Endangered Species, Provincialism, and a Continental Approach to Bird Conservation

I examined lists of endangered species from northeastern and midwestern United States to assess the extent to which they were dominated by species considered rare due to their vulnerability to anthropogenic stressors or, instead, by species whose rarity might be explained otherwise. Northeastern states had longer species lists than midwestern states, and more species associated with locally rare prairie habitats. More species at the edge of their geographic range appeared on lists from the Northeast than the Midwest. About 70% of listed species overall have shown either no significant population trend, or increases, at the continental scale, but wetland and prairie species were frequently listed, consistent with the generally acknowledged, widespread loss of these habitats. Curiously, midwestern states tended to list fewer forest species, despite evidence that forest fragmentation there has had strongly deleterious effects on regional bird populations. Overall, species appear to be listed locally for a variety of reasons not necessarily related to their risk of extinction generally, potentially contributing to inefficient distributions of limited resources to deal effectively with species that legitimately require conservation attention. I advocate a continental perspective when listing species locally, and propose enhanced criteria for characterizing species as endangered at the local level.

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.