Conservation threats and future prospects for the freshwater fishes of Ecuador: A hotspot of Neotropical fish diversity

Freshwater fish communities in Ecuador exhibit some of the highest levels of diversity and endemism in the Neotropics. Unfortunately, aquatic ecosystems in the country are under serious threat and conditions are deteriorating. In 2018–19, the government of Ecuador sponsored a series of workshops to examine the conservation status of Ecuador's freshwater fishes. Concerns were identified for 35 species, most of which are native to the Amazon region, and overfishing of Amazonian pimelodid catfishes emerged as a major issue. However, much of the information needed to make decisions across fish groups and regions was not available, hindering the process and highlighting the need for a review of the conservation threats to Ecuador's freshwater fishes. Here, we review how the physical alteration of rivers, deforestation, wetland and floodplain degradation, agricultural and urban water pollution, mining, oil extraction, dams, overfishing, introduced species and climate change are affecting freshwater fishes in Ecuador. Although many of these factors affect fishes throughout the Neotropics, the lack of data on Ecuadorian fish communities is staggering and highlights the urgent need for more research. We also make recommendations, including the need for proper enforcement of existing environmental laws, restoration of degraded aquatic ecosystems, establishment of a national monitoring system for freshwater ecosystems, investment in research to fill gaps in knowledge, and encouragement of public engagement in citizen science and conservation efforts. Freshwater fishes are an important component of the cultural and biological legacy of the Ecuadorian people. Conserving them for future generations is critical.     

A conceptual framework for urban ecological restoration and rehabilitation

Urban greenspace has gained considerable attention during the last decades because of its relevance to wildlife conservation, human welfare, and climate change adaptation. Biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation worldwide require the formation of new concepts of ecological restoration and rehabilitation aimed at improving ecosystem functions, services, and biodiversity conservation in cities. Although relict sites of natural and semi-natural ecosystems can be found in urban areas, environmental conditions and species composition of most urban ecosystems are highly modified, inducing the development of novel and hybrid ecosystems. A consequence of this ecological novelty is the lack of (semi-) natural reference systems available for defining restoration targets and assessing restoration success in urban areas. This hampers the implementation of ecological restoration in cities. In consideration of these challenges, we present a new conceptual framework that provides guidance and support for urban ecological restoration and rehabilitation by formulating restoration targets for different levels of ecological novelty (i.e., historic, hybrid, and novel ecosystems). To facilitate the restoration and rehabilitation of novel urban ecosystems, we recommend using established species-rich and well-functioning urban ecosystems as reference. Such urban reference systems are likely to be present in many cities. Highlighting their value in comparison to degraded ecosystems can stimulate and guide restoration initiatives. As urban restoration approaches must consider local history and site conditions, as well as citizens’ needs, it may also be advisable to focus the restoration of strongly altered urban ecosystems on selected ecosystem functions, services and/or biodiversity values. Ecosystem restoration and rehabilitation in cities can be either relatively inexpensive or costly, but even expensive measures can pay off when they effectively improve ecosystem services such as climate change mitigation or recreation. Successful re‐shaping and re-thinking of urban greenspace by involving citizens and other stakeholders will help to make our cities more sustainable in the future.     

Partnering for Greater Success: Local Stakeholders and Research in Tropical Biology and Conservation

Local communities are important stakeholders in resource management and conservation efforts, particularly in the developing world. Although evidence is mixed in suggesting that these resident stakeholders are optimal forest stewards, it is highly unlikely that large tracts of tropical forests will be conserved without engaging local people who depend on them daily for their livelihoods. Stakeholders, who reside in biodiverse ecosystems like tropical forests, are the largest direct users and ultimate decision-makers of forest fate, can be important investors in conservation, harbor local ecological knowledge that complements Western science and frequently have long-term legitimate claims on lands where they reside. Research partnerships with local stakeholders can increase research relevance, enhance knowledge exchange and result in greater conservation success. Different phases of the research cycle present distinct opportunities for partnership, with flexibility in timing, approaches and strategies depending on researcher and local stakeholder needs and interests. Despite being the last step in the research process, dissemination of results can be the best starting point for researchers interested in experimenting with local stakeholder engagement. Still, tropical biologists might not choose to partner with local people because of lack of institutional rewards, insufficient training in stakeholder engagement, insecure research infrastructure in community settings, and time and funding limitations. Although not appropriate in all cases and despite significant challenges, some biological scientists and research institutions have successfully engaged local stakeholders in the research process, proving mutually beneficial for investigators and local people alike and resulting in important innovations in tropical biology and conservation.     

Lichen translocation with reference to species conservation and habitat restoration

Lichen translocation techniques that may be of value in the salvage of endangered lichen species, or in the latter stages of habitat restoration, are reviewed. Successful translocation is defined here as the transfer of a target organism from a donor site to a receptor site to establish a new self-maintaining colony; for lichens, this may or may not include co-transfer of the thallus-supporting substrate. In a time of global environmental change many species are under threat and the need for effective translocation methods is clear. Indeed, some lichens are already amenable to translocation from one substrate to another. Global conservation requires the restoration of degraded ecosystems and translocation technology offers a tool for habitat replenishment. The re-introduction of lichenised fungi into sites from which they have been lost is an integral part of the restoration of complex habitats. Successful translocation creates in turn niches for other organisms which inhabit, or feed upon, them.     

Looking to the future: key points for sustainable management of northern Great Plains grasslands

The grasslands of the northern Great Plains (NGP) region of North America are considered endangered ecosystems and priority conservation areas yet have great ecological and economic importance. Grasslands in the NGP are no longer self‐regulating adaptive systems. The challenges to these grasslands are widespread and serious (e.g. climate change, invasive species, fragmentation, altered disturbance regimes, and anthropogenic chemical loads). Because the challenges facing the region are dynamic, complex, and persistent, a paradigm shift in how we approach restoration and management of the grasslands in the NGP is imperative. The goal of this article is to highlight four key points for land managers and restoration practitioners to consider when planning management or restoration actions. First, we discuss the appropriateness of using historical fidelity as a restoration or management target because of changing climate, widespread pervasiveness of invasive species, the high level of fragmentation, and altered disturbance regimes. Second, we highlight ecosystem resilience and long‐term population persistence as alternative targets. Third, because the NGP is so heavily impacted with anthropogenic chemical loading, we discuss the risks of ecological traps and extinction debt. Finally, we highlight the importance of using adaptive management and having patience during restoration and management. Consideration of these four points will help management and restoration of grasslands move toward a more successful and sustainable future. Although we specifically focus on the NGP of North America, these same issues and considerations apply to grasslands and many other ecosystems globally.     

Ecological processes: A key element in strategies for nature conservation

Summary A common approach to nature conservation is to identify and protect natural ‘assets’ such as ecosystems and threatened species. While such actions are essential, protection of assets will not be effective unless the ecological processes that sustain them are maintained. Here, we consider the role of ecological processes and the complementary perspective for conservation arising from an emphasis on process. Many kinds of ecological processes sustain biodiversity: including climatic processes, primary productivity, hydrological processes, formation of biophysical habitats, interactions between species, movements of organisms and natural disturbance regimes. Anthropogenic threats to conservation exert their influence by modifying or disrupting these processes. Such threats extend across tenures, they frequently occur offsite, they commonly induce non‐linear responses, changes may be irreversible and the full consequences may not be experienced for lengthy periods. While many managers acknowledge these considerations in principle, there is much scope for greater recognition of ecological processes in nature conservation and greater emphasis on long time‐frames and large spatial scales in conservation planning. Practical measures that promote ecological processes include: monitoring to determine the trajectory and rate of processes; incorporating surrogates for processes in conservation and restoration projects; specific interventions to manipulate and restore processes; and planning for the ecological future before options are foreclosed. The long‐term conservation of biodiversity and the well‐being of human society depend upon both the protection of natural assets and maintaining the integrity of the ecological processes that sustain them.     

Redesigning biodiversity conservation projects for climate change: examples from the field

Few conservation projects consider climate impacts or have a process for developing adaptation strategies. To advance climate adaptation for biodiversity conservation, we tested a step-by-step approach to developing adaptation strategies with 20 projects from diverse geographies. Project teams assessed likely climate impacts using historical climate data, future climate predictions, expert input, and scientific literature. They then developed adaptation strategies that considered ecosystems and species of concern, project goals, climate impacts, and indicators of progress. Project teams identified 176 likely climate impacts and developed adaptation strategies to address 42 of these impacts. The most common impacts were to habitat quantity or quality, and to hydrologic regimes. Nearly half of expected impacts were temperature-mediated. Twelve projects indicated that the project focus, either focal ecosystems and species or project boundaries, need to change as a result of considering climate impacts. More than half of the adaptation strategies were resistance strategies aimed at preserving the status quo. The rest aimed to make ecosystems and species more resilient in the face of expected changes. All projects altered strategies in some way, either by adding new actions, or by adjusting existing actions. Habitat restoration and enactment of policies and regulations were the most frequently prescribed, though every adaptation strategy required a unique combination of actions. While the effectiveness of these adaptation strategies remains to be evaluated, the application of consistent guidance has yielded important early lessons about how, when, and how often conservation projects may need to be modified to adapt to climate change.     

The restoration of biodiversity: where has research been and where does it need to go?

The practice of ecological restoration is a primary option for increasing levels of biodiversity by modifying human-altered ecosystems. The scientific discipline of restoration ecology provides conceptual guidance and tests of restoration strategies, with the ultimate goal of predictive landscape restoration. I construct a conceptual model for restoration of biodiversity, based on site-level (e.g., biotic and abiotic) conditions, landscape (e.g, interpatch connectivity and patch geometry), and historical factors (e.g., species arrival order and land-use legacies). I then ask how well restoration ecology has addressed the various components of this model. During the past decade, restoration research has focused largely on how the restoration of site-level factors promotes species diversity-primarily of plants. Relatively little attention has been paid to how landscape or historical factors interplay with restoration, how restoration influences functional and genetic components of biodiversity, or how a suite of less-studied taxa might be restored. I suggest that the high level of variation seen in restoration outcomes might be explained, at least in part, by the contingencies placed on site-level restoration by landscape and historical factors and then present a number of avenues for future research to address these often ignored linkages in the biodiversity restoration model. Such work will require carefully conducted restoration experiments set across multiple sites and many years. It is my hope that by considering how space and time influence restoration, we might move restoration ecology in a direction of stronger prediction, conducted across landscapes, thus providing feasible restoration strategies that work at scales over which biodiversity conservation occurs.     

Holocene vertebrate fossils aid the management and restoration of Australian ecosystems

European‐settlement‐related impacts over the past 200 years pose many challenges for the conservation and restoration of Australia's ecosystems. Landscape modification, associated habitat loss and the introduction of exotic species have caused the extinction and mainland extirpation of numerous vertebrates. This process happened so quickly that many species became locally or functionally extinct before their presence was documented. A growing body of research on Holocene fossil accumulations is providing insights into the composition and biogeography of Australian ecosystems prior to European settlement. This review explores the similarities between palaeo‐ and neo‐ecology and how Holocene (last 10,000 years) assemblages can be used by neo‐ecologists, conservation managers and policy makers to identify and fill gaps in knowledge and contribute to the management and restoration of Australia's degraded ecosystems.     

From Reintroduction to Assisted Colonization: Moving along the Conservation Translocation Spectrum

Translocation, the intentional movement of living organisms from one area to another is increasingly being used as a conservation tool to overcome barriers to dispersal. A dichotomy exists for conservation‐oriented translocations: on one hand, there are those that release plants or animals into known historic ranges and on the other hand, there are releases outside historic distributions. Misuse of or attempts to redefine established terms and a proliferation of variants of new terms such as assisted colonization, confuse and hamper communication. The aim of this opinion article is to describe and define a conservation translocation spectrum, from species reintroductions to assisted colonization, and beyond, and in so doing provide a standard framework and terminology for discussing translocation options. I suggest that we are moving along this spectrum, away from the dictates of historical species distribution records, toward the inclusion of more risky interventions that will be required to respond to habitat shifts due to anthropogenic impacts. To some extent rapid climate change changes everything, including how we should view introductions versus reintroductions. We need to seriously consider adding other approaches to our conservation toolbox. Assisted colonization will start us along this path, acknowledging as it does the accelerated rate of habitat change and the problems of attempting to preserve dynamic systems. The next step along the conservation translocation spectrum may be for reintroduction biology and restoration ecology to more comprehensively join forces on carefully selected projects to use species introductions to create novel ecosystems through active ecological community construction.     

Spreading messages about invasives

Although control of invasive species remains a common part of ecological restoration efforts, there is a growing dialogue within scientific and conservation communities regarding positive influences of invaders and potential negative consequences of their removal. As one example, a recent Diversity & Distributions article cautions that removal of exotic and invasive honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.) may negatively affect populations of frugivorous birds and, therefore, may have undesirable ecological outcomes. In response, I share several insights from research in my lab on bird‐honeysuckle interactions that show how honeysuckle disproportionately impacts birds of conservation concern and acts as an ecological trap even for generalist species. Although there is a real need to fully consider both positive and negative consequences of invasive species, if such research is not placed within the proper ecological context, we risk sending distorted or mixed messages to managers.     

Evaluation of Restoration Practice Based on Environmental Filters

Environmental filter models have been proposed as conceptual organizing frameworks for comparing and contrasting restoration practices. I evaluate two such environmental filter models, one proposed by Fattorini and Halle (2004) and the other by Hobbs and Norton (2004) . These models were developed by abstracting restoration practice into what the authors viewed as the essential features restoration practitioners target for control or manipulation. In so doing, these conceptual frameworks hope to be able to transfer insights between different kinds of ecosystems. Here, I take the opposite approach: given an environmental filter model, I asked how well its filters could characterize restoration practices reported in the literature. I found that it was easier to characterize specific restoration practice using the more detailed filters described by Hobbs and Norton. I found that manipulation of biotic filters was most common in terrestrial ecosystems, whereas manipulation of abiotic filters was more common in wetland and stream ecosystems. Fattorini and Halle’s model appears most useful for evaluating the current status of degraded ecosystems compared to nondegraded ones, but Hobbs and Norton’s model is better for evaluating what particular restoration activities might be undertaken to move that system from a degraded to a nondegraded state.     

Defining the Limits of Restoration: The Need for Realistic Goals

The search for a universal statement of goals for ecological restoration continues to generate discussion and controversy. I discuss the diverse roots of restoration ecology, and show how the complex lineages within the field have led to diverse, and divergent, sets of goals. I then review the three major themes that currently are used to develop statements of goals: restoration of species, restoration of whole ecosystems or landscapes, and the restoration of ecosystem services, and point out both the advantages and the limitations and problems associated with each category. Finally, I suggest that restoration ecology would be better served by recognizing that the diversity of conditions requiring restoration demands much flexibility in goal setting, and that restorationists should seek to develop guidelines for defining the sets of conditions under which different kinds of goals are appropriate. I further suggest that goals would be more easily and more appropriately set if restorationists would set forth at the outset the true scope and limitations of what is possible in a given project. Key words: goal‐setting, wetlands, conservation biology, ecosystem management, ecosystem services, landscape management.     

Rewilding the tropics,and other conservation translocations strategies in the tropical Asia‐Pacific region

Alarm over the prospects for survival of species in a rapidly changing world has encouraged discussion of translocation conservation strategies that move beyond the focus of ‘at‐risk’ species. These approaches consider larger spatial and temporal scales than customary, with the aim of recreating functioning ecosystems through a combination of large‐scale ecological restoration and species introductions. The term ‘rewilding’ has come to apply to this large‐scale ecosystem restoration program. While reintroductions of species within their historical ranges have become standard conservation tools, introductions within known paleontological ranges—but outside historical ranges—are more controversial, as is the use of taxon substitutions for extinct species. Here, we consider possible conservation translocations for nine large‐bodied taxa in tropical Asia‐Pacific. We consider the entire spectrum of conservation translocation strategies as defined by the IUCN in addition to rewilding. The taxa considered are spread across diverse taxonomic and ecological spectra and all are listed as ‘endangered’ or ‘critically endangered’ by the IUCN in our region of study. They all have a written and fossil record that is sufficient to assess past changes in range, as well as ecological and environmental preferences, and the reasons for their decline, and they have all suffered massive range restrictions since the late Pleistocene. General principles, problems, and benefits of translocation strategies are reviewed as case studies. These allowed us to develop a conservation translocation matrix, with taxa scored for risk, benefit, and feasibility. Comparisons between taxa across this matrix indicated that orangutans, tapirs, Tasmanian devils, and perhaps tortoises are the most viable taxa for translocations. However, overall the case studies revealed a need for more data and research for all taxa, and their ecological and environmental needs. Rewilding the Asian‐Pacific tropics remains a controversial conservation strategy, and would be difficult in what is largely a highly fragmented area geographically.     

Urban Grassland Restoration: A Neglected Opportunity for Biodiversity Conservation

Urbanization is one of the most severe threats to biodiversity, so why should not we use green space in cities to counteract the biodiversity loss as much as possible? Urban grasslands provide a large number of social, financial, recreational, and environmental ecosystem services but can also support high biodiversity. In this article, I describe the importance of urban grasslands for (local) biodiversity and recommend strengthening restoration ecological research and efforts to optimize these novel ecosystems for conservation purposes. The management intensity of a high proportion of urban grasslands decreased over the last decades. However, species richness of these grasslands is still low, although there is now a great potential for higher plant, but also animal diversity. While communal authorities are interested in cost‐efficient but at the same time biodiversity‐friendly management of urban grasslands, a well‐founded scientific basis for the restoration of urban grassland is still missing. I argue that besides all challenges associated with the restoration of urban habitats we should urgently proceed in the development of appropriate and effective restoration approaches and communicate knowledge gained to urban planners and stakeholders. Widening the scope of restoration ecological research to novel ecosystems such as urban grasslands is one of the most important recent challenges for biodiversity restoration and it gives urban habitats the significance they deserve .     

The emergence of the social‐ecological restoration concept

Many ecosystems in the world are the result of a close interaction between local people and their environment, which are currently recognized as social‐ecological systems (SoES). Natural catastrophes or long‐standing social and political turmoil can degrade these SoES to a point where human societies are no longer autonomous and their supporting ecosystems are highly degraded. Here, we focus on the special case of the restoration of SoES that we call social‐ecological restoration (SoER), which is characterized as a restoration process that cannot avoid simultaneously dealing with ecological and social issues. In practice, SoER is analogous in many ways to the general principles of ecological restoration, but it differs in three key aspects: (1) the first actions may be initially intended for human groups that need to recover minimum living standards; (2) the SoER process would often be part of a healing process for local people where cultural values of ecosystems play an essential role; and (3) there is a strong dependency on external economic inputs, as the people belonging to the SoES may be incapable of reorganizing themselves on their own and supporting ecosystems can no longer self‐recover. Although it might not be desirable or necessary to call all restoration projects with a social component an SoER, the use of this concept may help in defining early restoration targets that may prevent conflicts among users in the long term. From the perspective of other disciplines, SoER would be more appropriately perceived as programs of “social‐ecological recovery” in the long term.     

A road for a promising future for China's primates: The potential for restoration

China is one of the most dynamic countries of the world and it shelters some amazing levels of biodiversity, including some very special primate species. However, primarily as a result of forest loss, most of which occurred in historical times,approximately 70% of China's primate species have less than 3000 individuals. Here I evaluate one road for future conservation/development that could produce very positive gains for China's primates;namely forest restoration. I argue that for a large scale restoration project to be possible two conditions must be met; the right societal conditions must exist and the right knowledge must be in hand. This evaluation suggests that the restoration of native forest to support many of China's primates holds great potential to advance conservation goals and to promote primate population recovery.     

Restoration Strategies to Improve Connectivity for Golden-Headed Lion Tamarins (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Leontopithecus chrysomelas</Emphasis>) in the Bahian Atlantic Forest,Brazil

Habitat loss and fragmentation are the leading causes of biodiversity decline world-wide. Animals sensitive to fragmentation experience reduced dispersal, breeding opportunities, and genetic diversity, making them vulnerable to local extinction. Over the last few decades the Atlantic Forest of Brazil has been extremely fragmented, with only 11–16% of forest remaining. The Brazilian government and nongovernmental organizations have taken actions through legislation and conservation initiatives to restore forest. Using computer modeling, we compared how alternative forest restoration strategies could improve functional connectivity for golden-headed lion tamarins (Leontopithecus chrysomelas) in Southern Bahia, Brazil. Strategies differed by restoration configuration, including Within- and Across-Property approaches, and restoration amount (0–20% restoration). Increasing restoration amounts resulted in greater species functional connectivity, and Within-Property and Across-Property strategies both had significantly more connectivity than the Random strategy. We suggest restoration management consider the size and placement of restored forest, and that riparian forest be restored first to create dispersal corridors and reestablish essential ecosystem services. We further suggest the importance of forming canopy bridges across narrow sections of rivers during the early stages of the restoration process to promote increased connectivity of these newly restored areas. Our findings can aid managers and landowners in understanding the implications of different restoration strategies for highly arboreal, matrix-sensitive species.     

Conservation-oriented restoration—a two for one method to restore both threatened species and their habitats

There is an urgent need for a new conservation approach as mere designation of protected areas, the primary approach to conserving biodiversity, revealed its low conservation efficiency and inability to cope with numerous challenges faced by nature in the Anthropocene. The paper discusses the new concept, which proposes that ecological restoration becomes an integral part of conservation planning and implementation, and is done using threatened plant species that are introduced not only into locations where they currently grow or grew in the recent past, but also into suitable locations within their potential distribution range. This new concept is called conservation-oriented restoration to distinguish it from the traditional restoration. Although the number of restoration projects focusing on recreation of once existing natural habitats is instantly growing, the majority of ecological restoration projects, in contrast to conservation-oriented restoration, have predominantly utilitarian goals, e.g.improvement or air quality, erosion control or soil replenishment. Conservation-oriented restoration should not be seen as an alternative either to the latter, or to the conservation dealing with particular threatened species(species-targeted conservation). These three conservation approaches, traditional ecological restoration, species-targeted conservation, and conservation-oriented restoration differ not only in broadly defined goals and attributes of their targets, but also in the types of ecosystems they are applicable to, and complement each other in combating global deterioration of the environment and biodiversity loss.     

Conservation-oriented restoration—a two for one method to restore both threatened species and their habitats

There is an urgent need for a new conservation approach as mere designation of protected areas, the primary approach to conserving biodiversity, revealed its low conservation efficiency and inability to cope with numerous challenges faced by nature in the Anthropocene. The paper discusses the new concept, which proposes that ecological restoration becomes an integral part of conservation planning and implementation, and is done using threatened plant species that are introduced not only into locations where they currently grow or grew in the recent past, but also into suitable locations within their potential distribution range. This new concept is called conservation-oriented restoration to distinguish it from the traditional restoration. Although the number of restoration projects focusing on recreation of once existing natural habitats is instantly growing, the majority of ecological restoration projects, in contrast to conservation-oriented restoration, have predominantly utilitarian goals, e.g.improvement or air quality, erosion control or soil replenishment. Conservation-oriented restoration should not be seen as an alternative either to the latter, or to the conservation dealing with particular threatened species(species-targeted conservation). These three conservation approaches, traditional ecological restoration, species-targeted conservation, and conservation-oriented restoration differ not only in broadly defined goals and attributes of their targets, but also in the types of ecosystems they are applicable to, and complement each other in combating global deterioration of the environment and biodiversity loss.