Conservation Science and Practice

The sustainable use of wildlife is a core aspiration of biodiversity conservation but is the subject of intense debate in the scientific literature as to how, and whether, species are best used and managed. While both positive and negative outcomes of sustainable use are known for specific taxa or local case studies, a global and regional picture of trends in wildlife populations in use is lacking. We use a global data set of over 11,000 time-series to derive indices of utilised and not utilised wildlife populations and assess global and regional changes, principally for mammals, birds and fishes. We also assess whether management makes a measurable difference to wildlife population trends, especially for the utilised species populations. Our results show that wildlife population trends globally are negative, but with utilised populations tending to decline more rapidly, especially in Africa and the Americas. Crucially, where utilised populations are managed, using a variety of mechanisms, there is a positive impact on the trend. It is therefore true that use of species can both be a driver of negative population trends, or a driver of species recovery, with numerous species and population specific case examples making up these broader trends. This work is relevant to the evidence base for the IPBES Sustainable Use Assessment, and to the development of indicators of sustainable use of species under the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework being developed under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

In this study, we assess how well globally threatened bird species in Latin America are currently represented within existing protected areas, and we identify conservation priority areas for the most under-protected species. We used publicly available data to map the Area of Habitat (AOH) for each of the 149 land birds in South America listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species as either Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable (the latter only under criterion D - those with the smallest populations or ranges). We then set two minimum conservation targets for each species: first a population-based target that estimates the proportion of the AOH needed to conserve 1,000 mature individuals (or the total population if smaller) to prevent extinction; and second, an area-based target that estimates the amount of habitat needed to sustain the long-term conservation of each species. The AOH maps were then overlaid with existing protected areas to identify those species that do not yet have their minimum conservation targets met. Using this approach, we identified 10 species that require additional protection to avoid extinction, and a further 54 species that need expanded protection for sustained conservation. Fortunately, the majority of species already met their target. We also ran a prioritization analysis to identify and map the places most important for meeting the goals of the under-protected species. We found that just 661.4 km2 is needed to meet population-based targets for the ten species of greatest concern, and 16,360 km2 is needed to meet area-based targets for all under-protected species combined. These areas represent <0.1% of the regions land area and are mostly concentrated in five countries (Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Brazil). Expanding reserves to cover these areas should result in both improved conservation outcomes and Red List status for these species.

Threatened species management relies on Ex ante estimates of species responses to different interventions to generate meaningful predictions. Structured expert elicitation is often used to generate these estimates, but comparisons of these expert-predicted outcomes with observed results are rare. This study aims to evaluate the utility of expert elicitation for adaptive management in the New South Wales Saving our Species (SoS) program in Australia by revisiting six species management plans that were generated from bespoke structured elicitation guidelines five years prior. Each species management plan included a defined scope, conceptual model, monitoring indicators and estimated response to management curves under different scenarios. Experts reviewed the conceptual models after five years of management and monitoring and compared the predicted response to management with observed monitoring data. In three of the six case studies, observed outcomes closely matched predictions. Where predictions diverged, factors such as unanticipated new threats and unexpected responses to interventions contributed to discrepancies. However, in all cases, the structured approach provided a clear logic for planning, enabling managers to systematically refine their understanding. The conceptual models and response curves proved valuable for collaboration, communication, and generating hypotheses for unexpected results. This work demonstrates the value of the bespoke guidelines in supporting adaptive management processes, strengthening the knowledge base for threatened species conservation while improving alignment between predictions and real-world outcomes.

Providing synthetic substitutes is a widely promoted strategy to shift consumer demand away from wildlife products derived from threatened species. Yet, there is little evidence on whether such product substitution interventions effectively prevent illegal or unsustainable harvesting and contribute to the recovery of threatened populations. Drawing on the Furs For Life (FFL) Zambia initiative, which supplied synthetic furs known as "Heritage Furs" to replace leopard skins traditionally worn during Lozi royal ceremonies in Western Zambia, we present an evaluation designed to test both the effects and causal mechanisms of substitution. Guided by the EMMIE framework, commonly used in crime prevention evaluation, we triangulated data from semi-structured questionnaires, law enforcement patrols, court records, camera trap monitoring, and stakeholder interviews conducted between 2018 and 2024. Qualitative analysis using the General Elimination Method was employed to assess plausible alternative explanations for leopard recovery. By 2024, adoption of synthetic furs among leopard fur users exceeded 80 percent, while self-reported ownership of authentic leopard furs declined by 70 percent. At the same time, patrol detections of leopard poaching incidents decreased, and camera trap density estimates increased from an average of 2.7 to 3.8 leopards per 100 square kilometers across the focal landscape. An integrated mechanism of change, derived from stakeholder perspectives, indicates that while substitution reduced demand, concurrent and reinforcing effects of counter-poaching and counter-trafficking operations were critical to leopard recovery. This study provides the first empirical link between a demand reduction initiative based on synthetic substitutes and measurable species population recovery.

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.

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.

O_LIArea-based conservation targets, such as 30-30, if strategically applied, can increase resiliency to climate change and provide co-benefits to people and biodiversity. However, protected areas historically were not designated within the context of global change, and human communities at highest risk are often overlooked in conservation planning. C_LIO_LITo inform 30-30 conservation planning in the United States (i.e., America the Beautiful; ATB), we evaluated where US conservation opportunities exist by identifying habitats that can simultaneously benefit climate change mitigation and bird populations, as well as who lives in these areas and how conservation actions could both improve human well-being or potentially be at odds with local communities. To inform the equitable implementation of area-based conservation targets, we integrated maps of critical habitat for birds now and under a changing climate with carbon stocks and sinks and developed a prioritization framework to investigate the spatial alignment of these locations with areas identified as important for both human well-being and land-dependent human communities. C_LIO_LIAlthough nearly 30% of US lands have some level of protection, only 6% of US lands (143 million acres) are managed for biodiversity and align with Bird and Carbon (BC) priorities, and <3% of protected US lands (59 million acres) align with priorities for Birds, Carbon, and Human well-being (BCH). C_LIO_LIOf the 312 million acres of BCH priorities identified, 71% lack known protection or formal conservation plans (14% of US lands) and should be considered conservation opportunities that could simultaneously address the biodiversity and climate crises, and social inequities. Targeting these BCH areas for conservation action would contribute to more equitable benefits to marginalized communities, and could fulfill the Justice 40 commitment, which aims to allocate 40% of federal investments in climate benefits to marginalized communities (which, for the 30% goal under ATB equates to 12% of US lands). C_LIO_LIAt least 80% of all BCH priorities co-occur with Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) who have strong cultural and socioeconomic ties to the land, making it imperative to work with local communities to define what counts as conservation actions towards the 30% goal and what successful conservation outcomes that benefit biodiversity, climate change mitigation, and human communities look like. C_LI

Gaps in biodiversity protection occur in Canada due to limited jurisdiction of federal species-at-risk laws and the absence of dedicated legislation in many provinces, including British Columbia (B.C.). While lacking legal protection, B.C. maintains Red, Blue, and Yellow Lists of threatened, special-concern, and secure species, respectively, using a NatureServe ranking system. We compiled historical data on species status in B.C. between 2008 and 2024 from the B.C. Conservation Data Centre. B.C. is home to 5,485 Yellow, 1,116 Blue, 491 Red-listed species. Changes in status over this time period were reported for 967 animal species, with an even split in uplistings (more imperiled) and downlistings (less imperiled). More status changes were reported for plants (2,902), mainly due to updated methodology leading to a lower risk status. Analysing the accompanying explanation for each status change revealed that most changes were non-genuine (e.g., new information, taxonomy, or methodology) rather than genuine (e.g., true changes in population size, range, or threats). Genuine improvements in the status of species in B.C. have been exceedingly rare. This analysis indicates that current laws and regulations have been insufficient to recover species at risk within B.C. Plain-language summaryBritish Columbia is the most biodiverse province in Canada, yet 1,607 species are imperiled in the province. We analysed trends, finding a 16% rise in the number of species at risk since 2008. By analysing the provided explanations, we found that status improvements were mostly "non-genuine", caused by changing methodology and/or new data. Strengthening legal protections is essential to prevent biodiversity loss in the province.

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) is widely considered the strongest biodiversity conservation law in the world. Part of its strength comes from the mandate to use the best available science to make decisions under the law, including whether to list a species, setting the criteria for when a species can be considered recovered, and determining when those criteria have been met and a species can be delisted. Both biological status and threat factors are considered at each stage of the listing and delisting process. In most cases, conservation science would suggest that species at risk enough to be listed under the Act should be more abundant and secure at delisting than they were at listing. Surprisingly, we identified 130 ESA-listed species that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could consider recovered with fewer populations or individuals than existed at the time of listing. We ask whether their ESA recovery plans present scientific data, rationale, or evidence to support a decline in abundance as part of recovery. We find that almost no plan clearly explains why a decline is allowed. Fewer than half of the plans provide scientific support for a decline in the form of literature references or modeling results. We recommend that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service create a decision support system to inform when species can decline in abundance and still recover, including guidance on (a) the need to explicitly address the declines and (b) the science used to support the decisions.

To understand the complexities of managing protected areas, it is important to understand the causes for their established. We summarized the motives for establishing protected areas in Southern and Eastern Africa, and the possible consequences for management of these areas today. We scrutinised documents for 48 randomly selected protected areas and investigated, (1) when and why each of the protected areas was established? (2) what the management implications were of the reasons for incorporation for these areas? and (3) how/if the original management still impacts conservation in these areas today? First, we learnt that the establishment of protected areas occurred in three periods, namely, Period 1 when area protection was started to protect wild animals from decimation; Period 2 during which areas considered marginal for agriculture, prone to disease or sickness and considered uninhabitable for humans were set aside; and Period 3 when areas were proclaimed protected because of ecological or cultural importance. Second, we showed that the establishment of protected areas has ramifications for management of these areas today, which for Period 1 were remote logistics and tourism, anti-poaching difficulties, large size logistics and human wildlife conflict. Period 2 has consequences for community-land issues and intensive management, with Period 3 having intensive management to meet the objectives of these parks. Our insights have consequences for management of protected areas today, with Period 1 protected areas generally being managed on a laissez-faire approach and Period 2 and 3 protected areas being managed on a more intensive management basis.

Appendix III is an underutilized component of The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), comprising less than 2% (n = 519) of all listed species (January 2024). Appendix III uniquely offers unilateral protection for nationally protected species without requiring international consensus. Since CITES came into effect in 1975, 2,203 species have been added to Appendix III, including 875 endemic and 1,328 multi-country species. A total of 994 species have been delisted, mostly during CITES first decade. One-third of Appendix III species have been proposed for uplisting, with a 96% success rate and a median time of 3.3 years. Strengthening Appendix IIIs impact involves broader cooperation for species ranging from multiple countries, regular reviews, and utilizing Appendix III listings as a precursor for Appendix I and II proposals to enhance global biodiversity management.

Prioritizing regions for conservation is essential for effectively allocating limited conservation resources. One of the most common approaches to prioritization is identifying regions with the highest biodiversity, or hotspots, typically using global range map data. Range maps are readily available at large scales for an array of taxa, but are also known to differ from local-scale survey data in the same regions. We examined how prioritizations may differ between range map and survey data using the North American Breeding Bird survey (BBS) and BirdLife International range maps as a case study. Hotspot prioritizations were generated for species richness and the richness of rare species at two scales.\n\nTotal species richness patterns differed substantially between data types with at most a 41% overlap in identified hotspots. Some regions had few or no hotspots for one data type and a significant number for the other. Hotspots for rare species were more similar across the data types with 44% overlap at the larger scale. Future efforts to prioritize areas for conservation should consider differences between local-scale survey data and range maps, match data to the scale of interest, and develop methods to better downscale range map-based prioritizations to the scale of conservation decisions.

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.

Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) are a cornerstone of global biodiversity conservation, influencing international strategic plans and helping protect thousands of species. KBAs are identified through quantitative criteria, among which the most recent is Criterion E. KBA Criterion E uses Spatial Conservation Prioritization techniques to identify highly irreplaceable sites, representing a promising tool for effective expansion of the KBA network. However, it has rarely been tested or applied at large scales. Here, we carried out a continental application of KBA Criterion E in Europe, using Species Distribution Models (SDMs) for 5,529 species of insects and 972 tetrapods. We stress-tested the application of Criterion E by changing the following settings: irreplaceability threshold, metrics of irreplaceability, representation targets, spatial resolution, and cost of planning units. Under the standard Criterion E settings, we identified 23 potential KBAs for insects, mostly along northern European coasts, and 88 for tetrapods, mostly concentrated in Mediterranean islands and southern Europe. These sites slightly overlapped with existing KBAs, showing that Criterion E can capture biodiversity patterns overlooked by other criteria. Our results also showed that the identification of highly irreplaceable areas is very sensitive to analytical choices. The strict irreplaceability threshold currently required, associated with the definition of representation targets, limited the selection of important sites almost exclusively to those containing very narrow-range species, and when such species were absent, important sites were preferentially selected on coasts, where the cost of planning units (represented by land extent) was minimized. Our analysis showed both opportunities and challenges of Criterion E and its applications with SDMs. We propose potential adjustments to the definition and guidelines of Criterion E, to improve its applicability at large spatial scales and on different taxa. Improvements of KBA Criterion E will ensure that KBAs continue to substantially contribute to the global conservation of biodiversity.

AbstractOngoing declines in insect populations have led to substantial concern and calls for conservation action. However, even for relatively well-studied groups, like butterflies, information relevant to species-specific status and risk is scattered across field guides, the scientific literature, and agency reports. Consequently, attention and resources have been spent on a miniscule fraction of insect diversity, including a few well-studied butterflies. Here we bring together heterogenous sources of information for 396 butterfly species to provide the first regional assessment of butterflies for the 11 western US states. For 184 species, we use monitoring data to characterize historical and projected trends in population abundance. For another 212 species (for which monitoring data are not available, but other types of information can be collected), we use exposure to climate change, development, geographic range, number of host plants, and other factors to rank species for conservation concern. A phylogenetic signal is apparent, with concentrations of declining and at-risk species in the families Lycaenidae and Hesperiidae. A geographic bias exists in that many species that lack monitoring data occur in more southern states where we expect that impacts of warming and drying trends will be most severe. Legal protection is rare among the taxa with the highest risk values: of the top 100 species, one is listed as threatened under the US Endangered Species Act and one is a candidate for listing. Among the many taxa not currently protected, we highlight a short list of species in decline, including Vanessa annabella, Thorybes mexicanus, Euchloe ausonides, and Pholisora catullus. Notably, many of these species have broad geographic ranges, which perhaps highlights a new era of insect conservation in which small or fragmented ranges will not be the only red flags that attract conservation attention.

Knowledge gaps regarding distribution, habitat associations, and population size for rare and threatened range-restricted taxa leads to uncertainty in directing conservation action. Quantifying range metrics and species-habitat associations using Species Distribution Models (SDMs) with remote sensing habitat data can overcome these setbacks by establishing baseline estimates for biological parameters critical for conservation assessments. Area of habitat (AOH) is a new range metric developed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. AOH seeks to quantify inferred habitat within a species range to inform extinction risk assessments. Here, we use SDMs correlating occurrences with remote-sensing covariates, to calculate a first estimate of AOH for the Endangered Madagascar Serpent-eagle (Eutriorchis astur), and then update additional IUCN range metrics and the current global population estimate. From these baselines we then conduct a gap analysis assessing protected area coverage. Our continuous SDM had robust predictive performance (Continuous Boyce Index = 0.835) and when reclassified to a binary model estimated an AOH = 30,121 km2, 13 % less than the current IUCN range map. We estimate a global population of 533 mature individuals derived from the Madagascar Serpent-eagle AOH metric, which was within the current IUCN population estimates. The current protected area network covered 95 % of AOH, with the binary model identifying three key habitat areas as new protected area designations to fully protect Madagascar Serpent-eagle habitat. Our results demonstrate that correlating presence-only occurrences with remote sensing habitat covariates can fill knowledge gaps useful for informing conservation action. Applying this spatial information to conservation planning would ensure almost full protected area coverage for this endangered raptor. For tropical forest habitat specialists, we recommend that potential predictors derived from remote sensing, such as vegetation indices and biophysical measures are considered as covariates, along with other variables including climate and topography.

Protected areas are widely used management tools designed to support the long-term conservation of biodiversity. The effectiveness of protected areas is being challenged by human-induced climate change, however, which is causing three broad shifts away from the current distribution of climate trends: a change in mean conditions, a change in the variance around the mean, and/or a change in symmetry. Though changes in average conditions are certainly important, the second behaviour, a change in variance, brings a unique set of challenges that species must respond to. As conditions become more variable, phenological events become less predictable, extreme weather events become more frequent, food security and ecosystem stability are compromised, and extinction risk increases. It therefore stands to reason that changes in the variance of local conditions should be a core consideration when designing protected areas. Here, we reviewed the literature to determine the extent to which changes in variance are being incorporated into protected area planning. Worryingly, we found that fewer than a quarter of the 100 studies we surveyed formally considered how climate change might change mean conditions, and only four considered climate change-induced changes in the variance around the mean. Our evaluation reveals an alarming gap in protected area research. The majority of researchers continue to make recommendations for protected areas without acknowledging that the area(s) they are recommending for protection may have markedly different conditions in the future. Whether variability is considered or not, stochastic events represent a serious threat to the persistence of species and complex ecosystems. Effective conservation requires actively considering how the stability of conditions within protected areas will be impacted by future climate change. As global climate patterns tend towards increasing unpredictability, protecting less variable habitat should be a priority to ensure local populations are not exposed to elevated extinction risk.

Area-based conservation remains a pivotal component of global wildlife protection efforts. Mexico hosts a diverse array of area-based approaches, encompassing protected areas (PAs) and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) such as voluntary conservation areas (VCAs) and wildlife management units (UMAs). Indigenous Territories (ITs) also provide heightened conservation potential through traditional ecological knowledge systems. These conservation spaces exhibit significant variations in community involvement, national coverage, and governance. Here, we evaluate the conservation potential of these land management types for 29 terrestrial carnivores, focusing on spatial co-occurrence. We determine areas in Mexico lacking area-based protection and calculate carnivore richness per land management type. Analyzing overlap between land management types and carnivore ranges, we employ heat maps to visualize overlap occurrence and key unprotected areas. We found that across all carnivore ranges, 87% of the area remains unprotected under designated protection areas (PAs & VCAs), decreasing to 65.2% after including non-designated types (ITs and UMAs). We identified several key gaps in the protection estate for Mexican carnivores, most notably on the eastern Mexican coast in the state of Veracruz. Our findings corroborate the importance of including Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in conservation efforts, emphasizing their contributions to the stewardship of Mexican ecosystems. As the global protected area estate continues to expand under the post-2020 global biodiversity targets, and the importance of a well-designed and diverse portfolio of practices for conservation is recognized, the need for collective action, increased collaboration and inclusivity, and effective communication amongst stakeholders becomes necessary for carnivore conservation.

Protecting habitat of species-at-risk is critical to their recovery, but can be contentious. For example, protecting species that are locally imperilled but globally common (e.g. species that only occur in a jurisdiction at the edge of their geographic range) is often thought to distract from protecting globally-imperilled species. However, such perceived trade-offs are based on the assumption that threatened groups have little spatial overlap, which is rarely quantified. Here, we compile range maps of terrestrial species-at-risk in Canada to assess the geographic overlap of nationally and globally at-risk species with each other, among taxonomic groups, and with protected areas. While many nationally-at-risk taxa only occurred in Canada at their northern range edge (median=4% of range in Canada), nationally-at-risk species were not significantly more peripheral in Canada than globally-at-risk species. Further, 56% of hotspots of nationally-at-risk taxa were also hotspots of globally-at-risk taxa in Canada, undercutting the perceived trade-off in their protection. Hotspots of nationally-at-risk taxa also strongly overlapped with hotspots of individual taxonomic groups, though less so for mammals. While strong spatial overlap across threat levels and taxa should facilitate efficient habitat protection, <7% of the area in Canadas at-risk hotspots is protected, and more than 70% of nationally and globally-at-risk species in Canada have <10% of their Canadian range protected. Our results counter the perception that protecting nationally vs. globally at-risk species are at odds, and identify critical areas to target as Canada strives to increase its protected areas and promote species-at-risk recovery.

Temperate deciduous forests are one of the most visible biomes on Earth because of their autumn aesthetics and because they harbor some of the most heavily populated regions. Their ability to attract visitors may increase opportunities for people to experience nature, which has been linked to greater conservation action. Identifying regions with high leaf-peeping opportunities and regions where color has been lost to landscape conversion may help to inform these connections. We use spatial overlay analyses to quantify temperate deciduous forest coverage, disturbance, and protections in each U.S. ecoregion. We evaluated recent (1984-2016) and predicted (2016-2050) disturbance under extreme future scenarios. Almost all ecoregions saw a decline in deciduous forest cover between 1985 and 2016. Some ecoregions with the greatest opportunities for leaf-peeping are also underrepresented in the protected areas network and vulnerable to additional losses. Under economic-growth forecasting scenarios, losses are predicted to continue. However, environmentally focused scenarios suggest there is still opportunity to reverse deciduous forest loss in some ecoregions. Differences in forest loss between predictions scenarios emphasize the importance of human approaches in securing environmental stability. Increasing public exposure to temperate forests may help ensure conservation of more natural areas and preserve the quantity and quality of autumn forest viewing. Key PointsO_LITemperate deciduous forests aesthetics attract visitors to experience nature, but degradation and loss can hinder connections. C_LIO_LIUS ecoregions with the greatest leaf-peeping opportunities are underrepresented in the protected areas and vulnerable to additional losses. C_LIO_LIDifferences in predictions scenarios emphasize the importance of conservation action, which may be linked to human connections with nature. C_LI