This Year in Conservation Science: Elephants, Sharks, Mountains, Bees, and More
Every month scientific journals publish hundreds of new papers about endangered species and wildlife conservation. It’s a firehose of information in a world that feels increasingly in flames. That’s why I started writing this column. “This Month in Conservation Science” is an opportunity to sort through some of that critical research and filter it for an audience who can put these scientific discoveries to good use. Our first few columns looked at papers published over specific four-week periods. This month, as we all wrap up 2024, we asked researchers to send us their best or favorite papers of the past year. We received submissions that offer hope, guidance, analysis, and insight into emerging threats. Stuart Pimm, president of Saving Nature, recommended a paper he and his colleagues published in Science Advances revealing surprising news for elephants. He wrote: “The public may think that elephants in the African savannah are in freefall. In fact, over the last quarter century, their numbers have held their own across Southern Africa (mid-Tanzania southwards), an area that holds three-quarters of them. The paper shows what strategies led to this success and recommends that connecting now-isolated populations will be vital for future progress.” Sukakpak Mountain. Photo: Bob Wick/BLM Aerin Jacob, director of science and research at Nature Conservancy of Canada, sent a coauthored paper from Conservation Biology about mountains — a habitat type that deserves more attention. “People often think that mountain ecosystems are so rugged and inaccessible that they don’t need habitat protection, but that’s not true,” she wrote. “We studied six major mountain regions around the world and found that on average half of them are as modified as the rest of the world; two-thirds of them don’t (yet) meet the 30×30 global protection target; and existing protected areas don’t include the vast majority of mountain ecosystem types. Mountains are super-important for biodiversity, ecosystem function, and the benefits people get from nature. We ignore them at our peril.” Speaking of 30×30, marine expert Stacy Jupiter with the Wildlife Conservation Society recommended a paper in Marine Policy, cowritten by two other WCS specialists, that she tells us sought to “identify highly productive marine areas around the world to help the world achieve the protection of at least 30% of the planet by 2030. This analysis adds to the current body of knowledge by exploring the notion of marine productivity as an enabling condition that drives ecological integrity in marine ecosystems. It’s a critically important feature to inform and complement future conservation efforts.” An endangered Caribbean reef shark. Photo: Brian Gratwicke (CC BY 2.0) Sticking with the ocean, shark scientist David Shiffman (a frequent Revelator contributor) sent a commentary he published in Integrative & Comparative Biology about how misinformation shapes the public’s perspective on shark conservation. “This invited commentary summarizes the last decade of my research into public misunderstanding of ocean conservation issues,” he wrote. “In a career sitting in rooms with global science and conservation experts and a career talking to the interested public about how to save the ocean, I’ve noticed something striking: both groups talk about the same issues, but they talk about them very differently. This inspired a decade-long research project looking at where concerned members of the public learn about ocean conservation threats and their policy solutions, and what type of information is spread through those information pathways. It turns out that nearly every information pathway is flooded with misunderstandings if not straight-up pseudoscience, a big problem as we work to save endangered species and key ecosystems.” View this post on Instagram A post shared by Charles Eutsler (@charles.eutsler) Sharks get a lot of press, but many other species fly under the radar. Wildlife trade researcher Lalita Gomez shared a Discover Animals paper cowritten with frequent Revelator contributor Chris Shepherd about a cat-like mammal called the binturong that faces an underappreciated threat. “This little creature is currently being traded under the radar in large numbers for the pet trade, which is ridiculous considering its vulnerable status,” she wrote. “The online trade of live animals is also out of hand and with this paper we push for stronger regulation of social media platforms that perpetuate the trade.” Shepherd, meanwhile, was the senior author of a paper in the European Journal of Wildlife Research that examined Canada’s role in international wildlife trade. “Wildlife trade is embedded in Canada’s history, dating back to the early fur traders, evolving to include multiple commodities such as the contemporary fur industry and the thriving pet trade of today,” he wrote. “Considering recent reports of animals legally and illegally imported into Canada and the potential threats of wildlife trade studied elsewhere, wildlife trade may pose risks to Canada’s natural heritage, biodiversity, biosecurity, and animal welfare. Our review underscores the need to enhance academic knowledge and policy tools to effectively identify and address trade issues concerning Canadian and nonnative wildlife.” Continuing the theme of wildlife trade, Neil D’Cruze shared a Journal of Environmental Management paper from several authors at World Animal Protection and John Jay College of Criminal Justice that “highlights significant gaps in global wildlife trade laws despite a century of growing legislation. Examining 11 biodiversity-rich countries, the research found that the Global Biodiversity Index does not correlate with the scope of wildlife trade laws. Legislation is unevenly distributed across trade stages, with animal welfare notably underrepresented, particularly in captive breeding and farming. Our study urges the alignment of national and international regulations to address critical gaps, protect biodiversity, and prioritise animal welfare, emphasising its importance for public health and environmental sustainability.” Moving on to a different topic, let’s talk about the damaging ways people move through the natural world. William Laurance, distinguished research professor at James Cook University, shared a Nature paper led by one of his Ph.D. students about ghost roads — often-illegal roads that don’t exist on maps but pose a serious danger to ecosystems. “Globally, ghost roads are one of the most serious, understudied threats to ecosystems and biodiversity — especially in poorer nations that harbor much of Earth’s biodiversity,” he wrote. We also heard from Dr. Sara Cannon with the Centre for Indigenous Fisheries at the Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, who was the lead author of a paper in Facets that argued the open data movement is putting too much pressure on Indigenous people to make their scientific data public. “This paper highlights why Indigenous data sovereignty is crucial for addressing environmental challenges like climate change and cumulative effects on ecosystems, particularly salmon-bearing watersheds in British Columbia,” she writes. “It underscores the need for respectful collaborations between Indigenous knowledge-holders and external researchers, offering actionable steps to honor Indigenous data sovereignty and improve data management practices. By reading this paper, the public can better understand how Indigenous data sovereignty supports ecosystem resilience and empowers Indigenous communities to maintain sovereignty over their territories and knowledge.” View this post on Instagram A post shared by Wildlife Conservation Society Mongolia (@wcs.mongolia) Samantha Strindberg of the WCS submitted two papers, both authored with expansive teams, that showcased the value of large, long-term conservation monitoring programs. The first, published in Oryx, assessed the population size of the Mongolian gazelle. “The Eastern Steppe of Mongolia harbors the largest remaining temperate grassland on the planet and is home to millions of Mongolian gazelles,” she wrote. “This is the first comprehensive assessment of this species that roams over 750,000 square kilometers, predominantly (91%) in the Mongolian open plains, and also Russia and China. It highlights the importance of comprehensive monitoring surveys and the value of cross-border collaboration to provide important information for conservation of this species in the long-term.” The second, published in Primates, examined great ape surveys: “The Republic of Congo expanded the Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park to include the gorilla-rich, previously unlogged forest of the Djéké Triangle. These survey results for western lowland gorilla and central chimpanzee are part of a 25-year history of globally important scientific research on the ecology and behavior of western lowland gorillas. Empirical evidence of the environmental value and strategic conservation importance supported the inclusion of the Djéké Triangle into the NNNP with long-term monitoring results also informing best-practice standards and ape tourism certification.” Finally, this month, we heard from Liber Ero Postdoctoral Fellow Jayme Lewthwaite, who recommended a paper she didn’t work on as one of the best she’s seen in 2024. Published in Nature Sustainability, lead author Laura Melissa Guzman and colleagues examined the effects of pesticides on wild bee distributions in the United States. “This paper is so important because it’s the first national assessment of how pesticide use is affecting native bees across their ranges,” Lewthwaite wrote. “While overall pesticide use has plateaued in the U.S., Guzman et al. show that the novel pesticides that are increasingly being favored (such as neonicotinoids) are extremely deadly to native insects, perhaps more than any of their predecessors. While this was suspected and shown through a few studies in the UK (where they were subsequently banned), this is the first study to do so in the U.S. on such a large taxonomic and spatial scale. We should all be worried about the decline of native bees because they are by far the most effective pollinators out of any group, and this has important food security implications.” We’ll return to our regular format next month, which will link to papers published between Dec. 15, 2024, and Jan. 15, 2025. We’re happy to hear from any author or team with a new paper coming out in a peer-reviewed journal or other publication during that timeframe, especially if you’re from the Global South or an institution without much public-relations support. For consideration in a future column, drop us a link at tips@therevelator.org and use the subject line TMICS. Scroll down to find our “Republish” button The post This Year in Conservation Science: Elephants, Sharks, Mountains, Bees, and More appeared first on The Revelator.
We asked conservation researchers to send us their best papers of 2024. They surprised us with some powerful and important science. The post This Year in Conservation Science: Elephants, Sharks, Mountains, Bees, and More appeared first on The Revelator.
Every month scientific journals publish hundreds of new papers about endangered species and wildlife conservation. It’s a firehose of information in a world that feels increasingly in flames.
That’s why I started writing this column. “This Month in Conservation Science” is an opportunity to sort through some of that critical research and filter it for an audience who can put these scientific discoveries to good use.
Our first few columns looked at papers published over specific four-week periods. This month, as we all wrap up 2024, we asked researchers to send us their best or favorite papers of the past year. We received submissions that offer hope, guidance, analysis, and insight into emerging threats.
Stuart Pimm, president of Saving Nature, recommended a paper he and his colleagues published in Science Advances revealing surprising news for elephants. He wrote: “The public may think that elephants in the African savannah are in freefall. In fact, over the last quarter century, their numbers have held their own across Southern Africa (mid-Tanzania southwards), an area that holds three-quarters of them. The paper shows what strategies led to this success and recommends that connecting now-isolated populations will be vital for future progress.”
Aerin Jacob, director of science and research at Nature Conservancy of Canada, sent a coauthored paper from Conservation Biology about mountains — a habitat type that deserves more attention. “People often think that mountain ecosystems are so rugged and inaccessible that they don’t need habitat protection, but that’s not true,” she wrote. “We studied six major mountain regions around the world and found that on average half of them are as modified as the rest of the world; two-thirds of them don’t (yet) meet the 30×30 global protection target; and existing protected areas don’t include the vast majority of mountain ecosystem types. Mountains are super-important for biodiversity, ecosystem function, and the benefits people get from nature. We ignore them at our peril.”
Speaking of 30×30, marine expert Stacy Jupiter with the Wildlife Conservation Society recommended a paper in Marine Policy, cowritten by two other WCS specialists, that she tells us sought to “identify highly productive marine areas around the world to help the world achieve the protection of at least 30% of the planet by 2030. This analysis adds to the current body of knowledge by exploring the notion of marine productivity as an enabling condition that drives ecological integrity in marine ecosystems. It’s a critically important feature to inform and complement future conservation efforts.”
Sticking with the ocean, shark scientist David Shiffman (a frequent Revelator contributor) sent a commentary he published in Integrative & Comparative Biology about how misinformation shapes the public’s perspective on shark conservation. “This invited commentary summarizes the last decade of my research into public misunderstanding of ocean conservation issues,” he wrote. “In a career sitting in rooms with global science and conservation experts and a career talking to the interested public about how to save the ocean, I’ve noticed something striking: both groups talk about the same issues, but they talk about them very differently. This inspired a decade-long research project looking at where concerned members of the public learn about ocean conservation threats and their policy solutions, and what type of information is spread through those information pathways. It turns out that nearly every information pathway is flooded with misunderstandings if not straight-up pseudoscience, a big problem as we work to save endangered species and key ecosystems.”
Sharks get a lot of press, but many other species fly under the radar. Wildlife trade researcher Lalita Gomez shared a Discover Animals paper cowritten with frequent Revelator contributor Chris Shepherd about a cat-like mammal called the binturong that faces an underappreciated threat. “This little creature is currently being traded under the radar in large numbers for the pet trade, which is ridiculous considering its vulnerable status,” she wrote. “The online trade of live animals is also out of hand and with this paper we push for stronger regulation of social media platforms that perpetuate the trade.”
Shepherd, meanwhile, was the senior author of a paper in the European Journal of Wildlife Research that examined Canada’s role in international wildlife trade. “Wildlife trade is embedded in Canada’s history, dating back to the early fur traders, evolving to include multiple commodities such as the contemporary fur industry and the thriving pet trade of today,” he wrote. “Considering recent reports of animals legally and illegally imported into Canada and the potential threats of wildlife trade studied elsewhere, wildlife trade may pose risks to Canada’s natural heritage, biodiversity, biosecurity, and animal welfare. Our review underscores the need to enhance academic knowledge and policy tools to effectively identify and address trade issues concerning Canadian and nonnative wildlife.”
Continuing the theme of wildlife trade, Neil D’Cruze shared a Journal of Environmental Management paper from several authors at World Animal Protection and John Jay College of Criminal Justice that “highlights significant gaps in global wildlife trade laws despite a century of growing legislation. Examining 11 biodiversity-rich countries, the research found that the Global Biodiversity Index does not correlate with the scope of wildlife trade laws. Legislation is unevenly distributed across trade stages, with animal welfare notably underrepresented, particularly in captive breeding and farming. Our study urges the alignment of national and international regulations to address critical gaps, protect biodiversity, and prioritise animal welfare, emphasising its importance for public health and environmental sustainability.”
Moving on to a different topic, let’s talk about the damaging ways people move through the natural world. William Laurance, distinguished research professor at James Cook University, shared a Nature paper led by one of his Ph.D. students about ghost roads — often-illegal roads that don’t exist on maps but pose a serious danger to ecosystems. “Globally, ghost roads are one of the most serious, understudied threats to ecosystems and biodiversity — especially in poorer nations that harbor much of Earth’s biodiversity,” he wrote.
We also heard from Dr. Sara Cannon with the Centre for Indigenous Fisheries at the Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, who was the lead author of a paper in Facets that argued the open data movement is putting too much pressure on Indigenous people to make their scientific data public. “This paper highlights why Indigenous data sovereignty is crucial for addressing environmental challenges like climate change and cumulative effects on ecosystems, particularly salmon-bearing watersheds in British Columbia,” she writes. “It underscores the need for respectful collaborations between Indigenous knowledge-holders and external researchers, offering actionable steps to honor Indigenous data sovereignty and improve data management practices. By reading this paper, the public can better understand how Indigenous data sovereignty supports ecosystem resilience and empowers Indigenous communities to maintain sovereignty over their territories and knowledge.”
Samantha Strindberg of the WCS submitted two papers, both authored with expansive teams, that showcased the value of large, long-term conservation monitoring programs. The first, published in Oryx, assessed the population size of the Mongolian gazelle. “The Eastern Steppe of Mongolia harbors the largest remaining temperate grassland on the planet and is home to millions of Mongolian gazelles,” she wrote. “This is the first comprehensive assessment of this species that roams over 750,000 square kilometers, predominantly (91%) in the Mongolian open plains, and also Russia and China. It highlights the importance of comprehensive monitoring surveys and the value of cross-border collaboration to provide important information for conservation of this species in the long-term.”
The second, published in Primates, examined great ape surveys: “The Republic of Congo expanded the Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park to include the gorilla-rich, previously unlogged forest of the Djéké Triangle. These survey results for western lowland gorilla and central chimpanzee are part of a 25-year history of globally important scientific research on the ecology and behavior of western lowland gorillas. Empirical evidence of the environmental value and strategic conservation importance supported the inclusion of the Djéké Triangle into the NNNP with long-term monitoring results also informing best-practice standards and ape tourism certification.”
Finally, this month, we heard from Liber Ero Postdoctoral Fellow Jayme Lewthwaite, who recommended a paper she didn’t work on as one of the best she’s seen in 2024. Published in Nature Sustainability, lead author Laura Melissa Guzman and colleagues examined the effects of pesticides on wild bee distributions in the United States. “This paper is so important because it’s the first national assessment of how pesticide use is affecting native bees across their ranges,” Lewthwaite wrote. “While overall pesticide use has plateaued in the U.S., Guzman et al. show that the novel pesticides that are increasingly being favored (such as neonicotinoids) are extremely deadly to native insects, perhaps more than any of their predecessors. While this was suspected and shown through a few studies in the UK (where they were subsequently banned), this is the first study to do so in the U.S. on such a large taxonomic and spatial scale. We should all be worried about the decline of native bees because they are by far the most effective pollinators out of any group, and this has important food security implications.”
We’ll return to our regular format next month, which will link to papers published between Dec. 15, 2024, and Jan. 15, 2025. We’re happy to hear from any author or team with a new paper coming out in a peer-reviewed journal or other publication during that timeframe, especially if you’re from the Global South or an institution without much public-relations support. For consideration in a future column, drop us a link at tips@therevelator.org and use the subject line TMICS.
The post This Year in Conservation Science: Elephants, Sharks, Mountains, Bees, and More appeared first on The Revelator.