Generation of priority research questions to inform conservation policy and management at a national level

Mapping global conservation priorities and habitat vulnerabilities for cave-dwelling bats in a changing world

Research and media attention is disproportionately focused on taxa and ecosystems perceived as charismatic, while other equally diverse systems such as caves and subterranean ecosystems are often neglected in biodiversity assessments and prioritisations. Highlighting the urgent need for protection, an especially large fraction of cave endemic species may be undescribed. Yet these more challenging systems are also vulnerable, with karsts for example losing a considerable proportion of their area each year. Bats are keystone to cave ecosystems making them potential surrogates to understand cave diversity patterns and identify conservation priorities. On a global scale, almost half (48 %) of known bat species use caves for parts of their life histories, with 32 % endemic to a single country, and 15 % currently threatened. We combined global analysis of cave bats from the IUCN spatial data with site-specific analysis of 1930 bat caves from 46 countries to develop global priorities for the conservation of the most vulnerable subterranean ecosystems. Globally, 28 % of caves showed high bat diversity and were highly threatened. The highest regional concentration of conservation priority caves was in the Palearctic and tropical regions (except the Afrotropical, which requires more intensive cave data sampling). Our results further highlight the importance of prioritising bat caves by incorporating locally collected data and optimising parameter selection (i.e., appropriate landscape features and threats). Finally, to protect and conserve these ecosystems it is crucial that we use frameworks such as this to identify priorities in species and habitat-level and map vulnerable underground habitats with the highest biodiversity and distinctiveness.

Knowledge Gaps in the Biology, Ecology, and Management of the Pacific Crown-of-Thorns Sea Star Acanthaster sp. on Australia's Great Barrier Reef

AbstractCrown-of-thorns sea stars (Acanthaster sp.) are among the most studied coral reef organisms, owing to their propensity to undergo major population irruptions, which contribute to significant coral loss and reef degradation throughout the Indo-Pacific. However, there are still important knowledge gaps pertaining to the biology, ecology, and management of Acanthaster sp. Renewed efforts to advance understanding and management of Pacific crown-of-thorns sea stars (Acanthaster sp.) on Australia's Great Barrier Reef require explicit consideration of relevant and tractable knowledge gaps. Drawing on established horizon scanning methodologies, this study identified contemporary knowledge gaps by asking active and/or established crown-of-thorns sea star researchers to pose critical research questions that they believe should be addressed to improve the understanding and management of crown-of-thorns sea stars on the Great Barrier Reef. A total of 38 participants proposed 246 independent research questions, organized into 7 themes: feeding ecology, demography, distribution and abundance, predation, settlement, management, and environmental change. Questions were further assigned to 48 specific topics nested within the 7 themes. During this process, redundant questions were removed, which reduced the total number of distinct research questions to 172. Research questions posed were mostly related to themes of demography (46 questions) and management (48 questions). The dominant topics, meanwhile, were the incidence of population irruptions (16 questions), feeding ecology of larval sea stars (15 questions), effects of elevated water temperature on crown-of-thorns sea stars (13 questions), and predation on juveniles (12 questions). While the breadth of questions suggests that there is considerable research needed to improve understanding and management of crown-of-thorns sea stars on the Great Barrier Reef, the predominance of certain themes and topics suggests a major focus for new research while also providing a roadmap to guide future research efforts.

Congruence between the prioritisation of conservation problems at the local and national scale: an evaluation by environmental scientists in Poland

The anthropogenic pressure on the environment depends on the spatial scale. It is crucial to prioritise conservation actions at different spatial scales to be cost-efficient. Using horizon scanning with the Delphi technique, we asked what the most important conservation problems are in Poland at local and national scales. Twenty-six participants, PhD students, individually identified conservation issues important at the local and national scales. Each problem was then scored and classified into broader categories during the round discussions. Text mining, cross-sectional analyses, and frequency tests were used to compare the context, importance scores, and frequency of identified problems between the two scales, respectively. A total of 115 problems were identified at the local scale and 122 at the national scale. Among them, 30 problems were identical for both scales. Importance scores were higher for national than local problems; however, this resulted from different sets of problems identified at the two scales. Problems linked to urbanisation, education, and management were associated with the local scale. Problems related to policy, forestry, and consumerism were more frequent at the national scale. An efficient conservation policy should be built hierarchically (e.g. introducing adaptive governance), implementing solutions at a national scale with the flexibility to adjust for local differences and to address the most pressing issues.

Clair C, Coristine L, Higgs E, Smith R, Pellatt M, Beaty C, Cheskey E, Cooke SJ, Crawford L, Davis R, Forbes G, Gadallah F(Z, Kendall P, Mandrak N, Moola F, Parker S, Quayle J, Ray JC, Richardson K, Smith K, Snider J, Smol JP, Sutherland WJ, Vallillee A, White L, Woodley A. Emerging issues for protected and conserved areas in Canada

Horizon scanning is increasingly used in conservation to systematically explore emerging policy and management issues. We present the results of a horizon scan of issues likely to impact management of Canadian protected and conserved areas over the next 5–10 years. Eighty-eight individuals participated, representing a broad community of academics, government and nongovernment organizations, and foundations, including policymakers and managers of protected and conserved areas. This community initially identified 187 issues, which were subsequently triaged to 15 horizon issues by a group of 33 experts using a modified Delphi technique. Results were organized under four broad categories: ( i) emerging effects of climate change in protected and conserved areas design, planning, and management (i.e., large-scale ecosystem changes, species translocation, fire regimes, ecological integrity, and snow patterns); ( ii) Indigenous governance and knowledge systems (i.e., Indigenous governance and Indigenous knowledge and Western science); ( iii) integrated conservation approaches across landscapes and seascapes (i.e., connectivity conservation, integrating ecosystem values and services, freshwater planning); and ( iv) early responses to emerging cumulative, underestimated, and novel threats (i.e., management of cumulative impacts, declining insect biomass, increasing anthropogenic noise, synthetic biology). Overall, the scan identified several emerging issues that require immediate attention to effectively reduce threats, respond to opportunities, and enhance preparedness and capacity to react.

One hundred research questions in conservation physiology for generating actionable evidence to inform conservation policy and practice

Environmental change and biodiversity loss are but two of the complex challenges facing conservation practitioners and policy makers. Relevant and robust scientific knowledge is critical for providing decision-makers with the actionable evidence needed to inform conservation decisions. In the Anthropocene, science that leads to meaningful improvements in biodiversity conservation, restoration and management is desperately needed. Conservation Physiology has emerged as a discipline that is well-positioned to identify the mechanisms underpinning population declines, predict responses to environmental change and test different in situ and ex situ conservation interventions for diverse taxa and ecosystems. Here we present a consensus list of 10 priority research themes. Within each theme we identify specific research questions (100 in total), answers to which will address conservation problems and should improve the management of biological resources. The themes frame a set of research questions related to the following: (i) adaptation and phenotypic plasticity; (ii) human-induced environmental change; (iii) human-wildlife interactions; (iv) invasive species; (v) methods, biomarkers and monitoring; (vi) policy, engagement and communication; (vii) pollution; (viii) restoration actions; (ix) threatened species; and (x) urban systems. The themes and questions will hopefully guide and inspire researchers while also helping to demonstrate to practitioners and policy makers the many ways in which physiology can help to support their decisions.

Three decades of Philippine nonhuman primate studies: research gaps and opportunities for Philippine primatology

The Philippines is considered a megadiverse country. However, there are few published studies on its nonhuman primate (NHP) species (Carlito syrichta, Macaca fascicularis, and Nycticebus menagensis). Understanding the nature and extent of existing NHP research in the Philippines would help us to determine research gaps and opportunities. Thus, studies on NHPs of Philippine origin were retrieved from online databases including Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Primate Lit, the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS), and relevant authors. Of a total of 107 studies on Philippine NHP from 1989 to 2019, most focused on Philippine long-tailed macaque (52.78%), and Philippine tarsier (42.59%), with far fewer on Philippine slow loris (4.63%). Fewer studies were based on fieldwork (26.17%); more were based on research on captive animals or that undertaken in the laboratory (34.58%), or used only existing specimens or data (33.64%). Studies on wild NHPs were mostly conducted in Bohol Island. In terms of the type of research, studies on diseases (38.60%) were the most prevalent for macaques; ecological studies (23.91%) for tarsiers; evolutionary, taxonomic, and systematic studies (40%), and ecological and natural history studies (40%) for lorises. Philippine researchers and collaborations with foreign researchers contributed fewer studies (43.93%) than foreign-only researchers (56.07%). In conclusion, although research on Philippine NHPs is increasing, there is a bias with regards to the species studied, the type of research, and study location. Conservation-driven studies are also lacking. These gaps offer opportunities for further research to identify threats to the survival of NHPs in the Philippines, and for the development of plans and effective strategies for their conservation.

Horizon scanning for South African biodiversity: A need for social engagement as well as science

A horizon scan was conducted to identify emerging and intensifying issues for biodiversity conservation in South Africa over the next 5-10 years. South African biodiversity experts submitted 63 issues of which ten were identified as priorities using the Delphi method. These priority issues were then plotted along axes of social agreement and scientific certainty, to ascertain whether issues might be "simple" (amenable to solutions from science alone), "complicated" (socially agreed upon but technically complicated), "complex" (scientifically challenging and significant levels of social disagreement) or "chaotic" (high social disagreement and highly scientifically challenging). Only three of the issues were likely to be resolved by improved science alone, while the remainder require engagement with social, economic and political factors. Fortunately, none of the issues were considered chaotic. Nevertheless, strategic communication, education and engagement with the populace and policy makers were considered vital for addressing emerging issues.

A review and meta-analysis of collaborative research prioritization studies in ecology, biodiversity conservation and environmental science

Collaborative research prioritization (CRP) studies have become increasingly popular during the last decade. By bringing together a diverse group of stakeholders, and using a democratic process to create a list of research priorities, these methods purport to identify research topics that will better meet the needs of science users. Here, we review 41 CRP studies in the fields of ecology, biodiversity conservation and environmental science that collectively identify 2031 research priorities. We demonstrate that climate change, ecosystem services and protected areas are common terms found in the research priorities of many CRP studies, and that identified research priorities have become less unique over time. In addition, we show that there is a considerable variation in the size and composition of the groups involved in CRP studies, and that at least one aspect of the identified research priorities (lexical diversity) is related to the size of the CRP group. Although some CRP studies have been highly cited, the evidence that CRP studies have directly motivated research is weak, perhaps because most CRP studies have not directly involved organizations that fund science. We suggest that the most important impact of CRP studies may lie in their ability to connect individuals across sectors and help to build diverse communities of practice around important issues at the science-policy interface.

Toward sustainable environmental quality: Priority research questions for Europe

The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals have been established to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all. Delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals will require a healthy and productive environment. An understanding of the impacts of chemicals which can negatively impact environmental health is therefore essential to the delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, current research on and regulation of chemicals in the environment tend to take a simplistic view and do not account for the complexity of the real world, which inhibits the way we manage chemicals. There is therefore an urgent need for a step change in the way we study and communicate the impacts and control of chemicals in the natural environment. To do this requires the major research questions to be identified so that resources are focused on questions that really matter. We present the findings of a horizon-scanning exercise to identify research priorities of the European environmental science community around chemicals in the environment. Using the key questions approach, we identified 22 questions of priority. These questions covered overarching questions about which chemicals we should be most concerned about and where, impacts of global megatrends, protection goals, and sustainability of chemicals; the development and parameterization of assessment and management frameworks; and mechanisms to maximize the impact of the research. The research questions identified provide a first-step in the path forward for the research, regulatory, and business communities to better assess and manage chemicals in the natural environment. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:2281-2295. © 2018 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.

On the Cutting Edge of Research to Conserve At-Risk Species: Maximizing Impact through Partnerships

Today's conservation challenges are complex. Solving these challenges often requires scientific collaborations that extend beyond the scope, expertise, and capacity of any single agency, organization, or institution. Conservation efforts can benefit from interdisciplinary collaboration, scientific and technological innovations, and the leveraging of capacity and resources among partners. Here we explore a series of case studies demonstrating how collaborative scientific partnerships are furthering the mission of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), including: (1) contaminants of emerging concern in the Great Lakes Basin, (2) Poweshiek skipperling conservation, (3) using technology to improve population survey methods for bats and monarch butterfly, and (4) Big River restoration in the Southeast Missouri lead mining district. These case studies illustrate how strategic and effective scientific collaboration is a multi-stage process that requires investment of time and resources by all participants. Early coordination and communication is crucial to aligning planned work with scientific and decision-making needs. Collaborations between USFWS and external scientists can be mutually beneficial by supporting the agency mission while also providing an avenue for innovative research to be directly applied in conservation decisions and management actions.

Research priorities for conservation and natural resource management in Oceania's small-island developing states

For conservation science to effectively inform management, research must focus on creating the scientific knowledge required to solve conservation problems. We identified research questions that, if answered, would increase the effectiveness of conservation and natural resource management practice and policy in Oceania's small-island developing states. We asked conservation professionals from academia, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations across the region to propose such questions and then identify which were of high priority in an online survey. We compared the high-priority questions with research questions identified globally and for other regions. Of 270 questions proposed by respondents, 38 were considered high priority, including: What are the highest priority areas for conservation in the face of increasing resource demand and climate change? How should marine protected areas be networked to account for connectivity and climate change? What are the most effective fisheries management policies that contribute to sustainable coral reef fisheries? High-priority questions related to the particular challenges of undertaking conservation on small-island developing states and the need for a research agenda that is responsive to the sociocultural context of Oceania. Research priorities for Oceania relative to elsewhere were broadly similar but differed in specific issues relevant to particular conservation contexts. These differences emphasize the importance of involving local practitioners in the identification of research priorities. Priorities were reasonably well aligned among sectoral groups. Only a few questions were widely considered answered, which may indicate a smaller-than-expected knowledge-action gap. We believe these questions can be used to strengthen research collaborations between scientists and practitioners working to further conservation and natural resource management in this region.

Empirically derived guidance for social scientists to influence environmental policy

Failure to stem trends of ecological disruption and associated loss of ecosystem services worldwide is partly due to the inadequate integration of the human dimension into environmental decision-making. Decision-makers need knowledge of the human dimension of resource systems and of the social consequences of decision-making if environmental management is to be effective and adaptive. Social scientists have a central role to play, but little guidance exists to help them influence decision-making processes. We distil 348 years of cumulative experience shared by 31 environmental experts across three continents into advice for social scientists seeking to increase their influence in the environmental policy arena. Results focus on the importance of process, engagement, empathy and acumen and reveal the importance of understanding and actively participating in policy processes through co-producing knowledge and building trust. The insights gained during this research might empower a science-driven cultural change in science-policy relations for the routine integration of the human dimension in environmental decision making; ultimately for an improved outlook for earth’s ecosystems and the billions of people that depend on them.

Non-use Economic Values for Little-Known Aquatic Species at Risk: Comparing Choice Experiment Results from Surveys Focused on Species, Guilds, and Ecosystems

Accounting for non-market economic values of biological diversity is important to fully assess the benefits of environmental policies and regulations. This study used three choice experiments (species-, guild-, and ecosystem-based surveys) in parallel to quantify non-use values for little-known aquatic species at risk in southern Ontario. Mean willingness-to-pay (WTP) ranged from $9.45 to $21.41 per listing status increment under Canada's Species at Risk Act for both named and unnamed little-known species. Given the broad range of valuable ecosystem services likely to accrue to residents from substantial increases in water quality and the rehabilitation of coastal wetlands, the difference in WTP between species- and ecosystem-based surveys seemed implausibly small. It appeared that naming species-the 'iconization' of species in two of the three surveys-had an important effect on WTP. The results suggest that reasonable annual household-level WTP values for little-known aquatic species may be $10 to $25 per species or $10 to $20 per listing status increment. The results highlighted the utility of using parallel surveys to triangulate on non-use economic values for little-known species at risk.

Forests and ozone: productivity, carbon storage, and feedbacks

Tropospheric ozone is a serious air-pollutant, with large impacts on plant function. This study demonstrates that tropospheric ozone, although it damages plant metabolism, does not necessarily reduce ecosystem processes such as productivity or carbon sequestration because of diversity change and compensatory processes at the community scale ameliorate negative impacts at the individual level. This study assesses the impact of ozone on forest composition and ecosystem dynamics with an individual-based gap model that includes basic physiology as well as species-specific metabolic properties. Elevated tropospheric ozone leads to no reduction of forest productivity and carbon stock and to increased isoprene emissions, which result from enhanced dominance by isoprene-emitting species (which tolerate ozone stress better than non-emitters). This study suggests that tropospheric ozone may not diminish forest carbon sequestration capacity. This study also suggests that, because of the often positive relationship between isoprene emission and ozone formation, there is a positive feedback loop between forest communities and ozone, which further aggravates ozone pollution.

Priority Questions and Horizon Scanning for Conservation: A Comparative Study

Several projects aimed at identifying priority issues for conservation with high relevance to policy have recently been completed in several countries. Two major types of projects have been undertaken, aimed at identifying (i) policy-relevant questions most imperative to conservation and (ii) horizon scanning topics, defined as emerging issues that are expected to have substantial implications for biodiversity conservation and policy in the future. Here, we provide the first overview of the outcomes of biodiversity and conservation-oriented projects recently completed around the world using this framework. We also include the results of the first questions and horizon scanning project completed for a Mediterranean country. Overall, the outcomes of the different projects undertaken (at the global scale, in the UK, US, Canada, Switzerland and in Israel) were strongly correlated in terms of the proportion of questions and/or horizon scanning topics selected when comparing different topic areas. However, some major differences were found across regions. There was large variation among regions in the percentage of proactive (i.e. action and response oriented) versus descriptive (non-response oriented) priority questions and in the emphasis given to socio-political issues. Substantial differences were also found when comparing outcomes of priority questions versus horizon scanning projects undertaken for the same region. For example, issues related to climate change, human demography and marine ecosystems received higher priority as horizon scanning topics, while ecosystem services were more emphasized as current priority questions. We suggest that future initiatives aimed at identifying priority conservation questions and horizon scanning topics should allow simultaneous identification of both current and future priority issues, as presented here for the first time. We propose that further emphasis on social-political issues should be explicitly integrated into future related projects.

Can wide consultation help with setting priorities for large-scale biodiversity monitoring programs?

Climate and other global change phenomena affecting biodiversity require monitoring to track ecosystem changes and guide policy and management actions. Designing a biodiversity monitoring program is a difficult task that requires making decisions that often lack consensus due to budgetary constrains. As monitoring programs require long-term investment, they also require strong and continuing support from all interested parties. As such, stakeholder consultation is key to identify priorities and make sound design decisions that have as much support as possible. Here, we present the results of a consultation conducted to serve as an aid for designing a large-scale biodiversity monitoring program for the province of Québec (Canada). The consultation took the form of a survey with 13 discrete choices involving tradeoffs in respect to design priorities and 10 demographic questions (e.g., age, profession). The survey was sent to thousands of individuals having expected interests and knowledge about biodiversity and was completed by 621 participants. Overall, consensuses were few and it appeared difficult to create a design fulfilling the priorities of the majority. Most participants wanted 1) a monitoring design covering the entire territory and focusing on natural habitats; 2) a focus on species related to ecosystem services, on threatened and on invasive species. The only demographic characteristic that was related to the type of prioritization was the declared level of knowledge in biodiversity (null to high), but even then the influence was quite small.

A biodiversity indicators dashboard: addressing challenges to monitoring progress towards the Aichi biodiversity targets using disaggregated global data

Recognizing the imperiled status of biodiversity and its benefit to human well-being, the world's governments committed in 2010 to take effective and urgent action to halt biodiversity loss through the Convention on Biological Diversity's "Aichi Targets". These targets, and many conservation programs, require monitoring to assess progress toward specific goals. However, comprehensive and easily understood information on biodiversity trends at appropriate spatial scales is often not available to the policy makers, managers, and scientists who require it. We surveyed conservation stakeholders in three geographically diverse regions of critical biodiversity concern (the Tropical Andes, the African Great Lakes, and the Greater Mekong) and found high demand for biodiversity indicator information but uneven availability. To begin to address this need, we present a biodiversity "dashboard"--a visualization of biodiversity indicators designed to enable tracking of biodiversity and conservation performance data in a clear, user-friendly format. This builds on previous, more conceptual, indicator work to create an operationalized online interface communicating multiple indicators at multiple spatial scales. We structured this dashboard around the Pressure-State-Response-Benefit framework, selecting four indicators to measure pressure on biodiversity (deforestation rate), state of species (Red List Index), conservation response (protection of key biodiversity areas), and benefits to human populations (freshwater provision). Disaggregating global data, we present dashboard maps and graphics for the three regions surveyed and their component countries. These visualizations provide charts showing regional and national trends and lay the foundation for a web-enabled, interactive biodiversity indicators dashboard. This new tool can help track progress toward the Aichi Targets, support national monitoring and reporting, and inform outcome-based policy-making for the protection of natural resources.

International scientists' priorities for research on pharmaceutical and personal care products in the environment

Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) are widely discharged into the environment via diverse pathways. The effects of PPCPs in the environment have potentially important human and ecosystem health implications, so credible, salient, and legitimate scientific evidence is needed to inform regulatory and policy responses that address potential risks. A recent "big questions" exercise with participants largely from North America identified 22 important research questions around the risks of PPCP in the environment that would help address the most pressing knowledge gaps over the next decade. To expand that analysis, we developed a survey that was completed by 535 environmental scientists from 57 countries, of whom 49% identified environmental or analytical chemistry as their primary disciplinary background. They ranked the 22 original research questions and submitted 171 additional candidate research questions they felt were also of high priority. Of the original questions, the 3 perceived to be of highest importance related to: 1) the effects of long-term exposure to low concentrations of PPCP mixtures on nontarget organisms, 2) effluent treatment methods that can reduce the effects of PPCPs in the environment while not increasing the toxicity of whole effluents, and 3) the assessment of the environmental risks of metabolites and environmental transformation products of PPCPs. A question regarding the role of cultural perspectives in PPCP risk assessment was ranked as the lowest priority. There were significant differences in research orientation between scientists who completed English and Chinese language versions of the survey. We found that the Chinese respondents were strongly orientated to issues of managing risk profiles, effluent treatment, residue bioavailability, and regional assessment. Among English language respondents, further differences in research orientation were associated with respondents' level of consistency when ranking the survey's 15 comparisons. There was increasing emphasis on the role of various other stressors relative to PPCPs and on risk prioritization as internal decision making consistency increased. Respondents' consistency in their ranking choices was significantly and positively correlated with SETAC membership, authors' number of publications, and longer survey completion times. Our research highlighted international scientists' research priorities and should help inform decisions about the type of hazard and risk-based research needed to best inform decisions regarding PPCPs in the environment. Disciplinary training of a scientist or engineer appears to strongly influence preferences for research priorities to understand PPCPs in the environment. Selection of participants and the depth and breadth of research prioritization efforts thus have potential effects on the outcomes of research prioritization exercises. Further elucidation of how patterns of research priority vary between academic and government scientists and between scientists and other government and stakeholders would be useful in the future and provide information that helps focus scientific effort on socially relevant challenges relating to PPCPs in the environment. It also suggests the potential for future collaborative research between industry, government, and academia on environmental contaminants beyond PPCPs.

A conceptual framework for the emerging discipline of conservation physiology

Current rates of biodiversity decline are unprecedented and largely attributed to anthropogenic influences. Given the scope and magnitude of conservation issues, policy and management interventions must maximize efficiency and efficacy. The relatively new field of conservation physiology reveals the physiological mechanisms associated with population declines, animal-environment relationships and population or species tolerance thresholds, particularly where these relate to anthropogenic factors that necessitate conservation action. We propose a framework that demonstrates an integrative approach between physiology, conservation and policy, where each can inform the design, conduct and implementation of the other. Each junction of the conservation physiology process has the capacity to foster dialogue that contributes to effective implementation, monitoring, assessment and evaluation. This approach enables effective evaluation and implementation of evidence-based conservation policy and management decisions through a process of ongoing refinement, but may require that scientists (from the disciplines of both physiology and conservation) and policy-makers bridge interdisciplinary knowledge gaps. Here, we outline a conceptual framework that can guide and lead developments in conservation physiology, as well as promote innovative research that fosters conservation-motivated policy.

What is conservation physiology? Perspectives on an increasingly integrated and essential science(†)

Globally, ecosystems and their constituent flora and fauna face the localized and broad-scale influence of human activities. Conservation practitioners and environmental managers struggle to identify and mitigate threats, reverse species declines, restore degraded ecosystems, and manage natural resources sustainably. Scientific research and evidence are increasingly regarded as the foundation for new regulations, conservation actions, and management interventions. Conservation biologists and managers have traditionally focused on the characteristics (e.g. abundance, structure, trends) of populations, species, communities, and ecosystems, and simple indicators of the responses to environmental perturbations and other human activities. However, an understanding of the specific mechanisms underlying conservation problems is becoming increasingly important for decision-making, in part because physiological tools and knowledge are especially useful for developing cause-and-effect relationships, and for identifying the optimal range of habitats and stressor thresholds for different organisms. When physiological knowledge is incorporated into ecological models, it can improve predictions of organism responses to environmental change and provide tools to support management decisions. Without such knowledge, we may be left with simple associations. 'Conservation physiology' has been defined previously with a focus on vertebrates, but here we redefine the concept universally, for application to the diversity of taxa from microbes to plants, to animals, and to natural resources. We also consider 'physiology' in the broadest possible terms; i.e. how an organism functions, and any associated mechanisms, from development to bioenergetics, to environmental interactions, through to fitness. Moreover, we consider conservation physiology to include a wide range of applications beyond assisting imperiled populations, and include, for example, the eradication of invasive species, refinement of resource management strategies to minimize impacts, and evaluation of restoration plans. This concept of conservation physiology emphasizes the basis, importance, and ecological relevance of physiological diversity at a variety of scales. Real advances in conservation and resource management require integration and inter-disciplinarity. Conservation physiology and its suite of tools and concepts is a key part of the evidence base needed to address pressing environmental challenges.

What is conservation physiology? Perspectives on an increasingly integrated and essential science(†)

Globally, ecosystems and their constituent flora and fauna face the localized and broad-scale influence of human activities. Conservation practitioners and environmental managers struggle to identify and mitigate threats, reverse species declines, restore degraded ecosystems, and manage natural resources sustainably. Scientific research and evidence are increasingly regarded as the foundation for new regulations, conservation actions, and management interventions. Conservation biologists and managers have traditionally focused on the characteristics (e.g. abundance, structure, trends) of populations, species, communities, and ecosystems, and simple indicators of the responses to environmental perturbations and other human activities. However, an understanding of the specific mechanisms underlying conservation problems is becoming increasingly important for decision-making, in part because physiological tools and knowledge are especially useful for developing cause-and-effect relationships, and for identifying the optimal range of habitats and stressor thresholds for different organisms. When physiological knowledge is incorporated into ecological models, it can improve predictions of organism responses to environmental change and provide tools to support management decisions. Without such knowledge, we may be left with simple associations. 'Conservation physiology' has been defined previously with a focus on vertebrates, but here we redefine the concept universally, for application to the diversity of taxa from microbes to plants, to animals, and to natural resources. We also consider 'physiology' in the broadest possible terms; i.e. how an organism functions, and any associated mechanisms, from development to bioenergetics, to environmental interactions, through to fitness. Moreover, we consider conservation physiology to include a wide range of applications beyond assisting imperiled populations, and include, for example, the eradication of invasive species, refinement of resource management strategies to minimize impacts, and evaluation of restoration plans. This concept of conservation physiology emphasizes the basis, importance, and ecological relevance of physiological diversity at a variety of scales. Real advances in conservation and resource management require integration and inter-disciplinarity. Conservation physiology and its suite of tools and concepts is a key part of the evidence base needed to address pressing environmental challenges.

Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment: what are the big questions?

BACKGROUND

Over the past 10-15 years, a substantial amount of work has been done by the scientific, regulatory, and business communities to elucidate the effects and risks of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in the environment.

OBJECTIVE

This review was undertaken to identify key outstanding issues regarding the effects of PPCPs on human and ecological health in order to ensure that future resources will be focused on the most important areas.

DATA SOURCES

To better understand and manage the risks of PPCPs in the environment, we used the "key question" approach to identify the principle issues that need to be addressed. Initially, questions were solicited from academic, government, and business communities around the world. A list of 101 questions was then discussed at an international expert workshop, and a top-20 list was developed. Following the workshop, workshop attendees ranked the 20 questions by importance.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The top 20 priority questions fell into seven categories: a) prioritization of substances for assessment, b) pathways of exposure, c) bioavailability and uptake, d) effects characterization, e) risk and relative risk, f ) antibiotic resistance, and g) risk management.

CONCLUSIONS

A large body of information is now available on PPCPs in the environment. This exercise prioritized the most critical questions to aid in development of future research programs on the topic.

Challenges in global biodiversity conservation and solutions that cross sociology, politics, economics and ecology

The study and practice of conservation biology is inherently interdisciplinary, addresses short and long time-scales and occurs within complex human-natural interfaces. Zoos and aquaria, in partnership with researchers, other non-government organizations, government, industry and educators, are combining knowledge of species and ecosystems with economics, psychology and law to create solutions for conserving biodiversity. From 22 to 25 May, the Conservation Forum of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria was a venue for discussing conservation research, education and interventions, from the scale of villages to global policy.

A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda

The need for policy makers to understand science and for scientists to understand policy processes is widely recognised. However, the science-policy relationship is sometimes difficult and occasionally dysfunctional; it is also increasingly visible, because it must deal with contentious issues, or itself becomes a matter of public controversy, or both. We suggest that identifying key unanswered questions on the relationship between science and policy will catalyse and focus research in this field. To identify these questions, a collaborative procedure was employed with 52 participants selected to cover a wide range of experience in both science and policy, including people from government, non-governmental organisations, academia and industry. These participants consulted with colleagues and submitted 239 questions. An initial round of voting was followed by a workshop in which 40 of the most important questions were identified by further discussion and voting. The resulting list includes questions about the effectiveness of science-based decision-making structures; the nature and legitimacy of expertise; the consequences of changes such as increasing transparency; choices among different sources of evidence; the implications of new means of characterising and representing uncertainties; and ways in which policy and political processes affect what counts as authoritative evidence. We expect this exercise to identify important theoretical questions and to help improve the mutual understanding and effectiveness of those working at the interface of science and policy.

Making predictive ecology more relevant to policy makers and practitioners

One of the aims of ecology is to aid policy makers and practitioners through the development of testable predictions of relevance to society. Here, we argue that this capacity can be improved in three ways. Firstly, by thinking more clearly about the priority issues using a range of methods including horizon scanning, identifying policy gaps, identifying priority questions and using evidence-based conservation to identify knowledge gaps. Secondly, by linking ecological models with models of other systems, such as economic and social models. Thirdly, by considering alternative approaches to generate and model data that use, for example, discrete or categorical states to model ecological systems. We particularly highlight that models are essential for making predictions. However, a key to the limitation in their use is the degree to which ecologists are able to communicate results to policy makers in a clear, useful and timely fashion.

How research-prioritization exercises affect conservation policy

Conservation scientists are concerned about the apparent lack of impact their research is having on policy. By better aligning research with policy needs, conservation science might become more relevant to policy and increase its real-world salience in the conservation of biological diversity. Consequently, some conservation scientists have embarked on a variety of exercises to identify research questions that, if answered, would provide the evidence base with which to develop and implement effective conservation policies. I synthesized two existing approaches to conceptualizing research impacts. One widely used approach classifies the impacts of research as conceptual, instrumental, and symbolic. Conceptual impacts occur when policy makers are sensitized to new issues and change their beliefs or thinking. Instrumental impacts arise when scientific research has a direct effect on policy decisions. The use of scientific research results to support established policy positions are symbolic impacts. The second approach classifies research issues according to whether scientific knowledge is developed fully and whether the policy issue has been articulated clearly. I believe exercises to identify important research questions have objectives of increasing the clarity of policy issues while strengthening science-policy interactions. This may facilitate the transmission of scientific knowledge to policy makers and, potentially, accelerate the development and implementation of effective conservation policy. Other, similar types of exercises might also be useful. For example, identification of visionary science questions independent of current policy needs, prioritization of best practices for transferring scientific knowledge to policy makers, and identification of questions about human values and their role in political processes could all help advance real-world conservation science. It is crucial for conservation scientists to understand the wide variety of ways in which their research can affect policy and be improved systematically.