade and invasive species4-many appear to lack the appropriate types of conservation interventions. Indeed, although there has been substantial recent expansion of the protected area network, we still find that 91% of threatened species have insufficient representation of their habitats within protected areas. Conservation interventions are not implemented uniformly across different taxa and regions and, even when present, have infrequently led to substantial improvements in the status of species. For 58% of the world's threatened terrestrial species, we find conservation interventions to be notably insufficient or absent. We cannot determine whether such species are truly neglected, or whether efforts to recover them are not included in major conservation databases. If they are indeed neglected, the outlook for many of the world's threatened species is grim without more and better targeted action.

Governing trade-offs in ecosystem services and disservices to achieve human-wildlife coexistence.

Sustaining wildlife populations, which provide both ecosystem services and disservices, represents a worldwide conservation challenge. The ecosystem services and Ostrom's social-ecological systems frameworks have been adopted across natural and social sciences to characterize benefits from nature. Despite their generalizability, individually they do not include explicit tools for addressing the sustainable management of many wildlife populations. For instance, Ostrom's framework does not specifically address competing perspectives on wildlife, whereas the ecosystem services framework provides a limited representation of the social and governance context wherein such competing perspectives are embedded. We developed a unified social-ecological framework of ecosystem disservices and services (SEEDS) that advances both frameworks by explicitly acknowledging the importance of competing wildlife perspectives embedded in the social and governance contexts. The SEEDS framework emulates the hierarchical structure of Ostrom's social-ecological systems, but adds subsystems reflecting heterogeneous stakeholder views and experiences of wildlife-based services and disservices. To facilitate operationalizing SEEDS and further broader analyses across human-wildlife systems, we devised a list of variables to describe SEEDS subsystems, such as types and level of services and disservices, cost and benefit sharing, and social participation of stakeholders. Steps to implement SEEDS involve engaging local communities and stakeholders to define the subsystems, analyze interactions and outcomes, and identify leverage points and actions to remedy unwanted outcomes. These steps connect SEEDS with other existing approaches in social-ecological research and can guide analyses across systems or within individual systems to provide new insights and management options for sustainable human-wildlife coexistence.

Control de las Compensaciones de los Servicios y Perjuicios Ambientales para Lograr la Coexistencia entre Humanos y Fauna Resumen El mantenimiento de las poblaciones silvestres de fauna, las cuales proporcionan servicios y perjuicios, representa un reto para la conservación a nivel mundial. Los servicios ambientales y los marcos de trabajo de los sistemas socio-ecológicos de Ostrom se han adoptado en la ciencias naturales y sociales para caracterizar los beneficios que proporciona la naturaleza. A pesar de ser generalizables, individualmente no incluyen herramientas explícitas para tratar el manejo sustentable de muchas poblaciones silvestres. Por ejemplo, el marco de trabajo de Ostrom no trata de manera específica las perspectivas rivales sobre fauna, mientras que el marco de trabajo de los servicios ambientales proporciona una representación limitada del contexto social y de gobierno en los que están embebidas dichas perspectivas rivales. Desarrollamos un marco de trabajo socio-ecológico unificado de servicios y perjuicios ambientales (SEEDS, en inglés) que impulsa ambos marcos de trabajo al reconocer explícitamente la importancia de las perspectivas rivales sobre fauna embebidas en los contextos sociales y de gobierno. El marco de trabajo SEEDS emula la estructura jerárquica de los sistemas socio-ecológicos de Ostrom, pero añade subsistemas que reflejan la visión y las experiencias heterogéneas que los accionistas tienen sobre los servicios y perjuicios basados en la fauna. Para facilitar la operación de los SEEDS y ampliar los análisis en todos los sistemas humano-fauna, diseñamos una lista de variables para describir los subsistemas de los SEEDS, como los tipos y niveles de los servicios y perjuicios, el costo y beneficio del reparto, y la participación social de los accionistas. Los pasos para implementar los SEEDS involucran comprometer a las comunidades locales y a los accionistas para que definan los subsistemas, analicen las interacciones y los resultados, e identifiquen los puntos y acciones de ventaja para remediar los resultados no deseados. Estos pasos conectan a los SEEDS con otras estrategias de investigación socio-ecológica y pueden guiar los análisis a través de varios sistemas o dentro de sistemas individuales para proporcionar nueva información y opciones de manejo para una coexistencia sustentable entre humanos y fauna.

Tracking a half century of media reporting on gray wolves.

Natural resource and wildlife managers must balance the disparate priorities of a diversity of stakeholders. To manage these priorities, a firm understanding of topics salient to the public is needed. The media often report on issues of importance to the public; therefore, these reports may be a useful measure of public interest. However, efficient methods for distinguishing diverse topics related to a wildlife management issue reported in the media and changes in the salience of those topics have been lacking. We used latent Dirichlet allocation, a Bayesian mixture model, to quantitatively assess the salience of topics surrounding the gray wolf (Canis lupus), which was reintroduced to Idaho (U.S.A.) in 1995. We analyzed articles published from 1960 to 2015 in an Idaho newspaper. We identified 6 distinct topics associated with gray wolves: policy, hunting, biological status, implementation of management, recovery, and human-wolf conflict. The salience of topics pre- and postreintroduction of wolves (1995) and pre- and postdelisting of wolves from the U.S. Endangered Species Act (2009) differed significantly, underscoring that these events were turning points in how issues were being publicly discussed and framed. Articles written by the local reporters were more likely to report on topics regarding conflict between humans and wolves, whereas articles sourced from a national outlet reported more on topics pertaining to wolf policy and biological status. In the context of managing a contentious, far-ranging, and long-lived wildlife species, our methods can help guide the location and timing of a suite of management strategies (e.g., media relation plans and stakeholder engagement) that promote human-wildlife coexistence across different landscapes.

Seguimiento de Medio Siglo de Reportes Mediáticos sobre Lobos Grises Resumen Los administradores de los recursos naturales y de la fauna deben balancear las prioridades discrepantes de una diversidad de accionistas. Para manejar estas prioridades se requiere de un entendimiento firme de los temas destacados para el público. Los medios frecuentemente reportan sobre temas de importancia para el público; por lo tanto, estos reportajes pueden ser una medida útil del interés del público. Sin embargo, hoy en día se carece de métodos eficientes para distinguir diferentes temas relacionados con un tema de manejo de fauna reportado en los medios y para reconocer los cambios en la prominencia de estos temas. Usamos la asignación latente Dirichlet, un modelo de mezcla bayesiana, para evaluar cuantitativamente la prominencia de los temas circundantes al lobo gris (Canis lupus), el cual fue reintroducido a Idaho (E.U.A.) en 1995. Analizamos artículos publicados en un periódico de Idaho desde 1960 y hasta 2015. Identificamos seis temas distintos asociados con el lobo gris: política, caza, estado biológico, implementación del manejo, recuperación, y conflicto humano-lobos. La prominencia de los temas previa y posterior a la introducción de los lobos (1995) y previa y posterior al retiro de los lobos del Acta de Especies Amenazadas de E.U.A (2009) varió significativamente, resaltando que estos eventos fueron puntos críticos para cómo se discutían y enmarcaban estos temas. Los artículos escritos por los reporteros locales tuvieron una mayor probabilidad de tratar temas sobre el conflicto entre humanos y lobos, mientras que los artículos surgidos en alguna fuente nacional reportaron más sobre temas correspondientes a la política y al estado biológico de los lobos. En el contexto de una especie silvestre contenciosa, de una extensión amplia y un ciclo de vida largo, nuestros métodos pueden ayudar a guiar la ubicación y el momento de un conjunto de estrategias de manejo (p. ej.: planes de relación de medios y compromiso de los accionistas) que promueva la coexistencia entre humanos y fauna a lo largo de diferentes paisajes.

Spatial patterns of African ungulate aggregation reveal complex but limited risk effects from reintroduced carnivores.

The "landscape of fear" model, recently advanced in research on the non-lethal effects of carnivores on ungulates, predicts that prey will exhibit detectable antipredator behavior not only during risky times (i.e., predators in close proximity) but also in risky places (i.e., habitat where predators kill prey or tend to occur). Aggregation is an important antipredator response in numerous ungulate species, making it a useful metric to evaluate the strength and scope of the landscape of fear in a multi-carnivore, multi-ungulate system. We conducted ungulate surveys over a 2-year period in South Africa to test the influence of three broad-scale sources of variation in the landscape on spatial patterns in aggregation: (1) habitat structure, (2) where carnivores tended to occur (i.e., population-level utilization distributions), and (3) where carnivores tended to kill ungulate prey (i.e., probabilistic kill site maps). We analyzed spatial variation in aggregation for six ungulate species exposed to predation from recently reintroduced lion (Panthera leo) and spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta). Although we did detect larger aggregations of ungulates in "risky places," these effects existed primarily for smaller-bodied (<150 kg) ungulates and were relatively moderate (change of 4 individuals across all habitats). In comparison, ungulate aggregations tended to increase at a slightly lower rate in habitat that was more open. The lion, an ambush (stalking) carnivore, had stronger influence on ungulate aggregation than the hyena, an active (coursing) carnivore. In addition, places where lions tended to kill prey had a greater effect on ungulate aggregation than places where lions tended to occur, but an opposing pattern existed for hyena. Our study reveals heterogeneity in the landscape of fear and suggests broad-scale risk effects following carnivore reintroduction only moderately influence ungulate aggregation size and vary considerably by predator hunting mode, type of predation risk, and prey species.