Search

Habitat destruction and fragmentation alter the quality of habitats and put populations under the risk of extinction. Changes in population parameters can provide early warning signs of negative impacts. In tropical forests, where habitat loss and fragmentation are vast, such indicators are of high relevance for directing conservation efforts before effects are irreversible. Most of our knowledge from tropical ecosystems originates from community level surveys, whereas our understanding of the influence of habitat conversion on vital rates of species is limited. This study focused on the influence of anthropogenic habitat fragmentation on the survival probability and abundance of three leaf-litter frog species (Rhinellaornata, Ischnocnemaguentheri and I.parva) in forest patches of the Atlantic rainforest of South-east Brazil compared to a continuous forest. The species differ in their matrix tolerance: high for R.ornata and low for I.guentheri and I.parva and, thus, we examined whether their survival and abundance correspond to this classification. Ischnocnemaguentheri showed highest abundances in all study sites and low mortality in the forest patches compared to the continuous forest; I.parva was encountered only in isolated fragments, with very low mortality in one isolated fragment; and the matrix tolerant species had generally low abundance and showed no clear pattern in terms of mortality in the different sites. Our counter-intuitive results show that even matrix sensitive amphibian species may show high abundance and low mortality in small forest patches. Therefore, these patches can be of high value for amphibian conservation regardless of their degree of matrix aversion. Landscape level conservation planning should not abandon small habitat patches, especially in highly fragmented tropical environments.

There are many techniques to deal with uncertainty when modeling data. However, there are many forms of uncertainty that cannot be dealt with mathematically that have to be taken into account when designing a biodiversity monitoring system. Some of these can be minimized by careful planning and quality control, but others have to be investigated during monitoring, and the scale and methods adjusted when necessary to meet objectives. Sources of uncertainty include uncertainty about stakeholders, who will monitor, what to sample, where to sample, causal relationships, species identifications, detectability, distributions, relationships with remote sensing, biotic concordance, complementarity, validity of stratification, and data quality and management. Failure to take into account any of these sources of uncertainty about how the data will be used can make monitoring nothing more than monitoring for the sake of monitoring, and I make recommendations as to how to reduce uncertainties. Some form of standardization is necessary, despite the multiple sources of uncertainty, and experience from RAPELD and other monitoring schemes indicates that spatial standardization is viable and helps reduce many sources of uncertainty. Copyright William E Magnusson.

The ecological literature deals with uncertainty primarily from the perspective of how to reduce it to acceptable levels. However, the current rapid and ubiquitous environmental changes, as well as anticipated rates of change, pose novel conditions and complex dynamics due to which many sources of uncertainty are difficult or even impossible to reduce. These include both uncertainty in knowledge (epistemic uncertainty) and societal responses to it. Under these conditions, an increasing number of studies ask how one can deal with uncertainty as it is. Here, we explore the question how to adopt an overall alternative attitude to uncertainty, which accepts or even embraces it. First, we show that seeking to reduce uncertainty may be counterproductive under some circumstances. It may yield overconfidence, ignoring early warning signs, policy- and societal stagnation, or irresponsible behaviour if personal certainty is offered by externalization of environmental costs. We then demonstrate that uncertainty can have positive impacts by driving improvements in knowledge, promoting cautious action, contributing to keeping societies flexible and adaptable, enhancing awareness, support and involvement of the public in nature conservation, and enhancing cooperation and communication. We discuss the risks of employing a certainty paradigm on uncertain knowledge, the potential benefits of adopting an alternative attitude to uncertainty, and the need to implement such an attitude across scales – from adaptive management at the local scale, to the evolving Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) at the global level. peerReviewed