Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · 70248339

Priority research needs to inform amphibian conservation in the Anthropocene

Abstract

The problem of global amphibian declines has prompted extensive research over the last three decades. Initially, the focus was on identifying and characterizing the extent of the problem, but more recently efforts have shifted to evidence-based research designed to identify best solutions and to improve conservation outcomes. Despite extensive accumulation of knowledge on amphibian declines, there remain knowledge gaps and disconnects between science and action that hamper our ability to advance conservation efforts. Using input from participants at the ninth World Congress of Herpetology, a U.S. Geological Survey Powell Center symposium, amphibian on-line forums for discussion, the International Union for Conservation of Nature Assisted Reproductive Technologies and Gamete Biobanking group, and respondents to a survey, we developed a list of 25 priority research questions for amphibian conservation at this stage of the Anthropocene. We identified amphibian conservation research priorities while accounting for expected tradeoffs in geographic scope, costs, and the taxonomic breadth of research needs. We aimed to solicit views from individuals rather than organizations while acknowledging inequities in participation. Emerging research priorities (i.e., those under-represented in recently published amphibian conservation literature) were identified, and included the effects of climate change, community-level (rather than single species-level) drivers of declines, methodological improvements for research and monitoring, genomics, and effects of land-use change. Improved inclusion of under-represented members of the amphibian conservation community was also identified as a priority. These research needs represent critical knowledge gaps for amphibian conservation although filling these gaps may not be necessary for many conservation actions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Evan H. Campbell Grant, Staci M. Amburgey, Brian Gratwicke, Victor Acosta Chaves, Anat M. Belasen, David Bickford, Carsten Bruhl, Natalie E. Calatayud, Nick Clemann, Simon Clulow, Jelka Crnobrnja-Isailovic, Jeff Dawson, David A. De Angelis, C. Kenneth Dodd, Annette Evans, Gentile Francesco Ficetola, Mattia Falaschi, Sergio Gonzalez-Mollinedo, David M. Green, Roseanna Gamlen-Greene, Richard A. Griffiths, Brian J. Halstead, Craig Hassapakis, Geoffrey Heard, Catharina Karlsson, Tom Kirschey, Blake Klocke, Tiffany A. Kosch, Sophia Kusterko Novaes, Luke Linhoff, John C. Maerz, Brittany A. Mosher, Katherine M. O'Donnell, Leticia M. Ochoa-Ochoa, Deanna H. Olson, Kristiina Ovaska, J. Dale Roberts, Aimee J. Silla, Tariq Stark, Jeanne Tarrant, R. Upton, Judit Voros, Erin L. Muths. 2023-07-19. Priority research needs to inform amphibian conservation in the Anthropocene. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12988

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Successes and opportunities for solutions-oriented conservation research: Lessons learned from avian science

Conservation science struggles with an ongoing divide between research and action. Given its history of broad public engagement and multi-scale management coordination, avian conservation typifies many of the challenges, successes, and opportunities across the broader field of conservation and is rich with examples that may guide solutions-oriented conservation science. In semi-structured focus groups composed of bird conservation scientists and practitioners from various backgrounds, we discussed the definition, characteristics, and examples of solutions-oriented conservation science. Our discussions highlighted several examples where successful application of avian conservation science led to change in programs, policy, regulations, and social systems, including several with co-benefits for local communities. These successes were characterized by communication, collaboration, and co-development with local communities, decision-makers, practitioners, and Indigenous communities. We identified remaining opportunities for improvement, including aligning incentives and priorities between research and practice, working across disciplines to mobilize solutions, dismantling barriers to inclusion, and emphasizing the importance of relationship-building in conservation science. We outline suggestions that researchers can use to incorporate these lessons from solutions-oriented avian conservation science into training and mentoring programs.

Conservation Science and Practice

Connecting and coordinating conservation action across landscapes through regional planning processes and syntheses

Modern threats to conservation are often global; however, relevant conservation decisions and actions typically occur within local jurisdictions. The socio-ecological complexity of these problems requires collaboration across large landscapes, diverse community interests, and geopolitical boundaries, yet a lack of interoperability of planning products among decision makers, jurisdictions, and objectives impedes collaboration. Here, we provide a working model for the collaborative, iterative development of a landscape conservation design (LCD) in the Midwest region of the United States, the Midwest Conservation Blueprint, and demonstrate its applicability to the coordination of voluntary conservation actions and investments across jurisdictional boundaries. We used spatial prioritization software to synthesize over 20 datasets to develop a basemap of priority lands and waters for conservation across a diverse set of societal and ecological values (e.g., water quality, biodiversity, recreation). The Midwest Conservation Blueprint is a living plan, updated annually based on improvements in underlying data, understanding of local conditions, and public input. Landscape-scale planning is not designed to replace local knowledge or supersede decision-making authorities. However, by synthesizing existing data that represent diverse socio-ecological values and planning at a broader scale, the Midwest Conservation Blueprint documents where there are shared priorities and opportunities for collaborative landscape conservation.

Midwest

Debunking the myth of the quintessential resource manager: Precision in actionable science

“Actionable science” is a widely held standard for identifying the merits of natural resources research. Yet, science is often framed as actionable to a vaguely identified quintessential “manager” without defining either the intended manager or use. Generic descriptions lack precision for identifying end users or their needs, limiting methodological rigor in research design and leading to contextual misalignments of outputs with the need they intended to serve. Further, imprecise terminology limits the ability to evaluate impact, replicate efforts, or foster adoption and implementation of findings. This perspective article presents the heuristic of “who, what, when, where, why, how” to help researchers be more precise when describing their actionable science. Through intentional reflection, researchers can move beyond generic framings of “managers” representing monolithic organizations. “Managers” become individuals, with unique responsibilities, functions, worldviews, and levels of authority, all influencing their use of and need for scientific information and data.

Conservation Science and Practice