Information

21: Conservation - Biology

21: Conservation - Biology


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Roughly 1.5 million species have been identified, and this is just a fraction of all the species on Earth. These species exist in a variety of ecosystems. Genetic differences among individuals within a species further contributes to the variety of life on Earth. While this biodiversity provides many benefits to humans, such providing food and building materials, recreational activities, and clean air and water, human population group and resource use threatens many species and ecosystems. Conservation biology is concerned with protecting biodiversity, which ultimately supports humans by promoting ecosystem function (Figure (PageIndex{1})).

  • 21.1: The Value of Biodiversity
    Ecosystem diversity refers the number and relative abundance of ecosystems and is the largest scale of biodiversity. Species diversity refers to species richness and species evenness. Genetic diversity is variation among individuals within a species.
  • 21.2: Threats to Biodiversity
    There are five major threats to biodiversity: habitat loss, pollution, overexploitation, invasive species, and climate change.
  • 21.3: Preserving Biodiversity
    Many interrelated strategies help preserve biodiversity. Legislation such as the Endangered Species Act directly protect species at risk of extinction. Non-profit organizations provide additional funding and research. Species-level conservation centers on just one species, but protected areas can preserve whole ecosystems. Ecosystem restoration involves returning an area (as much as possible) to its original state to promote ecosystem services and native species.
  • 21.4: Chapter Summary

Attribution

Melissa Ha (CC-BY-NC)

Image thumbnail: Maikal Hills in Kabirdham District, Chhattisgarh, India. The traditional healers take advantage of this rich biodiversity zone and use medicinal species in treatment of complicated diseases like different types of cancer, sickle cell anemia, etc. Image and caption (edited) by Pankaj Oudhia (CC-BY-SA).


21.3 Preserving Biodiversity

Preserving biodiversity is an extraordinary challenge that must be met by greater understanding of biodiversity itself, changes in human behavior and beliefs, and various preservation strategies.

Change in Biodiversity through Time

The number of species on the planet, or in any geographical area, is the result of an equilibrium of two evolutionary processes that are ongoing: speciation and extinction. Both are natural “birth” and “death” processes of macroevolution. When speciation rates begin to outstrip extinction rates, the number of species will increase likewise, the reverse is true when extinction rates begin to overtake speciation rates. Throughout the history of life on Earth, as reflected in the fossil record, these two processes have fluctuated to a greater or lesser extent, sometimes leading to dramatic changes in the number of species on the planet as reflected in the fossil record (Figure 21.13).

Paleontologists have identified five strata in the fossil record that appear to show sudden and dramatic (greater than half of all extant species disappearing from the fossil record) losses in biodiversity. These are called mass extinctions. There are many lesser, yet still dramatic, extinction events, but the five mass extinctions have attracted the most research into their causes. An argument can be made that the five mass extinctions are only the five most extreme events in a continuous series of large extinction events throughout the fossil record (since 542 million years ago). In most cases, the hypothesized causes are still controversial in one, the most recent, the cause seems clear. The most recent extinction in geological time, about 65 million years ago, saw the disappearance of the dinosaurs and many other species. Most scientists now agree the cause of this extinction was the impact of a large asteroid in the present-day Yucatán Peninsula and the subsequent energy release and global climate changes caused by dust ejected into the atmosphere.

Recent and Current Extinction Rates

A sixth, or Holocene, mass extinction has mostly to do with the activities of Homo sapiens. There are numerous recent extinctions of individual species that are recorded in human writings. Most of these are coincident with the expansion of the European colonies since the 1500s.

One of the earlier and popularly known examples is the dodo bird. The dodo bird lived in the forests of Mauritius, an island in the Indian Ocean. The dodo bird became extinct around 1662. It was hunted for its meat by sailors and was easy prey because the dodo, which did not evolve with humans, would approach people without fear. Introduced pigs, rats, and dogs brought to the island by European ships also killed dodo young and eggs (Figure 21.14).

Steller’s sea cow became extinct in 1768 it was related to the manatee and probably once lived along the northwest coast of North America. Steller’s sea cow was discovered by Europeans in 1741, and it was hunted for meat and oil. A total of 27 years elapsed between the sea cow’s first contact with Europeans and extinction of the species. The last Steller’s sea cow was killed in 1768. In another example, the last living passenger pigeon died in a zoo in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1914. This species had once migrated in the millions but declined in numbers because of overhunting and loss of habitat through the clearing of forests for farmland.

These are only a few of the recorded extinctions in the past 500 years. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) keeps a list of extinct and endangered species called the Red List. The list is not complete, but it describes 380 vertebrates that became extinct after 1500 AD, 86 of which were driven extinct by overhunting or overfishing.

Estimates of Present-day Extinction Rates

Estimates of extinction rates are hampered by the fact that most extinctions are probably happening without being observed. The extinction of a bird or mammal is often noticed by humans, especially if it has been hunted or used in some other way. But there are many organisms that are less noticeable to humans (not necessarily of less value) and many that are undescribed.

The background extinction rate is estimated to be about 1 per million species years (E/MSY). One “species year” is one species in existence for one year. One million species years could be one species persisting for one million years, or a million species persisting for one year. If it is the latter, then one extinction per million species years would be one of those million species becoming extinct in that year. For example, if there are 10 million species in existence, then we would expect 10 of those species to become extinct in a year. This is the background rate.

One contemporary extinction-rate estimate uses the extinctions in the written record since the year 1500. For birds alone, this method yields an estimate of 26 E/MSY, almost three times the background rate. However, this value may be underestimated for three reasons. First, many existing species would not have been described until much later in the time period and so their loss would have gone unnoticed. Second, we know the number is higher than the written record suggests because now extinct species are being described from skeletal remains that were never mentioned in written history. And third, some species are probably already extinct even though conservationists are reluctant to name them as such. Taking these factors into account raises the estimated extinction rate to nearer 100 E/MSY. The predicted rate by the end of the century is 1500 E/MSY.

A second approach to estimating present-time extinction rates is to correlate species loss with habitat loss, and it is based on measuring forest-area loss and understanding species–area relationships. The species-area relationship is the rate at which new species are seen when the area surveyed is increased (Figure 21.15). Likewise, if the habitat area is reduced, the number of species seen will also decline. This kind of relationship is also seen in the relationship between an island’s area and the number of species present on the island: as one increases, so does the other, though not in a straight line. Estimates of extinction rates based on habitat loss and species–area relationships have suggested that with about 90 percent of habitat loss an expected 50 percent of species would become extinct. Figure 21.15 shows that reducing forest area from 100 km 2 to 10 km 2 , a decline of 90 percent, reduces the number of species by about 50 percent. Species–area estimates have led to estimates of present-day species extinction rates of about 1000 E/MSY and higher. In general, actual observations do not show this amount of loss and one explanation put forward is that there is a delay in extinction. According to this explanation, it takes some time for species to fully suffer the effects of habitat loss and they linger on for some time after their habitat is destroyed, but eventually they will become extinct. Recent work has also called into question the applicability of the species-area relationship when estimating the loss of species. This work argues that the species–area relationship leads to an overestimate of extinction rates. Using an alternate method would bring estimates down to around 500 E/MSY in the coming century. Note that this value is still 500 times the background rate.

Concepts in Action

Go to this website for an interactive exploration of endangered and extinct species, their ecosystems, and the causes of their endangerment or extinction.

Conservation of Biodiversity

The threats to biodiversity at the genetic, species, and ecosystem levels have been recognized for some time. In the United States, the first national park with land set aside to remain in a wilderness state was Yellowstone Park in 1890. However, attempts to preserve nature for various reasons have occurred for centuries. Today, the main efforts to preserve biodiversity involve legislative approaches to regulate human and corporate behavior, setting aside protected areas, and habitat restoration.

Changing Human Behavior

Legislation has been enacted to protect species throughout the world. The legislation includes international treaties as well as national and state laws. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) treaty came into force in 1975. The treaty, and the national legislation that supports it, provides a legal framework for preventing “listed” species from being transported across nations’ borders, thus protecting them from being caught or killed in the first place when the purpose involves international trade. The listed species that are protected to one degree or another by the treaty number some 33,000. The treaty is limited in its reach because it only deals with international movement of organisms or their parts. It is also limited by various countries’ ability or willingness to enforce the treaty and supporting legislation. The illegal trade in organisms and their parts is probably a market in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Within many countries there are laws that protect endangered species and that regulate hunting and fishing. In the United States, the Endangered Species Act was enacted in 1973. When an at-risk species is listed by the Act, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is required by law to develop a management plan to protect the species and bring it back to sustainable numbers. The Act, and others like it in other countries, is a useful tool, but it suffers because it is often difficult to get a species listed, or to get an effective management plan in place once a species is listed. Additionally, species may be controversially taken off the list without necessarily having had a change in their situation. More fundamentally, the approach to protecting individual species rather than entire ecosystems (although the management plans commonly involve protection of the individual species’ habitat) is both inefficient and focuses efforts on a few highly visible and often charismatic species, perhaps at the expense of other species that go unprotected.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) is an agreement between the United States and Canada that was signed into law in 1918 in response to declines in North American bird species caused by hunting. The Act now lists over 800 protected species. It makes it illegal to disturb or kill the protected species or distribute their parts (much of the hunting of birds in the past was for their feathers). Examples of protected species include northern cardinals, the red-tailed hawk, and the American black vulture.

Global warming is expected to be a major driver of biodiversity loss. Many governments are concerned about the effects of anthropogenic global warming, primarily on their economies and food resources. Since greenhouse gas emissions do not respect national boundaries, the effort to curb them is an international one. The international response to global warming has been mixed. The Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement that came out of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that committed countries to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2012, was ratified by some countries, but spurned by others. Two countries that were especially important in terms of their potential impact that did not ratify the Kyoto protocol were the United States and China. Some goals for reduction in greenhouse gasses were met and exceeded by individual countries, but, worldwide, the effort to limit greenhouse gas production is not succeeding. The intended replacement for the Kyoto Protocol has not materialized because governments cannot agree on timelines and benchmarks. Meanwhile, the resulting costs to human societies and biodiversity predicted by a majority of climate scientists will be high.

As already mentioned, the non-profit, non-governmental sector plays a large role in conservation effort both in North America and around the world. The approaches range from species-specific organizations to the broadly focused IUCN and Trade Records Analysis of Flora and Fauna in Commerce (TRAFFIC). The Nature Conservancy takes a novel approach. It purchases land and protects it in an attempt to set up preserves for ecosystems. Ultimately, human behavior will change when human values change. At present, the growing urbanization of the human population is a force that mitigates against valuing biodiversity, because many people no longer come in contact with natural environments and the species that inhabit them.

Conservation in Preserves

Establishment of wildlife and ecosystem preserves is one of the key tools in conservation efforts (Figure 21.16). A preserve is an area of land set aside with varying degrees of protection for the organisms that exist within the boundaries of the preserve. Preserves can be effective for protecting both species and ecosystems, but they have some serious drawbacks.

A simple measure of success in setting aside preserves for biodiversity protection is to set a target percentage of land or marine habitat to protect. However, a more detailed preserve design and choice of location is usually necessary because of the way protected lands are allocated and how biodiversity is distributed: protected lands tend to contain less economically valuable resources rather than being set aside specifically for the species or ecosystems at risk. In 2003, the IUCN World Parks Congress estimated that 11.5 percent of Earth’s land surface was covered by preserves of various kinds. This area is greater than previous goals however, it only represents 9 out of 14 recognized major biomes and research has shown that 12 percent of all species live outside preserves these percentages are much higher when threatened species are considered and when only high quality preserves are considered. For example, high quality preserves include only about 50 percent of threatened amphibian species. The conclusion must be that either the percentage of area protected must be increased, the percentage of high quality preserves must be increased, or preserves must be targeted with greater attention to biodiversity protection. Researchers argue that more attention to the latter solution is required.

A biodiversity hotspot is a conservation concept developed by Norman Myers in 1988. Hotspots are geographical areas that contain high numbers of endemic species. The purpose of the concept was to identify important locations on the planet for conservation efforts, a kind of conservation triage. By protecting hotspots, governments are able to protect a larger number of species. The original criteria for a hotspot included the presence of 1500 or more species of endemic plants and 70 percent of the area disturbed by human activity. There are now 34 biodiversity hotspots (Figure 21.17) that contain large numbers of endemic species, which include half of Earth’s endemic plants.

There has been extensive research into optimal preserve designs for maintaining biodiversity. The fundamental principles behind much of the research have come from the seminal theoretical work of Robert H. MacArthur and Edward O. Wilson published in 1967 on island biogeography. 2 This work sought to understand the factors affecting biodiversity on islands. Conservation preserves can be seen as “islands” of habitat within “an ocean” of non-habitat. In general, large preserves are better because they support more species, including species with large home ranges they have more core area of optimal habitat for individual species they have more niches to support more species and they attract more species because they can be found and reached more easily.

Preserves perform better when there are partially protected buffer zones around them of suboptimal habitat. The buffer allows organisms to exit the boundaries of the preserve without immediate negative consequences from hunting or lack of resources. One large preserve is better than the same area of several smaller preserves because there is more core habitat unaffected by less hospitable ecosystems outside the preserve boundary. For this same reason, preserves in the shape of a square or circle will be better than a preserve with many thin “arms.” If preserves must be smaller, then providing wildlife corridors between them so that species and their genes can move between the preserves for example, preserves along rivers and streams will make the smaller preserves behave more like a large one. All of these factors are taken into consideration when planning the nature of a preserve before the land is set aside.

In addition to the physical specifications of a preserve, there are a variety of regulations related to the use of a preserve. These can include anything from timber extraction, mineral extraction, regulated hunting, human habitation, and nondestructive human recreation. Many of the decisions to include these other uses are made based on political pressures rather than conservation considerations. On the other hand, in some cases, wildlife protection policies have been so strict that subsistence-living indigenous populations have been forced from ancestral lands that fell within a preserve. In other cases, even if a preserve is designed to protect wildlife, if the protections are not or cannot be enforced, the preserve status will have little meaning in the face of illegal poaching and timber extraction. This is a widespread problem with preserves in the tropics.

Some of the limitations on preserves as conservation tools are evident from the discussion of preserve design. Political and economic pressures typically make preserves smaller, never larger, so setting aside areas that are large enough is difficult. Enforcement of protections is also a significant issue in countries without the resources or political will to prevent poaching and illegal resource extraction.

Climate change will create inevitable problems with the location of preserves as the species within them migrate to higher latitudes as the habitat of the preserve becomes less favorable. Planning for the effects of global warming on future preserves, or adding new preserves to accommodate the changes expected from global warming is in progress, but will only be as effective as the accuracy of the predictions of the effects of global warming on future habitats.

Finally, an argument can be made that conservation preserves reinforce the cultural perception that humans are separate from nature, can exist outside of it, and can only operate in ways that do damage to biodiversity. Creating preserves reduces the pressure on human activities outside the preserves to be sustainable and non-damaging to biodiversity. Ultimately, the political, economic, and human demographic pressures will degrade and reduce the size of conservation preserves if the activities outside them are not altered to be less damaging to biodiversity.

Concepts in Action

Check out this interactive global data system of protected areas. Review data about specific protected areas by location or study statistics on protected areas by country or region.

Habitat Restoration

Habitat restoration holds considerable promise as a mechanism for maintaining or restoring biodiversity. Of course once a species has become extinct, its restoration is impossible. However, restoration can improve the biodiversity of degraded ecosystems. Reintroducing wolves, a top predator, to Yellowstone National Park in 1995 led to dramatic changes in the ecosystem that increased biodiversity. The wolves (Figure 21.18) function to suppress elk and coyote populations and provide more abundant resources to the guild of carrion eaters. Reducing elk populations has allowed revegetation of riparian (the areas along the banks of a stream or river) areas, which has increased the diversity of species in that habitat. Suppression of coyotes has increased the species previously suppressed by this predator. The number of species of carrion eaters has increased because of the predatory activities of the wolves. In this habitat, the wolf is a keystone species, meaning a species that is instrumental in maintaining diversity within an ecosystem. Removing a keystone species from an ecological community causes a collapse in diversity. The results from the Yellowstone experiment suggest that restoring a keystone species effectively can have the effect of restoring biodiversity in the community. Ecologists have argued for the identification of keystone species where possible and for focusing protection efforts on these species. It makes sense to return the keystone species to the ecosystems where they have been removed.

Other large-scale restoration experiments underway involve dam removal. In the United States, since the mid-1980s, many aging dams are being considered for removal rather than replacement because of shifting beliefs about the ecological value of free-flowing rivers. The measured benefits of dam removal include restoration of naturally fluctuating water levels (often the purpose of dams is to reduce variation in river flows), which leads to increased fish diversity and improved water quality. In the Pacific Northwest, dam removal projects are expected to increase populations of salmon, which is considered a keystone species because it transports nutrients to inland ecosystems during its annual spawning migrations. In other regions, such as the Atlantic coast, dam removal has allowed the return of other spawning anadromous fish species (species that are born in fresh water, live most of their lives in salt water, and return to fresh water to spawn). Some of the largest dam removal projects have yet to occur or have happened too recently for the consequences to be measured. The large-scale ecological experiments that these removal projects constitute will provide valuable data for other dam projects slated either for removal or construction.

The Role of Zoos and Captive Breeding

Zoos have sought to play a role in conservation efforts both through captive breeding programs and education (Figure 21.19). The transformation of the missions of zoos from collection and exhibition facilities to organizations that are dedicated to conservation is ongoing. In general, it has been recognized that, except in some specific targeted cases, captive breeding programs for endangered species are inefficient and often prone to failure when the species are reintroduced to the wild. Zoo facilities are far too limited to contemplate captive breeding programs for the numbers of species that are now at risk. Education, on the other hand, is a potential positive impact of zoos on conservation efforts, particularly given the global trend to urbanization and the consequent reduction in contacts between people and wildlife. A number of studies have been performed to look at the effectiveness of zoos on people’s attitudes and actions regarding conservation at present, the results tend to be mixed.


Conservation Biology jobs in Alexandria, VA 22315

  • M.S. Degree (Ph.D preferred) in one or more areas of Earth System Sciences (e.g., atmospheric sciences, oceanography, cryospheric science, ecology, conservation…
  • View all ASRC Federal Holding Company jobs in Washington, DC - Washington jobs
  • Salary Search: Weather and Atmospheric Dynamics Support Scientist. salaries in Washington, DC
  • Learn more about working at ASRC Federal Holding Company
  • See popular questions & answers about ASRC Federal Holding Company

Admission Requirements

No additional requirements beyond university graduate admission requirements. Students currently enrolled in a graduate degree program can add the conservation biology certificate to their program of study by completing an Application for Update of Graduate Academic Programs (found on the Graduate College Forms webpage) and submitting it to the Graduate College.

International Students

This certificate program alone does not permit full-time enrollment in residence at Ohio University, and an I-20 cannot be issued based on admission to this certificate. However, this certificate can be completed along with an Athens campus degree program, and an I-20 may be issued based on admission to that degree program.


Hunting for common ground between wildlife governance and commons scholarship

Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, 135 Duke Marine Lab Road, Beaufort, NC 28516, U.S.A.

Department of Primatology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6 04103, Leipzig, Germany

Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, 135 Duke Marine Lab Road, Beaufort, NC 28516, U.S.A.

Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, 135 Duke Marine Lab Road, Beaufort, NC 28516, U.S.A.

Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, 135 Duke Marine Lab Road, Beaufort, NC 28516, U.S.A.

Department of Primatology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6 04103, Leipzig, Germany

Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, 135 Duke Marine Lab Road, Beaufort, NC 28516, U.S.A.

Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, 135 Duke Marine Lab Road, Beaufort, NC 28516, U.S.A.

Article impact statement: : Wildlife hunting and commons scholarship are largely disconnected yet their mutual utility can help solve wildlife-governance dilemmas.

Abstract

Wildlife hunting is essential to livelihoods and food security in many parts of the world, yet present rates of extraction may threaten ecosystems and human communities. Thus, governing sustainable wildlife use is a major social dilemma and conservation challenge. Commons scholarship is well positioned to contribute theoretical insights and analytic tools to better understand the interface of social and ecological dimensions of wildlife governance, yet the intersection of wildlife studies and commons scholarship is not well studied. We reviewed existing wildlife-hunting scholarship, drawing on a database of 1,410 references, to examine the current overlap with commons scholarship through multiple methods, including social network analysis and deductive coding. We found that a very small proportion of wildlife scholarship incorporated commons theories and frameworks. The social network of wildlife scholarship was densely interconnected with several major publication clusters, whereas the wildlife commons scholarship was sparse and isolated. Despite the overarching gap between wildlife and commons scholarship, a few scholars are studying wildlife commons. The small body of scholarship that bridges these disconnected literatures provides valuable insights into the understudied relational dimensions of wildlife and other overlapping common-pool resources. We suggest increased engagement among wildlife and commons scholars and practitioners to improve the state of knowledge and practice of wildlife governance across regions, particularly for bushmeat hunting in the tropics, which is presently understudied through a common-pool resource lens. Our case study of the Republic of Congo showed how the historical context and interrelationships between hunting and forest rights are essential to understanding the current state of wildlife governance and potential for future interventions. A better understanding of the interconnections between wildlife and overlapping common-pool resource systems may be key to understanding present wildlife governance challenges and advancing the common-pool resource research agenda.

Abstract

En Búsqueda de Terreno Común entre la Gobernanza de Fauna y el Conocimiento sobre Bienes Comunes

Resumen

La caza de fauna es esencial para el sustento y la seguridad alimentaria en muchas partes del mundo pero presenta tasas de extracción que podrían amenazar a los ecosistemas y a las comunidades humanas. Por esto, gobernar el uso sustentable de la fauna es un dilema social importante y un reto para la conservación. El conocimiento sobre los bienes comunes está bien posicionado para contribuir con ideas teóricas y herramientas analíticas para un mejor entendimiento de la interfaz entre las dimensiones sociales y ecológicas de la gobernanza de fauna, aunque la intersección de los estudios sobre fauna y el conocimiento sobre los bienes comunes no esté bien estudiada. Revisamos el conocimiento existente sobre la caza de fauna a partir de una base de datos de 1, 410 referencias para examinar el traslape actual con el conocimiento sobre los de bienes comunes por medio de múltiples métodos, incluyendo el análisis de redes sociales y la codificación deductiva. Encontramos que una proporción muy pequeña de estudios de fauna incorporaban marcos de trabajo y teorías de bienes comunes. La red social de conocimiento sobre la fauna tenía una interconexión muy densa con varios grupos de publicaciones importantes, mientras que la del conocimiento de bienes de fauna era escasa y estaba aislada. A pesar del enorme vacío entre el conocimiento de bienes y la fauna, algunos están estudiando los bienes de fauna. El pequeño cuerpo de becas que construye un puente entre estas literaturas desconectadas proporciona ideas valiosas sobre la dimensión de las relaciones poco estudiadas de la fauna y otros recursos comunes que se traslapan. Sugerimos una participación mayor entre el conocimiento de fauna y bienes comunes y los practicantes para mejorar el estado de conocimiento y de las prácticas de la gobernanza de fauna a lo largo de todas las regiones, particularmente para la caza de fauna en los trópicos, la cual actualmente está poco estudiada dentro de la visión de los recursos comunes. Nuestro estudio de caso sobre la República del Congo mostró cómo el contexto histórico y las interrelaciones entre la caza y los derechos de bosque son esenciales para el entendimiento del estado actual de la gobernanza de fauna y el potencial para las futuras intervenciones. Un mejor entendimiento de las interconexiones entre la fauna y los sistemas de recursos comunes que se traslapan puede ser una clave para entender los retos actuales de la gobernanza de fauna y el avance de la agenda de investigación sobre los recursos comunes.

在世界上很多地方, 野生动物狩猎对人们的生计和食物保障至关重要, 但目前狩猎的速率可能威胁到生态系统和人类社会。因此, 野生动物资源可持续利用的管理是重要的社会困境和保护挑战。公共资源的学术研究有助于提供深入的理论认识和分析工具, 来更好地理解野生动物管理中社会和生态维度的交界, 然而, 野生动物研究和公共资源研究的交叉点还没有得到深入探索。我们借助于一个含有 1,410 篇参考文献的数据库, 回顾了现有野生动物狩猎的知识, 并通过包括社会网络分析和演绎编码在内的多种方法分析其与公共资源研究的重叠。我们发现, 只有很少一部分的野生动物研究纳入了公共资源的理论和框架。野生动物研究的社会网络与几个主流出版物集群紧密相连, 而野生动物公共资源研究则稀少且孤立。尽管野生动物与公共资源的研究之间存在巨大差距, 但仍有一些学者在研究野生动物公共资源。这一小部分学术研究将一些关系不紧密的文献联系起来, 为理解野生动物和其它重叠的公共资源的关系提供了宝贵的见解。我们建议加强野生动物和公共资源学者和管理实践者之间的交流, 来提高各地区野生动物管理的知识和实践水平, 特别是目前从公共资源角度研究较少的热带地区丛林肉狩猎问题。我们对刚果共和国的案例研究表明了狩猎和林权之间的历史背景和相互关系在了解目前野生动物管理状态和未来干预措施的潜力中起到重要作用。更好地理解野生动物和重叠的公地资源系统的相互关系可能是理解野生动物管理目前面临的挑战和推进公地资源研究议程的关键。【翻译: 胡怡思 审校: 聂永刚】


Fall 2020 Kickoff meeting

Took Place 9/29/20. Intro to club and events for the year. See what you missed in the document below.

Wi Snap-a-thon

Took Place 10/20/20. Snap-a-thon citizen science event and raffle introduction. Check out the information below.

Guest speaker tim van deelen

Took Place 11/10/20. Guest speaker Tim Van Deelen, an expert on large mammals in the Great Lakes region, gave a presentation and answered questions. Check out the meeting notes below, as well as the guest speaker summary

Kenya snap-a-thon

Took Place 12/8/20. Wildwatch Kenya Snap-a-thon event on Zooniverse and semester wrap-up.

Spring 2021 kickoff meeting

Took Place 2/8/21. Club intro, icebreaker game, and conservation Kahoot.

Conservation info panel

Took Place 3/8/21. Conservation info panel with WSCB state chapter, and Q&A with conservation field professionals in breakout groups for different topics. Presentation slides with links to resources is available below!

Guest speaker bryan richards

Took Place 3/24/21. Lecture on Chronic Wasting Disease and Q&A from a professional. Check out the guest speaker notes below. Here are the lecture slides as well and the slides on wolves

COnsumerism & Conservation

Took Place 4/5/21. Discussion-based presentation on the impacts of a consumer-centric society on the environment and ways to help. Introduced our 4Ocean fundraiser and 21-22 exec board elections! Check out the meeting slides below.

Marine biology jeopardy

Took Place 4/12/21. Fun competitive game of jeopardy testing our members' marine biology knowledge!

Earth day Litter clean up

Took Place 4/22/21. First back to in person event! We split into groups and cleaned up Lakeshore Nature Preserve and the surrounding areas.

Guest speaker

Dr. Jake lasla

Took Place 4/28/21. An insightful lecture and Q&A from a sea turtle researcher at the Florida Mote marine lab. Learn more about their research website below!


Results

Understanding of Loss of Biological Diversity

Respondents were unanimous (99.5%) in their view that it is likely a serious loss of biological diversity is underway at a global extent 8.4%, 24.9%, and 66.2% thought that serious loss is likely, very likely, or virtually certain, respectively (Table 1). There was even greater consensus (79.1%) that human activities are virtually certainly accelerating the loss of biological diversity. By comparison, 61.9% and 55.1% thought climate change (presented as “global warming” in the survey to match language used by Rosenberg et al. [2010] ) is a process that is already underway and that humans are accelerating it, respectively. This is consistent with results from Rosenberg et al. (2010) , who found that in 2005, 61.6% and 49.2% of U.S. climate scientists strongly agreed that climate change was already underway and that human activities were accelerating climate change, respectively. The majority of respondents agreed (58.1%) or strongly agreed (14.6%) that the nature and causes of loss of biological diversity are highly understood (Supporting Information). Scientists agreed (35.5%) or strongly agreed (6.2%) that the consequences of the loss of biological diversity are highly understood.

Statement about biological diversity or climate change Virtually impossible Very unlikely Unlikely About an even chance Likely Very likely Virtually certain
A serious loss of biological diversity is underway at the global scale b 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.002 0.084 0.249 0.662
Human activities are accelerating the loss of biological diversity at the global scale 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.033 0.173 0.791
Global warming is a process that is already underway b 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.026 0.077 0.273 0.619
Human activities are accelerating global warming b 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.012 0.115 0.319 0.551
  • a Language recommended by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (Morgan et al. 2009): virtually impossible, ≤0.01 probability very unlikely, approximately 0.01–0.20 probability unlikely, less than even chance (i.e., 0.20–0.50 probability) about an even chance, approximately 0.50 ± 0.05 probability likely, very likely, and virtually certain, 0.50–0.80, 0.80–0.99, and ≥0.99 probabilities, respectively.
  • b Statement was retained as a covariate in a latent-class cluster analysis of scientific understanding of loss of biological diversity.

The 5-class LC cluster model minimized BIC and was chosen for further refinement. One bivariate residual was significant at the 5% level, indicating some redundancy between the 2 climate-change indicators. Dropping one statement (“Global warming is a process that is already underway.”) from the model eliminated the significant bivariate residual. The final model (n= 582, 44 parameters, entropy R 2 = 0.78, classification error = 10.2%) cleaved the sample into five distinct clusters (Fig. 1): alarmed, concerned, science optimists, moderates, and science pessimists. All LC cluster analyses were conducted with data from only 582 of 583 respondents because I dropped one invalid response.

Membership in latent-class clusters (y-axis) on the basis of scientists’ understanding of loss of biological diversity (1, virtually impossible 2, very unlikely 3, unlikely 4, about an even chance 5, likely 6, very likely 7, virtually certain SD, strongly disagree D, disagree N, neither agree nor disagree A, agree and SA, strongly agree complete statements: indicator 1, A serious loss of biological diversity is underway at the global scale. 2, Human activities are accelerating the loss of biological diversity at the global scale. 3, Human activities are accelerating global warming. 4, Scientists have a strong understanding of the nature and causes of changes in biological diversity. 5, Scientists have a strong understanding of the consequences of changes in biological diversity.).

Cluster 1, alarmed, contained 60.8% of the sample. Respondents in this cluster were very (8.9%) or virtually (91.9%) certain that a serious loss of biological diversity is underway and every respondent believed human activities are accelerating the loss. Those in cluster 2 (22.4% of the sample), concerned, expressed similar views as those in the alarmed cluster, but they were more measured in their views of the level of seriousness of biological diversity loss and human activities as drivers of that loss (and climate change). LC clusters 3 (7.0%, science optimists) and 5 (4.2%, science pessimists) held very similar views to each other on the seriousness of biological diversity loss, but they differed greatly on their views of scientists’ understanding of the causes and effects of that loss. Cluster 4 (5.6%, moderates) respondents were more measured in all their responses.

In the subsequent CHAID analysis, only publication in Conservation Biology explained significant variation (χ 2 = 10.94, df = 4, p= 0.03) in probability of membership in LC clusters (Supporting Information). Respondents who had published in Conservation Biology were more likely to belong to alarmed, science optimists, and science pessimists clusters. The common theme among these three clusters was that 100% of respondents viewed a serious loss of biological diversity as very likely or virtually certain.

Geographic and Temporal Scope of Loss of Biological Diversity

I asked respondents to provide only answers for regions and major ecosystem types with which they were familiar. I interpreted no response as do not know. For regions or ecosystems where respondents thought loss of biological diversity was very likely or virtually certain, I asked a follow-up question regarding the timing of loss. Respondents’ agreement that serious biological diversity loss was very likely or virtually certain ranged from lows of 72.8% (27.0% very likely, 45.8% virtually certain) for Western Europe to highs of 90.9% (33.0% very likely, 57.9% virtually certain) for Southeast Asia (Supporting Information).

The ecosystem respondents viewed as most seriously affected by loss of biological diversity was marine tropical coral 38.7% and 49.3% believed that a serious loss of biological diversity in marine tropical coral is very likely or virtually certain, respectively (Supporting Information). Tropical moist and dry broadleaf forest and mangrove ecosystems were also viewed as subject to serious levels of loss (loss virtually certain = 47.4%, 44.6%, and 40.6%, respectively), whereas serious losses of biological diversity in marine upwelling ecosystems was viewed as virtually certain by 17.9% of respondents.

Opinions on the timing of the most serious losses in biological diversity over and within the range of ecosystems were broad (Supporting Information). Generally, respondents thought serious losses of biological diversity in freshwater and temperate terrestrial ecosystems tended to occur more in the past relative to tropical and polar ecosystems.

Conservation Values and Priorities

All 583 respondents completed 16 BWS ranking questions (Table 2). Mean scores, which represent likelihood of being chosen as the statement that respondents most agreed with, summed to 100. An item with a mean score of 6 was thus twice as likely to be chosen as that most agreed with by respondents as an item with a mean score of 3. The distribution of mean scores exhibited some discontinuity. The two statements with the highest rank had significantly higher levels of agreement (95% CI of 6.824–7.084 for “Conservation planning needs to understand how people and nature interact in particular places.” and 6.275–6.633 for “Biological diversity should be conserved because it sustains ecosystem function.”) than the statement ranked third (95% CI of 5.041–5.434 for “Conservation priorities should reflect the need to protect globally important species and ecosystems.”). Respondents were very unlikely to select the two statements with the lowest rank as ones they most agreed with (95% CI of 0.543–0.765 for “The value of biological diversity depends on its usefulness to people.” and of 0.371–0.483 for “Long-term residents should be displaced from protected areas if conservation needs warrant.” Other statements filled the gradient between the extremes (Supporting Information).

Statement and overall rank of statement Times statement shown to respondents Times selected as most agreed with (%) Times selected as least agreed with (%) Likelihood of selection as most agreed with (%), 95% CI%
1. Conservation planning needs to understand how people and nature interact in particular places. 1166 649 (55.7) 49 (4.2) 6.824–7.084
2. Biological diversity should be conserved because it sustains ecosystem function. 1166 607 (52.1) 75 (6.4) 6.275–6.633
3. Conservation priorities should reflect the need to protect globally important species and ecosystems. 1168 483 (41.4) 122 (10.4) 5.041–5.434
4. Conservation success demands significant changes in human population growth. 1162 514 (44.2) 168 (14.5) 4.880–5.407
5. People should be offered incentives to change their behavior to conserve species and ecosystems. 1166 465 (39.9) 139 (11.9) 4.863–5.280
6. Conservation should prevent the human-caused extinction of species. 1170 447 (38.2) 128 (10.9) 4.808–5.193
7. The best way to understand what works in conservation is through the systematic comparative analysis of multiple cases or experiments. 1164 435 (37.4) 141 (12.1) 4.586–4.963
8. Conservation efforts should also address poverty alleviation. 1170 384 (32.8) 204 (17.4) 3.882–4.366
9. Science should be used to determine—not simply inform—policy and management decisions affecting biological diversity. 1156 395 (34.2) 277 (24.0) 3.806–4.341
10. Humans have a moral duty to conserve biological diversity. 1169 377 (32.2) 209 (17.9) 3.721–4.183
11. People should be made to change their behavior to conserve species and ecosystems. 1169 362 (31.0) 221 (18.9) 3.618–4.055
12. Conservation success demands dramatic changes in life-styles of the world's rich. 1167 363 (31.1) 256 (21.9) 3.541–4.042
13. Conservation planning should concentrate on key priorities, instead of spreading effort across all locations. 1167 311 (26.6) 184 (15.8) 3.303–3.685
14. Conservation effort should be focused on creating protected areas of high biological diversity. 1173 306 (26.1) 207 (17.6) 3.261–3.661
15. To be effective, conservation planning must be done locally. 1170 312 (26.7) 208 (17.8) 3.251–3.651
16. All species have a right to exist. 1165 275 (23.6) 275 (23.6) 3.001–3.454
17. Successful conservation demands the strict enforcement of regulations and laws. 1169 291 (24.9) 257 (22.0) 2.970–3.406
18. Biological diversity should be conserved because of its potential future values. 1166 275 (23.6) 255 (21.9) 2.692–3.059
19. Conservation action should be focused on areas where it can be most cost-effective. 1164 256 (22.0) 312 (26.8) 2.418–2.811
20. Conservation action is needed in areas extensively modified by human activity. 1172 238 (20.3) 286 (24.4) 2.353–2.708
21. Conservation success demands the de-carbonization of the global economy. 1167 217 (18.6) 318 (27.2) 2.253–2.643
22. There should be conservation areas free from any human influence. 1162 210 (18.1) 358 (30.8) 2.017–2.390
23. Biological diversity should be conserved to ensure human survival. 1162 224 (19.3) 381 (32.8) 2.008–2.411
24. The best way to understand what works in conservation is the in-depth study of individual cases. 1163 169 (14.5) 292 (25.1) 1.798–2.087
25. Effective conservation planning must be based on geographic information science. 1177 174 (14.8) 347 (29.5) 1.617–1.901
26. Conservation priorities should be set by the people most affected by them. 1166 122 (10.5) 435 (37.3) 1.195–1.484
27. Biological diversity should be conserved because of its cultural and spiritual value. 1161 106 (9.1) 359 (30.9) 1.149–1.375
28. Trade in wild species and their products can work as a tool for conservation. 1171 89 (7.6) 522 (44.6) 0.813–1.038
29. Conservation must do no harm to human communities. 1158 80 (6.9) 517 (44.6) 0.730–0.933
30. Biological diversity should be conserved because of the beauty of nature. 1164 69 (5.9) 530 (45.5) 0.654–0.834
31. The value of biological diversity depends on its usefulness to people. 1157 88 (7.6) 672 (58.1) 0.543–0.765
32. Long-term residents should be displaced from protected areas if conservation needs warrant. 1165 35 (3.0) 624 (53.6) 0.371–0.483

Management and Policy Opinions

The 17 statements about conservation interventions, triage, and the management of biological diversity were used in a LC analysis of respondents’ conservation-strategy orientation. A 6-class LC cluster model minimized BIC. Twenty-one bivariate residuals were significant at the 5% level in the first model, indicating substantial local dependence among the conservation-strategy indicators. I sequentially deleted eight indicators (statements 3.2, 3.2, 1.4, 3.6, 3.1, 2.2, 2.4, and 3.4) to eliminate all significant bivariate residuals. The final model (n= 582 respondents, 86 parameters) was well supported by the data (entropy R 2 = 0.73, classification error = 14.3%). The classes (Fig. 2) were indicative of the diversity of opinions held by scientists on strategic approaches to conservation. The indicator variables dropped from the analysis are fully described in Supporting Information.

Membership in latent-class clusters (y-axis) on the basis of scientists’ level of agreement with potentially controversial conservation management strategies (cluster 6, protesters [n =3], not included) (SD, strongly disagree D, disagree N, neither agree nor disagree A, agree SA, strongly agree full statements with which respondents were presented: 1.1, “We should be helping species adapt by letting them stay natural and letting the processes go as they will as climate changes.” 1.2, “Assisted migration interventions are doomed to failure. Our history of biological manipulation has not gone well and there is no reason to think that future manipulations will go better.” 1.3, “Climate change is going to force our hand. We need to use assisted migration to move species that can't get around urban and agricultural barriers to places where they are going to be more likely to persist.” 1.5, “We don't have the framework for tolerating loss. We have to figure out, for critical ecosystems to start with, what are the minimum number of species within functional groups that are essential for ecosystem services? We need to protect them even if we lose others.” 2.1, “Inevitably one has to make some harsh decisions such as what you give up on. No doubt there will be species that we should and will give up on.” 2.3, “We have spent tons of money trying to save some icon species. If we went purely from a triage perspective, we would have let those species go extinct. But if an icon species can attract extra money for conservation, it is not taking resources from other conservation programs. Triage could thus harm conservation efforts by limiting our capacity to raise money.” 2.5, “We cannot justify major triage choices because we don't know the role of particular species in ecosystems.” 3.5, “We need more rules, better monitoring, increased enforcement, and larger fines. Making damaging human behavior illegal and expensive is central to any strategy meant to protect biological diversity.” 3.7, “Conserving biological diversity in an era of climate change means conservation professionals need to be willing to rethink conservation goals and standards of success.”).

One cluster, mainstream moderates, composed 43.2% of the sample respondents in this cluster tended to be relatively neutral on most statements. The distinguishing characteristics of a second naturally oriented cluster (32.0% of the sample) was respondents’ relatively strong focus on helping species stay natural (indicator 1.1 [“We should be helping species adapt by letting them stay natural and letting the processes go as they will as climate changes.”]), pessimism regarding assisted migration (indicators 1.3 [“Climate change is going to force our hand. We need to use assisted migration to move species that can't get around urban and agricultural barriers to places where they are going to be more likely to persist.”] and 1.5 [“We don't have the framework for tolerating loss. We have to figure out, for critical ecosystems to start with, what are the minimum number of species within functional groups that are essential for ecosystem services? We need to protect them even if we lose others.”]), and unwillingness to protect some species at the expense of others (indicator 2.1 [“Inevitably one has to make some harsh decisions such as what you give up on. No doubt there will be species that we should and will give up on.”]). Respondents in this cluster were relatively neutral on triage issues.

Respondents in the third cluster (13.2% of the sample), interventionists, were more supportive of direct conservation interventions. They strongly agreed that conservation goals needed rethinking (indicator 3.7 [“Conserving biological diversity in an era of climate change means that conservation professionals need to be willing to rethink conservation goals and standards of success.”]), that the use of triage should not be discounted because of a lack of ecological knowledge (indicator 2.5 [“We cannot justify major triage choices because we don't know the role of particular species in ecosystems.”]), and that conservation actions should not be taken for some species (indicator 2.1). Although they were supportive of assisted migration, they also expressed some pessimism about the probability of success of this strategy (indicators 1.2 [“Assisted migration interventions are doomed to failure. Our history of biological manipulation has not gone well and there is no reason to think that future manipulations will go better.”] and 1.5).

Respondents in cluster 4, preservationists, did not agree with assisted migration (indicator 1.3), disagreed that some species should be protected at the expense of others (indicators 1.5 and 2.1), and were supportive of more regulation of human behavior (indicator 3.5 [“We need more rules, better monitoring, increased enforcement, and larger fines. Making damaging human behavior illegal and expensive is central to any strategy meant to protect biological diversity.”]).

Respondents in cluster 5 (4.0% of the sample), conservationists, did not agree that some species should be protected at the expense of others (indicators 1.5 and 2.1), were supportive of assisted migration efforts (indicators 1.2 and 1.3), skeptical of triage (indicators 2.3 [“We have spent tons of money trying to save some icon species. If we went purely from a triage perspective, we would have let those species go extinct. But if an icon species can attract extra money for conservation, it is not taking resources from other conservation programs. Triage could thus harm conservation efforts by limiting our capacity to raise money.”] and 2.5), and were quite supportive of more conservation rules and their enforcement (indicator 3.5). Only three respondents were in cluster 6, protestors. They strongly disagreed with most statements and either did not pay attention to survey questions or were exhibiting protest responses because they did not like the questions. Their responses are not included in Fig. 2.

Opinions regarding effective conservation strategies differed significantly (χ 2 = 23.25, df = 5, p= 0.01) among residents of the following 2 groups of countries or regions: (1) Africa, Asia, and Europe and (2) Australia, New Zealand, Pacific Islands, North America, Latin America, and Caribbean. Membership in the interventionist cluster was over 10% higher for scientists from the second group, whereas scientists from the first group were 6.8% more likely to be members of the preservationist cluster (Supporting Information). No other significant differences in the predictive ability of any of the professional or demographic covariates in the model were detected. Alternatively, opinions regarding conservation strategies differed significantly on the basis of h index (χ 2 = 16.29, df = 5, p= 0.09). Scientists with h≥ 13 were almost 12% less likely to be members of the naturally-oriented cluster and almost 9% more likely to be members of the interventionist cluster than scientists with h < 13 (Supporting Information).


21: Conservation - Biology

Read the CCB 2020 Annual Report.

By: Bryan Watts
1/5/21

Conservation is an ethic – the purposeful consideration of the welfare of other species in our daily decisions and actions, a life path that includes always putting more into the jar than we take out. Conservation biology is a data-driven science that develops techniques and strategies designed to achieve specific population or ecosystem objectives. These two elements come together in the socio-political mosh pit that often determines the fate of natural systems. Within this morass, individuals with passion and steadfast convictions drive outcomes. They are the selfless conservation champions who consider it their personal responsibility to act.

Charlie Hacker with an adult osprey trapped on the York River in the 1980s. For many years Charlie worked six days a week in the field with Mitchell Byrd on projects with osprey, peregrine falcons, red-cockaded woodpeckers, herons and others contributing thousands of hours to conservation. Photo by Mitchell Byrd.

Regardless of the color of our skin, how much money is in our bank account or our political persuasion, most people care about nature. We are surrounded by conservation champions – the neighbor who sets aside a vacant lot for the pair of whip-poor-wills that return every year to nest, the farmer who leaves a fallow buffer for the kestrel and the young girl who donates her allowance to help build a butterfly garden. These conscious, voluntary actions connect them to a large community of planetary citizens.

Reese Lukei with a peregrine falcon trapped during the fall at Wise Point. Reese banded more than 10,000 passage raptors during the fall over a twenty-year period to monitor peregrine recovery. He has worked with nesting osprey and eagles in lower tidewater for decades. Photo by Reese Lukei.

The Center for Conservation Biology is fortunate to have an essential group of conservation champions who directly or indirectly have been involved with or responsible for our ongoing work. Most have no formal training in biology. They come from all walks of life. What connects them is an enduring passion for the welfare of bird populations. They give of themselves to improve the lot of other species and in so doing enrich and inspire us all.

In the CCB 2020 Annual Report, I have highlighted a small sample of the many people who have contributed to what we do.

No matter your age, situation or background, you have something to contribute to other species. Consider adding your unique talents to the effort.


21: Conservation - Biology


Last Updated 05 May 2004
Readings to be accessed only by students currently enrolled in the course.
Return to Environmental Biology 2004 Home Page

Environmental Biology Course
ECOL 206, spring 2004, University of Arizona
Kevin Bonine, Ph.D., Jessie Cable, TA, Chuck Price, TA

Evolving Lecture Schedule

*chapter assignments refer to Miller's Sustaining the Earth , 6 th edition, 2003
other reading assignments will be available here as links unless otherwise noted

Other than your weekly current events assignments, we have noted important dates in RED below.

DATE
LECTURE TOPIC
READINGS*
GUEST?

Lect. 1 Introductions and Syllabus

Ishmael (17 copies on reserve in UA library)

Lect. 2 What is Environmental Science?

Lect. 3 Natural Resources and Sustainability

Kates, Robert. 2000. Population and consumption: what we know, what we need to know. Environment 42(3):10-19.

Lect. 4 Ecology's Base (Matter, Energy, Hierarchy), Biogeochemical Cycles

Lect. 5 Ecology and Ecosystems

Leopold, Aldo. 1949. Thinking like a mountain, Aldo Leopold. p. 137-141 In: A Sand County Almanac . Oxford University Press, Ballantine Books, NY.

Lect. 6 Biological Invasions

Lect. 7 Ecosystems and Species

Lect. 8 Biomes and Habitats (Water vs. Land)

Lect. 9 Population Dynamics, Succession

Dillard, Annie. 1974. Fecundity. Ch. 10 In: Pilgrim at Tinker Creek , Annie Dillard. HarperCollins, NY.

Lect. 10 Extinction and Biodiversity

Lect. 11 Urbanization and wildlife

Lect. 12 Evolution, Natural Selection, and Adaptation

Quammen, David. 1985. Is sex necessary? p. 169-174 In: Natural Acts , David Quammen. Nick Lyons Books, NY.

Lect. 13 Evolution, Natural Selection, and Adaptation

Lect. 15 Human Population and Urbanization

Stoel, Thomas Jr. 1999. Reining in urban sprawl. Environment 41(4):6-11,29-33.

Lect. 16 Energy and Consumption

Ecological Footprint (Take yours here)
(Optional, more detailed footprint).

Lect. 18 Conservation Biology (Ecosystems)

D. Backer (+ other from Nature Conservancy) , guests

Lect. 19 Habitat Loss, Deforestation

Lect. 20 Biosphere Reserves

Replace: Batisse, Michel. 1997. Biosphere reserves: a challenge for biodiversity conservation & regional development. Environment. 39(5):7-15, 31-33.
with: UNESCO biosphere brochure and optional in-depth discussion of ecosystem approach

Lect. 21 Conservation Biology (Species approach)

CH8 , SDCP overview
Feel free to also browse the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan Website

05 Mar ( 206 Lab Binder due, and Group Project Outline )

Lect. 22 Conservation (Treaties, Laws)

B. Steidl, guest
Steidl's lecture: PowerPoint or PDF file

Levidow, Les. 1999. Regulating Bt maize in the United States and Europe. Environment 41(10):10-22.

Lect. 24 Soils and Food, NGOs, sustainable agriculture

Rifkin, Jeremy. 1992. Ecological colonialism Ch. 27 In: Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture , Jeremy Rifkin. Plume, Penguin Books, NY.

Lect. 26 Pesticides and pseudoestrogens

Lect. 27 Silent Spring, Our Stolen Future, Risks, Toxicology, Human Health

Gore, Al. 1994. Introduction
In: Silent Spring , Rachel Carson. 1962. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Colborn, Theo, Dianne Dumanski, and John Peterson Myers. 1997. Flying blind. CH. 14 In: Our Stolen Future , Colborn, Dumanski, and Myers. Plume, Penguin Books, NY.

Lect. 28 National Parks and Conservation Issues

29 Mar ( Article Review/Summary due )

Lect. 30 Global Warming and Ozone, Climate Change

Revkin, Andrew. 2003. Warming is found to disrupt species. New York Times . 02 Jan: A1,15.

van der Leun, Jan, Xiaoyan Tang, and Manfred Tevini. 1995. Environmental effects of ozone depletion: 1994 assessment, executive summary. Ambio 24(3):138-142.


Watch the video: Biology and Conservation Science in the 21st Century (February 2023).