bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Sutherland, W. J.

Publications and source records attributed to Sutherland, W. J..

15 recordsLinked to original sources
bioRxiv2024

What works to improve species conservation state? An analysis of species whose state has improved and the actions responsible

Understanding the consequences of past conservation efforts is essential to inform the means of maintaining and restoring species. Data from the IUCN Red List for 67,217 comprehensively assessed animal species were reviewed and analysed to determine (i) which conservation actions have been implemented for different species, (ii) which types of species have improved in state and (iii) which actions are likely to have driven the improvements. At least 51.8% (34,847) of assessed species have actions reported, mostly comprising protected areas (82.7%), with more actions reported for both terrestrial tetrapods and warm-water reef-building corals and fewer for fish, dragonflies and damselflies and crustaceans. Species at greater risk of extinction have a wider range of species-targeted actions reported compared to less threatened species, reflecting differences in documentation and conservation efforts. Six times more species have deteriorated rather than improved in their Red List category. Almost all species that improved have conservation actions in place; species that improved in state typically were historically at high risk of extinction, have smaller ranges and lacked a range of reported threats, particularly hunting and habitat loss or degradation. All types of conservation action were associated with improvements in state, especially reintroductions and invasive species control, alongside, for amphibians and birds, area management. This suggests a range of conservation interventions have successfully conserved some species at greatest risk but have rarely recovered populations to resilient levels. Scaling up the extent and intensity of conservation interventions, particularly landscape-scale actions that benefit broadly distributed species, is urgently needed to assist the recovery of biodiversity.

zoology↗
bioRxiv2023

Assessing the global prevalence of wild birds in trade

Trade represents a significant threat to many wild species and is often clandestine and poorly monitored. Information on which species are most prevalent in trade, and potentially threatened by it, therefore remains fragmentary. We mobilised seven global datasets on birds in trade to identify the species or groups of species that might be at particular risk. These datasets sample different parts of the broad trade spectrum but we nevertheless find a statistically strong congruence between them in which species are recorded in trade. Furthermore, the frequency with which species are recorded within datasets is positively correlated with their occurrence across datasets. This allows us to propose a trade prevalence score that can be applied to all bird species globally. This score discriminates well between species known from semi-independent assessments to be heavily or unsustainably traded and all other species. Globally, 45.1% of all bird species, and 36.7% of globally threatened bird species, were recorded in at least one of the seven datasets. Species listed in Appendices I or II of CITES, species with large geographical distributions and non-songbirds had higher trade prevalence scores. Speciose orders with high mean trade prevalence scores include the Falconiformes, Psittaciformes, Accipitriformes, Anseriformes, Bucerotiformes and Strigiformes. Despite their low mean prevalence score, Passeriformes accounted for the highest overall number of traded species of any order but had low representation in CITES Appendices. Geographical hotspots where large numbers of traded species co-occur differed between songbirds (South-East Asia and Eurasia) and non-songbirds (central South America, sub-Saharan Africa and India). This first attempt to quantify and map the relative prevalence in trade of all bird species globally can be used to identify species and groups of species which may be at particular risk of harm from trade and can inform conservation and policy interventions to reduce its adverse impacts. Article impact statementThe first metric to estimate the prevalence in trade of all the worlds bird species is presented.

ecology↗
bioRxiv2021

Impacts of dams on freshwater turtles: a global review to identify conservation solutions

Background and Research AimsDams impact freshwater ecosystems and biodiversity. Freshwater turtles are at direct and indirect risk due to changes caused by damming including the loss of terrestrial and aquatic nesting habitats, changes to food availability and blocking movement. Effective management of these impacts requires robust evidence in order to gain an understanding of conservation solutions that work. MethodsWe reviewed the global scientific literature that evaluated the impact of dams on freshwater turtles, and carried out additional searches of literature published in seventeen languages for studies evaluating actions to mitigate dam impacts. ResultsThe search produced 47 published articles documenting dam impacts on 30 freshwater turtle species from seven families (Chelidae, Chelydridae, Emydidae, Geoemydidae, Kinosternidae, Podocnemididae and Trionychidae) in 13 countries. Few studies were found from Europe and Asia and none from Africa. Most studies were from temperate latitudes, where studies focused more on adults and less threatened species compared with tropical latitudes. More than half of the studies (57%, n = 27) suggested actions to help mitigate dam impacts. Yet, only five studies (three temperate and two tropical) documented the effect of interventions (dam removal, flow management, artificial pond maintenance and community-based action). ConclusionThese findings demonstrate a serious lack of documented evidence evaluating mitigation actions for dam impacts on freshwater turtles. Implications for Conservation: This lack of evidence reinforces the importance of strengthening and maintaining robust long-term studies needed to develop effective and adaptive conservation actions for this group of threatened vertebrates particularly in tropical regions.

zoology↗
bioRxiv2021

Reducing publication delay to improve the efficiency and impact of conservation science

Evidence-based decision making is most effective with comprehensive access to scientific studies. If studies face delays or barriers to being published, the useful information they contain may not reach decision-makers in a timely manner. This represents a potential problem for mission-oriented disciplines where access to the latest data is paramount to ensure effective actions are deployed. We sought to analyse the severity of publication delay in conservation science -- a field that requires urgent action to prevent the loss of biodiversity. We used the Conservation Evidence database to assess the length of publication delay (time from finishing data collection to publication) in the literature that tests the effectiveness of conservation interventions. From 7,415 peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed studies of conservation interventions published over eleven decades, we find that the mean publication delay (time from completing data collection to publication) was 3.6 years and varied by conservation subject -- a smaller delay was observed for studies focussed on the management of captive animals. Publication delay was significantly smaller for studies in the non-journal literature (typically non-peer-reviewed) compared to studies published in scientific journals. Although we found publication delay has marginally increased over time (1912-2020), this change was weak post-1980s. Publication delay also varied inconsistently between studies on species with different IUCN Red List statuses and there was little evidence that studies on more threatened species were subject to a smaller delay. We discuss the possible drivers of publication delay and present suggestions for scientists, funders, publishers, and practitioners to reduce the time taken to publish studies. Although our recommendations are aimed at conservation science, they are highly relevant to other mission-driven disciplines where the rapid dissemination of scientific findings is important.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2020

The data-index: an author-level metric that values impactful data and incentivises data sharing

Author-level metrics are a widely used measure of scientific success. The h-index, and its variants, measure publication output (number of publications) and impact (number of citations), and these are often used to allocate funding or jobs. Here we argue that the emphasis on publication output and impact hinders progress in the fields of ecology and evolution as it disincentivises two fundamental practices: generating long-term datasets and sharing data. We describe a new author-level metric, the data-index, which values dataset output and impact and promotes generating and sharing data as a result. It is designed to complement other metrics of scientific success, as scientific contributions are diverse and our value system should reflect that. Future work should focus on designing alternative metrics that value our wider merits, such as communicating our research, informing policy, mentoring other scientists, and providing open-access code and tools.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2020

Dynamic meta-analysis: a method of using global evidence for local decision making

Meta-analysis is often used to make generalizations across all available evidence at the global scale. But how can these global generalizations be used for evidence-based decision making at the local scale, if only the local evidence is perceived to be relevant to a local decision? We show how an interactive method of meta-analysis -- dynamic meta-analysis -- can be used to assess the local relevance of global evidence. We developed Metadataset (www.metadataset.com) as an example of dynamic meta-analysis. Using Metadataset, we show how evidence can be filtered and weighted, and results can be recalculated, using dynamic methods of subgroup analysis, meta-regression, and recalibration. With an example from agroecology, we show how dynamic meta-analysis could lead to different conclusions for different subsets of the global evidence. Dynamic meta-analysis could also lead to a rebalancing of power and responsibility in evidence synthesis, since evidence users would be able to make decisions that are typically made by systematic reviewers -- decisions about which studies to include (e.g., critical appraisal) and how to handle missing or poorly reported data (e.g., sensitivity analysis). We suggest that dynamic meta-analysis could be scaled up and used for subject-wide evidence synthesis in several scientific disciplines (e.g., agroecology and conservation biology). However, the metadata that are used to filter and weight the evidence would need to be standardized within disciplines.

ecology↗
bioRxiv2020

Poor availability of context-specific evidence hampers decision-making in conservation

Evidence-based conservation relies on robust and relevant evidence. Practitioners often prefer locally relevant studies whose results are more likely to be transferable to the context of planned conservation interventions. To quantify the availability of relevant evidence for amphibian and bird conservation we reviewed Conservation Evidence, a database of quantitative tests of conservation interventions. Studies were geographically clustered and found at extremely low densities - fewer than one study was present within a 2,000 km radius of a given location. The availability of relevant evidence was extremely low when we restricted studies to those studying biomes or taxonomic orders containing high percentages of threatened species, compared to the most frequently studied biomes and taxonomic orders. Further constraining the evidence by study design showed that only 17-20% of amphibian and bird studies used robust designs. Our results highlight the paucity of evidence on the effectiveness of conservation interventions, and the disparity in evidence for local contexts that are frequently studied and those where conservation needs are greatest. Addressing the serious global shortfall in context-specific evidence requires a step change in the frequency of testing conservation interventions, greater use of robust study designs and standardized metrics, and methodological advances to analyze patchy evidence bases.

ecology↗
bioRxiv2019

The challenge of heterogeneous evidence in conservation

Conservation efforts to tackle the current biodiversity crisis need to be as efficient and effective as possible. To inform decision-makers of the most effective conservation actions, it is important to identify biases and gaps in the conservation literature to prioritize future evidence generation. We assessed the state of this global literature base using the Conservation Evidence database, a comprehensive collection of quantitative tests of conservation actions (interventions) from the published literature. For amphibians and birds, we investigated the nature of Conservation Evidence spatially and taxonomically, as well as by biome, effectiveness metrics, and study design. Studies were heavily concentrated in Western Europe and North America for birds and particularly amphibians. Studies that used the most robust study designs - Before-After Control-Impact and Randomized Controlled Trials - were also the most geographically restricted. Furthermore, there was no relationship between the number of studies in each 1x1 degree grid cell and the number of species, threatened species or data-deficient species. Taxonomic biases and gaps were apparent for amphibians and birds - some orders were absent from the evidence base and others were poorly represented relative to the proportion of threatened species they contained. Temperate forest and grassland biomes were highly represented, which reinforced observed geographic biases. Various metrics were used to evaluate the effectiveness of a given conservation action, potentially making studies less directly comparable and evidence synthesis more difficult. We also found that the least robust study designs were the most commonly used; studies using robust designs were scarce. Future research should prioritize testing conservation actions on threatened species outside of Western Europe and North America. Standardizing metrics and improving the robustness of study designs used to test conservation actions would also improve the quality of the evidence base for synthesis and decision-making.

ecology↗
bioRxiv2019

Responses of global waterbird populations to climate change vary with latitude

While climate change continues to present a major threat to global biodiversity and ecosystems, most research on climate change impacts do not have the resolution to detect changes in species abundance and are often limited to temperate ecosystems. This limits our understanding of global responses in species abundance--a determinant of ecosystem function and services--to climate change including in the highly-biodiverse tropics. We address this knowledge gap by quantifying abundance responses to climate change in waterbirds, an indicator taxon of wetland biodiversity, at 6,822 sites between -55{degrees} and 64{degrees}. Using 1,303,651 count records since 1990 of 390 species, we show that with temperature increase, the abundance of species and populations decreased at lower latitudes, particularly in the tropics, but increased at higher latitudes. These contrasting responses to temperature increase according to latitude indicate potential global-scale poleward shifts of species abundance under climate change, providing empirical support for predictions by earlier studies. The negative responses to temperature increase in tropical species and populations are of conservation concern, as they are often also threatened by other anthropogenic factors. Our results suggest that existing biases in studies towards temperate regions could underestimate the impact of climate change on waterbirds and other species.

ecology↗
bioRxiv2019

Simple study designs in ecology produce inaccurate estimates of biodiversity responses

O_LIEcologists use a wide range of study designs to estimate the impact of interventions or threats but there are no quantitative comparisons of their accuracy. For example, while it is accepted that simpler designs, such as After (sampling sites post-impact without a control), Before-After (BA) and Control-Impact (CI), are less robust than Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT) and Before-After Control-Impact (BACI) designs, it is not known how much less accurate they are.\nC_LIO_LIWe simulate a step-change response of a population to an environmental impact using empirically-derived estimates of the major parameters. We use five ecological study designs to estimate the effect of this impact and evaluate each one by determining the percentage of simulations in which they accurately estimate the direction and magnitude of the environmental impact. We also simulate different numbers of replicates and assess several accuracy thresholds.\nC_LIO_LIWe demonstrate that BACI designs could be 1.1-1.5 times more accurate than RCTs, 2.9-4.1 times more accurate than BA, 3.8-5.6 times more accurate than CI, and 6.8-10.8 times more accurate than After designs, when estimating to within {+/-}30% of the true effect (depending on the sample size). We also found that increasing sample size substantially increases the accuracy of BACI designs but only increases the precision of simpler designs around a biased estimate; only by using more robust designs can accuracy increase. Modestly increasing replication of both control and impact sites also increased the accuracy of BACI designs more than substantially increasing replicates in just one of these groups.\nC_LIO_LIWe argue that investment into using more robust designs in ecology, where possible, is extremely worthwhile given the inaccuracy of simpler designs, even when using large sample sizes. Based on our results we propose a weighting system that quantitatively ranks the accuracy of studies based on their study design and the number of replicates used. We hope these accuracy weights enable researchers to better account for study design in evidence synthesis when assessing the reliability of a range of studies using a variety of designs.\nC_LI

ecology↗
bioRxiv2019

Vulnerable species interactions are important for the stability of mutualistic networks

Species are central to ecology and conservation. However, it is the interactions between species that generate the functions on which ecosystems and humans depend. Despite the importance of interactions, we lack an understanding of the risk that their loss poses to ecological communities. Here, we quantify risk as a function of the vulnerability (likelihood of loss) and importance (contribution to network stability in terms of species coexistence) of 4330 mutualistic interactions from 41 empirical pollination and seed dispersal networks across six continents. Remarkably, we find that more vulnerable interactions are also more important: the interactions that contribute most to network stability are those that are most likely to be lost. Furthermore, most interactions tend to have more similar vulnerability and importance across networks than expected by chance, suggesting that vulnerability and importance may be intrinsic properties of interactions, rather than only a function of ecological context. These results provide a starting point for prioritising interactions for conservation in species interaction networks and, in areas lacking network data, could allow interaction properties to be inferred from taxonomy alone.

ecology↗
bioRxiv2018

Effects of sampling duration and intervals on confidence in population trend estimates

Species population trends are fundamental to conservation, underpinning lUCN red-list classifications, many national lists of threatened species and are also used globally to convey to policy makers the state of nature. Clearly, its crucial to quantify how much we can trust population trend data. Yet many studies analyzing large numbers of population time series lack a straightforward way to estimate confidence in each trend. Here we artificially degrade 27,930 waterbird population time series to see how often subsets of the data correctly estimate the direction and magnitude of each populations true trend. We find you need to sample many years to be confident that there is no significant trend in a population. Conversely, if a significant trend is detected, even from only a small subset of years, this is likely to be representative of the populations true trend. This means that if a significant decline is detected in a population, it is likely to be correct and conservation action should be taken immediately, but if the trend is insignificant, confidence in this can only be high with many samples. Our full results provide a clear and quantitative way to assign confidence to species trends, and lays the foundation for similar studies of other taxa that can help to add rigor to large-scale population analyses.

ecology↗
bioRxiv2018

Abundance drives generalisation in hummingbird-plant pollination networks

Abundant pollinators are often more generalised than rare pollinators. This could be because abundance drives generalisation: neutral effects suggest that more abundant species will be more generalised simply because they have more chance encounters with potential interaction partners. On the other hand, generalisation could drive abundance, as generalised species could have a competitive advantage over specialists, being able to exploit a wider range of resources and gain a more balanced nutrient intake. Determining the direction of the abundance-generalisation relationship is therefore a chicken-and-egg dilemma. Here we determine the direction of the relationship between abundance and generalisation in plant-hummingbird pollination networks sampled from a variety of locations across the Americas. For the first time we resolve the direction of the abundance-generalisation relationship using independent data on animal abundance. We find evidence that hummingbird pollinators are generalised because they are abundant, and little evidence that hummingbirds are abundant because they are generalised. Additionally, a null model analysis suggests this pattern is due to neutral processes: most patterns of species-level abundance and generalisation were well explained by a null model that assumed interaction neutrality. These results suggest that neutral processes play a key role in driving broad patterns of generalisation in animal pollinators across large spatial scales.\n\nDeclarationsFunding - BIS is supported by the Natural Environment Research Council as part of the Cambridge Earth System Science NERC DTP [NE/L002507/1]. JVB was funded by CERL - Engineer Research and Development Center. PKM was funded by the Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP grant #2015/21457-4). PAC was funded by the David Lack studentship from the British Ornithologists Union and Wolfson College, University of Oxford. CL was funded by the ESDEPED-UAT grant. MAM acknowledges the Consejo Nacional para Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnologicas (Costa Rica), German Academic Exchange Service and the research funding program LOEWE-Landes-Offensive zur Entwicklung Wissenschaftlicho konomischer Exzellenz of Hesses Ministry of Higher Education, Research, and the Arts (Germany). ROP was funded by CONACyT (project 258364). MAR was supported by the State of Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) within the BIOTA/FAPESP, The Biodiversity Institute Program (www.biota.org.br) and the Parcelas Permanentes project, as well as by Coordenacao de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES), Fundo de Apoio ao Ensino e a Pesquisa (FAEP)/Funcamp/Unicamp and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) of Brazil. LCR was supported by CNPq and Capes. MS was funded by CNPq (grant #302781/2016-1). AMMG is supported through a Marie Skodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2016-704409). LVD was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council (grants NE/K015419/1 and NE/N014472/1). AMMG, JS, CR and BD thank the Danish National Research Foundation for its support of the Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate (grant no. DNRF96). WJS is funded by Arcadia.

ecology↗
bioRxiv2018

Uncovering indirect interactions in bipartite ecological networks

Indirect interactions play an essential role in governing population, community and coevolutionary dynamics across a diverse range of ecological communities. Such communities are widely represented as bipartite networks: graphs depicting interactions between two groups of species, such as plants and pollinators or hosts and parasites. For over thirty years, studies have used indices, such as connectance and species degree, to characterise the structure of these networks and the roles of their constituent species. However, compressing a complex network into a single metric necessarily discards large amounts of information about indirect interactions. Given the large literature demonstrating the importance and ubiquity of indirect effects, many studies of network structure are likely missing a substantial piece of the ecological puzzle. Here we use the emerging concept of bipartite motifs to outline a new framework for bipartite networks that incorporates indirect interactions. While this framework is a significant departure from the current way of thinking about networks, we show that this shift is supported by quantitative analyses of simulated and empirical data. We use simulations to show how consideration of indirect interactions can highlight ecologically important differences missed by the current index paradigm. We extend this finding to empirical plant-pollinator communities, showing how two bee species, with similar direct interactions, differ in how specialised their competitors are. These examples underscore the need for a new paradigm for bipartite ecological networks: one incorporating indirect interactions.

ecology↗
bioRxiv2018

bmotif: a package for counting motifs in bipartite networks

O_LIBipartite networks are widely-used to represent a diverse range of species interactions, such as pollination, herbivory, parasitism and seed dispersal. The structure of these networks is usually characterised by calculating one or more metrics that capture different aspects of network architecture. While these metrics capture useful properties of networks, they only consider structure at the scale of the whole network (the macro-scale) or individual species (the micro-scale). Meso-scale structure between these scales is usually ignored, despite representing ecologically-important interactions. Network motifs are a framework for capturing this meso-scale structure and are gaining in popularity. However, there is no software available in R, the most popular programming language among ecologists, for conducting motif analyses in bipartite networks. Similarly, no mathematical formalisation of bipartite motifs has been developed.\nC_LIO_LIHere we introduce bmotif: a package for counting motifs, and species positions within motifs, in bipartite networks. Our code is primarily an R package, but we also provide MATLAB and Python code of the core functionality. The software is based on a mathematical framework where, for the first time, we derive formal expressions for motif frequencies and the frequencies with which species occur in different positions within motifs. This framework means that analyses with bmotif are fast, making motif methods compatible with the permutational approaches often used in network studies, such as null model analyses.\nC_LIO_LIWe describe the package and demonstrate how it can be used to conduct ecological analyses, using two examples of plant-pollinator networks. We first use motifs to examine the assembly and disassembly of an Arctic plant-pollinator community, and then use them to compare the roles of native and introduced plant species in an unrestored site in Mauritius.\nC_LIO_LIbmotif will enable motif analyses of a wide range of bipartite ecological networks, allowing future research to characterise these complex networks without discarding important meso-scale structural detail.\nC_LI

ecology↗