Search

Anthropogenic climate change is widely considered a major threat to global biodiversity, such that the ability of a species to adapt will determine its likelihood of survival. Egg‐burying reptiles that exhibit temperature‐dependent sex determination, such as critically endangered hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata), are particularly vulnerable to changes in thermal regimes because nest temperatures affect offspring sex, fitness, and survival. It is unclear whether hawksbills possess sufficient behavioral plasticity of nesting traits (i.e., redistribution of nesting range, shift in nesting phenology, changes in nest‐site selection, and adjustment of nest depth) to persist within their climatic niche or whether accelerated changes in thermal conditions of nesting beaches will outpace phenotypic adaption and require human intervention. For these reasons, we estimated sex ratios and physical condition of hatchling hawksbills under natural and manipulated conditions and generated and analyzed thermal profiles of hawksbill nest environments within highly threatened mangrove ecosystems at Bahía de Jiquilisco, El Salvador, and Estero Padre Ramos, Nicaragua. Hawksbill clutches protected in situ at both sites incubated at higher temperatures, yielded lower hatching success, produced a higher percentage of female hatchlings, and produced less fit offspring than clutches relocated to hatcheries. We detected cooler sand temperatures in woody vegetation (i.e., coastal forest and small‐scale plantations of fruit trees) and hatcheries than in other monitored nest environments, with higher temperatures at the deeper depth. Our findings indicate that mangrove ecosystems present a number of biophysical (e.g., insular nesting beaches and shallow water table) and human‐induced (e.g., physical barriers and deforestation) constraints that, when coupled with the unique life history of hawksbills in this region, may limit behavioral compensatory responses by the species to projected temperature increases at nesting beaches. We contend that egg relocation can contribute significantly to recovery efforts in a changing climate under appropriate circumstances. In this study, we estimated sex ratios and physical condition of hatchling hawksbill turtles under natural and manipulated conditions and generated and analyzed thermal profiles of hawksbill nest environments within mangrove ecosystems at Bahía de Jiquilisco, El Salvador, and Estero Padre Ramos, Nicaragua. Hawksbill clutches protected in situ at both sites incubated at higher temperatures, obtained lower hatching success, produced a higher percentage of female hatchlings, and produced less fit offspring than clutches relocated to hatcheries. We detected cooler sand temperatures in woody vegetation (i.e., coastal forest and small‐scale plantations of fruit trees) and hatcheries than in other monitored nest environments, with higher temperatures at the deeper depth, suggesting that egg relocation can contribute to recovery efforts in a changing climate under appropriate circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conserving biodiversity requires productive management of conflict. Currently, wildlife are often portrayed as conscious human antagonists, which must be fought. We suggest using the 'comic corrective' to experiment with ways to reframe human-human conflicts over wildlife management and wildlife damage. This requires a deep commitment to change, often made more palatable through humour. This effort to fight the use of the term human-wildlife conflict should not be interpreted as a call to reject human-human conflict as a useful conservation tool. Conservationists, who value wildlife, often misleadingly suggest that conservation can sidestep irreducible value differences and political processes that see proponents of different views as antagonists. Because democracies cannot function without dissent, we suggest that conservation biologists should embrace stakeholder conflicts over wildlife conservation as a way to improve decision making. In particular, we should challenge the view that wildlife are willfully antagonistic to people while recognizing conflict among humans over how biodiversity conservation should occur. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many researchers have implicated human population density in species endangerment, but these correlative studies do not demonstrate causality. We propose that hypotheses implicating human population density in wildlife endangerment at global and national scales owe their public and academic currency as thoroughly to inductive reasoning and repetition as to scientific experimentation. It follows that alternative research hypotheses generated from the same facts should provide equally tenable results. Household density provides such an alternative hypothesis and is growing faster than human population density. We used linear multiple regression models to demonstrate that household density provides a viable alternative statistical hypothesis to human population density for explaining species endangerment (household model, r² = 0.85; population model, r² = 0.84). We then suggest adopting a household perspective for biodiversity conservation because 1) social norms and practices render a household approach to conservation more pragmatic than a human population perspective and 2) shifting the focus toward households could facilitate movement from a human-versus-nature ethic to a humans-situated-within-nature ethic (e.g., a land ethic). Wildlife managers and researchers concerned about the negative influence humans have on biodiversity should consider grounding research, theory, and policy decisions in the dynamics of human households as an alternative to human population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article responds to the paper "Theories about Consensus-Based Conservation," by William D. Leach in this issue which comments on the paper "Conservation and the Myth of Consensus," by M. Nils Peterson and colleagues in a 2005 issue. Clarifications are made regarding the primary issues raised by Leach who had argued that the paper by Peterson and colleagues was based on a questionable idea that consensus processes are founded on social constructionism, made the error of confusing consensus with veto power and acquiescence, and had insufficient empirical support.

Hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) are highly endangered in the eastern Pacific Ocean, yet their eggs continue to be an important subsistence resource for impoverished coastal residents in El Salvador. In this study, we use naturalistic inquiry to explain the realities experienced by coastal residents who share habitat with hawksbills in El Salvador, and then suggest implications of the disparities between these realities and international priorities for hawksbill conservation and community development in El Salvador and other low-income regions. To provide a context for understanding hawksbill conservation and its implications for similar challenges related to conservation and wellbeing, we first summarise the conservation context, including the emergence of sea turtle conservation in El Salvador. We then describe our naturalistic approach, including the ethnographic methodology for this study. Finally, we detail the analysis of interviews conducted withtortugueros(i.e. local sea turtle egg collectors), to help explain how hawksbills fit into local realities. Our results demonstrate that, from the perspective oftortugueros, (1) the primary importance of hawksbills is the economic value attached to egg sales, but there exists a deeper connection to local culture; (2) egg purchase by hatcheries is a socially just conservation strategy that benefits both hawksbill and human wellbeing; and (3) opportunities for local residents to participate in decision-making regarding sea turtle conservation are limited, and should be increased. We argue that harmonising international conservation priorities with local community development realities is one path towards simultaneously contributing to long-term sea turtle recovery and human wellbeing in low-income regions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Conservation biologists frequently use data from the same or related species collected in diverse geographic locations to guide interventions in situations where its applicability is uncertain. There are dangers inherent to this approach. The nesting habitats of critically endangered hawksbill sea turtles ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) cover a broad geographic global range. Based on data collected in the Caribbean and Indo-Pacific, conservationists assume hawksbills prefer open-coast beaches near coral reefs for nesting, and that individual hawksbills are highly consistent in nest placement, suggesting genetic factors partially account for variation in nest-site choice. We characterized nest-site preferences of hawksbills in El Salvador and Nicaragua, where >80% of nesting activity occurs for this species in the eastern Pacific, and ∼90% of hawksbill clutches are relocated to hatcheries for protection. We found hawksbills preferred nest sites with abundant vegetation on dynamic beaches within mangrove estuaries. Nests in El Salvador were located closer to the ocean and to the woody vegetation border than nests in Nicaragua, suggesting female hawksbills exhibit local adaptations to differences in nesting habitat. Individual hawksbills consistently placed nests under high percentages of overstory vegetation, but were not consistent in nest placement related to woody vegetation borders. We suggest conservation biologists use caution when generalizing about endangered species that invest in specific life-history strategies (e.g., nesting) over broad ranges based on data collected in distant locations when addressing conservation issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human–wildlife conflict has emerged as the central vocabulary for cases requiring balance between resource demands of humans and wildlife. This phrase is problematic because, given traditional definitions of conflict, it positions wildlife as conscious human antagonists. We used content analysis of wildlife conservation publications and professional meeting presentations to explore the use of the phrase, human–wildlife conflict, and compared competing models explaining its usage. Of the 422 publications and presentations using human–wildlife conflict, only 1 reflected a traditional definition of conflict, >95% referred to reports of animal damage to entities human care about, and <4% referred to human–human conflict. Usage of human–wildlife conflict was related to species type (herbivores with human food, carnivores with human safety, meso-mammals with property), development level of the nation where the study occurred (less developed nations with human food and more developed nations with human safety and property damage), and whether the study occurred on private lands or protected areas (protected areas with human–human conflict and other areas with property damage). We argue that the phrase, human–wildlife conflict, is detrimental to coexistence between humans and wildlife, and suggest comic reframing to facilitate a more productive interpretation of human–wildlife relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Worldwide human population expansion and rising standards of living place increasing pressure on wildlife populations and their habitats. Conflict regarding conservation and preservation of endangered species is among the greatest challenges of the 21st century. Endangered species management on private lands magnifies the problems encountered by natural resource policy-makers and managers. Given that conservation of endangered species increasingly depends on securing cooperation of private property owners in local communities, understanding how to secure that cooperation is important. We used an ethnographic approach to critically review the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) processes used in attempts to develop regional HCPs to benefit the Houston toad (Bufo houstonensis) and the Florida Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium; hereafter, Key deer). In both cases, the process was framed as a search for the optimum solution through collaboration and consensus building, and in neither case was the solution achieved. The paradoxical nature of liberal democracy precluded the possibility of a single, ideal solution. Failing to find the optimal solution led to disillusionment and pessimism with the process among HCP participants. We suggest that within democratic political contexts, approaches to conservation planning that center around bounded conflict, which is rooted in acknowledgment of the paradox inherent to the ideals of liberty and equality, are more likely to produce satisfactory results than are consensus-based approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]