Conservation Research Is Not Happening Where It Is Most Needed.

Target 19, set by the Convention on Biological Diversity, seeks to improve the knowledge, science base, and technologies relating to biodiversity. We will fail to achieve this target unless prolific biases in the field of conservation science are addressed. We reveal that comparatively less research is undertaken in the world's most biodiverse countries, the science conducted in these countries is often not led by researchers based in-country, and these scientists are also underrepresented in important international fora. Mitigating these biases requires wide-ranging solutions: reforming open access publishing policies, enhancing science communication strategies, changing author attribution practices, improving representation in international processes, and strengthening infrastructure and human capacity for research in countries where it is most needed.

Effects of threat management interactions on conservation priorities.

Decisions need to be made about which biodiversity management actions are undertaken to mitigate threats and about where these actions are implemented. However, management actions can interact; that is, the cost, benefit, and feasibility of one action can change when another action is undertaken. There is little guidance on how to explicitly and efficiently prioritize management for multiple threats, including deciding where to act. Integrated management could focus on one management action to abate a dominant threat or on a strategy comprising multiple actions to abate multiple threats. Furthermore management could be undertaken at sites that are in close proximity to reduce costs. We used cost-effectiveness analysis to prioritize investments in fire management, controlling invasive predators, and reducing grazing pressure in a bio-diverse region of southeastern Queensland, Australia. We compared outcomes of 5 management approaches based on different assumptions about interactions and quantified how investment needed, benefits expected, and the locations prioritized for implementation differed when interactions were taken into account. Managing for interactions altered decisions about where to invest and in which actions to invest and had the potential to deliver increased investment efficiency. Differences in high priority locations and actions were greatest between the approaches when we made different assumptions about how management actions deliver benefits through threat abatement: either all threats must be managed to conserve species or only one management action may be required. Threatened species management that does not consider interactions between actions may result in misplaced investments or misguided expectations of the effort required to mitigate threats to species.

Informed actions: where to cost effectively manage multiple threats to species to maximize return on investment.

Conservation practitioners, faced with managing multiple threats to biodiversity and limited funding, must prioritize investment in different management actions. From an economic perspective, it is routine practice to invest where the highest rate of return is expected. This return-on-investment (ROI) thinking can also benefit species conservation, and researchers are developing sophisticated approaches to support decision-making for cost-effective conservation. However, applied use of these approaches is limited. Managers may be wary of "black-box" algorithms or complex methods that are difficult to explain to funding agencies. As an alternative, we demonstrate the use of a basic ROI analysis for determining where to invest in cost-effective management to address threats to species. This method can be applied using basic geographic information system and spreadsheet calculations. We illustrate the approach in a management action prioritization for a biodiverse region of eastern Australia. We use ROI to prioritize management actions for two threats to a suite of threatened species: habitat degradation by cattle grazing, and predation by invasive red foxes (Vulpes vulpes). We show how decisions based on cost-effective threat management depend upon how expected benefits to species are defined and how benefits and costs co-vary. By considering a combination of species richness, restricted habitats, species vulnerability, and costs of management actions, small investments can result in greater expected benefit compared with management decisions that consider only species richness. Furthermore, a landscape management strategy that implements multiple actions is more efficient than managing only for one threat, or more traditional approaches that don't consider ROI. Our approach provides transparent and logical decision support for prioritizing different actions intended to abate threats associated with multiple species; it is of use when managers need a justifiable and repeatable approach to investment.