Improving species status assessments under the U.S. Endangered Species Act and implications for multispecies conservation challenges worldwide.

Despite its successes, the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) has proven challenging to implement due to funding limitations, workload backlog, and other problems. As threats to species survival intensify and as more species come under threat, the need for the ESA and similar conservation laws and policies in other countries to function efficiently has grown. Attempts by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to streamline ESA decisions include multispecies recovery plans and habitat conservation plans. We address species status assessment (SSA), a USFWS process to inform ESA decisions from listing to recovery, within the context of multispecies and ecosystem planning. Although existing SSAs have a single-species focus, ecosystem-based research can efficiently inform multiple SSAs within a region and provide a foundation for transition to multispecies SSAs in the future. We considered at-risk grassland species and ecosystems within the southeastern United States, where a disproportionate number of rare and endemic species are associated with grasslands. To initiate our ecosystem-based approach, we used a combined literature-based and structured World Café workshop format to identify science needs for SSAs. Discussions concentrated on 5 categories of threats to grassland species and ecosystems, consistent with recommendations to make shared threats a focus of planning under the ESA: (1) habitat loss, fragmentation, and disruption of functional connectivity; (2) climate change; (3) altered disturbance regimes; (4) invasive species; and (5) localized impacts. For each threat, workshop participants identified science and information needs, including database availability, research priorities, and modeling and mapping needs. Grouping species by habitat and shared threats can make the SSA process and other planning processes for conservation of at-risk species worldwide more efficient and useful. We found a combination of literature review and structured discussion effective for identifying the scientific information and analysis needed to support the development of multiple SSAs. Article impact statement: Species status assessments can be improved by an ecosystem-based approach that groups imperiled species by shared habitats and threats.

Mejoramiento de la Evaluación del Estado de una Especie bajo el Acta de Especies en Peligro de los Estados Unidos y Sus Consecuencias para los Retos de la Conservación Multiespecie a Nivel Mundial Resumen A pesar de su éxito, el Acta de Especies en Peligro de los E.U.A. (AEP) ha sido un reto de implementación por las limitaciones en su financiamiento, el retraso en la carga de trabajo y otros problemas. Conforme se intensifican las amenazas a la supervivencia de las especies y más especies resultan amenazadas, aumenta la necesidad de que la AEP y las políticas similares de otros países funcionen efectivamente. Los intentos por parte del Servicio Estadounidense de Pesca y Fauna (SEPF) para optimizar las decisiones de la AEP incluyen planes multiespecie de recuperación y planes de conservación de hábitat (PRH). Abordamos la evaluación del estado de las especies (EEE), un proceso del SEPF para orientar las decisiones del AEP desde el listado hasta la recuperación, dentro del contexto de la planeación multiespecie y de ecosistemas. Aunque las EEE existentes tienen un enfoque sobre una única especie, la investigación basada en el ecosistema puede orientar eficientemente a múltiples EEE dentro de una región y proporcionar una base para la transición a las EEE multiespecie en el futuro. Consideramos a las especies y los ecosistemas en riesgo de los pastizales del sureste de los Estados Unidos, en donde un número desproporcionado de especies raras y endémicas está asociado con los pastizales. Para iniciar nuestra estrategia basada en el ecosistema, usamos un formato de taller de World Café estructurado y basado en la literatura para identificar la necesidad de tener EEE. Las discusiones se centraron en cinco categorías de amenazas para las especies y ecosistemas de los pastizales, consistentes con las recomendaciones para volver a las amenazas compartidas un foco de la planeación bajo la AEP: (1) pérdida del hábitat, fragmentación y disrupción de la conectividad funcional; (2) cambio climático; (3) regímenes alterados de perturbación; (4) especies invasoras; y (5) impactos localizados. Para cada amenaza, los participantes del taller identificaron las necesidades científicas y de información, incluyendo la disponibilidad de bases de datos, prioridades de la investigación y necesidades de modelado y mapeado. La agrupación de las especies por hábitat y amenaza compartida puede hacer más eficientes y útiles el proceso de EEE y otros procesos de planeación de la conservación de especies en riesgo a nivel mundial. Encontramos una combinación de revisiones bibliográficas y discusiones estructuradas para identificar la información y el análisis necesarios para respaldar el desarrollo de múltiples EEE.

Multiple axes of ecological vulnerability to climate change.

Observed ecological responses to climate change are highly individualistic across species and locations, and understanding the drivers of this variability is essential for management and conservation efforts. While it is clear that differences in exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity all contribute to heterogeneity in climate change vulnerability, predicting these features at macroecological scales remains a critical challenge. We explore multiple drivers of heterogeneous vulnerability across the distributions of 96 vegetation types of the ecologically diverse western US, using data on observed climate trends from 1948 to 2014 to highlight emerging patterns of change. We ask three novel questions about factors potentially shaping vulnerability across the region: (a) How does sensitivity to different climate variables vary geographically and across vegetation classes? (b) How do multivariate climate exposure patterns interact with these sensitivities to shape vulnerability patterns? (c) How different are these vulnerability patterns according to three widely implemented vulnerability paradigms-niche novelty (decline in modeled suitability), temporal novelty (standardized anomaly), and spatial novelty (inbound climate velocity)-each of which uses a distinct frame of reference to quantify climate departure? We propose that considering these three novelty paradigms in combination could help improve our understanding and prediction of heterogeneous climate change responses, and we discuss the distinct climate adaptation strategies connected with different combinations of high and low novelty across the three metrics. Our results reveal a diverse mosaic of climate change vulnerability signatures across the region's plant communities. Each of the above factors contributes strongly to this heterogeneity: climate variable sensitivity exhibits clear patterns across vegetation types, multivariate climate change data reveal highly diverse exposure signatures across locations, and the three novelty paradigms diverge widely in their climate change vulnerability predictions. Together, these results shed light on potential drivers of individualistic climate change responses and may help to inform effective management strategies.

Incorporating geodiversity into conservation decisions.

In a rapidly changing climate, conservation practitioners could better use geodiversity in a broad range of conservation decisions. We explored selected avenues through which this integration might improve decision making and organized them within the adaptive management cycle of assessment, planning, implementation, and monitoring. Geodiversity is seldom referenced in predominant environmental law and policy. With most natural resource agencies mandated to conserve certain categories of species, agency personnel are challenged to find ways to practically implement new directives aimed at coping with climate change while retaining their species-centered mandate. Ecoregions and ecological classifications provide clear mechanisms to consider geodiversity in plans or decisions, the inclusion of which will help foster the resilience of conservation to climate change. Methods for biodiversity assessment, such as gap analysis, climate change vulnerability analysis, and ecological process modeling, can readily accommodate inclusion of a geophysical component. We adapted others' approaches for characterizing landscapes along a continuum of climate change vulnerability for the biota they support from resistant, to resilient, to susceptible, and to sensitive and then summarized options for integrating geodiversity into planning in each landscape type. In landscapes that are relatively resistant to climate change, options exist to fully represent geodiversity while ensuring that dynamic ecological processes can change over time. In more susceptible landscapes, strategies aiming to maintain or restore ecosystem resilience and connectivity are paramount. Implementing actions on the ground requires understanding of geophysical constraints on species and an increasingly nimble approach to establishing management and restoration goals. Because decisions that are implemented today will be revisited and amended into the future, increasingly sophisticated forms of monitoring and adaptation will be required to ensure that conservation efforts fully consider the value of geodiversity for supporting biodiversity in the face of a changing climate.

Long-term loss in extent and current protection of terrestrial ecosystem diversity in the temperate and tropical Americas.

Documenting changes in ecosystem extent and protection is essential to understanding status of biodiversity and related ecosystem services and have direct applications to measuring Essential Biodiversity Variables, Targets under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and IUCN Red List of Ecosystems. We developed both potential and current distribution maps of terrestrial ecosystem types for the temperate and tropical Americas; with "potential" estimating where a type would likely occur today had there not been prior land conversion for modern land uses. We utilized a hierarchical classification to describe and map natural ecosystem types at six levels of thematic detail, with lower thematic levels defining more units each with narrower floristic range than upper levels. Current land use/land cover was derived using available global data on human land use intensity and combined with the potential distribution maps to estimate long-term change in extent for each ecosystem type. We also assessed representation of ecosystem types within protected areas as defined by IUCN I-VI land status categories. Of the 749 ecosystem types assessed, represented at 5th (n = 315) vs. 6th (n = 433) levels of the classification hierarchy, 5 types (1.6%) and 31 types (7.1%), respectively, have lost >90% of their potential extent. Some 66 types (20.9%) and 141 types (32.5%), respectively, have lost >50% of their potential extent; thus, crossing thresholds of Vulnerable status under IUCN Red List criterion A3. For ecosystem type representation within IUCN protected area classes, with reference to potential extent of each type, 111 (45.3%) and 125 (28.8%) of types, respectively, have higher representation (>17%) than CBD 2020 targets. Twelve types (3.8%) and 23 (5.3%) of types, respectively, are represented with <1% within protected areas. We illustrate an option for visualizing and reporting on CBD targets (2020 and proposed post-2020) for ecosystem representativeness using both potential extent as a baseline.

Anticholinesterase and pharmacokinetic profile of phenserine in healthy elderly human subjects.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of the acetyl-selective anticholinesterase, phenserine tartrate, in healthy elderly subjects. METHODS: 32 healthy elderly volunteers received single oral doses of phenserine tartrate (5-20 mg). Physical and vital signs were monitored over the ensuing 24 hours. Analyses were performed on plasma samples to determine PK, and PD were assessed using an erythrocyte acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibition assay. RESULTS: No serious adverse events (AEs) occurred; the most common were headache and vomiting. The MTD of phenserine tartrate was 10 mg. The Cmax and AUC(0-24) of phenserine increased with dose, but neither were dose-proportional. Subjects receiving 10 mg of phenserine tartrate had a Cmax of 1.95 ng/mL at 1.5 hours, and the mean peak inhibition (Imax) of AChE was 26% (range: 18-34%) at 1.75 hours (tImax) following dosing. The half-life of AChE inhibition (tI1/2) was 11 hours. Evaluation of PK/PD relationships suggested a linear correlation between plasma phenserine concentration and AChE inhibition in the blood. CONCLUSIONS: Phenserine tartrate was safe and well tolerated when administered as a single oral dose of either 5 mg or 10 mg. An increase in the severity and frequency of AEs occurred at the 20 mg dose level.

Scientific foundations for an IUCN Red List of ecosystems.

An understanding of risks to biodiversity is needed for planning action to slow current rates of decline and secure ecosystem services for future human use. Although the IUCN Red List criteria provide an effective assessment protocol for species, a standard global assessment of risks to higher levels of biodiversity is currently limited. In 2008, IUCN initiated development of risk assessment criteria to support a global Red List of ecosystems. We present a new conceptual model for ecosystem risk assessment founded on a synthesis of relevant ecological theories. To support the model, we review key elements of ecosystem definition and introduce the concept of ecosystem collapse, an analogue of species extinction. The model identifies four distributional and functional symptoms of ecosystem risk as a basis for assessment criteria: A) rates of decline in ecosystem distribution; B) restricted distributions with continuing declines or threats; C) rates of environmental (abiotic) degradation; and D) rates of disruption to biotic processes. A fifth criterion, E) quantitative estimates of the risk of ecosystem collapse, enables integrated assessment of multiple processes and provides a conceptual anchor for the other criteria. We present the theoretical rationale for the construction and interpretation of each criterion. The assessment protocol and threat categories mirror those of the IUCN Red List of species. A trial of the protocol on terrestrial, subterranean, freshwater and marine ecosystems from around the world shows that its concepts are workable and its outcomes are robust, that required data are available, and that results are consistent with assessments carried out by local experts and authorities. The new protocol provides a consistent, practical and theoretically grounded framework for establishing a systematic Red List of the world's ecosystems. This will complement the Red List of species and strengthen global capacity to report on and monitor the status of biodiversity.