Letters role in protecting nature. However, we remain concerned about the substantial risks associated with efforts to conserve nature by fulfilling human needs and appealing to corporate responsibility. Further shifting the limited capacity of conservation towards efforts that prioritize embracing development and advancing human prosperity will come at the expense of other approaches and still leave much of nature imperiled. We remain unclear on whether the intent of NCS is to increase support for efforts to safeguard nature or to shift the fundamental goals of conservation. If these goals are still the conservation of biodiversity and natural systems, then we agree with Marvier and Kareiva that ‘outcomes on the ground [should] be the arbiter of this debate.’ In
Trends in Ecology & Evolution March 2014, Vol. 29, No. 3
addition, although the available evidence indicates that using multiple strategies will yield the greatest payoffs for nature conservation, we urge natural and social scientists to carefully scrutinize the relative effectiveness of different approaches for achieving long-term results. Let us all now all return to the important work of conserving the natural places and natural resources on which all species, including humans, depend. References 1 Marvier, M. and Kareiva, P. (2014) The evidence and values underlying ‘new conservation’. Trend Ecol. Evol. 29, 131–132 2 Doak, D.F. et al. (2013) What is the future of conservation? Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 77–81
Research safeguards protected areas: response to Florens Anaı¨s Boura1*, Timothe´e Le Pe´chon2*, and Luc D.B. Gigord3 1
CR2P UMR 7207, MNHN, UPMC, CNRS, CP 48, 57 rue Cuvier, 75231 Paris cedex 5, France Chengdu Institute of Biology (CDBI), Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 416, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China 3 Conservatoire Botanique National de Mascarin, 2 rue du Pe`re Georges, F-97436, Saint Leu, La Re´union 2
In a recent letter, Florens [1] criticised the current actions of the Mauritian government for the conservation of biodiversity. Beyond the general critic, the author argued that researchers and conservation workers may have a negative impact on threatened biodiversity when they collected biological material in a careless way. We obviously agree with Florens’s attempt when he writes ‘Authorised sampling of critically endangered species for research and conservation in particular should be carefully planned and carried out [. . .]’ [1], and we think that any people who act for the conservation of threatened biodiversity would fully agree. Sampling of critically endangered species should be performed using appropriate techniques and methods (i.e., demonstrating a minimum risk for the sampled specimen) and only when this collection is necessary. As pointed out by Florens, extensive collection of critically endangered species may cause definitive damage and may directly threaten the maintenance of a taxon in the wild. The spread of material collections (e.g., xylotheque, DNA bank collection, and herbarium) is a good alternative for avoiding multiple samplings on the same individual. Florens offered several examples for illustrating ‘unfavourable sampling’ with dramatic consequences for conservation. Two of these examples concerns endemic and Corresponding author: Le Pe´chon, T. ([email protected]). * These authors have equally contributed to this work. 0169-5347/$ – see front matter ß 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.12.007
critically endangered Dombeya species from Mauritius, that is, Dombeya sevathianii Le Pe´chon et Baider [2] and Dombeya mauritiana Friedmann [3], which are currently represented in the wild by eight specimens and one specimen, respectively [2,4]. According to Florens, specimens of both species died because of infection. For D. sevathianii, the disease would result from a supposedly untreated injury subsequent to a sampling of wood tissue that we did [5]. We are therefore accused of indirectly killing the specimen type of this critically endangered taxon [1]. For D. mauritiana, despite previously admitting ‘the exact cause of extinction of the species in the wild is not fully understood’ [4], Florens argued that the disease is a consequence of 89 cuttings sampled [1]. In these provided examples, Florens asserted approximations and mistakes and his letter perfectly illustrates the fact that accusations of any type of scientific malpractice must be properly researched and backed up by strong evidence. Indeed, Florens did not provide any analyses or results for justifying that both specimens died from infection, nor the link that he made between the injuries (i.e., subsequently to the wood sampling or the cuttings) and the putative infection. Moreover, by omitting large parts of the sampling protocol used for wood sampling of D. sevathianii, Florens’s attempt (i.e., ‘untreated injury’) is simply false. The wood samples were collected using the method described in Boura et al. [5] and the subsequent injury had been treated using a devoted healing mastic. Besides, several studies did not show any significant effect of wounds caused by wood sampling on tree mortality [6,7]. Although trees are major components of ecosystems, their death remains poorly understood, often multifactorial and always difficult to predict [8,9]. In both cases 133
Letters (i.e., D. sevathianii and D. mauritiana), the death of the trees, pointed out by Florens, are most probably much more complex than what he claimed. Finally, such poorly based scientific arguments may have a strong impact on research and conservation works by bringing discredit to people who act for conservation, to suitable methods used for collecting samples of critically endangered species, and results from such research. As a consequence, conservation actions and research using perfectly efficient practices could be stopped or restricted while these works in the field are absolutely necessary to preserve and safeguard critically endangered species. For example, the taxonomical recognition of D. sevathianii and the study of its wood anatomy [2,4] directly contribute to its conservation [10]. Given the important threats on its natural distribution, the likelihood of the success of the in situ conservation programme for D. mauritiana was null and the cuttings ensured its ex situ conservation. In the context of global warming and significant anthropic pressures, the conservation of threatened biodiversity should not be a controversial subject but instead a common aim for sharing skills and knowledge towards a better protection of species and their natural ecosystems.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution March 2014, Vol. 29, No. 3
Acknowledgements We thank Dario De Franceschi, Jean-Yves Dubuisson, and Romain Thomas for their valuable comments on a previous version of this response.
References 1 Florens, F.B.V. (2013) Research safeguards protected areas: the important role of governments. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 3–4 2 Le Pe´chon, T. et al. (2011) Dombeya sevathianii (Malvaceae): a new critically endangered species endemic to Mauritius (Indian Ocean). Phytotaxa 24, 1–10 3 Friedmann, F. (1981) Sterculiacees et Lecythidacee nouvelles aux Mascareignes. Adansonia Ser. 2 20, 439–449 4 Florens, V. (2009) Mauritian tree rediscovered. Species 50, 25 5 Boura, A. et al. (2011) Wood anatomy of the Mascarene Dombeyoideae: systematic and ecological implications. IAWA J. 32, 493–519 6 Wunder, J. et al. (2013) Does increment coring enhance tree decay? New insights from tomography assessments. Can. J. For. Res. 43, 711–718 7 Dujesiefken, D. et al. (1999) Tree wound reactions of differently treated boreholes. J. Arboric. 25, 113–123 8 Franklin, J. et al. (1987) Tree death as an ecological process. BioScience 37, 550–556 9 Pedersen, B.S. (1998) Modeling tree mortality in response to short- and long-term environmental stresses. Ecol. Model. 105, 347–351 10 Mace, G.M. (2004) The role of taxonomy in species conservation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 359, 711–719
Research no matter the risks? A reply to Boura et al.§ F.B. Vincent Florens Department of Biosciences, University of Mauritius, Le Re´duit, Republic of Mauritius
Laurance [1] posited that research may safeguard protected areas while highlighting the need for an improved understanding of the advantages and limitations of field research for aiding protected areas and their biodiversity. I discussed some of these advantages and limitations [2]. Now, Boura et al. [3] are challenging two of the several examples that I have used. They claimed that I ‘did not provide any analyses or results for justifying that both specimens died from infection, nor the link. . .between the injuries. . .and the putative infection’. In fact, contrary to their assertion, I linked injury with infection in only one case. I did not expand further to avoid distracting details and to remain within the required word limit for a Letter. Observation on the dead plant revealed symptoms of a fungal infection spreading from the wood-coring injury including axial cambial decay (e.g., [4]). This decay was present before the plant’s death, as seen in the species description paper, in which the plant was already reported to be dying (Figure 2D in [5]). An examination of the injury in 2012 revealed no Corresponding author: Florens, F.B.V. ([email protected]). 0169-5347/$ – see front matter ß 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.01.006
134
visible trace of treatment, but I concede that I should have written ‘inappropriate sampling’ rather than ‘untreated injury’. To support their statement that there were no significant effects of wood-sampling injuries on tree mortality in the context of the humid tropics, and that I may be endangering, I cite ‘perfectly efficient practices’ like theirs, they cite references concerned with trees of temperate zones including a conifer from the Swiss Alps. Conifers are especially resistant to coring injuries [6]. Besides, Boura et al. also conveniently ignore warnings in the literature like the existence of a wide variation of species responses to coring [6] or ‘other species, [than conifers], are likely to show greater susceptibility to fungal attacks following coring, possibly leading to mortality’ [7]. Given these warnings, the real fundamental question was whether it was judicious to conduct their invasive wood sampling at all, particularly on what was then the only known individual of its species (Dombeya sevathianii) [5,8]. Furthermore, the tree was growing within dense stands of invasive alien plants, which are known to lower the fitness of trees [9–12] and hence increase their susceptibility to other stress including infections, unlike for instance, in the Swiss Alps. The coring of D. sevathianii’s wood was an inconsistency in itself since they avoided coring several species because they ‘are very rare’ [8] when none could have, in fact, been rarer than D. sevathianii. Their avoidance of sampling rare
Trends in Ecology & Evolution March 2014, Vol. 29, No. 3
addition, although the available evidence indicates that using multiple strategies will yield the greatest payoffs for nature conservation, we urge natural and social scientists to carefully scrutinize the relative effectiveness of different approaches for achieving long-term results. Let us all now all return to the important work of conserving the natural places and natural resources on which all species, including humans, depend. References 1 Marvier, M. and Kareiva, P. (2014) The evidence and values underlying ‘new conservation’. Trend Ecol. Evol. 29, 131–132 2 Doak, D.F. et al. (2013) What is the future of conservation? Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 77–81
Research safeguards protected areas: response to Florens Anaı¨s Boura1*, Timothe´e Le Pe´chon2*, and Luc D.B. Gigord3 1
CR2P UMR 7207, MNHN, UPMC, CNRS, CP 48, 57 rue Cuvier, 75231 Paris cedex 5, France Chengdu Institute of Biology (CDBI), Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 416, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China 3 Conservatoire Botanique National de Mascarin, 2 rue du Pe`re Georges, F-97436, Saint Leu, La Re´union 2
In a recent letter, Florens [1] criticised the current actions of the Mauritian government for the conservation of biodiversity. Beyond the general critic, the author argued that researchers and conservation workers may have a negative impact on threatened biodiversity when they collected biological material in a careless way. We obviously agree with Florens’s attempt when he writes ‘Authorised sampling of critically endangered species for research and conservation in particular should be carefully planned and carried out [. . .]’ [1], and we think that any people who act for the conservation of threatened biodiversity would fully agree. Sampling of critically endangered species should be performed using appropriate techniques and methods (i.e., demonstrating a minimum risk for the sampled specimen) and only when this collection is necessary. As pointed out by Florens, extensive collection of critically endangered species may cause definitive damage and may directly threaten the maintenance of a taxon in the wild. The spread of material collections (e.g., xylotheque, DNA bank collection, and herbarium) is a good alternative for avoiding multiple samplings on the same individual. Florens offered several examples for illustrating ‘unfavourable sampling’ with dramatic consequences for conservation. Two of these examples concerns endemic and Corresponding author: Le Pe´chon, T. ([email protected]). * These authors have equally contributed to this work. 0169-5347/$ – see front matter ß 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.12.007
critically endangered Dombeya species from Mauritius, that is, Dombeya sevathianii Le Pe´chon et Baider [2] and Dombeya mauritiana Friedmann [3], which are currently represented in the wild by eight specimens and one specimen, respectively [2,4]. According to Florens, specimens of both species died because of infection. For D. sevathianii, the disease would result from a supposedly untreated injury subsequent to a sampling of wood tissue that we did [5]. We are therefore accused of indirectly killing the specimen type of this critically endangered taxon [1]. For D. mauritiana, despite previously admitting ‘the exact cause of extinction of the species in the wild is not fully understood’ [4], Florens argued that the disease is a consequence of 89 cuttings sampled [1]. In these provided examples, Florens asserted approximations and mistakes and his letter perfectly illustrates the fact that accusations of any type of scientific malpractice must be properly researched and backed up by strong evidence. Indeed, Florens did not provide any analyses or results for justifying that both specimens died from infection, nor the link that he made between the injuries (i.e., subsequently to the wood sampling or the cuttings) and the putative infection. Moreover, by omitting large parts of the sampling protocol used for wood sampling of D. sevathianii, Florens’s attempt (i.e., ‘untreated injury’) is simply false. The wood samples were collected using the method described in Boura et al. [5] and the subsequent injury had been treated using a devoted healing mastic. Besides, several studies did not show any significant effect of wounds caused by wood sampling on tree mortality [6,7]. Although trees are major components of ecosystems, their death remains poorly understood, often multifactorial and always difficult to predict [8,9]. In both cases 133
Letters (i.e., D. sevathianii and D. mauritiana), the death of the trees, pointed out by Florens, are most probably much more complex than what he claimed. Finally, such poorly based scientific arguments may have a strong impact on research and conservation works by bringing discredit to people who act for conservation, to suitable methods used for collecting samples of critically endangered species, and results from such research. As a consequence, conservation actions and research using perfectly efficient practices could be stopped or restricted while these works in the field are absolutely necessary to preserve and safeguard critically endangered species. For example, the taxonomical recognition of D. sevathianii and the study of its wood anatomy [2,4] directly contribute to its conservation [10]. Given the important threats on its natural distribution, the likelihood of the success of the in situ conservation programme for D. mauritiana was null and the cuttings ensured its ex situ conservation. In the context of global warming and significant anthropic pressures, the conservation of threatened biodiversity should not be a controversial subject but instead a common aim for sharing skills and knowledge towards a better protection of species and their natural ecosystems.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution March 2014, Vol. 29, No. 3
Acknowledgements We thank Dario De Franceschi, Jean-Yves Dubuisson, and Romain Thomas for their valuable comments on a previous version of this response.
References 1 Florens, F.B.V. (2013) Research safeguards protected areas: the important role of governments. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 3–4 2 Le Pe´chon, T. et al. (2011) Dombeya sevathianii (Malvaceae): a new critically endangered species endemic to Mauritius (Indian Ocean). Phytotaxa 24, 1–10 3 Friedmann, F. (1981) Sterculiacees et Lecythidacee nouvelles aux Mascareignes. Adansonia Ser. 2 20, 439–449 4 Florens, V. (2009) Mauritian tree rediscovered. Species 50, 25 5 Boura, A. et al. (2011) Wood anatomy of the Mascarene Dombeyoideae: systematic and ecological implications. IAWA J. 32, 493–519 6 Wunder, J. et al. (2013) Does increment coring enhance tree decay? New insights from tomography assessments. Can. J. For. Res. 43, 711–718 7 Dujesiefken, D. et al. (1999) Tree wound reactions of differently treated boreholes. J. Arboric. 25, 113–123 8 Franklin, J. et al. (1987) Tree death as an ecological process. BioScience 37, 550–556 9 Pedersen, B.S. (1998) Modeling tree mortality in response to short- and long-term environmental stresses. Ecol. Model. 105, 347–351 10 Mace, G.M. (2004) The role of taxonomy in species conservation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 359, 711–719
Research no matter the risks? A reply to Boura et al.§ F.B. Vincent Florens Department of Biosciences, University of Mauritius, Le Re´duit, Republic of Mauritius
Laurance [1] posited that research may safeguard protected areas while highlighting the need for an improved understanding of the advantages and limitations of field research for aiding protected areas and their biodiversity. I discussed some of these advantages and limitations [2]. Now, Boura et al. [3] are challenging two of the several examples that I have used. They claimed that I ‘did not provide any analyses or results for justifying that both specimens died from infection, nor the link. . .between the injuries. . .and the putative infection’. In fact, contrary to their assertion, I linked injury with infection in only one case. I did not expand further to avoid distracting details and to remain within the required word limit for a Letter. Observation on the dead plant revealed symptoms of a fungal infection spreading from the wood-coring injury including axial cambial decay (e.g., [4]). This decay was present before the plant’s death, as seen in the species description paper, in which the plant was already reported to be dying (Figure 2D in [5]). An examination of the injury in 2012 revealed no Corresponding author: Florens, F.B.V. ([email protected]). 0169-5347/$ – see front matter ß 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.01.006
134
visible trace of treatment, but I concede that I should have written ‘inappropriate sampling’ rather than ‘untreated injury’. To support their statement that there were no significant effects of wood-sampling injuries on tree mortality in the context of the humid tropics, and that I may be endangering, I cite ‘perfectly efficient practices’ like theirs, they cite references concerned with trees of temperate zones including a conifer from the Swiss Alps. Conifers are especially resistant to coring injuries [6]. Besides, Boura et al. also conveniently ignore warnings in the literature like the existence of a wide variation of species responses to coring [6] or ‘other species, [than conifers], are likely to show greater susceptibility to fungal attacks following coring, possibly leading to mortality’ [7]. Given these warnings, the real fundamental question was whether it was judicious to conduct their invasive wood sampling at all, particularly on what was then the only known individual of its species (Dombeya sevathianii) [5,8]. Furthermore, the tree was growing within dense stands of invasive alien plants, which are known to lower the fitness of trees [9–12] and hence increase their susceptibility to other stress including infections, unlike for instance, in the Swiss Alps. The coring of D. sevathianii’s wood was an inconsistency in itself since they avoided coring several species because they ‘are very rare’ [8] when none could have, in fact, been rarer than D. sevathianii. Their avoidance of sampling rare
