Michael Paul Nelson

Status and Ecological Effects of the World’s Largest Carnivores

Background The largest terrestrial species in the order Carnivora are wide-ranging and rare because of their positions at the top of food webs. They are some of the world’s most admired mammals and, ironically, some of the most imperiled. Most have experienced substantial population declines and range contractions throughout the world during the past two centuries. Because of the high metabolic demands that come with endothermy and large body size, these carnivores often require large prey and expansive habitats. These food requirements and wide-ranging behavior often bring them into conflict with humans and livestock. This, in addition to human intolerance, renders them vulnerable to extinction. Large carnivores face enormous threats that have caused massive declines in their populations and geographic ranges, including habitat loss and degradation,persecution, utilization, and depletion of prey. We highlight how these threats can affect theconservation status and ecological roles of this planet’s 31 largest carnivores. Ecologically important carnivores. Seven species of large carnivores with documented ecological effects involving (A) “tri-trophic cascades” from large carnivores to prey to plants, (B) “mesopredator cascades” from large carnivores to mesopredators to prey of mesopredators, and (C) both tri-trophic and mesopredator cascades. [Photo credits: sea otter (N. Smith), puma (W. Ripple), lion (K. Abley), leopard (A. Dey), Eurasianlynx (B. Elmhagen), dingo (A. McNab), gray wolf (D. Mclaughlin)] Advances Based on empirical studies, trophic cascades have been documented for 7 of the 31 largest mammalian carnivores (not including pinnipeds). For each of these species (see figure), human actions have both caused declines and contributed to recovery, providing “natural experiments” for quantifying their effects on food-web and community structure. Large carnivores deliver economic and ecosystem services via direct and indirect pathways that help maintain mammal, avian, invertebrate,and herpetofauna abundance or richness. Further, they affect other ecosystem processes and conditions, such as scavenger subsidies, disease dynamics, carbon storage, stream morphology, and crop production. The maintenance or recovery of ecologically effective densities of large carnivores is an important tool for maintaining the structure and function of diverse ecosystems. Outlook Current ecological knowledge indicates that large carnivores are necessary for the maintenanceof biodiversity and ecosystem function. Human actions cannot fully replace the role of large carnivores. Additionally, the future of increasing human resource demands and changing climate will affect biodiversity and ecosystem resiliency. These facts, combined with the importance of resiliente cosystems, indicate that large carnivores and their habitats should be maintained and restored wherever possible. Preventing the extinction of these species and the loss of their irreplaceable ecological function and importance will require novel, bold, and deliberate actions. We propose a Global Large Carnivore Initiative to coordinate local, national, and international research, conservation, and policy. Preserving Predators Large-bodied animals play essential roles in ecosystem structuring and stability through both indirect and direct trophic effects. In recent times, humans have disrupted this trophic structure through both habitat destruction and active extirpation of large predators, resulting in large declines in numbers and vast contractions in their geographic ranges. Ripple et al. (10.1126/science.1241484; see the Perspective by Roberts) review the status, threats, and ecological importance of the 31 largest mammalian carnivores globally. These species are responsible for a suite of direct and indirect stabilizing effects in ecosystems. Current levels of decline are likely to result in ecologically ineffective population densities and can lead to ecosystem instability. The preservation of large carnivores can be challenging because of their need for large ranges and their potential for human conflict. However, the authors demonstrate that the preservation of large carnivores is ecologically important and that the need for conservation action is immediate, given the severity of the threats they face. Large carnivores face serious threats and are experiencing massive declines in their populations and geographic ranges around the world. We highlight how these threats have affected the conservation status and ecological functioning of the 31 largest mammalian carnivores on Earth. Consistent with theory, empirical studies increasingly show that large carnivores have substantial effects on the structure and function of diverse ecosystems. Significant cascading trophic interactions, mediated by their prey or sympatric mesopredators, arise when some of these carnivores are extirpated from or repatriated to ecosystems. Unexpected effects of trophic cascades on various taxa and processes include changes to bird, mammal, invertebrate, and herpetofauna abundance or richness; subsidies to scavengers; altered disease dynamics; carbon sequestration; modified stream morphology; and crop damage. Promoting tolerance and coexistence with large carnivores is a crucial societal challenge that will ultimately determine the fate of Earth’s largest carnivores and all that depends upon them, including humans.

On Advocacy by Environmental Scientists: What, Whether, Why, and How

Debate about the nature and appropriateness of advocacy by environmental scientists is important--it represents understanding the role of these citizens in our society. Much has been written about advocacy by scientists, and that literature describes substantial diversity in reasons why advocacy by scientists is or is not appropriate. Despite the nature of this literature there has been no comprehensive, systematic review of why some favor and others oppose advocacy by environmental scientists. Through a literature review we catalogued, categorized, and critiqued the arguments used for and against the appropriateness of advocacy by environmental scientists. Most arguments, whether for or against advocacy, are characterized by some significant deficiency. From our analysis of the literature an argument emerges that to date has never been fully articulated: that advocacy is nearly unavoidable, and that scientists, by virtue of being citizens first and scientists second, have a responsibility to advocate to the best of their abilities, to improve their advocacy abilities, and to advocate in a justified and transparent manner. We also discuss the meaning and relevance of advocacy being justified and transparent. We suggest scientists expend their efforts to better understand what constitutes appropriate advocacy and spend less effort pondering whether they should advocate.

Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation

Despite broad recognition of the value of social sciences and increasingly vocal calls for better engagement with the human element of conservation, the conservation social sciences remain misunderstood and underutilized in practice. The conservation social sciences can provide unique and important contributions to societys understanding of the relationships between humans and nature and to improving conservation practice and outcomes. There are 4 barriers-ideological, institutional, knowledge, and capacity-to meaningful integration of the social sciences into conservation. We provide practical guidance on overcoming these barriers to mainstream the social sciences in conservation science, practice, and policy. Broadly, we recommend fostering knowledge on the scope and contributions of the social sciences to conservation, including social scientists from the inception of interdisciplinary research projects, incorporating social science research and insights during all stages of conservation planning and implementation, building social science capacity at all scales in conservation organizations and agencies, and promoting engagement with the social sciences in and through global conservation policy-influencing organizations. Conservation social scientists, too, need to be willing to engage with natural science knowledge and to communicate insights and recommendations clearly. We urge the conservation community to move beyond superficial engagement with the conservation social sciences. A more inclusive and integrative conservation science-one that includes the natural and social sciences-will enable more ecologically effective and socially just conservation. Better collaboration among social scientists, natural scientists, practitioners, and policy makers will facilitate a renewed and more robust conservation. Mainstreaming the conservation social sciences will facilitate the uptake of the full range of insights and contributions from these fields into conservation policy and practice.

Evaluating whether nature's intrinsic value is an axiom of or anathema to conservation.

That at least some aspects of nature possess intrinsic value is considered by some an axiom of conservation. Others consider natures intrinsic value superfluous or anathema. This range of views among mainstream conservation professionals potentially threatens the foundation of conservation. One challenge in resolving this disparity is that disparaging portrayals of natures intrinsic value appear rooted in misconceptions and unfounded presumptions about what it means to acknowledge natures intrinsic value. That acknowledgment has been characterized as vacuous, misanthropic, of little practical consequence to conservation, adequately accommodated by economic valuation, and not widely accepted in society. We reviewed the philosophical basis for natures intrinsic value and the implications for acknowledging that value. Our analysis is rooted to the notion that when something possesses intrinsic value it deserves to be treated with respect for what it is, with concern for its welfare or in a just manner. From this basis, one can only conclude that natures intrinsic value is not a vacuous concept or adequately accommodated by economic valuation. Acknowledging natures intrinsic value is not misanthropic because concern for natures welfare (aside from its influence on human welfare) does not in any way preclude also being concerned for human welfare. The practical import of acknowledging natures intrinsic value rises from recognizing all the objects of conservation concern (e.g., many endangered species) that offer little benefit to human welfare. Sociological and cultural evidence indicates the belief that at least some elements of nature possess intrinsic value is widespread in society. Our reasoning suggests the appropriateness of rejecting the assertion that natures intrinsic value is anathema to conservation and accepting its role as an axiom.

Sustainability: Virtuous or Vulgar?

Progress in understanding and achieving sustainability requires addressing it as both a scientific and an ethical issue. If sustainability is defined as “meeting human needs in a socially just manner without depriving ecosystems of their health,” most of the words in its definition are normative or value laden. Depending on how critical normative terms such as “human needs” and “ecosystem health” are defined, sustainability could mean anything from “exploit as much as desired without infringing on the future ability to exploit as much as desired” to “exploit as little as necessary to maintain a meaningful life.” We suggest that there are five key areas of sustainability. By examining how recent university cluster hires in sustainability compare with these five areas, we show not only how hiring has been radically lopsided but also how ethics has been entirely ignored. Lack of attention to the ethical dimension of sustainability is stifling progress toward sustainability.

Saving the World's Terrestrial Megafauna

From the late Pleistocene to the Holocene, and now the so called Anthropocene, humans have been driving an ongoing series of species declines and extinctions (Dirzo et al. 2014). Large-bodied mammals are typically at a higher risk of extinction than smaller ones (Cardillo et al. 2005). However, in some circumstances terrestrial megafauna populations have been able to recover some of their lost numbers due to strong conservation and political commitment, and human cultural changes (Chapron et al. 2014). Indeed many would be in considerably worse predicaments in the absence of conservation action (Hoffmann et al. 2015). Nevertheless, most mammalian megafauna face dramatic range contractions and population declines. In fact, 59% of the world’s largest carnivores (≥ 15 kg, n = 27) and 60% of the world’s largest herbivores (≥ 100 kg, n = 74) are classified as threatened with extinction on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List (supplemental table S1 and S2). This situation is particularly dire in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, home to the greatest diversity of extant megafauna (figure 1). Species at risk of extinction include some of the world’s most iconic animals—such as gorillas, rhinos, and big cats (figure 2 top row)—and, unfortunately, they are vanishing just as science is discovering their essential ecological roles (Estes et al. 2011). Here, our objectives are to raise awareness of how these megafauna are imperiled (species in supplemental table S1 and S2) and to stimulate broad interest in developing specific recommendations and concerted action to conserve them.

Framing a Philosophy of Environmental Action: Aldo Leopold, John Muir, and the Importance of Community

A philosophy of action consists of a theory about how and why we do things and what motivates us to act. By juxtaposing the theory of environmental action implied by the works and life of John Muir with the philosophy of action suggested by Aldo Leopolds Land Ethic, we will illuminate the importance of a philosophy of action in determining ones approach to environmental decision making. This discussion is important for environmental education and the ethics these experiences inspire because both philosophies advocate very different visions of environmental action. In short, Muir demonstrates an ethic guided by the expected results of actions, an approach parallel to the responsible environmental behavior model (REB) of environmental education, whereas Leopold, demonstrates the role of intention and emotion in ethical decision making through the lens of community.

Promoting predators and compassionate conservation

Arian D. Wallach,∗†‡ ¶ Marc Bekoff,‡§ Michael Paul Nelson,∗∗ and Daniel Ramp‡ ∗Dingo for Biodiversity Project, P.O. Box 156, Mount Perry 4671, Queensland, Australia †Charles Darwin University, School of Environment, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia ‡Centre for Compassionate Conservation, School of the Environment, University of Technology Sydney, P.O. Box 123 Broadway, NSW, 2007, Australia §Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, U.S.A. ∗∗Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, U.S.A.

An Environmental Pedagogy of Care: Emotion, Relationships, and Experience in Higher Education Ethics Learning.

Field philosophy is interdisciplinary experiential environmental humanities learning. It grows from a community-focused conception of environmental ethics and place-based environmental education, and it aims to help students develop an awareness of the role of environmental ethics in environmental issues, as well as cultivate an empathetic environmental ethic that might enable them to participate in environmental problem solving. The emotional, cognitive, and physical relationships with people, place, and ideas at the core of field philosophy necessitate a pedagogy that attends to affective learning objectives and relationship building. A shared focus connects literature in experiential education, educational psychology research on emotional engagement, and the ethic of care. A synthesis of this literature grounds an environmental pedagogy of care with meaningful potential for field philosophy.

What the Inbred Scandinavian Wolf Population Tells Us about the Nature of Conservation

The genetic aspects of population health are critical, but frequently difficult to assess. Of concern has been the genetic constitution of Scandinavian wolves (Canis lupus), which represent an important case in conservation. We examined the incidence of different congenital anomalies for 171 Scandinavian wolves, including the immigrant founder female, born during a 32-year period between 1978 and 2010. The incidence of anomalies rose from 13% to 40% throughout the 32-year study period. Our ability to detect this increase was likely facilitated by having considered multiple kinds of anomaly. Many of the found anomalies are likely associated with inbreeding or some form of genetic deterioration. These observations have implications for understanding the conservation needs of Scandinavian wolves. Moreover, these observations and the history of managing Scandinavian wolves focus attention on a broader question, whether conservation is merely about avoiding extinction of remnant populations, or whether conservation also entails maintaining genetic aspects of population health.