Conservation Biology: Past and Present1

CHAPTER 1 Conservation biology: past and present1

Curt Meine

Our job is to harmonize the increasing kit of tioners remain embedded within a process of scientiﬁc tools and the increasing recklessness in change that has challenged conservation “in the using them with the shrinking biotas to which old sense,” even while extending conservation’s they are applied. In the nature of things we are core commitment to the future of life, human and mediators and moderators, and unless we can non-human, on Earth. help rewrite the objectives of science we are pre- There is as yet no comprehensive history of destined to failure. conservation that allows us to understand the —Aldo Leopold (1940; 1991) causes and context of conservation biology’s emergence. Environmental ethicists and histor- Conservation in the old sense, of this or that ians have provided essential studies of particular resource in isolation from all other resources, is conservation ideas, disciplines, institutions, indi- not enough. Environmental conservation based viduals, ecosystems, landscapes, and resources. on ecological knowledge and social understand- Yet we still lack a broad, fully integrated account ing is required. of the dynamic coevolution of conservation sci- —Raymond Dasmann (1959) ence, philosophy, policy, and practice (Meine Conservation biology is a mission-driven disci- 2004). The rise of conservation biology marked a pline comprising both pure and applied science. new “rallying point” at the intersection of these ...We feel that conservation biology is a new domains; exactly how, when, and why it did so ﬁeld, or at least a new rallying point for biologists are still questions awaiting exploration. wishing to pool their knowledge and techniques to solve problems. —Michael E. Soulé and Bruce A. Wilcox (1980) 1.1 Historical foundations of conservation biology

Conservation biology, though rooted in older sci- Since conservation biology’s emergence, com- entific, professional, and philosophical traditions, mentary on (and in) the field has rightly empha- gained its contemporary definition only in the sized its departure from prior conservation mid-1980s. Anyone seeking to understand the science and practice. However, the main “thread” history and growth of conservation biology thus of the field—the description, explanation, appre- faces inherent challenges. The field has formed ciation, protection, and perpetuation of biological too recently to be viewed with historical detach- diversity can be traced much further back through ment, and the trends shaping it are still too fluid the historical tapestry of the biological sciences to be easily traced. Conservation biology’s practi- and the conservation movement (Mayr 1982;

1 Adapted from Meine, C., Soulé, M., and Noss, R. F. (2006). “A mission‐driven discipline”: the growth of conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 20, 631–651.

© Oxford University Press 2010. All rights reserved. For permissions please email: [email protected] Sodhi and Ehrlich: Conservation Biology for All. http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199554249.do

8 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY FOR ALL

McIntosh 1985; Grumbine 1996; Quammen 1996). tions of respect for the natural world both within That thread weaves through related themes and and beyond the Western experience (see Box 1.1 concepts in conservation, including wilderness and Chapter 14). Long before environmentalism protection, sustained yield, wildlife protection began to reshape “conservation in the old sense” and management, the diversity-stability hypoth- in the 1960s—prior even to the Progressive Era esis, ecological restoration, sustainability, and conservation movement of the early 1900s—the ecosystem health. By focusing on the thread itself, foundations of conservation biology were being conservation biology brought the theme of laid over the course of biology’s epic advances biological diversity to the fore. over the last four centuries. The “discovery of In so doing, conservation biology has recon- diversity” (to use Ernst Mayr’s phrase) was the nected conservation to deep sources in Western driving force behind the growth of biological natural history and science, and to cultural tradi- thought. “Hardly any aspect of life is more

Box 1.1 Traditional ecological knowledge and biodiversity conservation Fikret Berkes

Conservation biology is a discipline of Western James Bay, Quebec, Canada (see Box 1.1 science, but there are other traditions of Figure). In the Peruvian Andes, the centre of conservation in various parts of the world (see origin of the potato, the Quetchua people also Chapter 14). These traditions are based on maintain a mosaic of agricultural and natural local and indigenous knowledge and practice. areas as a biocultural heritage site with some Traditional ecological knowledge may be 1200 potato varieties, both cultivated and wild. defined as a cumulative body of knowledge, practice and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission. It is experiential knowledge closely related to a way of life, multi‐generational, based on oral transmission rather than book learning, and hence different from science in a number of ways. Traditional knowledge does not always result in conservation, just as science does not always result in conservation. But there are a number of ways in which traditional knowledge and practice may lead to conservation outcomes. First, sacred groves and other sacred areas are protected through religious practice and Box 1.1 Figure Paakumshumwaau Biodiversity Reserve in James enforced by social rules. UNESCO’s (the United Bay, Quebec, Canada, established at the request of the Cree Nation Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural of Wemindji. Photograph by F. Berkes. Organization) World Heritage Sites network In some cases, high biodiversity is explainable includes many sacred sites, such as Machu in terms of traditional livelihood practices that Picchu in Peru. Second, many national parks maintain a diversity of varieties, species and have been established at the sites of former landscapes. For example, Oaxaca State in sacred areas, and are based on the legacy of Mexico exhibits high species richness despite traditional conservation. Alto Fragua Indiwasi the absence of official protected areas. This National Park in Colombia and Kaz Daglari may be attributed to the diversity of local and National Park in Turkey are examples. Third, indigenous practices resulting in multi‐ new protected areas are being established at functional cultural landscapes. In many parts of the request of indigenous peoples as a the world, agroforestry systems that rely on the safeguard against development. One example cultivation of a diversity of crops and trees is the Paakumshumwaau Biodiversity Reserve in together (as opposed to modern continues

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY: PAST AND PRESENT 9

Box 1.1 (Continued)

monocultures), seem to harbor high species The objective of formal protected areas richness. There are at least three mechanisms is biodiversity conservation, whereas that help conserve biodiversity in the use of traditional conservation is often practiced agroforestry and other traditional practices: for livelihood and cultural reasons. Making biodiversity conservation relevant to most of • Land use regimes that maintain forest the world requires bridging this gap, with an patches at different successional stages con- emphasis on sustainability, equity and a serve biodiversity because each stage repre- diversity of approaches. There is international sents a unique community. At the same time, interest in community‐conserved areas as a such land use contributes to continued ecosys- class of protected areas. Attention to time‐ tem renewal. tested practices of traditional conservation • The creation of patches, gaps and mosaics can help develop a pluralistic, more enhance biodiversity in a given area. In the inclusive deﬁnition of conservation, and study of landscape ecology, the principle is that build more robust constituencies for low and intermediate levels of disturbance conservation. often increase biodiversity, as compared to non‐disturbed areas. • Boundaries between ecological zones are characterized by high diversity, and the creation SUGGESTED READING of new edges (ecotones) by disturbance en- Berkes, F. (2008). Sacred ecology, 2nd edn. Routledge, hances biodiversity, but mostly of “edge‐loving” New York, NY. species. Overlaps and mixing of plant and animal species produce dynamic landscapes.

characteristic than its almost unlimited diversi- For example, Alfred Russel Wallace (1863) warned ty,” wrote Mayr (1982:133). “Indeed, there is against the “extinction of the numerous forms of life hardly any biological process or phenomenon which the progress of cultivation invariably en- where diversity is not involved.” tails” and urged his scientific colleagues to assume This “discovery” unfolded as colonialism, the the responsibility for stewardship that came with Industrial Revolution, human population growth, knowledge of diversity. expansion of capitalist and collectivist economies, The first edition of George Perkins Marsh’s and developing trade networks transformed Man and Nature appeared the following year. In human social, economic, political, and ecological his second chapter, “Transfer, Modification, and relationships ever more quickly and profoundly Extirpation of Vegetable and of Animal Species,” (e.g. Crosby 1986; Grove 1995; Diamond 1997). Marsh examined the effect of humans on biotic Technological change accelerated humanity’sca- diversity. Marsh described human beings as a pacity to reshape the world to meet human needs “new geographical force” and surveyed human and desires. In so doing, it amplified tensions along impacts on “minute organisms,” plants, insects, basic philosophical fault lines: mechanistic/organ- fish, “aquatic animals,” reptiles, birds, and ic; utilitarian/reverential; imperialist/arcadian; re- “quadrupeds.”“All nature,” he wrote, “is linked ductionism/holism (Thomas et al. 1956; Worster together by invisible bonds, and every organic 1985). As recognition of human environmental im- creature, however low, however feeble, however pacts grew, an array of 19th century philosophers, dependent, is necessary to the well-being of some scientists, naturalists, theologians, artists, writers, other among the myriad forms of life with which and poets began to regard the natural world within the Creator has peopled the earth.” He concluded an expanded sphere of moral concern (Nash 1989). his chapter with the hope that people might

10 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY FOR ALL

“learn to put a wiser estimate on the works of New concepts from ecology and evolutionary creation” (Marsh 1864). Through the veil of 19th biology began to filter into conservation and the century language, modern conservation biolo- resource management disciplines during the early gists may recognize Marsh, Wallace, and others 20th century. “Proto-conservation biologists” as common intellectual ancestors. from this period include Henry C. Cowles, Marsh’s landmark volume appeared just as the whose pioneering studies of plant succession post-Civil War era of rampant resource exploita- and the flora of the Indiana Dunes led him into tion commenced in the United States. A generation active advocacy for their protection (Engel 1983); later, Marsh’s book undergirded the Progressive Victor Shelford, who prodded his fellow ecolo- Era reforms that gave conservation in the United gists to become active in establishing biologically States its modern meaning and turned it into representative nature reserves (Croker 1991); Ar- a national movement. That movement rode thur Tansley, who similarly advocated establish- Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency into public con- ment of nature reserves in Britain, and who in sciousness and across the American landscape. 1935 contributed the concept of the “ecosystem” Conservationists in the Progressive Era were fa- to science (McIntosh 1985; Golley 1993); Charles mously split along utilitarian-preservationist Elton, whose text Animal Ecology (1927) provided lines. The utilitarian Resource Conservation Ethic, the foundations for a more dynamic ecology realized within new federal conservation agencies, through his definition of food chains, food webs, was committed to the efficient, scientifically in- trophic levels, the niche, and other basic concepts; formed management of natural resources, to pro- Joseph Grinnell, Paul Errington, Olaus Murie, and vide “the greatest good to the greatest number for other field biologists who challenged prevailing the longest time” (Pinchot 1910:48). By contrast, the notions on the ecological role and value of preda- Romantic-Transcendental Preservation Ethic, tors (Dunlap 1988); and biologists who sought to overshadowed but persistent through the Progres- place national park management in the USA on a sive Era, celebrated the aesthetic and spiritual sound ecological footing (Sellars 1997; Shafer value of contact with wild nature, and inspired 2001). Importantly, the crisis of the Dust Bowl in campaigns for the protection of parklands, refuges, North America invited similar ecological critiques forests, and “wild life.” of agricultural practices during the 1930s (Worster Callicott (1990) notes that both ethical camps 1979; Beeman and Pritchard 2001). were “essentially human-centered or ‘anthropo- By the late 1930s an array of conservation con- centric’ ...(and) regarded human beings or cerns—soil erosion, watershed degradation, human interests as the only legitimate ends and urban pollution, deforestation, depletion of fish- nonhuman natural entities and nature as a whole eries and wildlife populations—brought academ- as means.” Moreover, the science upon which both ic ecologists and resource managers closer relied had not yet experienced its 20th century re- together and generated a new awareness of con- volutions. Ecology had not yet united the scientific servation’s ecological foundations, in particular understanding of the abiotic, plant, and animal the significance of biological diversity. In 1939 components of living systems. Evolutionary biolo- Aldo Leopold summarized the point in a speech gy had not yet synthesized knowledge of genetics, to a symbolically appropriate joint meeting of the population biology, and evolutionary biology. Ge- Ecological Society of America and the Society of ology, paleontology, and biogeography were just American Foresters: beginning to provide a coherent narrative of the temporal dynamics and spatial distribution of life The emergence of ecology has placed the on Earth. Although explicitly informed by the nat- economic biologist in a peculiar dilemma: ural sciences, conservation in the Progressive with one hand he points out the accumu- Era was primarily economic in its orientation, related findings of his search for utility, or lack ductionist in its tendencies, and selective in its of utility, in this or that species; with the application. other he lifts the veil from a biota

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY: PAST AND PRESENT 11

so complex, so conditioned by interwoven limnology, marine biology, and biogeography cooperations and competitions, that no man (Mayr 1982). As these advances accrued, main- can say where utility begins or ends. No taining healthy connections between the basic species can be ‘rated’ without the tongue in sciences and their application in resource man- the cheek; the old categories of ‘useful’ and agement fields proved challenging. It fell to a ‘harmful’ have validity only as conditioned diverse cohort of scientific researchers, inter- by time, place, and circumstance. The only preters, and advocates to enter the public policy sure conclusion is that the biota as a whole is fray (including such notable figures as Rachel useful, and (the) biota includes not only Carson, Jacques-Yves Cousteau, Ray Dasmann, plants and animals, but soils and waters as G. Evelyn Hutchinson, Julian Huxley, Eugene well (Leopold 1991:266–67). and Howard Odum, and Sir Peter Scott). Many of these had worldwide influence through their With appreciation of “the biota as a whole” came writings and students, their collaborations, and greater appreciation of the functioning of ecolog- their ecological concepts and methodologies. ical communities and systems (Golley 1993). For Working from within traditional disciplines, gov- Leopold and others, this translated into a redefi- ernment agencies, and academic seats, they stood nition of conservation’s aims: away from the nar- at the complicated intersection of conservation row goal of sustaining outputs of discrete science, policy, and practice—a place that would commodities, and toward the more complex come to define conservation biology. goal of sustaining what we now call ecosystem More pragmatically, new federal legislation in health and resilience. the USA and a growing body of international As conservation’s aims were thus being rede- agreements expanded the role and responsibilities fined, its ethical foundations were being recon- of biologists in conservation. In the USA the Na- sidered. The accumulation of revolutionary tional Environmental Policy Act (1970) required biological insights, combined with a generation’s analysis of environmental impacts in federal deci- experience of fragmented policy, short-term eco- sion-making. The Endangered Species Act (1973) nomics, and environmental decline, yielded Leo- called for an unprecedented degree of scientific pold’s assertion of an Evolutionary-Ecological involvement in the identification, protection, and Land Ethic (Callicott 1990). A land ethic, Leopold recovery of threatened species (see Chapter 12). wrote, “enlarges the boundaries of the communi- Other laws that broadened the role of biologists ty to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or in conservation and environmental protection in- collectively: the land”;it“changes the role of clude the Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972), Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-commu- the Clean Water Act (1972), the Forest and Range- nity to plain member and citizen of it” (Leopold land Renewable Resources Planning Act (1974), 1949:204). These ethical concepts only slowly the National Forest Management Act (1976), and gained ground in forestry, fisheries management, the Federal Land Policy Management Act (1976). wildlife management, and other resource man- At the international level, the responsibilities of agement disciplines; indeed, they are contentious biologists were also expanding in response to the still. adoption of bilateral treaties and multilateral In the years following World War II, as con- agreements, including the UNESCO (United Na- sumer demands increased and technologies tions Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organi- evolved, resource development pressures grew. zation) Man and the Biosphere Programme Resource managers responded by expanding (1970), the Convention on International Trade in their efforts to increase the yields of their particu- Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora lar commodities. Meanwhile, the pace of scientific (CITES) (1975), and the Convention on Wetlands change accelerated in disciplines across the of International Importance (the “Ramsar Con- biological spectrum, from microbiology, genetics, vention”) (1975). In 1966 the International Union systematics, and population biology to ecology, for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) published

12 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY FOR ALL it first “red list” inventories of threatened species. work”. Constructing that “firm scientific basis” In short, the need for rigorous science input into required—and attracted—researchers and practi- conservation decision-making was increasing, tioners from varied disciplines (including Ehren- even as the science of conservation was changing. feld himself, whose professional background was This state of affairs challenged the traditional in medicine and physiological ecology). The com- orientation of resource managers and research mon concern that transcended the disciplinary biologists alike. boundaries was biological diversity: its extent, role, value, and fate. By the mid-1970s, the recurring debates within 1.2 Establishing a new interdisciplinary theoretical ecology over the relationship between field species diversity and ecosystem stability were intensifying (Pimm 1991; Golley 1993; McCann In the opening chapter of Conservation Biology: An 2000). Among conservationists the theme of di- Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective, editors Michael versity, in eclipse since Leopold’s day, began to Soulé and Bruce Wilcox (1980) described conser- re-emerge. In 1951, renegade ecologists had cre- vation biology as “a mission-oriented discipline ated The Nature Conservancy for the purpose of comprising both pure and applied science.” The protecting threatened sites of special biological phrase crisis-oriented (or crisis-driven) was soon and ecological value. In the 1960s voices for di- added to the list of modifiers describing the versity began to be heard within the traditional emerging field (Soulé 1985). This characterization conservation fields. Ray Dasmann, in A Different of conservation biology as a mission-oriented, Kind of Country (1968: vii) lamented “the prevail- crisis-driven, problem-solving field resonates with ing trend toward uniformity” and made the case echoes of the past. The history of conservation “for the preservation of natural diversity” and for and environmental management demonstrates cultural diversity as well. Pimlott (1969) detected that the emergence of problem-solving fields (or “a sudden stirring of interest in diversity ...Not new emphases within established fields) invari- until this decade did the word diversity, as an ably involves new interdisciplinary connections, ecological and genetic concept, begin to enter the new institutions, new research programs, and vocabulary of the wildlife manager or land-use new practices. Conservation biology would fol- planner.” Hickey (1974) argued that wildlife ecol- low this pattern in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. ogists and managers should concern themselves In 1970 David Ehrenfeld published Biological with “all living things”; that “a scientifically Conservation, an early text in a series of publications sound wildlife conservation program” should that altered the scope, content, and direction of “encompass the wide spectrum from one-celled conservation science (e.g. MacArthur and Wilson plants and animals to the complex species we call 1963; MacArthur and Wilson 1967; MacArthur birds and mammals.” Conservation scientists and 1972; Soulé and Wilcox 1980; CEQ 1980; Frankel advocates of varied backgrounds increasingly and Soulé 1981; Schonewald-Cox et al. 1983; Harris framed the fundamental conservation problem 1984; Caughley and Gunn 1986; Soulé 1986; Soulé in these new and broader terms (Farnham 2002). 1987a) (The journal Biological Conservation had also As the theme of biological diversity gained begun publication a year earlier in England). In his traction among conservationists in the 1970s, the preface Ehrenfeld stated, “Biologists are beginning key components of conservation biology began to to forge a discipline in that turbulent and vital area coalesce around it: where biology meets the social sciences and humanities”. Ehrenfeld recognized that the “acts of con- Within the sciences proper, the synthesis of servationists are often motivated by strongly ·knowledge from island biogeography and popula- humanistic principles,” but cautioned that “the tion biology greatly expanded understanding of the practice of conservation must also have a firm distribution of species diversity and the phenomena scientific basis or, plainly stated, it is not likely to of speciation and extinction.

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY: PAST AND PRESENT 13

The fate of threatened species (both in situ and Evolution) (Frankel and Soulé 1981). Soulé’s work ·ex situ) and the loss of rare breeds and plant germ- on that volume led to the convening of the First plasm stimulated interest in the heretofore neglected International Conference on Conservation Biology (and occasionally even denigrated) application of in September 1978. The meeting brought together genetics in conservation. what looked from the outside like “an odd assort- Driven in part by the IUCN red listing process, ment of academics, zoo-keepers, and wildlife con- ·captive breeding programs grew; zoos, aquaria, and servationists” (Gibbons 1992). Inside, however, botanical gardens expanded and redefined their role the experience was more personal, among indivi- as partners in conservation. duals who had come together through important, Wildlife ecologists, community ecologists, and and often very personal, shifts in professional prio- ·limnologists were gaining greater insight into the rities. The proceedings of the 1978 conference were role of keystone species and top-down interactions published as Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary- in maintaining species diversity and ecosystem Ecological Perspective (Soulé and Wilcox 1980). The health. conference and the book initiated a series of meet- Within forestry, wildlife management, range ings and proceedings that defined the field for its ·management, fisheries management, and other ap- growing number of participants, as well as for plied disciplines, ecological approaches to resource those outside the immediate circle (Brussard management gained more advocates. 1985; Gibbons 1992). Advances in ecosystem ecology, landscape ecolo- Attention to the genetic dimension of conserva- ·gy, and remote sensing provided increasingly so- tion continued to gain momentum into the early phisticated concepts and tools for land use and 1980s (Schonewald-Cox et al. 1983). Meanwhile, conservation planning at larger spatial scales. awareness of threats to species diversity and causes As awareness of conservation’ssocialdimensions of extinction was reaching a broader professional ·increased, discussion of the role of values in science and public audience (e.g. Ziswiler 1967; Iltis 1972; became explicit. Interdisciplinary inquiry gave rise to Terborgh 1974; Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981). In partic- environmental history, environmental ethics, ecolog- ular, the impact of international development po- ’ ical economics, and other hybrid fields. licies on the world s species-rich, humid tropical forests was emerging as a global concern. Field As these trends unfolded, “keystone indivi- biologists, ecologists, and taxonomists, alarmed duals” also had special impact. Peter Raven and by the rapid conversion of the rainforests—and Paul Ehrlich (to name two) made fundamental witnesses themselves to the loss of research sites contributions to coevolution and population and study organisms—began to sound alarms (e.g. biology in the 1960s before becoming leading Gómez-Pompa et al. 1972; Janzen 1972). By the proponents of conservation biology. Michael early 1980s, the issue of rainforest destruction was Soulé, a central figure in the emergence of conser- highlighted through a surge of books, articles, and vation biology, recalls that Ehrlich encouraged scientific reports (e.g. Myers 1979, 1980; NAS 1980; his students to speculate across disciplines, and NRC 1982; see also Chapter 4). had his students read Thomas Kuhn’s The Struc- During these years, recognition of the needs of ture of Scientific Revolutions (1962). The intellectual the world’s poor and the developing world was syntheses in population biology led Soulé to adopt prompting new approaches to integrating conser- (around 1976) the term conservation biology for his vation and development. This movement was own synthesizing efforts. embodied in a series of international programs, For Soulé, that integration especially entailed meetings, and reports, including the Man and the the merging of genetics and conservation (Soulé Biosphere Programme (1970), the United Nations 1980). In 1974 Soulé visited Sir Otto Frankel while Conference on the Human Environment held in on sabbatical in Australia. Frankel approached Stockholm (1972), and the World Conservation Soulé with the idea of collaborating on a volume Strategy (IUCN 1980). These approaches eventu- on the theme (later published as Conservation and ally came together under the banner of sustainable

14 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY FOR ALL development, especially as defined in the report of resource management agencies, and international the World Commission on Environment and De- development organizations (Soulé 1987b). velopment (the “Brundtland Report”) (WCED In retrospect, the rapid growth of conservation 1987). The complex relationship between devel- biology reflected essential qualities that set it opment and conservation created tensions within apart from predecessor and affiliated fields: conservation biology from the outset, but also fi drove the search for deeper consensus and inno- · Conservation biology rests upon a scienti c foun- vation (Meine 2004). dation in systematics, genetics, ecology, and evolu- A Second International Conference on Conser- tionary biology. As the Modern Synthesis vation Biology convened at the University of Mi- rearranged the building blocks of biology, and new chigan in May 1985 (Soulé 1986). Prior to the insights emerged from population genetics, devel- meeting, the organizers formed two committees opmental genetics (heritability studies), and island to consider establishing a new professional socie- biogeography in the 1960s, the application of ty and a new journal. A motion to organize the biology in conservation was bound to shift as well. ’ Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) was ap- This found expression in conservation biology s pri- proved at the end of the meeting (Soulé 1987b). mary focus on the conservation of genetic, species, One of the Society’s first acts was to appoint and ecosystem diversity (rather than those ecosys- David Ehrenfeld editor of the new journal Conser- tem components with obvious or direct economic vation Biology (Ehrenfeld 2000). value). The founding of SCB coincided with planning Conservation biology paid attention to the entire for the National Forum on BioDiversity, held ·biota; to diversity at all levels of biological organiza- September 21–24, 1986 in Washington, DC. The tion; to patterns of diversity at various temporal and forum, broadcast via satellite to a national spatial scales; and to the evolutionary and ecological and international audience, was organized by processes that maintain diversity. In particular, the US National Academy of Sciences and emerging insights from ecosystem ecology, distur- the Smithsonian Institution. Although arranged bance ecology, and landscape ecology in the 1980s independently of the process that led to SCB’s shifted the perspective of ecologists and conserva- creation, the forum represented a convergence tionists, placing greater emphasis on the dynamic of conservation concern, scientific expertise, and nature of ecosystems and landscapes (e.g. Pickett interdisciplinary commitment. In planning the and White 1985; Forman 1995). event, Walter Rosen, a program officer with the Conservation biology was an interdisciplinary, National Research Council, began using a con- ·systems-oriented, and inclusive response to conser- tracted form of the phrase biological diversity. The vation dilemmas exacerbated by approaches that abridged form biodiversity began its etymological were too narrowly focused, fragmented, and exclu- career. sive (Soulé 1985; Noss and Cooperrider 1994). The forum’s proceedings were published as Bio- It provided an interdisciplinary home for those in diversity (Wilson and Peter 1988). The wide impact established disciplines who sought new ways to or- of the forum and the book assured that the land- ganize and use scientific information, and who fol- scape of conservation science, policy, and action lowed broader ethical imperatives. It also reached would never be the same. For some, conservation beyond its own core scientific disciplines to incorpo- biology appeared as a new, unproven, and unwel- rate insights from the social sciences and humanities, come kid on the conservation block. Its adherents, from the empirical experience of resource managers, however, saw it as the culmination of trends long and from diverse cultural sources (Grumbine 1992; latent within ecology and conservation, and as a Knight and Bates 1995). necessary adaptation to new knowledge and a Conservation biology acknowledged its status as gathering crisis. Conservation biology quickly ·an inherently “value-laden” field. Soulé (1985) as- gained its footing within academia, zoos and bo- serted that “ethical norms are a genuine part of tanical gardens, non-profit conservation groups, conservation biology.” Noss (1999) regarded this as

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY: PAST AND PRESENT 15 a distinguishing characteristic, noting an “overarch- funding priorities and encouraged those interest- ing normative assumption in conservation bio- ed in the new field. A steady agenda of confer- logy ...that biodiversity is good and ought to be ences on biodiversity conservation brought preserved.” Leopold’s land ethic and related appeals together academics, agency officials, resource to intergenerational responsibilities and the intrinsic managers, business representatives, international value of non-human life motivated growing numbers aid agencies, and non-governmental organiza- of conservation scientists and environmental ethicists tions. In remarkably rapid order, conservation (Ehrenfeld 1981; Samson and Knopf 1982; Devall and biology gained legitimacy and secured a profes- Sessions 1985; Nash 1989). This explicit recognition sional foothold. of conservation biology’s ethical content stood Not, however, without resistance, skepticism, in contrast to the usual avoidance of such considera- and occasional ridicule. As the field grew, com- tions within the sciences historically (McIntosh 1980; plaints came from various quarters. Conservation Barbour 1995; Barry and Oelschlaeger 1996). biology was caricatured as a passing fad, a re- Conservation biology recognized a “close link- sponse to trendy environmental ideas (and mo- age· ” between biodiversity conservation and eco- mentarily available funds). Its detractors regarded nomic development and sought new ways to it as too theoretical, amorphous, and eclectic; too improve that relationship. As sustainability became promiscuously interdisciplinary; too enamored of the catch-all term for development that sought to models; and too technique-deficient and data-poor blend environmental, social, and economic goals, to have any practical application (Gibbons 1992). conservation biology provided a new venue at the Conservation biologists in North America were intersection of ecology, ethics, and economics (Daly accused of being indifferent to the conservation and Cobb 1989). To achieve its goals, conservation traditions of other nations and regions. Some saw biology had to reach beyond the sciences and gener- conservation biology as merely putting “old wine ate conversations with economists, advocates, poli- in a new bottle” and dismissing the rich experience cy-makers, ethicists, educators, the private sector, of foresters, wildlife managers, and other resource and community-based conservationists. managers (Teer 1988; Jensen and Krausman 1993). Biodiversity itself was just too broad, or confusing, Conservation biology thus emerged in response or “thorny” a term (Udall 1991; Takacs 1996). to both increasing knowledge and expanding Such complaints made headlines within the demands. In harnessing that knowledge and scientific journals and reflected real tensions meeting those demands, it offered a new, within resource agencies, academic departments, integrative, and interdisciplinary approach to and conservation organizations. Conservation bi- conservation science. ology had indeed challenged prevalent para- digms, and such responses were to be expected. Defending the new field, Ehrenfeld (1992: 1625) 1.3 Consolidation: conservation biology “ fi secures its niche wrote, Conservation biology is not de ned by a discipline but by its goal—to halt or repair the In June 1987 more than 200 people attended the undeniable, massive damage that is being done to first annual meeting of the Society for Conserva- ecosystems, species, and the relationships of hu- tion Biology in Bozeman, Montana, USA. The mans to the environment. ...Many specialists in a rapid growth of the new organization’s member- host of fields find it difficult, even hypocritical, to ship served as an index to the expansion of the continue business as usual, blinders firmly in field generally. SCB tapped into the burgeoning place, in a world that is falling apart.” interest in interdisciplinary conservation science Meanwhile, a spate of new and complex con- among younger students, faculty, and conserva- servation issues were drawing increased attention tion practitioners. Universities established new to biodiversity conservation. In North America, courses, seminars, and graduate programs. Scien- the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caur- tific organizations and foundations adjusted their ina) became the poster creature in deeply

16 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY FOR ALL contentious debates over the fate of remaining Amid the flush of excitement in establishing old-growth forests and alternative approaches to conservation biology, it was sometimes easy to forest management; the Exxon Valdez oil spill and overlook the challenges inherent in the effort. its aftermath put pollution threats and energy Ehrenfeld (2000) noted that the nascent field was policies on the front page; the anti-environmental, “controversy-rich.” Friction was inherent not anti-regulatory “Wise Use” movement gained in only in conservation biology’s relationship to political power and influence; arguments over related fields, but within the field itself. Some of livestock grazing practices and federal rangeland this was simply a result of high energy applied to policies pitted environmentalists against ran- a new endeavor. Often, however, this reflected chers; perennial attempts to allow oil develop- deeper tensions in conservation: between sustain- ment within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge able use and protection; between public and pri- continued; and moratoria were placed on com- vate resources; between the immediate needs of mercial fishing of depleted stocks of northern people, and obligations to future generations and cod (Alverson et al. 1994; Yaffee 1994; Myers other life forms. Conservation biology would be et al. 1997; Knight et al. 2002; Jacobs 2003). the latest stage on which these long-standing ten- At the international level, attention focused on sions would express themselves. the discovery of the hole in the stratospheric Other tensions reflected the special role that ozone layer over Antarctica; the growing scien- conservation biology carved out for itself. tific consensus about the threat of global warm- Conservation biology was largely a product of ing (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate American institutions and individuals, yet sought Change was formed in 1988 and issued its first to address a problem of global proportions (Meffe assessment report in 1990); the environmental 2002). Effective biodiversity conservation en- legacy of communism in the former Soviet bloc; tailed work at scales from the global to the local, and the environmental impacts of international and on levels from the genetic to the species to the aid and development programs. In 1992, 172 na- community; yet actions at these different scales tions gathered in Rio de Janeiro at the United and levels required different types of informa- Nations Conference on Environment and Devel- tion, skills, and partnerships (Noss 1990). Profes- opment (the “Earth Summit”). Among the pro- sionals in the new field had to be firmly grounded ducts of the summit was the Convention on within particular professional specialties, yet con- Biological Diversity. In a few short years, the versant across disciplines (Trombulak 1994; Noss scope of biodiversity conservation, science, and 1997). Success in the practice of biodiversity con- policy had expanded dramatically (e.g. McNeely servation was measured by on-the-ground im- et al. 1990; Lubchenco et al. 1991). pact, yet the science of conservation biology was To some degree, conservation biology had de- obliged (as are all sciences) to undertake rigorous fined its own niche by synthesizing scientific dis- research and to define uncertainty (Noss 2000). ciplines, proclaiming its special mission, and Conservation biology was a “value-laden” field gathering together a core group of leading scien- adhering to explicit ethical norms, yet sought to tists, students, and conservation practitioners. advance conservation through careful scientific However, the field was also filling a niche that analysis (Barry and Oelschlager 1996). These ten- was rapidly opening around it. It provided a sions within conservation biology were present at meeting ground for those with converging inter- birth. They continue to present important ests in the conservation of biological diversity. It challenges to conservation biologists. They also was not alone in gaining ground for interdisci- give the field its creativity and vitality. plinary conservation research and practice. It joined restoration ecology, landscape ecology, ag- 1.4 Years of growth and evolution roecology, ecological economics, and other new fields in seeking solutions across traditional aca- Although conservation biology has been an demic and intellectual boundaries. organized field only since the mid-1980s, it is

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY: PAST AND PRESENT 17 possible to identify and summarize at least sever- Even as conservation biologists have honed al salient trends that have shaped it since. tools for designing protected area networks and managing protected areas more effectively (see 1.4.1 Implementation and transformation Chapter 11), they have looked beyond reserve boundary lines to the matrix of surrounding Conservation biologists now work in a much lands (Knight and Landres 1998). Conservation more elaborate field than existed at the time of biologists play increasingly important roles in its founding. Much of the early energy—and de- defining the biodiversity values of aquatic eco- bate—in conservation biology focused on ques- systems, private lands, and agroecosystems. The tions of the genetics and demographics of small result is much greater attention to private land populations, population and habitat viability, conservation, more research and demonstration landscape fragmentation, reserve design, and at the interface of agriculture and biodiversity management of natural areas and endangered conservation, and a growing watershed- and species. These topics remain close to the core of community-based conservation movement. Con- conservation biology, but the field has grown servation biologists are now active across the around them. Conservation biologists now tend entire landscape continuum, from wildlands to to work more flexibly, at varied scales and in agricultural lands and from suburbs to cities, varied ways. In recent years, for example, more where conservation planning now meets urban attention has focused on landscape permeability design and green infrastructure mapping (e.g. and connectivity, the role of strongly interacting Wang and Moskovits 2001; CNT and Openlands species in top-down ecosystem regulation, and Project 2004). the impacts of global warming on biodiversity (Hudson 1991; Lovejoy and Peters 1994; Soulé 1.4.2 Adoption and integration and Terborgh 1999; Ripple and Beschta 2005; Pringle et al. 2007; Pringle 2008; see Chapters 5 Since the emergence of conservation biology, the and 8). conceptual boundaries between it and other Innovative techniques and technologies (such fields have become increasingly porous. Re- as computer modeling and geographic informa- searchers and practitioners from other fields tion systems) have obviously played an impor- have come into conservation biology’s circle, tant role in the growth of conservation biology. adopting and applying its core concepts while The most revolutionary changes, however, have contributing in turn to its further development. involved the reconceptualizing of science’s role in Botanists, ecosystem ecologists, marine biolo- conservation. The principles of conservation biol- gists, and agricultural scientists (among other ogy have spawned creative applications among groups) were underrepresented in the field’s conservation visionaries, practitioners, planners, early years. The role of the social sciences in con- and policy-makers (Noss et al. 1997; Adams 2005). servation biology has also expanded within the To safeguard biological diversity, larger-scale field (Mascia et al. 2003). Meanwhile, conserva- and longer-term thinking and planning had to tion biology’s concepts, approaches, and findings take hold. It has done so under many rubrics, have filtered into other fields. This “permeation” including: adaptation of the biosphere reserve (Noss 1999) is reflected in the number of biodi- concept (Batisse 1986); the development of gap versity conservation-related articles appearing in analysis (Scott et al. 1993); the movement toward the general science journals such as Science and ecosystem management and adaptive manage- Nature, and in more specialized ecological and ment (Grumbine 1994b; Salafsky et al. 2001; resource management journals. Since 1986 sever- Meffe et al. 2002); ecoregional planning and anal- al new journals with related content have ap- ogous efforts at other scales (Redford et al. 2003); peared, including Ecological Applications (1991), and the establishment of marine protected areas the Journal of Applied Ecology (1998), the on-line and networks (Roberts et al. 2001). journal Conservation Ecology (1997) (now called

18 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY FOR ALL

Ecology and Society), Frontiers in Ecology and the Blue Ocean Institute, and the Pew Institute for Environment (2003), and Conservation Letters Ocean Science. (2008). Interest in freshwater conservation biology has The influence of conservation biology is even also increased as intensified human demands more broadly evident in environmental design, continue to affect water quality, quantity, distri- planning, and decision-making. Conservation bution, and use. Conservationists have come to biologists are now routinely involved in land-use appreciate even more deeply the essential hydro- and urban planning, ecological design, landscape logical connections between groundwater, sur- architecture, and agriculture (e.g. Soulé 1991; Nas- face waters, and atmospheric waters, and the sauer 1997; Babbitt 1999; Jackson and Jackson impact of human land use on the health and 2002; Miller and Hobbs 2002; Imhoff and Carra biological diversity of aquatic ecosystems (Leo- 2003; Orr 2004). Conservation biology has spurred pold 1990; Baron et al. 2002; Glennon 2002; Hunt activity within such emerging areas of interest as and Wilcox 2003; Postel and Richter 2003). Con- conservation psychology (Saunders 2003) and servation biologists have become vital partners conservation medicine (Grifo and Rosenthal in interdisciplinary efforts, often at the water- 1997; Pokras et al. 1997; Tabor et al. 2001; Aguirre shed level, to steward freshwater as both an et al. 2002). Lidicker (1998) noted that “conserva- essential ecosystem component and a basic tion needs conservation biologists for sure, but it human need. also needs conservation sociologists, conservation political scientists, conservation chemists, conser- 1.4.4 Building capacity vation economists, conservation psychologists, and conservation humanitarians.” Conservation At the time of its founding, conservation biology biology has helped to meet this need by catalyzing was little known beyond the core group of scien- communication and action among colleagues tists and conservationists who had created it. across a wide spectrum of disciplines. Now the field is broadly accepted and well represented as a distinct body of interdisciplinary knowledge worldwide. Several textbooks ap- 1.4.3 Marine and freshwater conservation peared soon after conservation biology gained biology its footing (Primack 1993; Meffe and Carroll 1994; Hunter 1996). These are now into their sec- Conservation biology’s “permeation” has been ond and third editions. Additional textbooks especially notable with regard to aquatic ecosys- have been published in more specialized subject tems and marine environments. In response to areas, including insect conservation biology long-standing concerns over “maximum sus- (Samways 1994), conservation of plant biodiver- tained yield” fisheries management, protection sity (Frankel et al. 1995), forest biodiversity of marine mammals, depletion of salmon stocks, (Hunter and Seymour 1999), conservation genet- degradation of coral reef systems, and other is- ics (Frankham et al. 2002), marine conservation sues, marine conservation biology has emerged biology (Norse and Crowder 2005), and tropical as a distinct focus area (Norse 1993; Boersma conservation biology (Sodhi et al. 2007). 1996; Bohnsack and Ault 1996; Safina 1998; Academic training programs in conservation Thorne-Miller 1998; Norse and Crowder 2005). biology have expanded and now exist around the The application of conservation biology in marine world (Jacobson 1990; Jacobson et al. 1995; Rodrí- environments has been pursued by a number of guez et al. 2005). The interdisciplinary skills of non-governmental organizations, including conservation biologists have found acceptance SCB’s Marine Section, the Ocean Conservancy, within universities, agencies, non-governmental the Marine Conservation Biology Institute, the organizations, and the private sector. Funders Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation have likewise helped build conservation biology’s at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, the capacity through support for students, academic

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY: PAST AND PRESENT 19

programs, and basic research and field projects. scientific roots of biodiversity conservation are Despite such growth, most conservation biologists obviously not limited to one nation or continent would likely agree that the capacity does not near- (see Box 1.2). Although the international conser- ly meet the need, given the urgent problems in vation movement dates back more than a centu- biodiversity conservation. Even the existing sup- ry, the history of the science from an international port is highly vulnerable to budget cutbacks, perspective has been inadequately studied (Blan- changing priorities, and political pressures. din 2004). This has occasionally led to healthy debate over the origins and development of con- 1.4.5 Internationalization servation biology. Such debates, however, have not hindered the trend toward greater interna- Conservation biology has greatly expanded its tional collaboration and representation within international reach (Meffe 2002; Meffe 2003). The the field (e.g. Medellín 1998).

Box 1.2 Conservation in the Philippines Mary Rose C. Posa

Conservation biology has been referred to as a a burgeoning human population. The “discipline with a deadline” (Wilson 2000). As Philippines has thus been pegged as a top the rapid loss and degradation of ecosystems conservation “hotspot” for terrestrial and accelerates across the globe, some scientists marine ecosystems, and there are fears that it suggest a strategy of triage—in effect, writing could be the site of the ﬁrst major extinction off countries that are beyond help (Terborgh spasm (Heaney and Mittermeier 1997; Myers 1999). But are there any truly lost causes in et al. 2000; Roberts et al. 2002). Remarkably, conservation? and despite this precarious situation, there is The Philippines is a mega‐biodiversity evidence that hope exists for biodiversity country with exceptionally high levels of conservation in the Philippines. endemism (~50% of terrestrial vertebrates and Indication of the growing valuation of 45–60% of vascular plants; Heaney and biodiversity, sustainable development and Mittermeier 1997). However, centuries of environmental protection can be seen in exploitation and negligence have pushed its different sectors of Philippine society. Stirrings ecosystems to their limit, reducing primary of grassroots environmental consciousness forest cover [less than 3% remaining; FAO began in the 1970s, when marginalized (Food and Agriculture Organization of the communities actively opposed unsustainable United Nations) 2005], decimating mangroves commercial developments, blocking logging (>90% lost; Primavera 2000), and severely trucks, and protesting the construction of large damaging coral reefs (~5% retaining 75–100% dams (Broad and Cavanagh 1993). After the live cover; Gomez et al. 1994), leading to a high 1986 overthrow of dictator Ferdinand Marcos, number of species at risk of extinction [~21% of a revived democracy fostered the emergence of vertebrates assessed; IUCN (International Union civil society groups focused on environmental for Conservation of Nature and Natural issues. The devolution of authority over natural Resources) 2006]. Environmental degradation resources from central to local governments has also brought the loss of soil fertility, also empowered communities to create and pollution, and diminished ﬁsheries enforce regulations on the use of local productivity, affecting the livelihood of millions resources. There are now laudable examples of rural inhabitants. Efforts to preserve where efforts by communities and non‐ biodiversity and implement sound governmental organizations (NGOs) have environmental policies are hampered by made direct impacts on conserving endangered entrenched corruption, weak governance and species and habitats (Posa et al. 2008). opposition by small but powerful interest Driven in part by public advocacy, there has groups. In addition, remaining natural also been considerable progress in resources are under tremendous pressure from environmental legislation. In particular, the continues

20 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY FOR ALL

Box 1.2 (Continued)

National Integrated Protected Areas System Act complacency, that positive progress has been provides for stakeholder involvement in made in the Philippines—a conservation “worst protected area management, which has been a case scenario”—suggests that there are key element of success for various reserves. grounds for optimism for biodiversity Perhaps the best examples of where people‐ conservation in tropical countries worldwide. centered resource use and conservation have come together are marine protected areas (MPAs) managed by coastal communities across REFERENCES the country—a survey of 156 MPAs reported ‐ that 44.2% had good to excellent management Alcala, A. C. and Russ, G. R. (2006). No take marine fi (Alcala and Russ 2006). reserves and reef sheries management in the Philip- Last, but not least, there has been renewed pines: a new people power revolution. Ambio, 35, – interest in biodiversity research in academia, 245 254. increasing the amount and quality of Broad, R. and Cavanagh, J. (1993). Plundering paradise: biodiversity information (see Box 1.2 Figure). the struggle for the environment in the Philippines. Labors of field researchers result in hundreds of University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. additional species yet to be described, and Dutson, G. C. L., Magsalay, P. M., and Timmins, R. J. (1993). some rediscoveries of species thought to be The rediscovery of the Cebu Flowerpecker Dicaeum extinct (e.g. Cebu flowerpecker Dicaeum quadricolor, with notes on other forest birds on Cebu, – quadricolor; Dutson et al. 1993). There are Philippines. Bird Conservation International, 3, 235 243. increasing synergies and networks among FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United conservation workers, politicians, community Nations) (2005). Global forest resources assessment leaders, park rangers, researchers, local people, 2005, Country report 202: Philippines. Forestry and international NGOs, as seen from the Department, FAO, Rome, Italy. growth of the Wildlife Conservation Society of Gomez, E. D., Aliño, P. M., Yap, H. T., Licuanan, W. Y. the Philippines, which has a diverse (1994). A review of the status of Philippine reefs. Marine – membership from all these sectors. Pollution Bulletin, 29,62 68. Heaney, L. and Mittermeier, R. A. (1997). The Philippines. 140 In R. A. Mittermeier, G. P. Robles, and C. G. Mittermeier, eds Megadiversity: earth’s biologically wealthiest 120 nations, pp. 236–255. CEMEX, Monterrey, Mexico. 100 IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and 80 Natural Resources) (2006). 2006 IUCN Red List of threatened species. www.iucnredlist.org. 60 Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, 40 G. A. B., and Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403,853–858. 20

Number of publications Posa, M. R. C., Diesmos, A. C., Sodhi, N. S., and Brooks, 0 T. M. (2008). Hope for threatened biodiversity: lessons from the Philippines. BioScience, 58, 231–240. 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Primavera, J. H. (2000). Development and conservation of Year Philippine mangroves: Institutional issues. Ecological Box 1.2 Figure Steady increase in the number of publications on Economics, 35,91–106. Philippine biodiversity and conservation, obtained from searching Roberts, C. M., McClean, C. J., Veron, J. E. N., et al. (2002). three ISI Web of Knowledge databases for the period 1980–2007. Marine biodiversity hotspots and conservation priorities for tropical reefs. Science, 295, 1280–1284. While many daunting challenges remain Terborgh, J. (1999). Requiem for nature. Island Press, especially in the area of conservation of Washington, DC. populations (Chapter 10) and ecosystems Wilson, E. O. (2000). On the future of conservation biology. services (Chapter 3), and there is no room for Conservation Biology, 14,1–3.

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY: PAST AND PRESENT 21

This growth is reflected in the expanding institu- 1.5 Conservation biology: a work tional and membership base of the Society for in progress Conservation Biology. The need to reach across These trends (and no doubt others) raise impor- national boundaries was recognized by the foun- tant questions for the future. Conservation biolo- ders of the SCB. From its initial issue Conservation gy has grown quickly in a few brief decades, yet Biology included Spanish translations of article ab- most conservation biologists would assert that stracts. The Society has diversified its editorial growth for growth’s sake is hardly justified. As board, recognized the accomplishments of leading disciplines and organizations become more conservation biologists from around the world, structured, they are liable to equate mere expan- and regularly convened its meetings outside the sion with progress in meeting their missions (Eh- USA. A significant move toward greater interna- renfeld 2000). Can conservation biology sustain tional participation in the SCB came when, in 2000, its own creativity, freshness, and vision? In its the SCB began to develop its regional sections. collective research agenda, is the field asking, and answering, the appropriate questions? Is it performing its core function—providing reliable 1.4.6 Seeking a policy voice and useful scientific information on biological diversity and its conservation—in the most effec- Conservation biology has long sought to define tive manner possible? Is that information making an appropriate and effective role for itself in shap- a difference? What “constituencies” need to be ing public policy (Grumbine 1994a). Most who more fully involved and engaged? call themselves conservation biologists feel obli- While continuing to ponder such questions, con- gated to be advocates for biodiversity (Oden- servation biologists cannot claim to have turned baugh 2003). How that obligation ought to be back the threats to life’s diversity. Yet the field fulfilled has been a source of continuing debate has contributed essential knowledge at a time within the field. Some scientists are wary of play- when those threats have continued to mount. It ing an active advocacy or policy role, lest their has focused attention on the full spectrum of objectivity be called into question. Conversely, biological diversity, on the ecological processes biodiversity advocates have responded to the ef- that maintain it, on the ways we value it, and on fect that “if you don’t use your science to shape steps that can be taken to conserve it. It has brought policy, we will.” scientific knowledge, long-range perspectives, and Conservation biology’s inherent mix of science a conservation ethic into the public and profession- and ethics all but invited such debate. Far from al arenas in new ways. It has organized scientific avoiding controversy, Conservation Biology’s information to inform decisions affecting biodiver- founding editor David Ehrenfeld built dialogue sity at all levels and scales. In so doing, it has on conservation issues and policy into the journal helped to reframe fundamentally the relationship at the outset. Conservation Biology has regularly between conservation philosophy, science, and published letters and editorials on the question of practice. values, advocacy, and the role of science in shaping policy. Conservation biologists have not achieved final resolution on the matter. Perhaps in the end it is irresolvable, a matter of personal judgment in- Summary volving a mixture of scientificconfidence levels, uncertainty, and individual conscience and re- Conservation biology emerged in the mid-1980s sponsibility. “Responsibility” is the key word, as as· a new field focused on understanding, protecting, all parties to the debate seem to agree that advoca- and perpetuating biological diversity at all scales cy, to be responsible, must rest on a foundation of and all levels of biological organization. solid science and must be undertaken with honesty Conservation biology has deep roots in the and integrity (Noss 1999). growth· of biology over several centuries, but its

22 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY FOR ALL emergence reflects more recent developments in an Alverson, W. S., Kuhlman, W., and Waller, D. M. (1994). array of biological sciences (ecology, genetics, evo- Wild forests: conservation biology and public policy. Island lutionary biology, etc.) and natural resource man- Press, Washington, DC. ’ agement fields (forestry, wildlife and fisheries Babbitt, B. (1999). Noah s mandate and the birth of urban bioplanning. Conservation Biology, 13, 677–678. management, etc.). Barbour, M. G. (1995). Ecological fragmentation in Conservation biology was conceived as a “mis- the Fifties. In W. Cronon, ed. Uncommon ground: toward · ” fi sion-oriented eld based in the biological sciences, reinventing nature, pp. 233–255. W. W. Norton, New York. but with an explicit interdisciplinary approach that Baron, J. S., Poff, N. L., Angermeier, P. L., et al. (2002). incorporated insights from the social sciences, hu- Meeting ecological and societal needs for freshwater. manities, and ethics. Ecological Applications, 12, 1247–1260. Since its founding, conservation biology has Barry, D. and Oelschlaeger, M. (1996). A science for surviv- ·greatly elaborated its research agenda; built stronger al: values and conservation biology. Conservation Biology, – connections with other fields and disciplines; ex- 10, 905 911. Batisse, M. (1986). Developing and focusing the Biosphere tended its reach especially into aquatic and marine Reserve concept. Nature and Resources, 22,2–11. environments; developed its professional capacity fi Beeman, R. S. and Pritchard, J. A. (2001). A green and for training, research, and eld application; become permanent land: ecology and agriculture in the twentieth fi an increasingly international eld; and become in- century. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. creasingly active at the interface of conservation sci- Blandin, P. (2004). Biodiversity, between science and ethics. ence and policy. In S. H. Shakir, and W. Z. A. Mikhail, eds Soil zoology for sustainable development in the 21st Century, pp. 17–49. Eigenverlag, Cairo, Egypt. Suggested reading Boersma, P. D. (1996). Maine conservation: protecting the exploited commons. Society for Conservation Biology ’ · Farnham, T. J. (2007). Saving Nature s Legacy: Origins of Newsletter, 3,1–6. the Idea of Biological Diversity. Yale University Press, Boersma, P. D., Kareiva, P., Fagan, W. F., Clark, J. A., and New Haven. Hoekstra, J. M. (2001). How good are endangered · Quammen, D. (1996). The Song of the Dodo: Island Bioge- species recovery plans? BioScience, 51, 643–650. ography in an Age of Extinctions. Simon and Schuster, Bohnsack, J. and Ault, J. (1996). Management strategies to New York. conserve marine biodiversity. Oceanography, 9,73–81. Meine, C. (2004). Correction Lines: Essays on Land, Brussard, P. (1985). The current status of conservation biolo- · Leopold, and Conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC. gy. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 66,9–11. Minteer, B. A. and Manning, R. E. (2003). Reconstructing Callicott, J. B. (1990). Whither conservation ethics? Conser- · Conservation: Finding Common Ground. Island Press, vation Biology, 4,15–20. Washington, DC. Caughley, G. and Gunn, A. (1986). Conservation biology in theory and practice. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, Massachusetts. CNT (Center For Neighborhood Technologies) and Open- Relevant website lands Project (2004). Natural connections: green infrastruc- Society for Conservation Biology: http://www.conbio. ture in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana. (Online) Available · org/ at http://www.greenmapping.org. (Accessed February 2006). CEQ (Council On Environmental Quality) (1980). Environ- mental quality—1980: the eleventh annual report of the CEQ. REFERENCES US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Croker, R. A. (1991). Pioneer ecologist: the life and work of Adams, J. S. (2005). The future of the wild: radical conservation Victor Ernest Shelford. Smithsonian Institution Press, for a crowded world. Beacon Press, Boston, Massachusetts. Washington, DC. Aguirre, A. A., Ostfeld, R. S., Tabor, G. M., House, C., and Crosby, A. W. (1986). Ecological imperialism: the biological Pearl, M. C. (2002). Conservation medicine: ecological health expansion of Europe, 900–1900. Cambridge University in practice. Oxford University Press, New York. Press, New York.

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY: PAST AND PRESENT 23

Daly, H. E. and Cobb, J. B. Jr. (1989). For the common good: Golley, F. B. (1993). A history of the ecosystem concept in redirecting the economy toward community, the environment, ecology: more than the sum of the parts. Yale University and a sustainable future. Beacon Press, Boston, Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Massachusetts. Gómez-Pompa, A., Vázquez-Yanes, C., and Guevara, S. Dasmann, R. (1959). Environmental conservation. John Wiley (1972). The tropical rainforest: a non-renewable resource. and Sons, New York. Science, 177, 762–765. Dasmann, R. (1968). A different kind of country. Macmillan, Grifo, F. T. and Rosenthal, J., eds (1997). Biodiversity and New York. human health. Island Press, Washington, DC. Devall, B. and Sessions, G. (1985). Deep ecology: living as if Grove, R. H. (1995). Green imperialism: colonial expansion, nature mattered. Peregrine Smith Books, Salt Lake City, tropical island Edens, and the origins of environmentalism, Utah. 1600–1860. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Diamond, J. M. (1997). Guns, germs, and steel: the fates of Grumbine, R. E. (1992). Ghost bears: exploring the biodiversity human societies. Norton, New York. crisis. Island Press, Washington, DC. Dunlap, T. R. (1988). Saving America’s wildlife: ecology and Grumbine, R. E. (1994a). Environmental policy and biodiver- the American mind, 1850–1990. Princeton University sity. Island Press, Washington, DC. Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Grumbine, R. E. (1994b). What is ecosystem management? Ehrenfeld, D. W. (1970). Biological conservation. Holt, Rine- Conservation Biology, 8,27–38. hard, and Winston, New York. Grumbine, R. E. (1996). Using biodiversity as a justiﬁcation Ehrenfeld, D. W. (1981). The arrogance of humanism. Oxford for nature protection in the U. S. Wild Earth, 6,71–80. University Press, New York. Harris, L. D. (1984). The fragmented forest: island biogeogra- Ehrenfeld, D. W. (1992). Conservation biology: its origins phy theory and the preservation of biotic diversity. University and deﬁnition. Science, 255, 1625–26. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Ehrenfeld, D. (2000). War and peace and conservation Hickey, J. J. (1974). Some historical phases in wildlife con- biology. Conservation Biology, 14, 105–112. servation. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2, 164–170. Ehrlich, P. and Ehrlich, A. (1981). Extinction: the causes and Hudson, W., ed. (1991). Landscape linkages and biodiversity. consequences of the disappearance of species. Random Island Press, Washington, DC. House, New York. Hunt, R. J. and Wilcox, D. A. (2003). Ecohydrology: why Elton, C. (1927). Animal Ecology. University of Chicago hydrologists should care. Ground Water, 41, 289. Press, Chicago, Illinois. Hunter, M. (1996). Fundamentals of conservation biology. Engel, R. J. (1983). Sacred sands: the struggle for community in Blackwell Science, Cambridge, Massachusetts. the Indiana Dunes. Wesleyan University Press, Middle- Hunter, M. L. and Seymour, R. S. (1999). Maintaining town, Connecticut. biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Farnham, T. J. (2002). The concept of biological diversity: Press, Cambridge, UK. the evolution of a conservation paradigm. Ph.D. disser- Iltis, H. H. (1972). The extinction of species in the destruc- tation, Yale University. tion of ecosystems. American Biology Teacher, 34, 201–05. Forman, R. T. T. (1995). Land mosaics: the ecology of land- Imhoff, D. and Carra, R. (2003). Farming with the wild: a new scapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, vision for conservation-based agriculture. Sierra Club Cambridge, UK. Books, San Francisco, California. Frankel, O. H. and Soulé, M. E. (1981). Conservation and IUCN (International Union For The Conservation Of evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Nature) (1980). World conservation strategy: living resource Frankel, O. H., Brown, A. H. D., and Burdon, J. J. (1995). conservation for sustainable development. International The conservation of plant biodiversity. Cambridge Union for the Conservation of Nature, World Resources University Press, New York. Institute, World Wildlife Fund, Gland, Switzerland. Frankham, R., Briscoe, D. A., and Ballou, J. D. (2002). Jackson, D. L. and Jackson, L. L. (2002). The farm as natural Introduction to conservation genetics. Cambridge Universi- habitat: reconnecting food systems with ecosystems. Island ty Press, Cambridge, UK. Press, Washington, DC. Gibbons, A. (1992). Conservation biology in the fast lane. Jacobs, H. M. (2003). The politics of property rights at the Science, 255,20–22. national level: signals and trends. Journal of the American Glennon, R. (2002). Water follies: groundwater pumping and Planning Association, 69, 181–189. the fate of America’s fresh waters. Island Press, Washing- Jacobson, S. K. (1990). Graduate education in conservation ton, DC. biology. Conservation Biology, 4, 431–440.

24 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY FOR ALL

Jacobson, S. K., Vaughan, E., and Miller, S. (1995). New Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: diversity, directions in conservation biology: graduate programs. evolution, and inheritance. Harvard University Press, Conservation Biology, 9,5–17. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Janzen, D. H. (1972). The uncertain future of the tropics. McCann, K. S. (2000). The diversity-stability debate. Natural History, 81,80–90. Nature, 405, 228–233. Jensen, M. N. and Krausman, P. R. (1993). Conservation McIntosh, R. P. (1980). The background and some current biology’s literature: new wine or just a new bottle? problems of theoretical ecology. Synthese, 43, 195–255. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 21, 199–203. McIntosh, R. P. (1985). The background of ecology: concept and Knight, R. L. and Bates, S. F., eds (1995). Anewcenturyfor theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. natural resourcesmanagement.IslandPress,Washington,DC. McNeely, J., Miller, K. R., Reid, W. V., Mittermeier, R. A., Knight, R. L. and Landres, P., eds (1998). Stewardship across and Werner, T. B. (1990). Conserving the World’s Biological boundaries. Island Press, Washington, DC. Diversity. International Union for the Conservation of Knight, R. L., Gilgert, W. C., and Marston, E., eds (2002). Nature, World Resources Institute, World Wildlife Ranching west of the 100th meridian: culture, ecology, and Fund, Gland, Switzerland. economics. Island Press, Washington, DC. Medellín, R. A. (1998). True international collaboration: Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. now or never. Conservation Biology, 12, 939–940. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Meffe, G. K. (2002). Going international. Conservation Leopold, A. (1940). The state of the profession. In S. L. Biology, 16, 573–574. Flader, and J. B. Callicott, eds The river of the mother of Meffe, G. K. (2003). Toward further internationalization. God and other essays by Aldo Leopold, pp. 276–280. Univer- Conservation Biology, 17, 1197–1199. sity of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Meffe, G. K. and Carroll, R. (1994). Principles of conservation Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac and sketches here biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. and there. Oxford University Press, New York. Meffe, G. K., Nielsen, A. A., Knight, R. L., and Schenborn, Leopold, A. (1991). The river of the mother of God and other D. A. (2002). Ecosystem management: adaptive, community- essays by Aldo Leopold. S. L. Flader and J. B. Callicott, eds based conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Meine, C. (2004). Correction lines: essays on land, Leopold, and Leopold, L. B. (1990). Ethos, equity, and the water resource. conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC. Environment, 32,16–20, 37–42. Miller, J. R., and Hobbs, R. J. (2002). Conservation where Lidicker, W. Z., Jr. (1998). Revisiting the human dimen- people live and work. Conservation Biology, 16, 330–337. sion in conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 12, Myers, N. (1979). The sinking ark: a new look at the problem of 1170–1171. disappearing species. Pergamon Press, Oxford, England. Lovejoy, T. E. and Peters, R. L. (1994). Global warming and Myers, N. (1980). Conversion of tropical moist forests. National biological diversity. Yale University Press, New Haven, Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. Connecticut. Myers, R. A., Hutchings, J. A., and Barrowman, N. J. (1997). Lubchenco, J., Olson, A. M., Brubaker, L. B., et al. (1991). Why do fish stocks collapse? The example of cod in The sustainable biosphere initiative: an ecological re- Atlantic Canada. Ecological Applications, 7,91–106. search agenda. Ecology, 72, 371–412. Nash, R. (1989). The rights of nature: a history of environmental MacArthur, R. (1972). Geographical ecology: patterns in the ethics. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. distribution of species. Princeton University Press, Prince- Nassauer, J. (1997). Placing nature: culture and landscape ton, New Jersey. ecology. Island Press, Washington, DC. MacArthur, R. H. and Wilson, E. O. (1963). An equilibrium NAS (National Academy Of Sciences) (1980). Research prio- theory of insular zoogeography. Evolution, 17, 373–387. rities in tropical biology. National Academy of Sciences, MacArthur, R. H. and Wilson, E. O. (1967). The theory Washington, DC. of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Prince- NRC (National Research Council) (1982). Ecological aspects ton, New Jersey. of development in the humid tropics. National Academy of Marsh, G. P. (1864). Man and nature: or, physical geography as Sciences, Washington, DC. modified by human action. D. Lowenthal, D., ed. 1965 Norse, E. A., ed. (1993). Global marine biological diversity: a reprint. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, strategy for building conservation into decision making. Massachusetts. Island Press, Washington, DC. Mascia, M. B., Brosius, J. P., Dobson, T. A., et al. (2003). Norse, E. A. and Crowder, L. B. (2005). Marine conservation Conservation and the social sciences. Conservation biology: the science of maintaining the sea’s biodiversity. Biology, 17, 649–650. Island Press, Washington, DC.

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY: PAST AND PRESENT 25

Noss, R. F. (1990). Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a Ripple, W. J. and Beschta, R. L. (2005). Linking wolves and hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology, 4, 355–364. plants: Aldo Leopold on trophic cascades. BioScience, 55, Noss, R. F. (1997). The failure of universities to produce 613–621. conservation biologists. Conservation Biology, 11, Roberts, C. M., Halpern, B., Palumbi, S. R., and Warner, R. 1267–1269. R. (2001). Designing marine reserve networks: why Noss, R. F. (1999). Is there a special conservation biology? small, isolated protected areas are not enough. Conserva- Ecography, 22, 113–122. tion Biology in Practice, 2,10–17. Noss, R. F. (2000). Science on the bridge. Conservation Biol- Rodríguez, J. P., Simonetti, J. A., Premoli, A., and Marini, ogy, 14, 333–335. M. Â. (2005). Conservation in Austral and Neotropical Noss, R. F. and Cooperrider, A. Y. (1994). Saving nature’s America: building scientific capacity equal to the chal- legacy: protecting and restoring biodiversity. Island Press, lenges. Conservation Biology, 19, 969–972. Washington, DC. Safina, C. (1998). Song for the blue ocean. Henry Holt and Noss, R. F., O’Connell, M. A., and Murphy, D. D. (1997). Company, New York. The science of conservation planning. Island Press, Salafsky, N., Margoluis, R., and Redford, K. (2001). Adap- Washington, DC. tive management: a tool for conservation practitioners. Biodi- Odenbaugh, J. (2003). Values, advocacy, and conservation versity Support Program, Washington, DC. biology. Environmental Values, 12,55–69. Samson, F. B. and Knopf, F. L. (1982). In search of a diver- Orr, D. W. (2004). The nature of design: ecology, culture, and sity ethic for wildlife management. Transactions of the human intention. Oxford University Press, New York. North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Pickett, S. T. A., and White, P. S. (1985). The ecology of 47, 421–431. natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Academic Press, Samways, M. J. (1994). Insect conservation biology. Chapman Orlando, Florida. and Hall, New York. Pimlott, D. H. (1969). The value of diversity. Transactions of Saunders, C. (2003). The emerging field of conservation the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Confer- psychology. Human Ecology Review, 10, 137–149. ence, 34, 265–280. Schonewald-Cox, C., Chambers, S. M., Macbryde, B., and Pimm, S. L. (1991). The balance of nature? Ecological issues in Thomas, L., eds (1983). Genetics and conservation: a refer- the conservation of species and communities. University of ence for managing wild animal and plant populations. Benja- Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. min-Cummings, Menlo Park, California. Pinchot, G. (1910). The fight for conservation. Doubleday, Scott, M. J., Davis, F., Cusuti, B., et al. (1993). GAP analysis: Page, and Company, New York. a geographic approach to protection of biological diver- Pokras, M., Tabor, G., Pearl, M., Sherman, D., and Epstein, sity. Wildlife Monographs, 123,1–41. P. (1997). Conservation medicine: an emerging field. In Sellars, R. W. (1997). Preserving nature in the national P. H. Raven, ed. Nature and human society: the quest for a parks: a history. Yale University Press, New Haven, Con- sustainable world, pp. 551–556. National Academy Press, necticut. Washington, DC. Shafer, C. L. (2001). Conservation biology trailblazers: Postel, S. and Richter, B. (2003). Rivers for life: managing George Wright, Ben Thompson, and Joseph Dixon. Con- water for people and nature. Island Press, Washington, DC. servation Biology, 15, 332–344. Primack, R. (1993). Essentials of conservation biology. Sinauer Sodhi, N. S., Brook, B. W., and Bradshaw, C. J. A. Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. (2007). Tropical conservation biology. Blackwell, Oxford, Pringle, R. M. (2008). Elephants as agents of habitat creation UK. for small vertebrates at patch scale. Ecology, 89,26–33. Soulé, M. E. (1980). Thresholds for survival: criteria for Pringle, R. M., Young, T. P., Rubenstein, D. I., and Mccauly, maintenance of fitness and evolutionary potential. In D. J. (2007). Herbivore-initiated interaction cascades and M. E. Soulé, and B. A. Wilcox, eds Conservation biology: their modulation by primary productivity in an African an evolutionary-ecological perspective, pp. 151–170. Sinauer savanna. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. the United States of America, 104, 193–197. Soulé, M. E. (1985). What is conservation biology? BioSci- Quammen, D. (1996). The song of the dodo: island biogeogra- ence, 35, 727–734. phy in an age of extinctions. Simon and Schuster, New Soulé, M. E., ed. (1986). Conservation biology: the science of York. scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Redford, K. H., Coppolillo, P., Sanderson, E. W., et al. Massachusetts. (2003). Mapping the conservation landscape. Conserva- Soulé, M. E., ed. (1987a). Viable populations for conservation. tion Biology, 17, 116–131. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.

26 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY FOR ALL

Soulé, M. E. (1987b). History of the Society for Conserva- Thorne-Miller, B. (1998). The Living Ocean: Understanding tion Biology: how and why we got here. Conservation and Protecting Marine Biodiversity, 2nd ed. Island Press, Biology, 1,4–5. Washington, DC. Soulé, M. E. (1991). Land use planning and wildlife main- Trombulak, S. C. (1994). Undergraduate education and the tenance: guidelines for preserving wildlife in an urban next generation of conservation biologists. Conservation landscape. Journal of the American Planning Association, Biology, 8, 589–591. 57, 313–323. Udall, J. R. (1991). Launching the natural ark. Sierra, 7,80–89. Soulé, M. E. and Terborgh, J., eds (1999). Continental conser- Wallace, A. R. (1863). On the physical geography of the vation: scientiﬁc foundations of regional reserve networks. Malay Archipelago. Journal of the Royal Geographical Washington, DC., Island Press. Society of London, 33, 217–234. Soulé, M. E. and Wilcox, B. A., eds (1980). Conservation Wang, Y. and Moskovits, D. K. (2001). Tracking fragmen- biology: an evolutionary-ecological perspective. Sinauer, tation of natural communities and changes in land cover: Sunderland, Massachusetts. applications of Landsat data for conservation in an Tabor, G. M., Ostfeld, R. S., Poss, M., Dobson, A. P., and urban landscape (Chicago Wilderness). Conservation Aguirre, A. A. (2001). Conservation biology and the Biology, 15, 835–843. health sciences. In M. E. Soulé and G. H. Orians, eds Wilson, E. O. and Peter, F. M., eds (1988). Biodiversity. Conservation biology: research priorities for the next decade, National Academy Press, Washington, DC. pp. 155–173. Island Press, Washington, DC. WCED (World Commission On Environment and Devel- Takacs, D. (1996). The idea of biodiversity: philosophies of opment) (1987). Our common future. Oxford University paradise. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Press, Oxford, UK. Maryland. Worster, D. (1979). Dust bowl: the southern plains in the Teer, J. G. (1988). Review of Conservation biology: the 1930s. Oxford University Press, New York. science of scarcity and diversity. Journal of Wildlife Man- Worster, D. (1985). Nature’s economy: a history of ecological agement, 52, 570–572. ideas. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Terborgh, J. (1974). Preservation of natural diversity: Yaffee, S. L. (1994). The wisdom of the spotted owl: policy the problem of extinction prone species. BioScience, 24, lessons for a new century. Island Press, Washington, 715–722. DC. Thomas, W. L. Jr., Sauer, C. O., Bates, M., and Mumford, L. Ziswiler, V. (1967). Extinct and vanishing animals: a biolo- (1956). Man’s role in changing the face of the Earth. Univer- gy of extinction and survival. Springer-Verlag, New sity of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. York.