Biodiversity: bridging the gap between condition and conservation

The aim of this study is to create a two-tiered assessment combining restoration and conservation, both needed for biodiversity management. The first tier of this approach assesses the condition of a site using a standard bioassessment method, AUSRIVAS, to determine whether significant loss of biodiversity has occurred because of human activity. The second tier assesses the conservation value of sites that were determined to be unimpacted in the first step against a reference database. This ensures maximum complementarity without having to set a priori target areas. Using the reference database, we assign site-specific and comparable coefficients for both restoration (Observed/Expected taxa with > 50% probability of occurrence) and conservation values (O/E taxa with < 50%, rare taxa). In a trial on 75 sites on rivers around Sydney, NSW, Australia we were able to identify three regions: (1) an area that may need restoration; (2) an area that had a high conservation value and; (3) a region that was identified as having significant biodiversity loss but with high potential to respond to rehabilitation and become a biodiversity hotspot. These examples highlight the use of the new framework as a comprehensive system for biodiversity assessment.

Implications of current ecological thinking for biodiversity conservation: A review of the salient issues

Given escalating concern worldwide about the loss of biodiversity, and given biodiversity's centrality to quality of life, it is imperative that current ecological knowledge fully informs societal decision making. Over the past two decades, ecological science has undergone many significant shifts in emphasis and perspective, which have important implications for how we manage ecosystems and species. In particular, a shift has occurred from the equilibrium paradigm to one that recognizes the dynamic, non-equilibrium nature of ecosystems. Revised thinking about the spatial and temporal dynamics of ecological systems has important implications for management. Thus, it is of growing concern to ecologists and others that these recent developments have not been translated into information useful to managers and policy makers. Many conservation policies and plans are still based on equilibrium assumptions. A fundamental difficulty with integrating current ecological thinking into biodiversity policy and management planning is that field observations have yet to provide compelling evidence for many of the relationships suggested by non-equilibrium ecology. Yet despite this scientific uncertainty, management and policy decisions must still be made. This paper was motivated by the need for considered scientific debate on the significance of current ideas in theoretical ecology for biodiversity conservation. This paper aims to provide a platform for such discussion by presenting a critical synthesis of recent ecological literature that (1) identifies core issues in ecological theory, and (2) explores the implications of current ecological thinking for biodiversity conservation.

Bioeconomic analysis of aquaculture's impact on wild stocks and biodiversity

Anderson theorizes that development of the aquaculture of a species of fish (also captured in an open-access fishery) favours the conservation of its wild stocks, if competitive market conditions prevail. However, this theory is shown to be subject to significant limitations. While this is less so within his model, it is particularly so in an extended one outlined here. The extended model allows for the possibility that aquaculture development can impact negatively on wild stocks thereby shifting the supply curve of the capture fishery, or raise the demand for the fish species subject both to aquaculture and capture. Such development can threaten wild stocks and their biodiversity. While aquaculture development could in principle have no impact on the biodiversity of wild stocks or even raise aquatic biodiversity overall, its impact in the long-term probably will be one of reducing aquatic diversity both in the wild and overall.