Conservation Biology

Understanding conflicts between objectives of fisheries and conservation is the key to finding win-win situations for marine biodiversity and fishers. Many marine species are threatened by harmful interactions with fisheries, but the threats they face are associated with the fishing gear used. Here, we undertake a novel analysis of marine species and their gear-specific threats to evaluate conservation-fisheries trade-offs to identify areas with high competing goals. Our analysis suggests that gillnet and longline fisheries pose the greatest risk to marine species yet deliver relatively low profits, emphasizing the inefficiencies of these gears. We find that the majority of the high seas has low economic fisheries benefits with over 25% of the high seas categorized as areas of conservation prioritisation over fisheries.

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are key to averting continued loss of species and ecosystem services in our oceans, but concerns around economic trade-offs hamper progress. Here we provide optimized planning scenarios for global MPA networks that secure species habitat while minimizing impacts on fisheries revenues. We found that MPA coverage requirements differ vastly among nations, and that two-thirds of nations benefit economically from a collaborative approach. Immediate global protection of marine biodiversity habitat comes with losses of ~19% of total fisheries revenues, but international cooperation in concert with high seas protection improves economic losses for most countries, safeguards all species, and could save ~5B USD annually worldwide. Nations and fishery economies both share benefits from a coordinated approach to conserving marine biodiversity, with direct relevance to current international policies.

De-extinction is often criticised for siphoning funds from classical conservation, yet quantitative evidence remains scarce. Here we assemble a disaggregated United States finance dataset covering 2021 to 2024 and find that every dollar invested in de-extinction originated from private sources and coincided with a net rise in public and NGO conservation budgets. Rather than displacing existing capital, de-extinction mobilised new money and produced a crowding-in effect that enlarged the pool available for biodiversity protection. To channel these additional resources strategically, we develop the Multidimensional De-extinction Effectiveness Model (MDEM), which ranks candidate species by ecological benefit, genetic insight, technical feasibility, and habitat readiness. Applied to sixteen taxa, MDEM consistently places the thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus) first; Monte Carlo tests (10,000 runs, {+/-} 3 input jitter) yield a median class-level stability of 73.2%, underscoring robustness to uncertainty. Our results position de-extinction as a complementary branch of conservation finance and offer a transparent framework for steering biotechnology investments toward species with the greatest combined ecological and scientific return.

Global conservation agreements emphasize protected area coverage targets, such as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Frameworks 30x30 target, yet their effectiveness in safeguarding biodiversity remains uncertain. We measure the intersection between marine protected area (MPAs) coverage and the distribution of sharks and rays. Using global range maps and MPA boundaries within national Exclusive Economic Zones, we calculate the percent of species ranges within MPAs, focusing on no-take areas. We reveal significant shortfalls in species-level protection. Within national waters, no Critically Endangered species has more than 5% of its range in no-take MPAs, and 79% of threatened species have less than 1%. We also find the WDPA contains major gaps in take-status reporting, only one third of countries (34%) report take-status of any MPAs to the WDPA, further limiting estimates of meaningful protection. These results highlight the implementation gap between global coverage targets and biodiversity outcomes, reinforcing the need for species-focused protection.

Following our failure to fully achieve any of the 20 Aichi biodiversity targets, the future of biodiversity rests in the balance. The Convention on Biological Diversitys Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) presents us with the opportunity to preserve Natures Contributions to People (NCPs) for current and future generations through conserving biodiversity and averting extinction across the Tree of Life. Here we call attention to our need to conserve the Tree of Life to maintain its benefits into the future as a key mechanism for achieving intergenerational equity. We highlight two indicators available for adoption in the post-2020 GBF to monitor our progress towards safeguarding the Tree of Life. The Phylogenetic Diversity indicator, adopted by IPBES, can be used to monitor biodiversitys capacity to maintain NCPs for future generations. The EDGE (Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered) Index monitors how well we are performing at averting the greatest losses across the Tree of Life by conserving the most distinctive species. By committing to safeguarding the Tree of Life post-2020, we can reduce biodiversity loss to preserve natures contributions to humanity now and into the future.

Among the conservation community, it is well known that Earths mass species extinction crisis is getting worse. Yet, an often neglected problem is the need for effectively communicating the species extinction crisis to diverse audiences in ways that catalyse immediate action. Here we generated a streamlined threatened species recovery report card methodology, which combined two input indicators including planning and funding, one output indicator capturing habitat protection, and one outcome indicator which highlights threatened species trajectories, to provide simple scores for all Australian threatened species. We show that just 41 (2.3%) of species achieved an A grade for the input indicator (i.e., recovery plans and federal funding), 240 (13.3%) achieved a C grade, and 1,521 (84.4%) achieved an F. Five hundred and twenty nine (29.3%) species achieved an A for the output indicator (i.e, habitat protection), 130 (7.2%) achieved a B, 158 (8.8%) achieved a C, 189 (10.5%) achieved a D, 212 (11.8%) achieved an E, and 584 (32.4%) achieved a F. While five (0.3%) species achieved an A for the output indicator (i.e., threat status improvement), every other species (99.7%) achieved an F. We provide a method to combine scores to test how individual jurisdictions are tracking and show that Australia is achieving an F for the input and outcome indicators, and a D for the output indicator. While the threatened species recovery report card highlighted a clear failure in many federal environmental legislation responsibilities, it provides a baseline from which different governments can track policy progress and outlines clear direction for immediate improvement including developing adequate recovery plans, funding the actions in the recovery plans, protecting habitat from further destruction, verifying recovery through monitoring and evaluation of species trajectories, and supporting transparency and collaboration on the execution on the plans through an improved data infrastructure. Without an immediate step change in how Australia communicates and faces its species crisis, we will leave a tragic legacy of extinction and fail our obligations to future generations of Australians, and the international community.

To prevent species extinctions, targeted action must focus on areas of threatened biodiversity facing intense human pressures. This objective is even more important in the run-up to 2030, the target date to conserve 30% of lands and waters globally. Conservation Imperatives (unprotected terrestrial sites that harbour rare, range-restricted, and threatened species) are critical to preventing imminent species losses. To prioritize among the 16,825 Conservation Imperatives Sites spanning 1.64 million km2, we ranked each site using a prioritization framework based on four criteria: number of threatened species per site; irreplaceability of the site; the proportion of an ecoregions remaining habitat contained in the site; and conversion pressure. Our approach prioritizes 1,667 sites representing 501,426 km2, or 0.37% of Earths terrestrial surface, most in need of urgent protection, with 87.34% of these sites occurring in 20 countries and in 250 ecoregions. This prioritization directly addresses the concern that protected areas must be targeted to protect endangered species, habitats and populations: 33.46% of the prioritized Conservation Imperatives Sites scored higher in irreplaceability than 90% of existing protected areas. Additionally, 51.53% are within 2.5 km2 of an existing protected area, making extending protection or restoring connectivity more feasible. Targeting conservation actions, especially in this small set of countries and ecoregions identified here, would contribute "high quality" areas for biodiversity as part of reaching the 30% coverage target by 2030.

Elasmobranchs (sharks, rays, and skates) face unprecedented extinction risk, with over one-third of species threatened primarily by overfishing. While marine protected areas (MPAs) are essential tools to help safeguard marine ecosystems and the species that inhabit them, we lack a comprehensive understanding of how well elasmobranchs are protected globally. Here, we (1) evaluate the current level of protection for elasmobranchs, (2) employ CAPTAIN reinforcement learning algorithm to identify areas that optimise conservation based on species level of threat and their functional and evolutionary distinctiveness, and (3) examine conservation conflicts and opportunities by identifying areas where conservation priorities overlap with high and low fishing pressures. Our analysis revealed severe protection deficits, with elasmobranchs having on average only 3% of their range covered by no-take MPAs and 64% of species under-represented relative to random expectations. Areas that optimise conservation priorities consistently converged in Australian, Southeast Asia, the Indian Ocean, Atlantic Africa, European Atlantic coasts, the Caribbean, and South American Atlantic regions. However, areas of highest conservation priority often coincided with intensive fishing, particularly in East Asian seas, highlighting conservation conflicts requiring strategic management. Our results provide actionable insights for policymakers to optimise conservation strategies and maximise biodiversity retention. TeaserReinforcement learning identifies priority areas to expand ocean protection for unique and irreplaceable elasmobranchs.

Other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) have expanded area-based conservation to recognize sites that deliver effective biodiversity outcomes even if not managed for conservation. Yet our ability to identify sites likely to qualify as OECMs remains limited. To address this gap, we established and tested a set of indicators to judge whether sites meet the essential criteria to be considered OECMs, evaluating a large, global sample of 173 important conservation areas: 81 potential OECMs and 92 nearby protected areas. We found that most potential OECMs were largely in good condition with the potential to achieve conservation outcomes, but none currently met all the OECM criteria. Formally designated protected areas in our dataset performed better but the majority also failed the criteria. With so many important conservation areas unable to deliver effective conservation outcomes, our findings raise important questions about how to ensure area-based conservation promotes positive and sustained outcomes for biodiversity.

International wildlife trade is a major source of biodiversity loss, yet many species lie hidden within aggregated data that conceals trade impacts. We overcome this problem for the largest vertebrate wildlife trade globally - shark and ray meat - comprising 438 538 mt yr-1 across more than 150 species, 76% of which are Threatened. Revealed trade contains greater quantities of skates (+10%), hammerheads (+8%), and smoothhounds, dogfishes & tope (+5%), and fewer pelagic sharks (-38%) than previously known. Shorttail yellownose skate, smoothound, silky, mako, and blue sharks are the most underreported meat species, due to aggregated landings from China, Argentina, Japan, and Indonesia, demonstrating international trade in shark and ray meat as a diverse, pervasive, and previously hidden source of fishing mortality for many threatened species.

On January 27, 2021, President Biden signed an executive order, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, committing the United States to various goals within his campaigns major climate policy, the Biden Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice. Included in this executive order is a commitment to "conserving at least 30 percent of [the United States] lands and oceans by 2030." This ambitious conservation target signals a promising direction for biodiversity in the United States. However, while the executive order outlines several goals for climate mitigation, the 30x30 target remains vague in its objectives, actions, and implementation strategies for protecting biodiversity. Biodiversity urgently needs effective conservation action, but it remains unclear where and what this 30% target will be applied to. Achieving different climate and biodiversity objectives will require different strategies and, in combination with the associated costs of implementation, will lead to different priority areas for conservation actions. Here, we illustrate what the 30% target could look like across four objectives reflective of the ambitious goals outlined in the executive order. We compile several variations of terrestrial protected area networks guided by these different objectives and examine the trade-offs in costs, ecosystem representation, and climate mitigation potential between each. We find little congruence in priority areas across objectives, emphasizing just how crucial it will be for the Biden administration to develop clear objectives and establish appropriate performance metrics from the outset to maximize both conservation and climate outcomes in support of the 30x30 target. We discuss important considerations that must guide the administrations conservation strategies in order to ensure meaningful conservation outcomes can be achieved over the next decade.

Biodiversity is not evenly distributed across the globe and some areas have greater potential to contribute to biodiversity conservation than others. Whilst there are multiple ways to determine priority areas for conservation, for a global institution like the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the funding mechanism for the Convention on Biological Diversity and the largest multilateral source of funding for developing countries focused on enhancing biodiversity outcomes and promoting sustainable use, it is important to fund the top-ranked countries whilst also ensuring that all eligible countries are able to undertake some biodiversity conservation actions in accordance with the Convention. To this end, the GEF uses the System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR) to allocate funding in separate funding rounds to eligible countries. This country focus means that all prioritization analyses need to be undertaken within that political framework, while also considering the intrinsic patterns in biodiversity that dont respect national borders. We present the 2018 update of the biodiversity component of GEF-STAR, investigate how the weighting system affects the ranking of countries. We show that top ranked and bottom ranked countries are robust to changes in the weighting of analytical elements, but the weighting can significantly alter the importance of middle ranking countries, affecting their funding allocation. This analysis has been used by the GEF, along with other data, to allocate over $1 billion in biodiversity funding (GEF-7 = $1.2 billion) to improve country and global prospects for conservation. However, this large funding allocation for conservation needs to be set against the vastly larger funding flows that decrease natural values around the world, and the need for systems level change remains evident across the entire planet.

The international wildlife trade presents severe conservation and environmental security risks. However, no international regulatory framework exists to monitor the trade of species not listed in the appendices of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). We explored the composition and dynamics of internationally regulated versus non-regulated trade, focussing on importations of wild-caught terrestrial vertebrates entering the United States of America (US) from 2009-2018. The prominence of the US in global wildlife imports and its detailed data collection conventions allows a unique opportunity to formally assess this substantial but often overlooked and understudied component of the legal wildlife trade. We found 3.6 times the number of unlisted species in US imports compared with CITES-listed species (1,366 versus 378). CITES-listed species were more likely to face reported conservation threats relative to the unlisted species (71.7% vs 27.5%). Yet, we found 376 unlisted species facing conversation threats, 297 species with unknown population trends and 139 species without an evaluation by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Unlisted species appeared novelly in imports at 5.5 times higher rates relative to CITES-listed species, where unlisted reptiles saw the largest rate of entry, averaging 53 unique species appearing in imports for the first time per year. Overall trade volumes were substantially larger for unlisted imports with approximately 11 times the number of animals relative to CITES-listed imports, however, import volumes were similar when compared at a species-by-species level. We found that the countries that were top exporters for CITES-listed shipments were mostly different from exporters of unlisted species. In highlighting the vulnerabilities of the wild-caught unlisted vertebrate trade entering the US and in the face of increasing global demand, we recommend governments adapt policies to monitor the trade of all wildlife.

A central challenge in conservation is understanding how climate change interacts with other global-change drivers to shape future species extinction risk, threatened-species hotspots, and the effectiveness of protected areas. Here, we use an integrated over-the-horizon forecasting framework to jointly model changing species range dynamics and shifts in extinction risk for 1,914 Australian terrestrial vertebrates to 2100. Our approach links ensemble species distribution models with machine-learning-based automated threat assessment, incorporating species traits, changing distributions of invasive species, and projections of land use and human population density. Under a high-emissions scenario, up to 109 species are projected to lose all climatically accessible habitat by 2100 and the number of threatened species is predicted to increase, while under a moderate emissions scenario (SSP1.26) the number of threatened species remains relatively stable, and up to 19 lose all climatically accessible habitat. Spatially, threatened-species richness becomes increasingly concentrated in southeastern Australia. These shifts elevate the representation of threatened species within existing protected areas, largely because extinctions and range contractions occur disproportionately outside protected areas. Our results highlight that the identity of at-risk species and the occurrence of threatened-species hotspots will change dramatically, underscoring the need for forward-looking conservation strategies that anticipate future biodiversity patterns.

Effective biodiversity conservation requires tools that can identify priority areas under growing human pressures. Building on the concept of global biodiversity hotspots, we present a transparent and repeatable approach to mapping conservation priorities using data for 33,604 species of terrestrial vertebrates from the IUCN Red List. This framework expands the taxonomic scope of previous efforts and integrates updated information on key human-driven threats to biodiversity. We identify that around 13% of Earths terrestrial surface qualifies as vertebrate conservation hotspots, often shaped by distinct combinations of species groups and threats. These results highlight the need for tailored, context-specific conservation strategies. By providing a robust method to guide spatial prioritization, our work supports more effective implementation of conservation targets in a rapidly changing world.

Since its conception as a discipline, conservation has considered the problem of wildlife trade. In focusing on conservation outcomes, we almost wholly omit discussions on the welfare of animals and plants, and the harms they endure. Here, we develop a political ecology approach that incorporates the interconnectedness of people with animals and natural habitats ("more-than-human") to study the Indonesian bird trade, which is deeply culturally embedded, monetised and speciose. Bringing together marketplace observations, 1-1 interviews with experts, and focus groups with law enforcement, we map out the trade across three levels (actor, inter-actor and market level) to explore flows of birds, interactions, and power dynamics within this economy. We use a method that considers both human and bird perspectives to recognize birds as active participants with their own experiences Specifically, we acknowledge previously obscured harms experienced by birds like feather plucking, dismemberment, sinus infection, overcrowding, suffocation and death. Different forms of harm occur to birds in different parts of the supply chain and depend on the human actors with whom they are interacting. Loss of freedom occurs at harvest and physical/physiological harm during transit and at the point of trade. However, harms are lower for highly sought-after species, though they are difficult to source and are well cared for by affluent collectors, but harms are higher when demand is high, and supply-side factors lead to broad harvesting with lower consideration of welfare. Our findings also indicate that men of different classes engage with birds for various reasons, such as for socialisation, investment and connecting with Javan traditions. We use this interdisciplinary approach to highlight the harms birds experience during the wildlife trade, relating to the Five Domains welfare model. Critical to understanding the harms endured are issues surrounding class, gender and culture in Indonesia, and other IWT contexts.

Freshwater ecosystems are amongst the most diverse ecosystems on the planet. They are subject to intense and increasing threats and have a higher proportion of threatened and extinct species than terrestrial or marine realms. Concurrently, freshwater ecosystems are largely underrepresented in both conservation research and actions arguably as a consequence of less popularity and promotion. To test this assumption, we used cover images as a proxy of exposure and promotion opportunities provided by conservation journals. We collected information on cover images of 18 conservation journals from 1997 to 2016 and data on citations and Altmetric scores of papers published in them. We found that freshwater ecosystems (10.4%) were featured less often than marine (15.2%) or terrestrial (74.4%) ecosystems on covers of these journals. All 15 most featured species are from terrestrial or marine ecosystems, with 14 of them being large vertebrates such as elephants, big cats, rhinos, polar bears, and marine turtles. None of the 95 species featured more than once on the covers of conservation journals spend their whole life history in fresh waters, i.e. they are at least partly associated with terrestrial or marine ecosystems. Our results indicated that cover-featured studies received more attention from academia and the general public, i.e. showed higher citations and Altmetric scores, than non-featured ones within the same issue. By featuring freshwater species and habitats on covers, therewith providing more exposure opportunities, conservation journals hold the potential to promote biodiversity conservation in fresh waters. Scientists can help that endeavour by submitting freshwater-related photos together with their manuscripts for review, therewith providing more options for editors to portray freshwater species and habitats and to ultimately raise awareness and appreciation of freshwater life.

Over a quarter of species assessed by the IUCN Red List are threatened with extinction. A global commitment to protect 17% of land and 10% of the oceans by 2020 is close to being achieved, but with limited ecological impacts due to its inadequacy and poor enforcement. Here, we reverse-engineer IUCN Red List criteria to generate area-based conservation targets and spatial conservation priorities to minimize the extinction risk of the world terrestrial mammals. We find that approximately 60% of the Earths non-Antarctic land surface would require some form of protection. Our results suggest that global conservation priority schemes, among which the Aichi targets, will be inadequate to secure the persistence of terrestrial mammals. To achieve this goal, international cooperation is required to implement a connected and comprehensive conservation area network, guided by high priority regions outlined in this study.

Area-based conservation through reserves or other measures is vital for preserving biodiversity and its functions for future generations1-5, but its effective implementation suffers from a lack of both spatial detail necessary for management practices6 and transparency around national responsibilities that might underpin cross-national support mechanisms7. Here we implement a conservation prioritization2,8 framework that accounts for spatial data limitations yet offers actionable guidance at a 1km resolution. Our multi-scale linear optimization approach delineates globally the areas required to meet area-based conservation targets for all ~32 000 described terrestrial vertebrate species, while offering flexibility in decision management to meet different local conservation objectives. Roughly 30.4% of land is sufficient to meet conservation targets for all species, of which 60.1% is either already protected9 or has minimal human modification10. However, the remaining 39.9% of human-modified areas need to be managed or restored in some form to ensure the long-term survival for over half of species. This burden of area-based conservation is distributed very unevenly among countries, and, without a process that explicitly addresses geopolitical inequity, meeting species conservation targets would require disproportionately large commitments from poorer countries (i.e., lower GNI). Our analysis provides baseline information for a potential intergovernmental and stakeholder contribution mechanism in service of a globally shared goal of sustaining biodiversity. Future updates and extensions to this global priority map have the potential to guide local and national advocacy and actions with a data-driven approach to support global conservation outcomes.

The 1972 World Heritage Convention (WHC), along with the 1994 Global Strategy, aim to preserve the outstanding universal value of internationally important cultural and natural sites within a "representative, balanced and credible" network of highly-protected areas. Increasing human pressures and shortfalls in representation have been documented across the World Heritage network, particularly in terrestrial and cultural sites, threatening the integrity and primary goals of the WHC. However, the conservation status of current and tentative (i.e., proposed) marine natural World Heritage areas remains relatively unknown. We assessed the extent of recent (2013) and historical (2008-2013) cumulative human impacts and several metrics of representation (country, continent, ecoregion, wilderness, and threatened species) within existing and tentative marine natural World Heritage areas. We found moderate yet increasing cumulative human impacts across most existing sites, and high or very high impacts across the majority of tentative sites. Climate change impacts comprised nearly 75% of impact scores, on average, and differences in land and marine impacts across sites could help prioritise management decisions. Over 75% of marine ecoregions and 85% of threatened species considered in this study have no representation within the existing marine natural World Heritage network. We outline examples of how prioritizing representation across tentative sites for future World Heritage listing could greatly increase these measures. We urge the WHC to adopt quantitative, systematic and transparent evaluations of how current and tentative sites contribute to the overarching goals of maintaining a representative World Heritage network and preserving their outstanding universal values for future generations.