Search

Abstract There is a cross‐sectoral push among conservationists to simultaneously mitigate biodiversity loss and climate change, especially as the latter increasingly threatens the former. Growing evidence demonstrates that animals can have substantial impacts on carbon cycling. As such, there are increasing calls to use animal conservation and rewilding to dually overcome biodiversity loss and mitigate climate change. Specifically, trophic rewilding—which involves restoring intact animal communities, functional roles and trophic structure within food webs, and natural ecosystem processes—utilizes a rewilding framework to simultaneously support biodiversity conservation and carbon capture and storage. Trophic rewilding is a complex conservation approach to mitigating climate change, involving accurate estimations of baseline conditions and continuous monitoring of carbon cycling and species impacts within a system. It is also predicated on garnering social support for both the reintroduction and monitoring of a species, and obtaining the animals themselves. We are excited by the growing interest in this potential, but emphasize that a species' net impact on ecosystem carbon dynamics is context‐dependent. Caution is required whenever biodiversity conservation (including rewilding), climate change mitigation, and human welfare do not readily align. Hence—similar to other nature‐based solutions—these burgeoning efforts must avoid sweeping generalizations. To bolster successful trophic rewilding, we highlight a range of social and ecological context dependencies that can vary outcomes in a rewilded carbon cycle and provide ethical considerations for successful implementation. We conclude with an overview of the available technology to predict and monitor progress toward both biodiversity and climate mitigation goals. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Abstract Metacommunity theory has advanced scientific understanding of how species interactions and spatial processes influence patterns of biodiversity and community structure across landscapes. While the central tenets of metacommunity theory have been promoted as pivotal considerations for conservation management, few field experiments have tested the validity of metacommunity predictions. Here, we tested one key prediction of metacommunity theory—that decreasing habitat connectivity should erode metacommunity structure by hindering species movement between patches. For 2 years, we manipulated an experimental old‐field grassland ecosystem via mowing to represent four levels of habitat connectivity: (1) open control, (2) full connectivity, (3) partial connectivity, and (4) no connectivity. Within each treatment plot (10 × 10 m, n = 4 replicates), we measured the abundance and diversity (i.e., alpha and beta) of both flying and ground arthropods using sticky and pitfall traps, respectively. We found that the abundance and diversity of highly mobile flying arthropods were unaffected by habitat connectivity, whereas less mobile ground arthropods were highly impacted. The mean total abundance of ground arthropods was 2.5× and 2× higher in the control and partially connected plots compared to isolated patches, respectively. We also reveal that habitat connectivity affected the trophic interactions of ground arthropods, with predators (e.g., wolf spiders, ground spiders) being highly positively correlated with micro‐detritivores (springtails, mites) but not macro‐detritivores (millipedes, isopods) as habitat connectivity increased. Together these findings indicate that changes in habitat connectivity can alter the metacommunity structure for less mobile organisms such as ground arthropods. Because of their essential roles in terrestrial ecosystem functioning and services, we recommend that conservationists, restoration practitioners, and land managers include principles of habitat connectivity for ground arthropods when designing biodiversity management programs.

Abstract The growing field of conservation and wild animal ethics has the potential to guide practitioners facing difficult management decisions. Drawing from previously established rights frameworks, we explore an applied ethic for wildlife managers and conservationists, outlining when there can be ethical justification and moral obligation to intervene with wildlife. To demonstrate the use of this ethical framework, we apply it specifically to the emerging field of behavioral training in wildlife management. We use a series of case studies to illuminate how ecological context is fundamental to ascertain when there is ethical justification for behavioral training under the framework, and conclude with practical considerations for implementation. Our work explains how a rights‐based ethic emerges from both biological principles and fundamental philosophical concepts, and illustrates how it could serve as a useful guideline for wildlife management.

Abstract Functional trait approaches in ecology chiefly assume the mean trait value of a population adequately predicts the outcome of species interactions. Yet this assumption ignores substantial trait variation among individuals within a population, which can have a profound effect on community structure and function. We explored individual trait variation through the lens of animal personality to test whether among‐individual variation in prey behavior mediates trophic interactions. We quantified the structure of personalities within a population of generalist grasshoppers and examined, through a number of field and laboratory‐based experiments, how personality types could impact tri‐trophic interactions in a food chain. Unlike other studies of this nature, we used spatial habitat domains to evaluate how personality types mechanistically map to behaviors relevant in predator–prey dynamics and found shy and bold individuals differed in both their habitat use and foraging strategy under predation risk by a sit‐and‐wait spider predator. In the field‐based mesocosm portion of our study, we found experimental populations of personality types differed in their trophic impact, demonstrating that prey personality can mediate trophic cascades. We found no differences in respiration rates or body size between personality types used in the mesocosm experiment, indicating relative differences in trophic impact were not due to variation in prey physiology but rather variation in behavioral strategies. Our work demonstrates how embracing the complexity of individual trait variation can offer mechanistically richer understanding of the processes underlying trophic interactions.

Abstract The enterprise of conservation is inherently ethical, requiring conservationists to navigate morally challenging problems. Working together, conservationists and ethicists have developed the field of conservation ethics. Yet, due to the deeply interdisciplinary nature of the field, conservation ethics faces a unique set of challenges. We first comment on the harm caused by reciprocal ignorance between some practicing conservationists and ethicists. We then explore the difficulties of creating a widely applied ethic, examining conversations surrounding the recently emerged virtue ethic, Compassionate Conservation. By bringing attention to these challenges, and highlighting medical bioethics as a touchstone of productive applied ethical theory, we can help the field avoid unproductive pitfalls, as well as facilitate positive and productive communication and collaboration between the various members of the different disciplines involved.