Wilson, J. R. U. | bioRxiv Science

bioRxiv2021

G-IRAE: a Generalised approach for linking the total Impact of invasion to species' Range, Abundance and per-unit Effects

The total impact of an alien species was conceptualised as the product of its range size, local abundance and per-unit effect in a seminal paper by Parker and colleagues in 1999, but a practical approach for estimating the three components has been lacking. Here, we generalise the impact formula and, through use of regression models, estimate the relationship between the three components of impact, an approach we term G-IRAE (Generalised Impact - Range size - Abundance - per-unit Effect). Moreover, we show that G-IRAE can also be applied to damage and management costs. We propose two methods for applying G-IRAE. The species-specific method computes the relationship for a given species across multiple invaded sites or regions, assuming a constant per-unit effect across the invaded area. The multi-species method combines data from multiple species across multiple sites or regions to calculate a per-unit effect for each species. While the species-specific method is more accurate, it requires a large amount of data for each species. The multi-species method is more easily applicable and data-parsimonious. We illustrate the multi-species method using data about money spent managing plant invasions in different biomes of South Africa. We found clear differences between species in terms of money spent per unit area invaded, with per-unit expenditures varying substantially between biomes for some species. G-IRAE offers a versatile and practical method which can be applied to many different types of data, to better understand and manage invasions.

ecology↗

bioRxiv2020

How moral values influence conservation: a framework to capture different management perspectives

Perspectives in conservation are based on a variety of value systems. Such differences in how people value nature and its components lead to different evaluations of the morality of conservation goals and approaches, and often underlie disagreements in the formulation and implementation of environmental management policies. Specifically, whether a conservation action (e.g. killing feral cats to reduce predation on bird species threatened with extinction) is viewed as appropriate or not can vary among people with different value systems. Here, we present a conceptual, mathematical framework intended as a tool to systematically explore and clarify core value statements in conservation approaches. Its purpose is to highlight how fundamental differences between these value systems can lead to different prioritizations of available management options and offer a common ground for discourse. The proposed equations decompose the question underlying many controversies around management decisions in conservation: what or who is valued, how, and to what extent? We compare how management decisions would likely be viewed under three different idealised value systems: ecocentric conservation, which aims to preserve biodiversity; new conservation, which considers that biodiversity can only be preserved if it benefits humans; and sentientist conservation, which aims at minimising suffering for sentient beings. We illustrate the utility of the framework by applying it to case studies involving invasive alien species, rewilding, and trophy hunting. By making value systems and their consequences in practice explicit, the framework facilitates debates on contested conservation issues, and complements philosophical discursive approaches about moral reasoning. We believe dissecting the core value statements on which conservation decisions are based will provide an additional tool to understand and address conservation conflicts.

ecology↗