Virtual fencing technology holds the potential to modernize and transform livestock management, with significant but still underexplored biodiversity conservation applications. The technology uses Global Positioning System-enabled collars on livestock and software-defined boundaries to provide a virtual alternative to traditional physical fencing, creating opportunities to remove or reduce physical fences. We identify four key functional attributes of virtual fencing that can be leveraged to achieve conservation goals: eliminating the barrier effects of physical fencing infrastructure that fragment landscapes, providing precise and temporally adaptable exclusion capabilities for protecting sensitive ecological areas, enabling targeted livestock concentration for invasive species control and predator conflict mitigation, and facilitating adaptive grazing rotations that promote habitat heterogeneity and vegetative health. Collectively, these functions address critical conservation challenges including restoration of landscape connectivity, protection of riparian habitat, maintaining wildlife corridors, and livestock-carnivore coexistence. Despite its promise as a conservation tool, adoption of virtual fencing still faces substantial barriers including technological limitations, learning curves for both operators and livestock, limited research on diverse livestock types, cost barriers, animal welfare concerns, data privacy issues, and the complexity of implementing virtual fencing specifically for conservation outcomes. Conservation organizations can accelerate virtual fencing deployment through strategic cost-sharing partnerships, incentive-based conservation agreements, and advocacy for supportive policy frameworks. Investment in interdisciplinary research will be essential for demonstrating effectiveness and addressing adoption barriers. Virtual fencing represents a transformative conservation tool with applications across diverse grazing contexts around the world and offers substantial opportunities to reconcile livestock production with biodiversity conservation and ecosystem restoration goals.

Wildlife conservation around protected areas is critical and costly, yet its beneficiaries—particularly protected area visitors who enjoy viewing wide‐ranging wildlife—rarely contribute towards landscape‐scale conservation. We characterize the importance of wildlife viewing in two U.S. protected areas: Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. We surveyed park visitors ( N = 991) and used the travel cost method to test whether changes in the viewing experience would justify support for visitor‐funded conservation. We find that benefits from wildlife viewing are substantial and dependent on protecting wide‐ranging species and maintaining their abundance. Large carnivores, particularly grizzly bears, are especially important to wildlife viewers, who are willing to pay more to visit the parks by about 50%. Additionally, we gauged support for three conservation fundraising mechanisms within parks: a mandatory fee, a voluntary fund, and a tax on goods and services. Overall, we find that species population declines could have a greater effect on visitation than that from imposing conservation costs onto visitors, which visitors largely support regardless of income or politics. Our results demonstrate tradeoffs between maintaining visitor experience quality and protected area visitation, with a potential win‐win for conservation beneficiaries to contribute towards action at a scale necessary for biodiversity protection.

Considering the nexus between public grazing lands and privately owned rangelands in the American West, some scholars argue that reduced access to public grazing allotments can result in subdivision or land conversion of private lands affiliated with livestock production—an argument presented as a choice between “cows or condos.” This argument has been applied to compensated permit waivers, a tool meant to reduce wildlife-livestock and other conflicts on public lands. We tested this “cows or condos” hypothesis by conducting semistructured interviews and a survey of permittees who have participated in a permit waiver, and through a property and records analysis of privately owned properties affiliated with 49 permittees who have accepted compensation to waive a federal grazing permit in the West since 1999. While we found no evidence of subdivision on private properties, common themes and mixed experiences arose from the producers we communicated with. Nearly every producer was experiencing untenable conflict on their grazing lease, most producers would have preferred to remain on their allotment if conflicts were reduced but were grateful they received compensation for waiving their permit, and many producers expressed concerns about the impacts of ongoing fragmentation of rangelands across the American West. The permit waiver presented difficulties for some producers, but for others the permit waiver was a catalyst for expanding their operation. Conflict with wildlife, agency restrictions, and exorbitant land values were cited by most producers as factors compromising their operation. We found no evidence to support the claim that compensated permit waivers are driving subdivision in the West; rather, many ranchers indicated the rapid development and fragmentation of Western landscapes is a major factor reducing the viability of livestock production.

In an opinion piece in the Wildlife Society Bulletin, Brown et al. (2023) proposed using affirmative clauses in conservation easements to enhance the wildlife benefits of easements. We agree that conservation easements are foundational tools to achieve wildlife conservation goals on private lands and their use could be improved to increase their impact. Here, we respond to the article to highlight the challenges with affirmative clauses, add nuance to the discussion, and propose an alternative that could achieve the goals proposed by Brown et al. (2023) without the need for affirmative clauses. Conservation easements are intended to, and largely succeed in, permanently preventing the conversion of land to commercial or residential uses by limiting subdivision and development (Pocewicz et al. 2011). The strength of conservation easements lies in permanent restriction of alternative uses of the land base, which maintains existing habitat by limiting landscape fragmentation and conversion to uses incompatible with wildlife habitat. Because of the perpetual nature of conservation easements, the tool typically incorporates flexibility for landowners to manage the encumbered land in accordance with the best practices of the day (Horton et al. 2017). Affirmative clauses permanently obligate landowners to take certain actions to improve wildlife habitat. Requiring permanent management obligations is often not feasible from a landowner or ecological perspective. Landowners need flexibility to manage their land profitably and in line with contemporary best practices as climate continues to change and habitat shifts. Brown et al. (2023) proposed that land trusts should expand their use of affirmative clauses to increase the biodiversity benefits of conservation easements. While affirmative clauses might result in biodiversity benefits, the practical difficulty of including affirmative clauses outweighs the benefits and makes widespread adoption unlikely. We offer 4 primary practical difficulties to affirmative clauses: (1) affirmative clauses cannot be valued; (2) affirmative clauses may require unfunded ongoing management expenses; (3) affirmative clauses are difficult to monitor and enforce; and (4) conservation easement terms are inflexible and difficult to amend. Conservation easements are valued using a before-and-after appraisal method that is typically based on comparable sales of similar encumbered and unencumbered properties. When determining the value of the easement, appraisers cannot consider management practices, habitat, or biodiversity because of a lack of market signals to justify their financial value (McLaughlin 2016). Logically, landowners would not be willing to transfer a conservation easement for which they will not be fully compensated. Affirmative clauses included in the conservation easement do not provide any additional compensation to the landowner yet would increase long-term management expenses. In order to avoid violating the conservation easement, the landowner must continually meet all of the obligations included in the affirmative clauses. Landowners are unlikely to bind themselves to permanent management obligations that they will be expected to pay for out of pocket. Affirmative clauses in conservation easements are difficult to monitor and enforce. The Land Trust Alliance, the national organization representing the land trust industry, offers accreditation for land trusts that meet stringent requirements (Land Trust Alliance 2022). The accreditation standards do not require land trusts to maintain staff trained to monitor and enforce affirmative requirements. A major shift in the way land trusts do business would be required before they can be expected to monitor and enforce affirmative easement terms – further increasing the long-term stewardship obligations and expenses to land trusts that may already be undercapitalized (Rissman and Butsic 2010). Conservation easements, as a result of their permanent nature, are inflexible. Their intent is to permanently prevent a landowner from developing their land, and there is little flexibility in achieving that goal. Their permanence also means that amendments are strongly disfavored and made procedurally difficult, requiring attorney review and rerecording the amended deed in land records. Amending conservation easements may result in legal or tax liability if the easement no longer meets the charitable intent of the original easement (McLaughlin 2006, Schwing 2013). The inclusion of affirmative clauses would result in the need for occasional amendments to the easement, resulting in significant expenses and procedural hurdles for the landowner and the land trust. There are other ways to enhance the biodiversity benefits of private land, while ensuring the land is permanently conserved. Easements can be used in combination with other tools that are better suited to deliver habitat benefits. Deliberately pairing easements with short-term agreements to improve or manage habitat can provide additional financial compensation for landowners while maintaining adaptability to changing conditions, due to the more flexible nature of contracts relative to permanent deed restrictions. A contractual arrangement would also not have the same monitoring and enforcement burden required of easements. A habitat lease is an example of a short-term agreement where landowner compensation is based on the habitat improvements made or maintained. The Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) is developing such a model in Montana's Paradise Valley where they are compensating a landowner for removing livestock from key elk winter habitat by building a fence, which improves the availability of forage for the elk. The lease agreement further requires the landowner to treat invasive cheatgrass, manage encroaching conifers, and participate in controlled burns as appropriate to improve the elk habitat (PERC 2022). Habitat exchange programs, like the Recovery Credit System developed to mitigate impacts to the federally endangered golden-cheeked warbler, provide other examples of term-limited, private land conservation programs for species in regulatory contexts (Wolfe et al. 2012, Davis et al. 2022). These types of agreements are still emerging as viable short-term conservation options but could achieve the goals Brown et al. (2023) sought with affirmative clauses, while providing substantially more room for innovation and flexibility. Brown et al. (2023) have started an important discussion on affirmative clauses in conservation easements. We appreciate their efforts and are pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the conversation. Though we see affirmative clauses as being infeasible in achieving long-term habitat improvements, maximizing the benefits of easements to wildlife is critical to conservation goals on private lands. Leveraging the strengths of easements in conserving the long-term land base while augmenting their limitations through term agreements provides an alternative solution to achieve the goals that wildlife professionals seek. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

AbstractBecause rangeland ecosystems and the wildlife they support are integral to rural economies, understanding economic trends in rangeland regions is a valuable contribution to wildlife management. This chapter reflects on and synthesizes the experiences of a group of academic and practitioner collaborators working to balance the needs of wildlife and rural ranching communities in a priority conservation region, the central Montana portion of the Northern Great Plains. The chapter summarizes both the challenges facing ranching economies and policy and market strategies available to encourage conservation by private landowners. Its main emphasis, however, is to invite readers into a different kind of conversation about wildlife conservation’s role in rangeland economies and livelihoods. The chapter introduces the concept of diverse economies, a way of understanding the economy through social relationships as opposed to merely the exchange of money, with a brief summary of its origins and perspective. It then draws on the theory and practice of diverse economies to map relationships and activities at the intersection of rangeland conservation and community development in central Montana. In emphasizing the diversity of practices that make up “the economy” and the intimate intertwining of the economy with ecologies, diverse economies thinking opens up space to approach the complex ways that the livelihoods of rural residents and rangeland wildlife overlap and the search for adaptive solutions to conservation challenges.

Abstract Natural and anthropogenic disturbances may threaten big game migration. Migration corridors span both biophysical and jurisdictional barriers, which create challenges for effective species conservation. Though corridor conservation in the Intermountain West of the United States gained traction with the 2018 Secretarial Order that directed the U.S. Department of the Interior to enhance habitat quality within big game winter ranges and identify priority migration corridors in the western U.S., public support and active policies at sub regional scales remain polarized. We surveyed registered voters in Wyoming, USA, to assess perspectives and preferences to conserve land and habitat for big game migration. We used online focus groups and phone surveys to assess attitudes and opinions specific to support for policies that conserve migrations, the believability of interest groups, and the efficacy of conservation messaging frames. Our results show that Wyoming voters favored policies that benefit both humans and big game, associated higher credibility with state agencies than federal agencies, and found messages that specify human‐centered benefits most compelling. We assessed beliefs across demographics, such as political ideology, but found few significant differences. Our work provides insight into dynamic perspectives and preferences for big game corridor conservation among critically affected public, which can aid future research and engagement to advance big game management.

•Natural solutions, such as “avoided conversion of grasslands,” offer agricultural land managers a way to mitigate climate change while monetizing climate benefits.•Managers who avoid converting grasslands to other uses, such as row crops, can quantify the amount of stored carbon and sell credits, but high costs of developing carbon credit projects price many landowners out of the carbon market.•Aggregation can create economies of scale, which lower barriers of entry and allow more landowners to participate in the market.•Given the current low prices in the carbon market, aggregation is not a panacea and aggregated projects are not financially viable for many landowners.•As the demand for carbon credits continues to grow, land managers can position themselves to take advantage of carbon market opportunities should prices increase, and projects become financially viable.

Conserving Yellowstone's Wildlife 2022 241 that can reduce overall population viability). 22 Large carnivores can kill livestock and raise quality-of-life concerns, such as grizzly bears which can kill or badly injure people. 23 Large ungulates also create concerns as they may transmit costly diseases such as brucellosis, 24 compete with cattle for forage, depredate hay fields, and damage or destroy fences. 25 Fourth, some private landowners in the GYE seasonally graze livestock on nearby U.S. Forest Service (USFS) or Bureau of Land Management (BLM) allotments. 26This grazing activity can have both positive (e.g., weed suppression, fire fuels reduction) 27 and negative (e.g., stream damage, increased carnivore-livestock conflict) effects on the landscape. 28 Finally, private lands in the GYE are vulnerable to fragmentation and development. 29 Landowners may even be motivated to sell or subdivide their land in response to challenges with wildlife, which fragments land, and further hinders conservation goals. 30 The need for large-scale conservation encompassing private lands in the GYE is consonant with several broader trends in ecology, conservation science, and public understanding.A large body of work conducted since the 1980s has shown the 22

Conservation across jurisdictional boundaries can help achieve recovery goals for species at risk, provide funding for conservation actions by private landowners, and reduce regulatory burdens. Habitat crediting programs, a type of offsite mitigation, are a relatively new form of cross-boundary conservation. To better understand the current status of these programs and their perceived strengths and shortcomings for species conservation, credit providers (e.g., private landowners), and credit purchasers (e.g., federal agencies), we surveyed the literature and online resources, and engaged with a small group of professionals who have been closely involved with habitat crediting programs. From these resources and interactions, we identified nine habitat crediting programs in the United States. Those engaged in these programs suggest that the programs may provide regulatory relief, a positive return on investment for participants, and benefits to species conservation in some contexts. However, economic and institutional challenges include up-front costs of participation and divergent preferences for short-term or permanent contracts. Furthermore, programs tend to measure ecological success by monitoring habitat amount and condition rather than species' abundance, survival, and reproduction. As such, monitoring is not always sufficiently rigorous to assess ecological outcomes and account for environmental change. We suggest that habitat crediting programs hold promise for meeting multiple objectives for at-risk species, landowners, and developers, but their potential often is hampered by high transaction costs and a lack of the ecological information needed to evaluate success.

Abstract Habitat exchange programs, a form of biodiversity offsetting, aim to compensate for negative impacts in one area by conservation in another. A newer subset of habitat exchange programs includes programs that have three distinct characteristics: they allow for temporary (as opposed to only permanent) credits; they are centralized and overseen by nonregulatory, independent administrators; and they exist in the absence of mandatory mitigation policy. As a result, these programs may be relatively flexible and practical in areas where environmental regulation is unpalatable politically. We synthesized gray and peer‐reviewed literature to evaluate these programs’ strengths and shortcomings. On the basis of our synthesis, we suggest that temporary conservation credits in habitat exchanges could encourage participation of landowners in conservation and enable programs to respond to environmental change. However, temporary credits can lead to trade‐offs between flexibility and uncertainty. Moreover, there is little evidence that these habitat exchange programs have benefited target species, and many challenges associated with offsetting programs persist. Newer forms of habitat exchange programs may have potential to achieve no net loss or net gains of biodiversity to a greater extent than other forms of offsetting, but this potential has not yet been realized.

Abstract Ranching communities in 10 Western states self‐organized to create conservation organizations affiliated with state livestock associations and supporting conservation efforts compatible with agricultural production. These “rangeland trusts” collectively conserve over 2.7 million acres through conservation easements. We identify these efforts as a type of community‐based conservation based on the collective nature of the efforts and the balance between community needs and conservation. They differ from traditional CBC efforts with ties to industry groups and a focus on private lands that provide public goods. A coalition of rangeland trusts formed in 2006, leading to a form of multilevel governance that establishes operating principles and actively advocates for ranch land conservation. We suggest that existing industry structures can assist to scale out conservation, bridging organizations can facilitate novel interactions and policy change, and tensions on the meaning and implementation of conservation must be navigated at each scale of interaction.

AbstractEcosystem engineers are organisms that influence their environment, which includes alterations leading to habitat provisioning for other species. Perhaps the most well‐examined guild of species provisioning habitat for other species is tree cavity excavators or woodpeckers (Picidae). Many studies have examined the suite of secondary cavity users that rely on woodpeckers, and how the ecological network of secondary users, collectively referred to as the nest web, changes across communities. Despite similar habitat provisioning processes, fewer studies have assessed the suite of species associated with burrowers providing access to subterranean habitat. Here, we begin to characterize the burrow web provisioned by American badgers (Taxidea taxus) and evaluate the diversity and frequency of species interactions we detected at abandoned badger burrows in Wyoming, USA. We deployed camera traps at 23 badger burrows and identified interactions with the burrow by birds, mammals, and reptiles. Overall, we discovered 31 other species utilizing badger burrows, consisting of 12 mammals, 18 birds, and 1 reptile. Mammals, other than American badgers themselves and other fossorial species such as ground squirrels (Urocitellus sp.), frequently using burrows included mice (Peromyscus sp.), long‐tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis), and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii). Of the 18 bird species detected, most accounted for <5% of overall detections, besides chipping sparrows (Spizella passerina) at 7.2%–11.5% of detections. The most common category of detection by bird species was foraging, contrary to mammals, which used the burrow frequently and were commonly observed entering and exiting the burrow. This work provides additional context on the ecological role of American badgers within their environment. More broadly, this work scratches the surface of many remaining questions to explore with the aim of advancing our understandings about burrow webs across the diversity of burrowing species and the communities in which they occur.

To protect species of concern in rangeland systems, managers and policy makers must understand the human dimensions of the ecosystems those species rely on. Sagebrush (Artemesia spp. L.) ecosystems are among the most extensive rangelands in the western United States and have been of particular concern in recent years due to the decline of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and other sagebrush obligate species. While there is a substantial body of literature on the biophysical aspects of sagebrush ecosystems, the human dimensions of sagebrush management are not well understood and social science research is distributed throughout a wide range of journals and disciplines. We used systematic review principles to conduct a synthesis of literature to assess existent knowledge on the human dimensions of sagebrush management and conservation and to identify areas for future research. We cast a broad net to include studies from economics, political science, social psychology, sociology, governance, anthropology, and other fields. Using Web of Science and search terms sourced from our research questions and relevant stakeholders, we identified 78 studies meeting the following criteria: 1) the research was conducted within the distribution of North American sagebrush and 2) the research included social science methods. We coded the 78 studies to identify the focus of research on resource issue(s), social issue(s), geographical region, and additional research needs. The literature focused on resource issues primarily related to fire, land use, sage-grouse, and rangeland management, while social issues emphasized collaboration, stakeholder perceptions and attitudes, and modes of governance. Research gaps include assessments of the longevity and ecological impacts of collaboration, perceptions and attitudes surrounding wild horse and burro management, and governance approaches to managing invasives and ecological restoration. Research that includes input from Native Nations is lacking, and inclusive social science relevant to diverse stakeholders in sagebrush is overdue.

•Holistic Resource Management (HRM) is a ranch management strategy plagued by controversy; experimental evidence from ecological studies has consistently failed to support that HRM provides ecological benefits, yet many ranchers staunchly support the method.•Using a qualitative approach, we found that the HRM processes used on four case study ranches in eastern Colorado provided a systematic framework for key ranch stakeholders to improve long-term, adaptive approaches to managing ranches as complex socioecological systems.•Notably, the ranchers emphasized the planning benefits of HRM over the grazing benefits, suggesting the value of the system is not in how the cattle are grazed but in how it changes the way ranchers make decisions about how to graze their cattle and manage the many other complexities of operating a ranch.•Approaching HRM as a planning framework versus as a grazing strategy may be a key factor in the difference in claims between ranchers practicing HRM and researchers studying grazing systems.

A diverse and inclusive scientific community is more productive, innovative and impactful, yet ecology and evolutionary biology continues to be dominated by white male faculty. We quantify faculty engagement in activities related to diversity and inclusion and identify factors that either facilitate or hinder participation. Through a nationwide survey, we show that faculty with underrepresented identities disproportionally engage in diversity and inclusion activities, yet such engagement was not considered important for tenure. Faculty perceived time and funding as major limitations, which suggests that institutions should reallocate resources and reconsider how faculty are evaluated to promote shared responsibility in advancing diversity and inclusion.

Complex socio-environmental challenges require interdisciplinary, team-based research capacity. Graduate students are fundamental to building such capacity, yet formal opportunities for graduate students to develop these capacities and skills are uncommon. This paper presents an assessment of the Graduate Pursuit (GP) program, a formal interdisciplinary team science graduate research and training program administered by the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC). Quantitative and qualitative assessment of the program’s first cohort revealed that participants became significantly more comfortable with interdisciplinary research and team science approaches, increased their capacity to work across disciplines, and were enabled to produce tangible research outcomes. Qualitative analysis of four themes—(1) discipline, specialization, and shared purpose, (2) interpersonal skills and personality, (3) communication and teamwork, and (4) perceived costs and benefits—encompass participants’ positive and negative experiences and support findings from past assessments. The findings also identify challenges and benefits related to individual personality traits and team personality orientation, the importance of perceiving a sense of autonomy and independence, and the benefit of graduate training programs independent of the university and graduate program environment.

Private lands provide important habitat for biodiversity and are critical to many conservation efforts. With increasing awareness of the importance of private lands, a broad suite of strategies to engage landowners in conservation is emerging. The success of these strategies is contingent on a skilled workforce of conservation practitioners that can scale-up these efforts and meet both ecological and livelihood objectives. Although professional capacity building is an acknowledged priority in the conservation community, the knowledge and experience of conservation practitioners (e.g., individuals working at land trusts and government agencies) has not been widely assessed. Here, we surveyed practitioners in the United States to gauge their familiarity with seven approaches to private lands conservation in different landscape contexts. Most practitioners were familiar with only two conservation tools, conservation easements and direct payment programs (e.g., Farm Bill programs), and familiarity varied among different types of organizations. Although these tools were perceived to restrict residential development and restore habitat, respectively, they had limited reported impact on climate change mitigation or relevance to urban areas. Widespread reliance on just two tools also raises important questions about the vulnerability of private lands conservation efforts to political and institutional changes and the ability to meet multiple conservation objectives in a world undergoing rapid climate and land use change. We argue for targeted efforts to enhance the professional capacity of conservation practitioners to expand the toolbox and achieve multiple conservation goals on diverse private lands.

Investments in watershed services (IWS) programs, in which downstream water users pay upstream watershed service suppliers for actions that protect drinking water, are increasing in number and scope. IWS programs represent over $170 million of investment in over 4.3 million ha of watersheds, providing water to over 230 million people. It is not yet fully clear what factors contribute to the establishment and sustainability of IWS. We conducted a representative global analysis of 416 of the world's largest cities, including 59 (14%) with IWS programs. Using random forest ensemble learning methods, we evaluated the relative importance of social and ecological factors as predictors of IWS presence. IWS programs are more likely present in source watersheds with more agricultural land and less protected area than otherwise similar watersheds. Our results suggest potential to expand IWS as a strategy for drinking water protection and also contribute to decisions regarding suitable program locations.