Biodiversity Realism: Preserving the tree of life

Biodiversity is a key concept in the biological sciences. While it has its origin in conservation biology, it has become useful across multiple biological disciplines as a means to describe biological variation. It remains, however, unclear what particular biological units the concept refers to. There are currently multiple accounts of which biological features constitute biodiversity and how these are to be measured. In this paper, I draw from the species concept debate to argue for a set of desiderata for the concept of “biodiversity” that is both principled and coheres with the concept’s use. Given these desiderata, this concept should be understood as referring to difference quantified in terms of the phylogenetic structure of lineages, also known as the ‘tree of life’.     

In defence of biodiversity

The concept of biodiversity has played a central role within conservation biology over the last thirty years. Precisely how it should be understood, however, is a matter of ongoing debate. In this paper we defend what we call a classic multidimensional conception of biodiversity. We begin by introducing two arguments for eliminating the concept of biodiversity from conservation biology, both of which have been put forward in a recent paper by Santana (Biol Philos 29:761–780. doi: 10.1007/s10539-014-9426-2, 2014). The first argument is against the concept’s scientific usefulness. The other is against its value as a target of conservation. We show that neither of these objections is successful against the classic multidimensional conception of biodiversity. Biodiversity thus understood is important from a scientific perspective, because it plays important explanatory roles within contemporary ecology. Moreover, although it does not encompass all valuable features of the natural world, this does not show that we should abandon it as a target of conservation. Instead, biodiversity should be conceived as one of many grounds of value associated with ecosystems. This is consistent with concluding that a central aim of conservationists should be to protect biodiversity.     

Does conservation on farmland contribute to halting the biodiversity decline?

Biodiversity continues to decline, despite the implementation of international conservation conventions and measures. To counteract biodiversity loss, it is pivotal to know how conservation actions affect biodiversity trends. Focussing on European farmland species, we review what is known about the impact of conservation initiatives on biodiversity. We argue that the effects of conservation are a function of conservation-induced ecological contrast, agricultural land-use intensity and landscape context. We find that, to date, only a few studies have linked local conservation effects to national biodiversity trends. It is therefore unknown how the extensive European agri-environmental budget for conservation on farmland contributes to the policy objectives to halt biodiversity decline. Based on this review, we identify new research directions addressing this important knowledge gap.     

Spencerism and the Causal Theory of Reference

Spencer’s heritage, while almost a forgotten chapter in the history of biology, lives on in psychology and the philosophy of mind. I particularly discuss externalist views of meaning, on which meaning crucially depends on a notion of reference, and ask whether reference should be thought of as cause or effect. Is the meaning of a word explained by what it refers to, or should we say that what we use a word to refer to is explained by what concept it expresses? I argue for the latter view, which I call ‘Darwinian’, and against the former, ‘Spencerian’ one, assuming conceptual structures in humans to be an instance of adaptive structures, and adaptive relations to an environment to be the effect rather than the cause of evolutionary novelties. I conclude with the deficiency – both empirically and methodologically – of a functionalist study of human concepts and the languages they are embedded in, as it would be undertaken in a paradigm that identifies meaning with reference or that gives reference an explanatory role to play for what concepts we have.     

Biodiversity is a chimera,and chimeras aren’t real

A recent article by Burch-Brown and Archer (Biol Philos, 2017) provides compelling arguments that biodiversity is either a natural kind or a pragmatically-valid scientific entity. I call into question three of these arguments. The first argument contends that biodiversity is a Homeostatic Property Cluster (HPC). I respond that there is no plausible homeostatic mechanism that would make biodiversity an HPC natural kind. The second argument proposes that biodiversity is a multiply-realizable functional kind. I respond that there is no shared function to ground this account. The final, and strongest, argument, is that biodiversity is an ineliminable explanans and explanandum in various subdisciplines of biology. I argue that once we look at the details of the relevant research, not only does biodiversity in a broad sense not function in explanatory roles, but we must eliminate biodiversity in favor of more specific concepts in order to make sense of the leading explanations in contemporary ecology and conservation science.     

But is it progress? On the alleged advances of conservation biology over ecology

As conservation biology has developed as a distinct discipline from ecology, conservation guidelines based on ecological theory have been largely cast aside in favor of theory-independent decision procedures for designing conservation reserves. I argue that this transition has failed to advance the field toward its aim of preserving biodiversity. The abandonment of island biogeography theory in favor of complementarity-based algorithms is a case in point. In what follows, I consider the four central objections raised against island biogeographic conservation guidelines, arguing that they fail to undermine the credibility of this framework as a conservation tool. At best, these objections call for a more careful application of this framework to conservation problems, not its wholesale abandonment. At the same time, complementarily-based algorithms are biased in favor of networks of small reserves containing non-overlapping species. These conditions threaten to promote inbreeding depression, genetic drift and other factors that increase a population’s risk of extinction. Therefore, recent developments in the field of conservation biology have arguably not contributed to its ultimate aim of preserving the maximum amount of biodiversity in the long run.

保护生物学概要

保护生物学的形成是对生物危机的反应和生物科学迅速发展的结果。它是应用科学解决由于人类活动干扰或其它因素引起的物种、群落和生态系统出现的问题的新学科。其”目的是提供保护生物多样性的原理和工具“,其基础科学和应用科学的综合性交叉学科。系统学、生态学、生物地理学和种群生态学的原理和方法是保护生物学重要的理论和实践基础。     

Irretrievably confused? Innateness in explanatory context

The hunt for a biologically respectable definition for the folk concept of innateness is still on. I defend Ariew’s Canalization account of innateness against the criticisms of Griffiths and Machery, but highlight the remaining flaws in this proposal. I develop a new analysis based on the notion of environmental induction. A trait is innate, I argue, iff it is not environmentally induced. I augment this definition with a novel analysis of environmental induction that draws on the contrastive nature of causal explanation. Whether a trait is environmentally induced, I argue, depends on a context sensitive contrast class. I argue that a “Noninduction” analysis of innateness allows the concept an explanatory role in biology. I show how my proposal co-opts the successes of the Canalization account whilst avoiding its pitfalls, and I account for why biologists associate a range of disparate properties with innateness.     

There May be Strict Empirical Laws in Biology, after All

This paper consists of four parts. Part 1 is an introduction. Part 2 evaluates arguments for the claim that there are no strict empirical laws in biology. I argue that there are two types of arguments for this claim and they are as follows: (1) Biological properties are multiply realized and they require complex processes. For this reason, it is almost impossible to formulate strict empirical laws in biology. (2) Generalizations in biology hold contingently but laws go beyond describing contingencies, so there cannot be strict laws in biology. I argue that both types of arguments fail. Part 3 considers some examples of biological laws in recent biological research and argues that they exemplify strict laws in biology. Part 4 considers the objection that the examples in part 3 may be strict laws but they are not distinctively biological laws. I argue that given a plausible account of what distinctively biological means, such laws are distinctively biological.     

Nobody Likes Dichotomies (But Sometimes You Need Them)

Environmental anthropologists attempt to accommodate social justice while seeking to reconcile more-than-human relations and responsibilities towards their habitats. This article acknowledges areas of tension between local livelihoods and international conservation efforts, between indigenous peoples and wildlife, between traditional lifeways and development, and finally between different types of ethical assumptions that underlie anthropological advocacy. A number of dichotomies that are inherent in these tensions are discussed. With regard to the ecocentric/anthropocentric dichotomy, I argue that while human and environmental interests are sometimes intertwined, ecocentrism is necessary if non-humans are to be protected outside of utilitarian interests. With regard to the ‘neoliberal conservation/local communities’ dichotomy, I argue that blaming conservation for the violation of social justice depoliticises the issue of ecological injustice. Through a critical discussion of these dichotomies, this article examines the role of environmental anthropology in addressing today’s pressing environmental issues, particularly the loss of biodiversity, with respect to the ‘conservation’ of communities and that of protected areas.     

The history and future of fungi as biodiversity surrogates in forests

Biodiversity surrogates are commonly used in conservation biology. Here we review how fungi have been used as such in forest conservation, emphasizing proposed surrogate roles and practical applications. We show that many fungal surrogates have been suggested based on field experience and loose concepts, rather than on rigorously collected scientific data. Yet, they have played an important role, not only in forest conservation, but also in inspiring research in fungal ecology and forest history. We argue that, even in times of ecosystem oriented conservation planning and molecular tools to analyze fungal communities, fruit bodies of macrofungi have potential as convenient conservation shortcuts and easy tools to communicate complex biodiversity for a broader audience. To improve the reliability of future fungal surrogates we propose a three step protocol for developing evidence based schemes for practical application in forest conservation.     

Landowners’ ability to leverage in negotiations over habitat conservation

Voluntary conservation agreements are commonly used to stem the impact of habitat destruction and degradation on terrestrial biodiversity. Past studies that aim to inform how resources for conservation should be allocated across land parcels have assumed the costs of securing conservation on sites can be estimated solely on the basis of the value of alternative land uses. However, in a voluntary negotiation, a landowner could hold-out for a higher payment based on a conservation group or agency’s willingness-to-pay by leveraging the value of biodiversity on the property. We examine landowners’ ability to leverage and the consequences for conservation planning. To explore this, we first use an analytical approximation that simplifies the situation to one where a conservation group prioritizes one site for acquisition. Landowners’ ability to hold-out for higher payments in this situation ranges from approximately 17% to 55% of the value of alternative land uses on the site. We show that landowners’ ability to hold-out for higher payments is more sensitive to variance in the value of alternative land uses than variance in the biodiversity value across properties and is highest when the two factors negatively covary. Next, we consider multi-site selection decisions accounting for community complementarity across parcels. We find that leverage potential can be significantly higher in this context, with a maximum increase of 237% of the value of alternative land uses, and that community irreplaceability is correlated with landowners’ ability to leverage. If one landowner holds out for a higher payment, it has implications for what other parcels should be priorities for protection.     

Creating parts that allow for rational design: Synthetic biology and the problem of context-sensitivity

The parts-based engineering approach in synthetic biology aims to create pre-characterised biological parts that can be used for the rational design of novel functional systems. Given the context-sensitivity of biological entities, a key question synthetic biologists have to address is what properties these parts should have so that they give a predictable output even when they are used in different contexts. In the first part of this paper I will analyse some of the answers that synthetic biologists have given to this question and claim that the focus of these answers on parts and their properties does not allow us to tackle the problem of context-sensitivity. In the second part of the paper, I will argue that we might have to abandon the notions of parts and their properties in order to understand how independence in biology could be achieved. Using Robert Cummins’ account of functional analysis, I will then develop the notion of a capacity and its condition space and show how these notions can help to tackle the problem of context-sensitivity in biology.     

Biocultural Diversity: Moving Beyond the Realm of ‘Indigenous’ and ‘Local’ People

During the past decade the relationship between biodiversity and human diversity has received increased attention, resulting in the identification of what the Declaration of Belém calls an ‘inextricable link’ between biological and cultural diversity. Although the term biocultural diversity, introduced to denote this link, is being used increasingly, there has been little critical reflection on what it precisely refers to. I argue that it is used with particular reference to ‘indigenous traditional’ people, but that there is scope for extending its application within biocultural discourse. I therefore review the concept of culture and discuss what constitutes cultural values of the natural environment. I conclude that the concept of culture must be understood as involving a dynamic process of transcultural exchange and constant re-articulations of tradition resulting in the persistence of certain cultural practices. This approach ultimately reveals that the concept of biocultural diversity is also applicable to non-indigenous traditional communities.     

On the concept of individual in ecology and evolution

Part of the art of theory building is to construct effective basic concepts, with a large reach and yet powerful as tools for getting at conclusions. The most basic concept of population biology is that of individual. An appropriately reengineered form of this concept has become the basis for the theories of structured populations and adaptive dynamics. By appropriately delimiting individuals, followed by defining their states as well as their environment, it become possible to construct the general population equations that were introduced and studied by Odo Diekmann and his collaborators. In this essay I argue for taking the properties that led to these successes as the defining characteristics of the concept of individual, delegating the properties classically invoked by philosophers to the secondary role of possible empirical indicators for the presence of those characteristics. The essay starts with putting in place as rule for effective concept engineering that one should go for relations that can be used as basis for deductive structure building rather than for perceived ontological essence. By analysing how we want to use it in the mathematical arguments I then build up a concept of individual, first for use in population dynamical considerations and then for use in evolutionary ones. These two concepts do not coincide, and neither do they on all occasions agree with common intuition-based usage.     

The business of biodiversity – What is needed for biodiversity markets to work

There has been considerable discussion in Australia about market-based initiatives with the potential to bring effective incentives and greater investment for farmers and other land managers to promote biodiversity conservation. These initiatives include biodiversity trading markets (also termed the nature repair market), stewardship schemes, certification programmes, sustainability frameworks, and natural capital accounting. We welcome these discussions and believe these initiatives would be true advances if they bring much greater investment in conservation and stronger protection and recovery of biodiversity. However, we also have major concerns about the integrity and scientific credibility of some of these initiatives. In this article, we discuss why it is critical that such initiatives both carefully define biodiversity and determine what elements of biodiversity are to be targeted in conservation efforts. We also discuss the fundamental importance of appropriate and agreed biodiversity metrics, as well as the critical need for rigorous, well designed and independent biodiversity monitoring. To ensure that initiatives like biodiversity trading markets, stewardship schemes, certification programmes, sustainability frameworks and natural capital accounting are rigorous, non-corruptible and actually deliver what they are intended to do, they will need to be underpinned by appropriate programme designs. This includes robust and transparent governance structures, high-quality monitoring and timely reporting of key metrics.     

基于生物学物种定义探讨物种形成理论与验证的研究进展

物种形成是进化生物学研究的一个永恒主题, 由于生物群体进化是连续和动态的, 物种界限变得难于界定。本文首先讨论了3种地理物种形成模式(同域、邻域及异域), 并分析了近期报道的研究证据。其次, 评述了合子后生殖隔离机制的分子遗传基础和应用群体基因组数据分析的证据, 包括BDMI模型(Bateson-Dobzhansky-Muller incompatibility)、QTLs (quantitative trait loci)、霍尔丹法则及大X染色体效应。最后, 探讨了交配系统作为合子前隔离机制之一与物种形成的关系, 认为近交或自交通过扩大种群遗传结构分化, 增强不同交配系统的种群间不对称基因渐渗, 或种群间无基因渐渗等途径, 促进新物种形成。已知植物交配系统的演化更倾向于从异交(或自交不亲和)向自交(或近交亲和)方式, 花性状和基因组的分化推动形成所谓的自交综合征, 研究交配系统驱动或强化物种形成模式对认识植物物种形成机制有重要意义。     

Why conserve biodiversity? A multi-national exploration of stakeholders’ views on the arguments for biodiversity conservation

Given the concern about biodiversity loss, there are a number of arguments used for biodiversity conservation ranging from those emphasising the intrinsic value of biodiversity to those on the direct use value of ecosystems. Yet arguing the case for biodiversity conservation effectively requires an understanding of why people value biodiversity. We used Q methodology to explore and understand how different conservation practitioners (social and natural science researchers, environmental non-Governmental organisations and decision-makers) in nine European countries argue for conservation. We found that there was a plurality of views about biodiversity and its conservation. A moral argument and some arguments around the intrinsic and ecological value of biodiversity were held by all stakeholder groups. They also shared the view that species valuation does not justify the destruction of nature. However, there were also some differences within and between the groups, which primarily reflected the espousal of either ecocentric or anthropocentric viewpoints. Our findings suggest that moral arguments and those around biodiversity’s intrinsic and ecological value could potentially serve as a starting point for building consensus among conservation practitioners.     

基于层次分析法的旗舰物种遴选方法

旗舰物种是保护生物学中一个广泛应用的概念, 用于获得公众对保护行为的支持, 在生物多样性保护领域发挥着重要作用。但目前尚未见量化分析遴选和确定旗舰物种的公开报道, 致使学术界对旗舰物种的定义和使用相对主观, 缺乏科学依据。本文对旗舰物种的定义进行了梳理, 探讨了旗舰物种的内涵, 确定了旗舰物种的属性, 制定了遴选标准和量化遴选方法, 以便读者更好地理解和运用这一概念。目前旗舰物种的定义仍然局限在其社会学属性, 作者建议今后应加强其生物生态学属性。作者认为除了公众的关注度和认可度之外, 旗舰物种还应具备以下3个生态生物学和社会文化特征: (1)物种在当地的濒危程度及生存现状; (2)物种在当地生态系统中的重要性; (3)物种在当地民众中的影响力和认可度。基于此, 本文确定了表征旗舰物种社会文化属性和生态生物学属性的8个要素, 基于层次分析法提出了一种量化的旗舰物种遴选方法。该方法综合上述8个要素进行评判和计算分值, 以塔吉克斯坦境内分布的14种大型濒危哺乳动物的生态生物学属性和社会文化影响力为基础, 描述基于层次分析法遴选塔吉克斯坦哺乳类旗舰物种的方法和过程, 最终依据每个备选物种所得分值高低排序, 得到塔吉克斯坦旗舰物种的优先备选物种。本文首次提出了一种量化遴选旗舰物种的方法, 期望今后可基于该方法开发更加合理的旗舰物种遴选模型和算法。