7
This article was downloaded by: [King Mongkuts University of Technology Thonburi] On: 06 October 2014, At: 17:47 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tnzr20 What is conservation biology and why is it so important? David R. Given a a David Given & Associates , 101 Jeffreys Road, Christchurch Published online: 14 Jun 2013. To cite this article: David R. Given (1993) What is conservation biology and why is it so important?, Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 23:2, 55-60, DOI: 10.1080/03036758.1993.10721217 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03036758.1993.10721217 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and- conditions

What is conservation biology and why is it so important?

  • Upload
    david-r

  • View
    213

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

This article was downloaded by: [King Mongkuts University of Technology Thonburi]On: 06 October 2014, At: 17:47Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of the Royal Society of NewZealandPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tnzr20

What is conservation biology and why isit so important?David R. Given aa David Given & Associates , 101 Jeffreys Road, ChristchurchPublished online: 14 Jun 2013.

To cite this article: David R. Given (1993) What is conservation biology and why is it so important?,Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 23:2, 55-60, DOI: 10.1080/03036758.1993.10721217

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03036758.1993.10721217

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions andviews expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and arenot the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should notbe relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

© Journal of The Royal Society of New Zealand, Volume 23, Number 2, June 1993, pp 55-60

What is conservation biology and why is it so important?

David R. Given*

Important characteristics of conservation biology are that it is a crisis discipline and it is holistic. It needs integration of research and management, and a range of relevant skills, along with flexible funding to allow for inevitable changes in conservation research programmes. Research agendas are discussed, and four focal points suggested at both the species and the ecosystem levels. Gaps between intention and practice are a current barrier to effective implementation of the principles of conservation biology, and should be overcome by better planning and targeted research. The overall importance of conservation biology lies not only in its contribution to sustaining human life and welfare, but also in maintaining processes fundamental to the health of the biosphere.

Keywords: biodiversity, conservation, research agendas, science management, integration, research funding

A CRISIS DISCIPLINE

The antecedents of conservation in the broadest sense go back to the dawn of agriculture, when people saved special seeds for a specific purpose. However, conservation biology evolved as a scientific discipline in its own right in the late 1970s and early 1980s, with the realization that there is an increasing need to "save all" seed. Conservation biology has been defined as the development of appropriate scientific principles and the application of those principles to developing technologies for the maintenance of biological diversity (Tangley, 1988).

Conservation biology has two fundamental characteristics (Soule, 1985) that differentiate it from many other branches of science. The first is that it is a crisis discipline. As with other crisis disciplines, action in conservation must often be taken before all the facts can be assembled. Because of its concern with imminent threat and extinction, it is under severe time constraints. A second characteristic of conservation biology is that it is holistic, in the sense that it embraces a wide range of disciplines and theories including island biogeography, genetics, ecology, patch dynamics, pedology, nutrient recycling and hazard evaluation.

Soule ( 1985) aptly compares conservation biology with cancer research. Anyone who has been caught up in the cruel world of the cancer ward soon learns two things. First, solutions are rarely simple, and even the simplest require specialist skills involving many people from throughout the medical profession. Second, time is at a premium - there is no time to wait until next years' research results before starting treatment.

Similarly, time-scales are critical in conservation biology and management. Conservation deals with the viability of systems ranging far beyond individual lifespans. This poses difficulties for those who are unable to, or not used to, making firm commitments far into the future. As suggested recently:

"Humans are a brink species. They don't do much until a situation approaches a disaster. At that point they throw lots of money at a problem. I think we're beginning to see this in conservation." (Soule in Tangley, 1988: 445)

*David Given & Associates, 101 Jeffreys Road, Christchurch

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

g M

ongk

uts

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y T

honb

uri]

at 1

7:47

06

Oct

ober

201

4

56 Journal of The Royal Society of New Zealand, Volume 23, 1993

AXIOMS IN CONSERVATION BIOLOGY

Soule (1985) suggests several functional postulates for conservation biology. These are axioms which suggest rules for action, and are a useful starting point. ( 1) Many of the species that constitute natural communities are the products of coevolutionary

processes. Corollaries of this include the facts that species are interdependent; that many species are highly specialized; that extinctions of keystone species can have long-range consequences; and that introduction of generalist species may reduce diversity.

(2) Many, if not all, ecological processes have thresholds below and above which they become discontinuous or chaotic.

(3) Genetic and demographic processes have thresholds below which nonadaptive, random forces begin to prevail over adaptive, deterministic forces within populations.

(4) Nature reserves are inherently in disequilibrium for large, rare organisms. Soule (1985) also suggests four normative postulates. These are value statements that

make up the basis of an ethic of appropriate attitudes towards other forms of life - an ecosophy. They provide standards by which our actions can be measured. (1) Diversity of organisms is good; (2) Ecological complexity is good; (3) Evolution is good; (4) Biotic diversity has intrinsic value.

These normative postulates represent a moral component for conservation biology. Unlike many other scientific disciplines, moral aspects are being increasingly recognised as a very significant component (e.g., Engel and Engel, 1990).

INTEGRATED CONSERVATION

As noted already, conservation biology is dependent on the wise application of many specialist skills. But commonly there is lack of coordination, and sometimes an element of competition, especially between research and management, and in both in situ and ex situ conservation. Similar lack of coordination can exist between academic and pragmatic approaches to conservation problems. Recent consideration of in situ, ex situ and restorative approaches, as interacting elements of an overall conservation strategy rather than alternatives, is an important development in application of conservation biology (Falk, 1990; Falk and Holsinger, 1991; Given, 1992).

Particular problems can arise with the allocation of State funding for conservation biology. As a generality, "pure" conservation research based on the disciplines such as ecology, population biology and reproductive biology are regarded as the domain of major research funding agencies (in New Zealand chiefly the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology). More "practical" conservation research, which leads to such outputs as recovery plans and protected areas is the domain of protection agencies such as the New Zealand Department of Conservation and the private sector through sponsorship programmes.

In practice, such simple distinctions can rarely be drawn. Pure and applied research, management, ex situ and in situ approaches are inextricably entwined (Hopkins and Saunders, 1987). It is feedback loops between research and management which indicate the relevance and validity of particular approaches to problems, and which generate new hypotheses to be tested by both the scientist and the manager.

Directions for research are likely to change as a research programme develops. A likely scenario might be as follows.

Year one of a funded programme of conservation biology may involve a relatively simple inventory, census and survey of threatened populations, perhaps making comparisons with common species. Census data and inventory is important. Some ecophysiological monitoring may be initiated, and preliminary demographic data may obtained.

By the end of the first year, it becomes apparent that the complete story is complex. Ecophysiological findings lead on to examination of anatomical features, and analysis of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

g M

ongk

uts

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y T

honb

uri]

at 1

7:47

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Given - What is conservation biology? 57

physical and chemical properties of soils. Investigation of a previously unknown disease problem may require a microbiologist, or reproductive failure may require the skills of a reproduction biologist.

In subsequent years, these experts in tum may find that research is required on little known interactions with other organisms such as pollinators and dispersers. Recalcitrance in propagation may lead to horticultural or silvicultural research. Later, the project may require cytological study and analysis of isozyme or DNA variation to detect gene flow and metapopulation structure.

It is critically important that planning and funding of conservation biology take account of inevitable expansions and contractions in a research programme. Effective conservation depends on research providing solutions which are pragmatic, innovative and realistic, yet rarely obvious at the outset. Funding formulae must facilitate this.

No single approach is the right approach in every instance. Protection of habitat is important but must be meshed with, and sometimes may be subservient to, off-site conservation. In one instance translocation may be the appropriate primary strategy, but in another it may be quite inappropriate (Falk, 1990).

To achieve integration requires effective communication, with emphasis on listening. It requires realistic assessment and use of resources, not just one's own but those of other people and agencies. It involves funding and research policies to facilitate this. Finally, integration demands commitment to a learning curve so that each experiment and experience becomes a stepping stone to doing better in the future.

RESEARCH AGENDAS

Conservation biology is highly vulnerable to political whims and public pressure, so long­term defensible agendas appropriate to a range of biodiversity levels from gene to biome are essential. Global agendas have been drawn up, especially for the tropics (e.g., Myers 1986; National Academy of Sciences 1980), but at the national level a comprehensive agenda for conservation biology in the New Zealand environment is yet to be formulated.

In setting a research agenda for the tropics the National Academy of Sciences (1980) pointed to general gaps in scientific knowledge essential to effective conservation practice. These gaps, which are just as relevant to temperate regions, include lack of general scientific knowledge about ecosystem function, the need for effective mechanisms for sustained use of ecosystems, lack of biological inventory, lack of in-depth studies of particular ecosystems at selected sites, and a need for monitoring of ecosystem change.

Despite increasing emphasis on the ecosystem as a focus of attention, endangered species are likely to remain a major agenda item. Important species level priorities include the following. (1) Keystone species (those whose presence or absence affects the functioning of entire

ecosystems), indicator species (those used to measure the health of ecosystems), and species particularly sensitive to fragmentation or invasion.

(2) Climatic-change scenarios are drawing attention to one of the more surprising gaps in the study of biodiversity at the species level: how little is known about the precise terminal mechanisms of extinction.

(3) There is a need for study of types of rarity. A recent analysis by Mcintyre (1992) of eastern Australian threatened species shows that widespread but sparse species constitute a highly significant but generally overlooked class of rarity which is particularly prone to extirpation. A problem is that highly localised endemic species (point endemics) such as those found on small islands, are likely to be emphasised at the expense of such species.

(4) Demographic and ecophysiological study of the "living dead", which are species in which reproduction is at such a low level that populations are generally composed of aging cohorts of adults. A variety of causes may lead to this condition, including loss of pollinators, genetic unfitness, seed or seedling predation, and possibly evolutionary senility (Weins et al., 1984). Such taxa are functionally extinct.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

g M

ongk

uts

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y T

honb

uri]

at 1

7:47

06

Oct

ober

201

4

58 Journal of The Royal Society of New Zealand, Volume 23, 1993

In considering the levels of communities and ecosystems four general topics require much more study. (1) The spatial and hierarchical organization of diversity. (2) The precise mechanisms and interactions which are fundamental to biological communities

and ecosystems. (3) The effect of human disturbance on ecosystems in terms of both periodicity and magnitude,

and the short- and long-term effects of fragmentation. (4) Natural mitigation of human-induced degradation and the ways in which this can be

replicated artificially. The effects of fragmentation and stress are particularly important. The future will see

many more landscapes in which indigenous habitats will be islands in human-dominated habitats. Management of such landscapes requires much better understanding than at the present time of how communities and ecosystems function. Conservation biology is in need of large-scale field experiments in land management, restoration techniques, reintroductions (translocations), selective removal and addition of species, and minimum size of viable protected areas.

Practical and measurable outcomes are important (Myers, 1986). There is need to determine which taxonomic levels are being most affected by broad-scale environmental degradation and destruction, the time required for recovery from large-scale extinctions and disruption, the potential of climate change for reducing biodiversity, and those projects which give the best return to conservation management for the limited resources available.

It has been recently pointed out that agenda-setting and prioritizing for rare plants in New Zealand is assuming a new urgency (Given, 1992). This is because of the speed and extent of environmental change, the increasing size of threatened species lists, and the chronic lack of resources available to conserve all threatened species.

The best of research agendas can founder in the face of inadequate or misplaced funding. Funding is a crisis issue. Too often the top priority is given to "fire brigade action" to salvage ecosystems and species, at the expense of more fundamental research which may help avoid such situations in the future. Frequently, survey, inventory and monitoring are regarded as trivial. Often there is an unrealistic expectation that every funded project will be a winner. It is worth recalling the rule of thumb often adopted by financiers of venture capital: out of ten projects, five are likely to be losers, three may break even, and the profits from only two will balance the losses on the rest. Considering the nature of conservation biology, constant success is exceedingly unlikely.

THE GAP BETWEEN INTENTION AND PRACTICE One particularly important endpoint of conservation biology is the reinforcing of existing populations, or the establishment of new ones, which are fully replicating and sustainable in the wild. But for plants at least, there are few instances where this has been achieved (B. Pavlik pers. comm. 1991). Yet management and recovery plans - the conservation wish lists - list monitoring, population recovery programmes and translocation exercises as though they were routinely successful outcomes. What should happen does not match what actually happens.

There is a need to progress beyond superficial fieldwork, desk-based planning and library­or herbarium-based inventories in order to achieve results which are biologically meaningful. Research and management must accomplish not only short-term rescues, but also satisfy long-term needs measured in hundreds of years.

Conservation biology is far more than just knowing where species live, listing what is under threat, and making generalised statements about populations. It means well-planned genetic, demographic and ecological research. It means understanding the extremes of commonness and rarity. It involves quantitative, long-term studies of target individuals, and their biological characteristics and environmental responses. Simberloff ( 1988) has pointed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

g M

ongk

uts

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y T

honb

uri]

at 1

7:47

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Given - What is conservation biology? 59

out that sound conservation science must be founded on autecological studies of individual systems, their interdependencies, and the habitat requirements of their component species.

WHY IS CONSERVATION BIOLOGY IMPORTANT? Much of the world's current research budget is absorbed by military and high technology science. Humanity might be inconvenienced if ever we lost the hard disk, the compact disk and the floppy disk, but such losses would hardly be life threatening or paralytic. Conversely, the alleviation of debilitating pain from, and curing of, a slipped disc is likely to involve pharmaceuticals from natural sources or use of analogues of natural chemicals; yet the danger of losing these natural products is accelerating all the time.

We readily under-estimate the contribution of natural products to industries such as pharmaceuticals and the welfare of both the developing and developed world. Plants used in traditional, folk and herbal medicine meet about 75% of the medical needs of the Third World (Principe 1988). Annual sales of plant-derived drugs in the United States for 1980 were over $8 billion (Farnsworth and Soejarto 1985). Serendipity provides a cogent argument for conservation of as much biodiversity as possible for future generations.

In agriculture, a handful of plant species stand between the world's population and starvation (Plucknett et al., 1987). We need only ask where the genes for our breakfast today originated to appreciate that a very small percentage of crop production in developed countries like the USA and New Zealand is based on species which originated outside the country. Biodiversity is an international phenomenon of immense economic and social importance to agriculture. Conservation biology is primarily concerned with understanding and maintaining this diversity.

Ultimately, the most important aspect of conservation biology is its contribution to maintaining processes that support biosphere function. Life on earth has a long geological history but there is no guarantee of its continuance, if extensive biodiversity losses continue (Given 1990; Wilson 1988). Although agreement is lacking on precise extinction and genetic depletion rates, "models that link species extinction to habitat loss suggest that rapid rises in the rate of extinction to levels approaching those of historic mass extinctions may be difficult to avoid in the next century unless current rates of deforestation and other habitat loss are sharply reduced" (World Bank 1992, p.6). In a very real sense, conservation biology is life science.

REFERENCES Engel, J.R. and J.G. Engel (Eds), 1990. Ethics of Environment and Development. Belhaven, London. Falk, D.A., 1990. Integrated strategies for conserving plant genetic diversity. Annals Missouri Botanical

Garden 77: 38~7 Falk, D.A. and Holsinger, K.E. (Eds), 1991. Genetics and Conservation of Rare Plants. Oxford

University Press, New York. Farnsworth, N.R. and Soejarto, D.D., 1985. Potential consequence of plant extinction in the United

States on the current and future availability of prescription drugs. Economic Botany 39:231-240. Given, D.R., 1990. Conserving botanical diversity on a global scale. Annals Missouri Botanical Garden

77: 48-62. Given, D.R., 1992. Priorities for plant conservation in New Zealand. In Butler, G., Meredith, L. and

Richardson M. (Eds): Conservation of Rare or Threatened Plants in Australasia, pp 19-30. Australian National Botanic Gardens, Canberra.

Hopkins, A.J.M. and Saunders, D.A., 1987. Ecological studies as the basis for management. In Saunders, D.A., Arnold, G.W., Burbidge, A.A. and Hopkins, A.J.M (Editors): Nature Conservation: the Role of Remnants of Vegetation, pp 15-28. Surrey Beatty, Chipping Norton, Australia.

Mclnytre, S., 1992. Risks associated with the setting of conservation priorities from rare plant lists. Biological Conservation 60: 31-37.

Myers, N., 1986. Nature conservation at global level: the scientific issues. Inaugural lecture for the new Chair and Visiting Professorship, University of Utrecht, Netherlands.

National Academy of Sciences, 1980. Research Priorities in Tropical Biology. Report of Committee on Research Priorities in Tropical Biology, National Academy of Sciences, Washington.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

g M

ongk

uts

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y T

honb

uri]

at 1

7:47

06

Oct

ober

201

4

60 Journal of The Royal Society of New 'Zealand, Volume 23, 1993

Plucknett, D.L., Smith, N.J.H, Williams, J.T., and Anishetty, N.M., 1987. Gene Banks and the World's Food. Princeton University, Princeton, USA.

Principe, P.P., 1988. The Economic Value of Biological Diversity Among Medicinal Plants. Report of Environment Directorate, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.

Simberloff, D., 1988. The contribution of population and community biology to conservation science. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19: 473-511.

Soule, M.E., 1985. What is conservation biology? BioScience 35: 727-234. Tangley, L., 1988. Research priorities for conservation. BioScience 38: 444-448. Weins, D., Calvin, C.L., Wilson, C.A.,. Davern, C.I., Frank, D. and Seavey, S.R. 1984. Reproductive

success, spontaneous embryo abortion and genetic load in flowering plants. Oecologia 71: 501-509. World Bank, 1992. World Development Report 1992. Development and the Environment. Oxford

University Press, Oxford. Wilson, E.0., 1988. Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington DC.

Received 26 June 1992; accepted 2 February 1993

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

g M

ongk

uts

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y T

honb

uri]

at 1

7:47

06

Oct

ober

201

4