Patterns of Citations of Open Access and Non‐Open Access Conservation Biology Journal Papers and Book Chapters

Abstract: Open access (OA) publishing, whereby authors, their institutions, or their granting bodies pay or provide a repository through which peer‐reviewed work is available online for free, is championed as a model to increase the number of citations per paper and disseminate results widely, especially to researchers in developing countries. We compared the number of citations of OA and non‐OA papers in six journals and four books published since 2000 to test whether OA increases number of citations overall and increases citations made by authors in developing countries. After controlling for type of paper (e.g., review or research paper), length of paper, authors’ citation profiles, number of authors per paper, and whether the author or the publisher released the paper in OA, OA had no statistically significant influence on the overall number of citations per journal paper. Journal papers were cited more frequently if the authors had published highly cited papers previously, were members of large teams of authors, or published relatively long papers, but papers were not cited more frequently if they were published in an OA source. Nevertheless, author‐archived OA book chapters accrued up to eight times more citations than chapters in the same book that were not available through OA, perhaps because there is no online abstracting service for book chapters. There was also little evidence that journal papers or book chapters published in OA received more citations from authors in developing countries relative to those journal papers or book chapters not published in OA. For scholarly publications in conservation biology, only book chapters had an OA citation advantage, and OA did not increase the number of citations papers or chapters received from authors in developing countries.     

Achieving Conservation Science that Bridges the Knowledge–Action Boundary

There are many barriers to using science to inform conservation policy and practice. Conservation scientists wishing to produce management‐relevant science must balance this goal with the imperative of demonstrating novelty and rigor in their science. Decision makers seeking to make evidence‐based decisions must balance a desire for knowledge with the need to act despite uncertainty. Generating science that will effectively inform management decisions requires that the production of information (the components of knowledge) be salient (relevant and timely), credible (authoritative, believable, and trusted), and legitimate (developed via a process that considers the values and perspectives of all relevant actors) in the eyes of both researchers and decision makers. We perceive 3 key challenges for those hoping to generate conservation science that achieves all 3 of these information characteristics. First, scientific and management audiences can have contrasting perceptions about the salience of research. Second, the pursuit of scientific credibility can come at the cost of salience and legitimacy in the eyes of decision makers, and, third, different actors can have conflicting views about what constitutes legitimate information. We highlight 4 institutional frameworks that can facilitate science that will inform management: boundary organizations (environmental organizations that span the boundary between science and management), research scientists embedded in resource management agencies, formal links between decision makers and scientists at research‐focused institutions, and training programs for conservation professionals. Although these are not the only approaches to generating boundary‐spanning science, nor are they mutually exclusive, they provide mechanisms for promoting communication, translation, and mediation across the knowledge–action boundary. We believe that despite the challenges, conservation science should strive to be a boundary science, which both advances scientific understanding and contributes to decision making. Logrando que la Ciencia de la Conservación Trasponga la Frontera Conocimiento‐Acción     

Successes and Challenges from Formation to Implementation of Eleven Broad‐Extent Conservation Programs

Integration of conservation partnerships across geographic, biological, and administrative boundaries is increasingly relevant because drivers of change, such as climate shifts, transcend these boundaries. We explored successes and challenges of established conservation programs that span multiple watersheds and consider both social and ecological concerns. We asked representatives from a diverse set of 11 broad‐extent conservation partnerships in 29 countries 17 questions that pertained to launching and maintaining partnerships for broad‐extent conservation, specifying ultimate management objectives, and implementation and learning. Partnerships invested more funds in implementing conservation actions than any other aspect of conservation, and a program's context (geographic extent, United States vs. other countries, developed vs. developing nation) appeared to substantially affect program approach. Despite early successes of these organizations and benefits of broad‐extent conservation, specific challenges related to uncertainties in scaling up information and to coordination in the face of diverse partner governance structures, conflicting objectives, and vast uncertainties regarding future system dynamics hindered long‐term success, as demonstrated by the focal organizations. Engaging stakeholders, developing conservation measures, and implementing adaptive management were dominant challenges. To inform future research on broad‐extent conservation, we considered several challenges when we developed detailed questions, such as what qualities of broad‐extent partnerships ensure they complement, integrate, and strengthen, rather than replace, local conservation efforts and which adaptive management processes yield actionable conservation strategies that account explicitly for dynamics and uncertainties regarding multiscale governance, environmental conditions, and knowledge of the system? Éxitos y Retos de la Formación a la Implementación de Once Programas de Conservación de Amplio Alcance     

Quantifying the role of online news in linking conservation research to Facebook and Twitter

Conservation science needs to engage the general public to ensure successful conservation interventions. Although online technologies such as Twitter and Facebook offer new opportunities to accelerate communication between conservation scientists and the online public, factors influencing the spread of conservation news in online media are not well understood. We explored transmission of conservation research through online news articles with generalized linear mixed‐effects models and an information theoretic approach. In particular, we assessed differences in the frequency conservation research is featured on online news sites and the impact of online conservation news content and delivery on Facebook likes and shares and Twitter tweets. Five percent of articles in conservation journals are reported in online news, and the probability of reporting depended on the journal. There was weak evidence that articles on climate change and mammals were more likely to be featured. Online news articles about charismatic mammals with illustrations were more likely to be shared or liked on Facebook and Twitter, but the effect of news sites was much larger. These results suggest journals have the greatest impact on which conservation research is featured and that news site has the greatest impact on how popular an online article will be on Facebook and Twitter. Cuantificación del Papel de las Noticias En Línea en el Enlazamiento de la Investigación para la Conservación con Facebook y Twitter     

Effects of Weighting Schemes on the Identification of Wildlife Corridors Generated with Least‐Cost Methods

The importance of movement corridors for maintaining connectivity within metapopulations of wild animals is a cornerstone of conservation. One common approach for determining corridor locations is least‐cost corridor (LCC) modeling, which uses algorithms within a geographic information system to search for routes with the lowest cumulative resistance between target locations on a landscape. However, the presentation of multiple LCCs that connect multiple locations generally assumes all corridors contribute equally to connectivity, regardless of the likelihood that animals will use them. Thus, LCCs may overemphasize seldom‐used longer routes and underemphasize more frequently used shorter routes. We hypothesize that, depending on conservation objectives and available biological information, weighting individual corridors on the basis of species‐specific movement, dispersal, or gene flow data may better identify effective corridors. We tested whether locations of key connectivity areas, defined as the highest 75th and 90th percentile cumulative weighted value of approximately 155,000 corridors, shift under different weighting scenarios. In addition, we quantified the amount and location of private land that intersect key connectivity areas under each weighting scheme. Some areas that appeared well connected when analyzed with unweighted corridors exhibited much less connectivity compared with weighting schemes that discount corridors with large effective distances. Furthermore, the amount and location of key connectivity areas that intersected private land varied among weighting schemes. We believe biological assumptions and conservation objectives should be explicitly incorporated to weight corridors when assessing landscape connectivity. These results are highly relevant to conservation planning because on the basis of recent interest by government agencies and nongovernmental organizations in maintaining and enhancing wildlife corridors, connectivity will likely be an important criterion for prioritization of land purchases and swaps. Efectos de los Esquemas de Ponderación sobre la Identificación de Corredores para Vida Silvestre Generados con Métodos Menos Costosos     

Conservation of biodiversity through taxonomy,data publication,and collaborative infrastructures

Taxonomy is the foundation of biodiversity science because it furthers discovery of new species. Globally, there have never been so many people involved in naming species new to science. The number of new marine species described per decade has never been greater. Nevertheless, it is estimated that tens of thousands of marine species, and hundreds of thousands of terrestrial species, are yet to be discovered; many of which may already be in specimen collections. However, naming species is only a first step in documenting knowledge about their biology, biogeography, and ecology. Considering the threats to biodiversity, new knowledge of existing species and discovery of undescribed species and their subsequent study are urgently required. To accelerate this research, we recommend, and cite examples of, more and better communication: use of collaborative online databases; easier access to knowledge and specimens; production of taxonomic revisions and species identification guides; engagement of nonspecialists; and international collaboration. “Data‐sharing” should be abandoned in favor of mandated data publication by the conservation science community. Such a step requires support from peer reviewers, editors, journals, and conservation organizations. Online data publication infrastructures (e.g., Global Biodiversity Information Facility, Ocean Biogeographic Information System) illustrate gaps in biodiversity sampling and may provide common ground for long‐term international collaboration between scientists and conservation organizations.     

Six Common Mistakes in Conservation Priority Setting

A vast number of prioritization schemes have been developed to help conservation navigate tough decisions about the allocation of finite resources. However, the application of quantitative approaches to setting priorities in conservation frequently includes mistakes that can undermine their authors’ intention to be more rigorous and scientific in the way priorities are established and resources allocated. Drawing on well‐established principles of decision science, we highlight 6 mistakes commonly associated with setting priorities for conservation: not acknowledging conservation plans are prioritizations; trying to solve an ill‐defined problem; not prioritizing actions; arbitrariness; hidden value judgments; and not acknowledging risk of failure. We explain these mistakes and offer a path to help conservation planners avoid making the same mistakes in future prioritizations. Seis Errores Comunes en la Definición de Prioridades de Conservación     

Territorial User Rights for Fisheries as Ancillary Instruments for Marine Coastal Conservation in Chile

Territorial user rights for fisheries have been advocated as a way to achieve sustainable resource management. However, few researchers have empirically assessed their potential as ancillary marine conservation instruments by comparing them to no‐take marine protected areas. In kelp (Lessonia trabeculata) forests of central Chile, we compared species richness, density, and biomass of macroinvertebrates and reef fishes among territorial‐user‐right areas with low‐level and high‐level enforcement, no‐take marine protected areas, and open‐access areas in 42 100‐m subtidal transects. We also assessed structural complexity of the kelp forest and substratum composition. Multivariate randomized permutation tests indicated macroinvertebrate and reef fish communities associated with the different access regimes differed significantly. Substratum composition and structural complexity of kelp forest did not differ among access regimes. Univariate analyses showed species richness, biomass, and density of macroinvertebrates and reef fishes were greater in highly enforced territorial‐user‐right areas and no‐take marine protected areas than in open‐access areas. Densities of macroinvertebrates and reef fishes of economic importance were not significantly different between highly enforced territorial‐user‐right and no‐take marine protected areas. Densities of economically important macroinvertebrates in areas with low‐level enforcement were significantly lower than those in areas with high‐level enforcement and no‐take marine protected areas but were significantly higher than in areas with open access. Territorial‐user‐right areas could be important ancillary conservation instruments if they are well enforced. Derechos de Usuario Territoriales para Pesquerías como Instrumentos Accesorios para la Conservación Marina Costera en Chile     

Putting People on the Map through an Approach That Integrates Social Data in Conservation Planning

Conservation planning is integral to strategic and effective operations of conservation organizations. Drawing upon biological sciences, conservation planning has historically made limited use of social data. We offer an approach for integrating data on social well‐being into conservation planning that captures and places into context the spatial patterns and trends in human needs and capacities. This hierarchical approach provides a nested framework for characterizing and mapping data on social well‐being in 5 domains: economic well‐being, health, political empowerment, education, and culture. These 5 domains each have multiple attributes; each attribute may be characterized by one or more indicators. Through existing or novel data that display spatial and temporal heterogeneity in social well‐being, conservation scientists, planners, and decision makers may measure, benchmark, map, and integrate these data within conservation planning processes. Selecting indicators and integrating these data into conservation planning is an iterative, participatory process tailored to the local context and planning goals. Social well‐being data complement biophysical and threat‐oriented social data within conservation planning processes to inform decisions regarding where and how to conserve biodiversity, provide a structure for exploring socioecological relationships, and to foster adaptive management. Building upon existing conservation planning methods and insights from multiple disciplines, this approach to putting people on the map can readily merge with current planning practices to facilitate more rigorous decision making. Poner a la Gente en el Mapa por Medio de una Estrategia que Integra Información Social en la Planeación de la Conservación     

Building Dialogue on Complex Conservation Issues in a Conference Setting

Dialogue about complex science and society issues is important for contemporary conservation agendas. Conferences provide an appropriate space for such dialogue, but despite its recognized worth, best practices for facilitating active dialogue are still being explored. Face‐to‐face (FTF) and computer‐mediated communication (CMC) are two approaches to facilitating dialogue that have different strengths. We assessed the use of these approaches to create dialogue on cultural perspectives of conservation and biodiversity at a national ecology conference. In particular, we aimed to evaluate their potential to enhance dialogue through their integrated application. We used an interactive blog to generate CMC on participant‐sourced issues and to prime subsequent discussion in an FTF conference workshop. The quantity and quality of both CMC and FTF discussion indicated that both approaches were effective in building dialogue. Prior to the conference the blog averaged 126 views per day, and 44 different authors contributed a total of 127 comments. Twenty‐five participants subsequently participated in active FTF discussion during a 3‐h workshop. Postconference surveys confirmed that CMC had developed participants’ thinking and deepened FTF dialogue; 88% indicated specifically that CMC helped facilitate the FTF discussion. A further 83% of respondents concluded that preliminary blog discussion would be useful for facilitating dialogue at future conferences. Construcción del Diálogo sobre Problemas Complejos de Conservación en un Escenario de Conferencia     

Seventy‐One Important Questions for the Conservation of Marine Biodiversity

The ocean provides food, economic activity, and cultural value for a large proportion of humanity. Our knowledge of marine ecosystems lags behind that of terrestrial ecosystems, limiting effective protection of marine resources. We describe the outcome of 2 workshops in 2011 and 2012 to establish a list of important questions, which, if answered, would substantially improve our ability to conserve and manage the world's marine resources. Participants included individuals from academia, government, and nongovernment organizations with broad experience across disciplines, marine ecosystems, and countries that vary in levels of development. Contributors from the fields of science, conservation, industry, and government submitted questions to our workshops, which we distilled into a list of priority research questions. Through this process, we identified 71 key questions. We grouped these into 8 subject categories, each pertaining to a broad component of marine conservation: fisheries, climate change, other anthropogenic threats, ecosystems, marine citizenship, policy, societal and cultural considerations, and scientific enterprise. Our questions address many issues that are specific to marine conservation, and will serve as a road map to funders and researchers to develop programs that can greatly benefit marine conservation. Setenta y Un Preguntas Importantes para la Conservación de la Biodiversidad Marina     

Application of the Anthropogenic Allee Effect Model to Trophy Hunting as a Conservation Tool

Trophy hunting can provide economic incentives to conserve wild species, but it can also involve risk when rare species are hunted. The anthropogenic Allee effect (AAE) is a conceptual model that seeks to explain how rarity may spread the seeds of further endangerment. The AAE model has increasingly been invoked in the context of trophy hunting, increasing concerns that such hunting may undermine rather than enhance conservation efforts. We question the appropriateness of uncritically applying the AAE model to trophy hunting for 4 reasons. First, the AAE assumes an open‐access resource, which is a poor characterization of most trophy‐hunting programs and obscures the potential for state, communal, or private‐property use rights to generate positive incentives for conservation. Second, study results that show the price of hunting increases as the rarity of the animal increases are insufficient to indicate the presence of AAE. Third, AAE ignores the existence of biological and behavioral factors operating in most trophy‐hunting contexts that tend to regulate the effect of hunting. We argue that site‐specific data, rather than aggregated hunting statistics, are required to demonstrate that patterns of unsustainable exploitation can be well explained by an AAE model. Instead, we suggest that conservation managers seeking to investigate and identify constraints that limit the potential conservation role of trophy hunting, should focus on the critical governance characteristics that shape the potential conservation role of trophy hunting, such as corruption, insecure property rights, and inadequate sharing of benefits with local people. Aplicación del Modelo Antropogénico del Efecto Allee sobre la Caza de Trofeos como una Herramienta de Conservación     

Optimal fire histories for biodiversity conservation

Fire is used as a management tool for biodiversity conservation worldwide. A common objective is to avoid population extinctions due to inappropriate fire regimes. However, in many ecosystems, it is unclear what mix of fire histories will achieve this goal. We determined the optimal fire history of a given area for biological conservation with a method that links tools from 3 fields of research: species distribution modeling, composite indices of biodiversity, and decision science. We based our case study on extensive field surveys of birds, reptiles, and mammals in fire‐prone semi‐arid Australia. First, we developed statistical models of species’ responses to fire history. Second, we determined the optimal allocation of successional states in a given area, based on the geometric mean of species relative abundance. Finally, we showed how conservation targets based on this index can be incorporated into a decision‐making framework for fire management. Pyrodiversity per se did not necessarily promote vertebrate biodiversity. Maximizing pyrodiversity by having an even allocation of successional states did not maximize the geometric mean abundance of bird species. Older vegetation was disproportionately important for the conservation of birds, reptiles, and small mammals. Because our method defines fire management objectives based on the habitat requirements of multiple species in the community, it could be used widely to maximize biodiversity in fire‐prone ecosystems. Historiales de Incendios Óptimos para la Conservación de la Biodiversidad     

Costs and Benefits of Trap‐Neuter‐Release and Euthanasia for Removal of Urban Cats in Oahu,Hawaii

Our goal was to determine whether it is more cost‐effective to control feral cat abundance with trap‐neuter‐release programs or trap and euthanize programs. Using STELLA 7, systems modeling software, we modeled changes over 30 years in abundance of cats in a feral colony in response to each management method and the costs and benefits associated with each method . We included costs associated with providing food, veterinary care, and microchips to the colony cats and the cost of euthanasia, wages, and trapping equipment in the model. Due to a lack of data on predation rates and disease transmission by feral cats the only benefits incorporated into the analyses were reduced predation on Wedge‐tailed Shearwaters (Puffinus pacificus). When no additional domestic cats were abandoned by owners and the trap and euthanize program removed 30,000 cats in the first year, the colony was extirpated in at least 75% of model simulations within the second year. It took 30 years for trap‐neuter‐release to extirpate the colony. When the cat population was supplemented with 10% of the initial population size per year, the colony returned to carrying capacity within 6 years and the trap and euthanize program had to be repeated, whereas trap‐neuter‐release never reduced the number of cats to near zero within the 30‐year time frame of the model. The abandonment of domestic cats reduced the cost effectiveness of both trap‐neuter‐release and trap and euthanize. Trap‐neuter‐release was approximately twice as expensive to implement as a trap and euthanize program. Results of sensitivity analyses suggested trap‐neuter‐release programs that employ volunteers are still less cost‐effective than trap and euthanize programs that employ paid professionals and that trap‐neuter‐release was only effective when the total number of colony cats in an area was below 1000. Reducing the rate of abandonment of domestic cats appears to be a more effective solution for reducing the abundance of feral cats. Costos y Beneficios de Captura‐Esterilización‐Liberación y Eutanasia para la Remoción de Gatos Urbanos en Oahu, Hawaii     

Experiencing Biodiversity as a Bridge over the Science–Society Communication Gap

Drawing on the idea that biodiversity is simply the diversity of living things, and that everyone knows what diversity and living things mean, most conservation professionals eschew the need to explain the many complex ways in which biodiversity is understood in science. On many biodiversity‐related issues, this lack of clarity leads to a communication gap between science and the general public, including decision makers who must design and implement biodiversity policies. Closing this communication gap is pivotal to the ability of science to inform sound environmental decision making. To address this communication gap, we propose a surrogate of biodiversity for communication purposes that captures the scientific definition of biodiversity yet can be understood by nonscientists; that is, biodiversity as a learning experience. The prerequisites of this or any other biodiversity communication surrogate are that it should have transdisciplinary relevance; not be measurable; be accessible to a wide audience; be usable to translate biodiversity issues; and understandably encompass biodiversity concepts. Biodiversity as a learning experience satisfies these prerequisites and is philosophically robust. More importantly, it can effectively contribute to closing the communication gap between biodiversity science and society at large. Experimentando la Biodiversidad como un Puente sobre el Vacío entre la Comunicación Ciencia‐Sociedad     

Accounting for enforcement costs in the spatial allocation of marine zones

Marine fish stocks are in many cases extracted above sustainable levels, but they may be protected through restricted‐use zoning systems. The effectiveness of these systems typically depends on support from coastal fishing communities. High management costs including those of enforcement may, however, deter fishers from supporting marine management. We incorporated enforcement costs into a spatial optimization model that identified how conservation targets can be met while maximizing fishers’ revenue. Our model identified the optimal allocation of the study area among different zones: no‐take, territorial user rights for fisheries (TURFs), or open access. The analysis demonstrated that enforcing no‐take and TURF zones incurs a cost, but results in higher species abundance by preventing poaching and overfishing. We analyzed how different enforcement scenarios affected fishers’ revenue. Fisher revenue was approximately 50% higher when territorial user rights were enforced than when they were not. The model preferentially allocated area to the enforced‐TURF zone over other zones, demonstrating that the financial benefits of enforcement (derived from higher species abundance) exceeded the costs. These findings were robust to increases in enforcement costs but sensitive to changes in species’ market price. We also found that revenue under the existing zoning regime in the study area was 13–30% lower than under an optimal solution. Our results highlight the importance of accounting for both the benefits and costs of enforcement in marine conservation, particularly when incurred by fishers. Justificación de los Costos de Aplicación en la Asignación Espacial de Zonas Marinas     

Standardized reporting of the costs of management interventions for biodiversity conservation

Effective conservation management interventions must combat threats and deliver benefits at costs that can be achieved within limited budgets. Considerable effort has focused on measuring the potential benefits of conservation interventions, but explicit quantification of the financial costs of implementation is rare. Even when costs have been quantified, haphazard and inconsistent reporting means published values are difficult to interpret. This reporting deficiency hinders progress toward a collective understanding of the financial costs of management interventions across projects and thus limits the ability to identify efficient solutions to conservation problems or attract adequate funding. We devised a standardized approach to describing financial costs reported for conservation interventions. The standards call for researchers and practitioners to describe the objective and outcome, context and methods, and scale of costed interventions, and to state which categories of costs are included and the currency and date for reported costs. These standards aim to provide enough contextual information that readers and future users can interpret the cost data appropriately. We suggest these standards be adopted by major conservation organizations, conservation science institutions, and journals so that cost reporting is comparable among studies. This would support shared learning and enhance the ability to identify and perform cost‐effective conservation.