Search

Abstract: Since the 1990s the number of papers published by four mainstream conservation journals (Conservation Biology, Biological Conservation, Biodiversity and Conservation and Oryx) has increased by 133%. The main subject areas of research have not changed over time, with population biology, habitat change, community ecology and species conservation remaining the most popular topics. Equally, mammals, birds, invertebrates and plants have remained the most popular taxa, and – surprisingly – the number of papers dealing with general or global issues or using molecular approaches has remained low. Although collaboration increased over time, most conservation biology is still conducted by researchers working in developed countries. Most research published from developing countries in the 1990s did not have a local researcher as co-author. This trend has now been reversed, although there is only marginal evidence of an increase in collaboration between authors from developed and developing countries. Although conservation science has undergone dramatic technological changes as we have moved into the new millennium, published research remains rooted within the cultural traditions of developed countries, with a continuing emphasis on charismatic taxa. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Under the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, a special emphasis has been put on an integrated ecosystem approach. Some of the "Malawi principles" state that management objectives are a matter of societal choice, and that management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level. A key feature of the ecosystem approach includes conservation of ecosystem structure and function on a long term basis, while seeking an appropriate balance between conservation and use of biodiversity. The role of moose in the ecosystem and how the Malawi principles can be adopted in moose management were a focus of the 5th International Moose Symposium. All invited speakers and session chairs were asked to provide a brief summary of how they considered the Malawi principles to relate to the topic of their respective papers or sessions at the Symposium. Those summaries are given in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The discipline of restoration ecology has grown remarkably in the past decades, providing new ideas and opportunities for conserving biological diversity, managing ecosystems, and testing ecological theories. On the other side, its past-oriented, static, and idealistic approach has been criticized for subjectivity in determining restoration goals, inapplicability to dynamic ecosystems, and inability for restoring certain irreversible losses. Moreover, unpredictable sustainability of the restored ecosystems, which were modeled after its historical fidelity, adds our skepticism under the changing environment. This paper calls for a new paradigm of ecological restoration to the future. A future-oriented restoration should (1) establish the ecosystems that are able to sustain in the future, not the past, environment; (2) have multiple alternative goals and trajectories for unpredictable endpoints; (3) focus on rehabilitation of ecosystem functions rather than recomposition of species or cosmetics of landscape surface; and (4) acknowledge its identity as a “value-laden” applied science within economically and socially acceptable framework. Applicability of ecological theories to restoration practice is also discussed in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immersed in natural resource policy approaches such as ecosystem management is the expectation that the best available science will be applied so that the best policy management decision will result. Citizens, like scientists and land managers, want natural resource management decisions based on good science rather than special interest group politics. Yet citizens also want to be involved in the decision process and are skeptical about the very science they claim must be the basis for policy actions. Herein lies an apparent paradox. Citizens' want the best science to guide natural resource management decisions, but not to the exclusion of their input. Similarly, there seems to be a paradox in the sentiments expressed by natural resource management agency administrators and specialists. Agency personnel know they need meaningful citizen involvement in their management decisions, but they also want citizens to trust their scientific expertise. This paper is about that paradox and innovative ways to work through it. We first discuss the nature of natural resource conflict, then address the paradox in some depth. A discussion of traditional public participation precedes innovative methods for working through the paradox. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]