Revisiting geographic variation in melanism of monarch butterfly larvae in North America using iNaturalist photos.

Monarch butterflies in North America have an exceptionally large breeding distribution, occupying regions west of the Rocky Mountains and throughout the eastern seaboard. An experimental study conducted 17 years ago and published in this journal appeared to show that western monarch larvae tend to have smaller black stripes than those from eastern parents, which at the time was thought to be an adaptation to higher solar exposure in California. Here, we revisit this question by measuring melanism of eastern and western larvae from online photographs submitted to iNaturalist by members of the public. We downloaded over 500 photos of larvae from 10 different states (4 in the west, 6 in the east) and used image analysis to quantify the size of each larva's black stripes (% of surface covered by black). We compared average melanism level between east and west, while also accounting for temperature (at the photo location), seasonal effects, and latitude. Results showed larvae tended to be darker with lower development temperatures, and later in the season, though there was no significant difference between eastern and western larvae in their degree of melanism. It is not yet clear why findings here were different from the prior experimental study. Also, the wild larvae appeared to be notably lighter in color than the captive-reared larvae of the original study, suggesting that the captive environment does not truly replicate the developmental experience of wild larvae, at least in terms of cuticular development. Thus, if there truly are innate tendencies for western larvae to differ (morphologically) from eastern, they are not observable in nature.

Corrigendum: Reductions in global biodiversity loss predicted from conservation spending.

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/nature24295.

Reductions in global biodiversity loss predicted from conservation spending.

Halting global biodiversity loss is central to the Convention on Biological Diversity and United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, but success to date has been very limited. A critical determinant of success in achieving these goals is the financing that is committed to maintaining biodiversity; however, financing decisions are hindered by considerable uncertainty over the likely impact of any conservation investment. For greater effectiveness, we need an evidence-based model that shows how conservation spending quantitatively reduces the rate of biodiversity loss. Here we demonstrate such a model, and empirically quantify how conservation investment reduced biodiversity loss in 109 countries (signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity and Sustainable Development Goals), by a median average of 29% per country between 1996 and 2008. We also show that biodiversity changes in signatory countries can be predicted with high accuracy, using a dual model that balances the effects of conservation investment against those of economic, agricultural and population growth (human development pressures). Decision-makers can use this model to forecast the improvement that any proposed biodiversity budget would achieve under various scenarios of human development pressure, and then compare these forecasts to any chosen policy target. We find that the impact of spending decreases as human development pressures grow, which implies that funding may need to increase over time. The model offers a flexible tool for balancing the Sustainable Development Goals of human development and maintaining biodiversity, by predicting the dynamic changes in conservation finance that will be needed as human development proceeds.

Targeting global conservation funding to limit immediate biodiversity declines.

Inadequate funding levels are a major impediment to effective global biodiversity conservation and are likely associated with recent failures to meet United Nations biodiversity targets. Some countries are more severely underfunded than others and therefore represent urgent financial priorities. However, attempts to identify these highly underfunded countries have been hampered for decades by poor and incomplete data on actual spending, coupled with uncertainty and lack of consensus over the relative size of spending gaps. Here, we assemble a global database of annual conservation spending. We then develop a statistical model that explains 86% of variation in conservation expenditures, and use this to identify countries where funding is robustly below expected levels. The 40 most severely underfunded countries contain 32% of all threatened mammalian diversity and include neighbors in some of the world's most biodiversity-rich areas (Sundaland, Wallacea, and Near Oceania). However, very modest increases in international assistance would achieve a large improvement in the relative adequacy of global conservation finance. Our results could therefore be quickly applied to limit immediate biodiversity losses at relatively little cost.