Big Decisions and Sparse Data: Adapting Scientific Publishing to the Needs of Practical Conservation

The biggest challenge in conservation biology is breaking down the gap between research and practical management. A major obstacle is the fact that many researchers are unwilling to tackle projects likely to produce sparse or messy data because the results would be difficult to publish in refereed journals. The obvious solution to sparse data is to build up results from multiple studies. Consequently, we suggest that there needs to be greater emphasis in conservation biology on publishing papers that can be built on by subsequent research rather than on papers that produce clear results individually. This building approach requires: (1) a stronger theoretical framework, in which researchers attempt to anticipate models that will be relevant in future studies and incorporate expected differences among studies into those models; (2) use of modern methods for model selection and multi-model inference, and publication of parameter estimates under a range of plausible models; (3) explicit incorporation of prior information into each case study; and (4) planning management treatments in an adaptive framework that considers treatments applied in other studies. We encourage journals to publish papers that promote this building approach rather than expecting papers to conform to traditional standards of rigor as stand-alone papers, and believe that this shift in publishing philosophy would better encourage researchers to tackle the most urgent conservation problems.

Stand and within-stand factors influencing Golden-winged Warbler use of regenerating stands in the central Appalachian Mountains

The Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) is currently being considered for protected status under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The creation of breeding habitat in the Appalachian Mountains is considered a conservation priority for this songbird, which is dependent on extensively forested landscapes with adequate availability of young forest. We modeled abundance of Golden-winged Warbler males in regenerating harvested forest stands that were 0-17 years postharvest at both mid-Appalachian and northeast Pennsylvania regional scales using stand and within-stand characteristics of 222 regenerating stands, 2010-2011. Variables that were most influential at the mid-Appalachian scale were different than those in the northeast region. Across the mid-Appalachian ecoregion, the proportion of young forest cover, i.e., shrub/scrub cover, within 1 km of regenerating stands best explained abundance of Golden-winged Warblers. Golden-winged Warbler response was best explained by a concave quadratic relationship in which abundance was highest with 5-15% land in young forest cover. We also found evidence that the amount of herbaceous cover, i.e., the amount of grasses and forbs, within a regenerating stand positively influenced abundance of Golden-winged Warblers. In northeastern Pennsylvania, where young forest cover is found in high proportions, the distance to the nearest regenerating stand best explained variation in abundance of Golden-winged Warblers. Abundance of Golden-winged Warblers was <1 male per survey when another regenerating stand was >1500 m away. When modeling within-stand features in the northeast region, many of the models were closely ranked, indicating that multiple variables likely explained Golden-winged Warbler response to within-stand conditions. Based on our findings, we have proposed several management guidelines for land managers interested in creating breeding habitat for Golden-winged Warblers using commercial timber operations. For example, we recommend when managing for Golden-winged Warblers in the central Appalachian Mountains that managers should strive for 15% young forest in a heavily forested landscape (>70% forest cover) and cluster stands within 1-2 km of other young forest habitats.