© 2005 Nature Publishing Group

CORRESPONDENCE NATURE|Vol 438|10 November 2005

156

Biodiversity needs the helpof global change managers,not museum-keepers SIR — As observed in your News Feature“Dollars and sense” (Nature 437, 614–616;2005), there is increasing evidence that manyconservation organizations remain focusedon single species instead of addressing theurgent problems caused by loss of ecosystemfunctionality.

More and more conservation scientists are calling for a holistic approach thatconsiders ecological processes and thefunctional properties of ecosystems, ratherthan just parts and patterns of species, ascrucial conservation targets (see, for example,P. Kareiva and M. Marvier Am. Sci. 91,344–351; 2003).

However, ecosystem functions — whichbecome services when used by people — are not yet considered in most mainstreamconservation approaches. Another shortcoming is the rather static view ofbiodiversity held by many conservationorganizations today. Thus, there are evenmore reasons for a paradigm shift inconservation than those addressed in your News Feature.

Ecosystem functionality means that an ecosystem itself can sustain processesrequired to maintain its parts by being, for example, resilient enough to return to its previous state after environmentaldisturbance. Functionality depends invarious specific ways on the quantity and quality of a system’s biodiversity. An important characteristic of ecosystemfunctionality is that it develops and respondsdynamically to constantly occurringenvironmental changes.

The anthropogenic climate change that isexpected during the next century looms as an overarching and unprecedented threat tobiodiversity. The predicted rate of warmingalone may move many species well beyondtheir current climate-niche ranges.

Some species will find themselves in habitats that are unsuitable in manysecondary ways, for example, as specificbreeding microhabitats or for symbioticinteraction with other species.

Further, individual species within an ecosystem will be threatened byunpredictable factors, such as changes inseasonal resources and in the biogeography

of pathogens, predators and competitors,which could trigger extinction events.

Although ecosystems never have been in a steady state and species distributions havealways been on the move at one timescale oranother, it is now more clear than ever that itis impossible to statically conserve currentbiodiversity patterns, in hotspots oranywhere else.

Unfortunately, many conservationists havenot yet grasped the need to be ‘global changemanagers’ rather than museum-keepers, ashift of perception that is urgently required tomitigate the impacts of global change andhelp ecosystems adapt to them.Pierre L. Ibisch*, Michael D. Jennings†, Stefan Kreft* *University of Applied Sciences Eberswalde,Alfred-Möller-Str. 1, 16225 Eberswalde, Germany †The Nature Conservancy, Global ConservationApproach Team, 530 South Asbury, Moscow,Idaho 83843, USA

Biodiversity: journals musttake a broader viewSIR — Biodiversity hotspots have been usefultools in prioritization, particularly inidentification of critical gaps in protectedareas. The analysis of avian hotspots cited in your News Feature “Dollars and sense”(Nature 437, 614–616; 2005) did not findthem ineffective, but recognized thathotspots based on different taxa or indices arenot necessarily congruent and a syntheticapproach is required.

Although, as your News Feature suggests,more attention needs to be paid to preservingecosystem function, we are facing a biodiversity crisis. Neither ecosystemfunction nor hotspots should be the solefocus of conservation efforts: we need both.Arguing the economic perspective may be agood approach to lobbying, but it is not areplacement for urgent, targeted action.

Conservation efforts also requireevaluation: audits require detailed appraisal, in addition to any reportingrequired by donors. Large conservationorganizations can fulfil these criteriarelatively easily, but most conservationpractitioners are small scale, depending on volunteers, drawing on very limited funds and lacking spare capacity to permit such audit. Limited audit wouldprovide a certain amount of information, but only from the most easily reviewed andmost positive cases.

For conservation efforts to be maximallyuseful, failures must be reported as candidlyas successes.

The real gap lies not so much in analysisbut in reporting: we need journal editors to take a broader view of what is of interest to a wide readership and to consider more

case studies, even when these are not‘groundbreaking’. Publication of results needsto be brought into the mainstream. Thisrequires a major editorial change, allowing ashift away from the current domination ofanalysis and theory, to reporting of realconservation science. Justin Gerlach Nature Protection Trust of Seychelles, University Museum of Zoology, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK

Biodiversity: saving Floridapanther makes sense SIR — Your News Feature “Dollars andSense” (Nature 437, 614–616; 2005) askswhether we should focus more on economicvalue and less on the biological needs ofimperilled species. You give the Floridapanther (Puma concolor coryi) as an exampleof endangered species recovery that may notmake “economic or scientific sense”. In fact, it does make sense.

The Florida panther was listed by theEndangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973, when perhaps as few as 30 individualsremained in south Florida. The populationcontained low genetic variation and physicalabnormalities associated with inbreedingdepression.

In 1995, wildlife managers embarked on a genetic restoration programme, releasingfemale Texas pumas into south Florida. Asubsequent reduction in genetically baseddefects and an increase in survival andreproduction suggest that the programmewas a success.

Today the population numbers nearly 90individuals, an astonishing increase, directlyattributable to ESA measures. Althoughsignificant threats remain, the panther nowhas a fighting chance at recovery.

The News Feature does not consider theeconomic value of conserving panthers. Thespecies is a major attraction for tourists, andmore than 1.3 million speciality licence plateshave been purchased by people in Florida,generating more than $30 million for panther conservation.

Interested readers may contact the authorat hartt@nwf.org for a list of publications onFlorida panther conservation.Laura Hartt National Wildlife Federation, 1330 West Peachtree Street, Suite 475, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, USA

Contributions to Correspondence may be submitted to corres@nature.com. They should be no longer than 500 words,and ideally shorter. They should be signed by no more than three authors;preferably by one. Published contributionsare edited.

“The anthropogenic climate change that is expected during the next century looms as an overarching andunprecedented threat. ” — P. Ibisch, M. Jennings, S. Kreft

10.11 correspondence MH 7/11/05 4:57 PM Page 156

Nature Publishing Group© 2005