•Rangelands preserve biodiversity by connecting fragmented landscapes. As gray wolf (Canis lupus) populations expand throughout the United States, they increasingly move through rangelands, leading to conflicts with livestock.•We evaluated the efficacy of both lethal and nonlethal wolf-livestock conflict mitigation methods and found nonlethal methods achieved more significant risk reduction for cattle. We focused on wolf-cattle conflict mitigation, as US Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services (USDA WS) reports most wolf-livestock conflicts in the United States involve cattle.•We examined the USDA WS Nonlethal Initiative, which indicated a growing shift toward nonlethal wolf management. We found nonlethal methods, such as range riding, harassment, deterrents, and electric fencing showed promise, but their use varied geographically.•Nonlethal livestock protection methods may effectively reduce conflicts while addressing the needs of ranchers, conservationists, and animal rights advocates. They deserve more significant investment and research, beginning with the USDA WS.•We developed a toolkit for ranchers and rangeland managers interested in nonlethal livestock protection, which offers information and resources for implementing conflict mitigation techniques.

Ecology is the study of the distribution and abundance of organisms and how these organisms contribute to ecosystem functions. As the footprint of humans on the planet grows, ecology increasingly seeks to predict and manage the response of natural systems to human disturbances such as oil spill, wildfires, and climate disruption. In practice, the science of ecology blends observation of natural systems, manipulation of environmental and biotic factors in the field, more highly controlled laboratory or microcosm studies, and both qualitative and mathematical theory. The major concepts and theories of ecology concern the dynamics of populations as well as the patterns and processes of communities and ecosystems, and how they respond to catastrophes and disturbances.

Concern about humanity’s detachment from nature has spawned a global push to increase the availability of green spaces within cities. One impetus for this movement is a growing collection of studies documenting an association between improved human well-being and exposure to nature. The challenge lies in translating this research into pragmatic recommendations for cities. The usefulness of the existing research portfolio is diminished by the limitations of prevailing research designs. For example, most nature exposure studies (>80%) are observational. The rare randomized manipulative experiments tend to be indoors or virtual and rely on nature exposures on the order of ten to fifteen minutes. “Nature” and “biodiversity” are commonly invoked together as benefiting human well-being despite little evidence that biodiversity has particular importance for human psychological and emotional health. The most glaring gap in nature exposure research is the neglect of differences among cultures and ethnic groups with respect to the nature they prefer. In the few cases where researchers looked for differences among groups, they often found heterogeneous responses. Finally, few studies have compared greening interventions to other possible efforts to improve urban life. Thus, the utopian city of the future might be resplendent with urban parks on every block, but it is not clear whether those parks should offer basketball and pickleball courts, or small woodlands with a cornucopia of birds. We advocate for the next generation of nature exposure research that better informs the envisioning of our future sustainable cities with enhanced and equitable access to nature.

Seafood farming is heralded for its economic opportunities and its potential to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with food production. Yet the persistent lack of awareness among the US public about these potential benefits of seafood farming is often cited as a barrier to social acceptance and industry growth. We employed two exploratory online surveys of residents of western and northeastern US coastal states and a unique message-testing approach to explore: (1) how existing opinions about seafood farming vary across sociodemographic attributes, geography, and prior familiarity with aquaculture; (2) the malleability of opinions about seafood farming; and (3) what benefits of marine aquaculture broadly and of seaweed farming specifically were viewed as the strongest reasons to support industry expansion, and what messengers are most trusted to share that information. We found that baseline attitudes about seafood farming strongly correlate with prior familiarity and that opinions about both marine aquaculture and seaweed farming were highly malleable, at least in the short term. If confirmed by further studies, our results suggest that messages emphasizing benefits in terms of environmental sustainability, as opposed to economic benefits or social benefits, may be an important tool to better engage residents of western and northeastern US coastal states with seafood farming expansion.

Hunting and trapping of gray wolves (Canis lupus) has increased dramatically in the "lower 48" states of the United States. We assess the data used to justify the intense hunting pressure on wolves, and find an absence of accessible biological data. We find there is a clear need for more transparent reporting of livestock losses, wolf kills, and especially the numbers and types of nontarget species captured in traps set for wolves. Also lacking is a full accounting of benefits and costs of hunting wolves, with a noteworthy failure to incorporate the ecosystem functions served by wolves. As apex predators, wolves warrant multi-objective management as opposed to management focused largely on livestock interests and concerns.

Food insecurity early warning can provide time to mitigate unfolding crises; however, drought remains a large source of uncertainty. The challenge is to filter unclear or conflicting signals from various climatic and socio-economic variables and link them to food security outcomes. Integrating lag-1 autocorrelation diagnostics into remotely sensed observations from the Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) mission and food prices, we found dramatic improvement in anticipating the timing and intensity of food crises, except in conflict settings. We analysed drought-induced food crises globally in the SMAP record (since 2015; approximately five per year). The change in soil moisture autocorrelation, which we term the Soil Moisture Auto-Regressive Threshold (SMART), signalled an accurate food security transition for all cases studied here ( P < 0.05; n = 212), including lead time of up to three to six months for every case. The SMART trigger anticipates the timing of the transition and the magnitude of the food security change among small to large transitions, both into and out of crises ( R 2 = 0.80–0.83). While we do not evaluate out-of-sample forecast accuracy using our model, our findings suggest a significant advancement in the capabilities of food security early-warning diagnostics and could save lives and resources.

Novel conservation interventions such as assisted migration or gene editing inevitably raise the specter of potential unintended consequences, which can then delay or derail action. Underappreciated are the very real costs of inaction. The rate of climate change and the pace of extinction continue to outstrip predictions (IPCC, 2019). The current pace of unprecedented environmental change calls for more attention being given to the consequences of failing to intervene. While it is important to plan for potential unintended risks of any intervention, it is just as important to mitigate the risks of carrying on with business as usual in the face of increasingly severe environmental threats. To counter the focus on potential unintended consequences, we hope that the catchphrase "Intended Consequences" will help to keep the intended benefits to nature front-of-mind during a responsible planning process and through the various stages of intervention and monitoring. The goal of "Intended Consequences" goes beyond identifying conservation objectives and evaluating conservation success (sensu Brooks, Wright, & Sheil, 2009). Our goal is a rebalancing of the risk–benefit equation to give additional consideration to the costs of inaction and the potential benefits of intervention. Although interventions are often initially controversial, early stakeholder engagement, and other best practices can result in intended consequences and generate important benefits for nature. For example, as Scottish Natural Heritage began to consider reintroducing beavers, people raised the potential for unintended consequences that would negatively impact farming, forestry, and fisheries, particularly salmonids (Gaywood, 2017). Frustrating delays motivated unauthorized beaver releases prior to formal reintroduction. A complicated aftermath resulted in many intended ecosystem benefits but also some land management costs and conflict. This experience strongly influenced The Scottish Code for Conservation Translocations (National Species Reintroduction Forum, 2014) that promotes best practice via maximizing the potential biological and socio-economic benefits (intended consequences) and minimizing and mitigating any potential risks (unintended consequences). The wide success of the Scottish code underscores the value of translocation for restoration as well as the importance of research and early stakeholder engagement to alleviate concerns about unintended consequences (Gaywood, 2017). In another example, the US National Park Service and Island Conservation proposed to eradicate rats from Anacapa Island in order to restore seabird habitat. Stakeholders protested that the rodenticide intended to kill rats would negatively impact additional taxa (Howald et al., 2005). After much debate, disruption by activists, and a court ruling in favor of the project, the intervention proceeded, and rats were successfully eradicated. Ten years later, multiple seabird species had recolonized Anacapa and monitoring efforts documented only minimal impacts to non-target taxa (Newton et al., 2016). In addition, stakeholders and practitioners collaborated to outline principles for future wildlife control (Dubois et al., 2017). This project and ongoing engagement paved the way for exploring genetic interventions, which may introduce a new level of complexity and controversy but could offer a more humane method to remove rodents. These examples and others demonstrate that Intended Consequences are achieved by addressing the potential for unintended consequences while keeping an eye on desired conservation benefits. Revive & Restore virtually convened the Intended Consequences Workshop in June 2020 to discuss the hypothesis that, while unintended consequences receive a lot of media coverage, the successful achievement of "intended consequences" is underplayed, even in the scientific literature. Organizers also identified concerns that over-emphasis on unintended consequences could pose a barrier to innovation. At the workshop, 57 participants shared data demonstrating that past interventions routinely yielded conservation benefits. Leading conservation practitioners dissected the lessons learned from successful case studies. The group integrated diverse disciplines, discussed strategies to be more inclusive, and drafted initial guidelines for genetic intervention. Workshop participants agreed that now is the time to integrate the responsible development of next-generation interventions into current conservation practice. The papers in this special issue of Conservation Science and Practice report syntheses of data on conservation success rates or real-world experience regarding intended versus unintended consequences. Authors explore best practices gleaned from past and on-going conservation interventions, along with cultural and ethical issues that require greater consideration. Novak, Phelan, and Weber (2021) reviewed 140 years of species translocations in the United States. Over the last four decades, conservation translocations and biological control releases of 1,711 different species routinely yielded conservation gains. Both reintroduction (Smith & Peterson, 2021) and intentional genetic introgression (Newhouse & Powell, 2020) are part of a spectrum of genetic interventions that have historically succeeded and can facilitate ecosystem restoration. Two papers question prominent historical conventions within the field of conservation: the maintenance of ecosystem integrity (Rohwer & Marris, 2021) and an aversion to hybridization in the name of maintaining genetic purity (Hirashiki, Kareiva, & Marvier, 2021). Brister, Holbrook, and Palmer (2021) diagnose the causes and consequences of an "ethos of restraint." Responsible research and engagement protocols (Barnhill-Dilling & Delborne, 2021), intersections between governance, constituencies, and risk (Burgiel et al., 2021), and careful forecasting models (Mozelewski & Scheller, 2021) are areas essential to successfully planning for intended consequences. Post-workshop, 46 participants drafted a statement to guide scientists, practitioners and other stakeholders as they safely harness the power of innovation for conservation (Phelan et al., 2021). One primary issue that emerged at the workshop concerns inclusivity. Responses to conservation are rooted in cultural values and worldviews, yet conservationists can still be surprised by what people consider improved outcomes and appropriate human action. Conservation has often failed to be inclusive and this must change (Taitingfong, 2020; Tallis & Lubchenco, 2014). The cultural knowledge of indigenous peoples in particular often proves crucial to the success of conservation initiatives, especially within the ecosystems that they have managed for millennia. As New Zealand begins to regulate gene editing technologies applied to environmental challenges, Maori perspectives are integrated into decision-making (Hudson et al., 2019). This example should remind regulators and practitioners that as conservation embraces a wider diversity of technologies, it must also embrace a wider diversity of stakeholders with their own visions for interacting with nature. Second, although IUCN (2013) established guidelines for translocations and best practices documents exist for other categories of conservation intervention, workshop participants came to the conclusion that there would be great value in establishing a Code of Practice for Genetic Intervention. While conservation projects that leverage new technologies are underway, researchers reported at the workshop that they face uncertainty. In other fields, such as agriculture, generalized guidelines for genetic interventions have streamlined efforts and reduced inconsistency. We expect that a Code of Practice for Genetic Intervention will help conservationists confidently apply genetic tools. The third point that emerged was that practitioners and policymakers will always need to weigh the risks and benefits of action and inaction. As the window of opportunity to save our ecosystems closes, we need to use all available tools to achieve Intended Consequences. These realizations, together with the Statement and the papers included here, position our field to responsibly conduct conservation interventions. We look forward to a time when conservationists, regulators, and peoples of diverse cultures can feel confident that conservation interventions may not lead to harm, but to outcomes that forge a desirable future for nature and for people. The workshop and this special issue were supported by Revive & Restore, University of Wisconsin-Madison, The Nature Conservancy of California, Gerry Ohrstrom, and Amy and Mark Tercek. We would like to thank Stewart Brand, Bridget Baumgartner, Ben Novak, Martin Gaywood, Gregg Howald, Heath Packard, the editor, and an anonymous reviewer who read early versions and gave constructive feedback that improved this manuscript. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. All authors have contributed and have given final approval of the version to be published. No data were collected for this article. No data were collected for this article.

AbstractConservation interventions such as assisted migration and genetic alterations are controversial in part because, through unintended hybridization events, they may imperil native species. Threats could stem from hybrid offspring having altered fitness or from genetic swamping due to extensive introgression of non‐native genes. Over the last 40 years, papers discussing hybridization increasingly use value‐laden terminology (e.g., “genetic contamination”). Such terms presume that any amount of hybridization equates to harm, but this perspective is at odds with modern evolutionary theory's recognition of hybridization as a creative force that can accelerate evolution or spur adaptive breakthroughs. To assess the evidence undergirding perceptions of hybridization threats, we examined the IUCN's Global Invasive Species Database (GISD). Of 870 invasive species, the GISD identified 35 as potentially threatening endemic taxa via hybridization. For each of these 35 species, we assessed the quality of data that the GISD cited pertaining to hybridization. Direct evidence for hybridization was cited for only 16 species, and there was neither direct nor indirect evidence demonstrating reduced fitness of hybrid offspring for 18 species. In our era of rapid environmental change, it is time to examine hybridization case‐by‐case and not to presume that hybridization always presents a threat to biodiversity, but rather, to consider it as a potential pathway to species survival.

The fear of unintended consequences is frequently used to argue against conservation interventions that range from climate engineering, to genetic editing of imperiled species, to actions as seemingly mundane as using seeds from non-local sources in restoration projects. There is no denying that unintended consequences are real and worthy of concern. Indeed, environmental textbooks are filled with descriptions of past interventions gone awry (such as the introduction of cane toads to Australia for biocontrol, the impacts of long-term wildfire suppression, or the use of DDT to control insect pests). However, there are also numerous counterexamples of interventions turning out as planned (for instance, barging salmon smolts around Snake River dams and human-assisted hybridization rescuing the depleted gene pool of Florida panthers). For actions under consideration, the question is how to weigh the possible unintended consequences versus the highly likely intended benefits. A June 2020 workshop (https://reviv​erest​ore.org/inten​ded-conse​quences), organized by Revive & Restore, assembled an international group of conservationists (including wildlife biologists, restoration scientists, geneticists, ethicists, and social scientists) to re-examine the precautionary principle and its associated focus on unintended and unanticipated consequences. Two observations make apparent the need for this reassessment. First, accelerating anthropogenic climate change and the expanding human footprint create ever-greater urgency for actions that could avert disasters or prevent human-driven extinctions. With most rivers dammed, a nitrogen cycle dominated by human alterations, and such severe global warming that within 50 years as many as one in three humans could be forced to migrate in search of a habitable environment (https://nyti.ms/2E5a0Wi), conservationists do not have the luxury of "doing nothing" out of fear of unintended consequences. Caution is prudent, but paralysis is unconscionable. Second, the science of risk assessment has advanced so that, although it is impossible to eliminate uncertainty, the likelihood of horrific ecological surprises is much less now than in previous decades. Ecologists today better understand ecosystems and indirect effects than they did in the 1960s and 1970s when several well-intended, but ill-fated, introductions were conducted (eg introducing the American red squirrel to Newfoundland to augment the diet of pine martens; introducing the seed weevil Rhinocyllus conicus to control exotic thistles in North America). Lessons learned with each intervention reduce the chance for future errors. Not only is risk assessment improving, but some of the tools for intervention are becoming refined. For example, the genomic and phenotypic changes that result from gene editing are much more precise than those wrought by more widely accepted techniques like hybridization and mutagenesis. Obviously, the answer is not to blithely ignore unintended consequences and adopt an "anything goes" attitude. However, it is time to recalibrate our traditional cautionary approach to environmental decision making with fine-tuning in four dimensions. First, the intended consequences of proposed interventions must carry more weight in analyses. Consider the public debate over transgenic Bt crops. The intended benefit of reducing the application of broadly toxic insecticides has largely been overshadowed by fears of environmental harms, for which there is no convincing evidence. Second, scientists should avoid being overly influenced by examples of disaster from generations ago and give more credit to recently accumulated empirical evidence. From reintroductions to genetic rescues, the vast majority of contemporary environmental interventions have produced their intended positive outcomes, yet a few historical cases of problematic outcomes continue to dominate public perception. Moreover, all actions, including inaction, entail the potential for unintended consequences. For instance, growing evidence shows that protected area creation – an intervention largely embraced by conservationists – typically displaces, rather than curtails, environmental harms and can prove counterproductive if local communities are alienated. Third, risk assessment relies on tools ranging from controlled experiments and practical experience to models and simulations. All of these tools help characterize risk, but empirical data should be far more reassuring than theoretical, but untested, models. Thirty years of globally widespread Bt crops with no ill-effects ought to inspire confidence, whereas speculative interventions such as solar geoengineering warrant greater precaution. Lastly, and most importantly, scientists need to recognize that the worst unintended consequences may not be environmental or ecological, but rather social. A carbon tax might be a great way to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and a protected area may secure a remnant population of a declining species, but such actions disproportionately impose costs on marginalized human communities. A wider variety of voices must be invited to weigh in on what intended outcomes are desired, and how best to achieve them. While risk reduction efforts now better recognize and minimize unintended environmental harms, much work remains to address unintended social and cultural consequences. MICHELLE MARVIER Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA PETER KAREIVA Aquarium of the Pacific, Long Beach, CA

Contemporary environmental policy is replete with measures that do not fully resolve a problem but are proposed instead to ‘buy time’ for the development of more-durable solutions. We define such measures as ‘stopgap measures’ and examine examples from wildfire risk management, hydrochlorofluorocarbon regulation and Colorado River water management. We introduce an analytical framework to assess stopgaps and apply this framework to solar geoengineering, a controversial stopgap for reducing emissions. Studying stopgaps as a distinct response to environmental crises can help us weigh their merits in comparison to alternative policy and management measures. Environmental policy often delays addressing problems. This Perspective defines such ‘stopgap measures’, considers examples, and applies to solar geoengineering a new framework for assessing stopgaps.

As the world’s economies seek to use new renewable energy developments to address climate change and reinvigorate economies post-COVID-19, avoiding a fixation on targets in decision-making will ensure positive social and environmental outcomes.

Early warning systems are essential tool for humanitarian preparedness and response. The diversity of inputs required, ranging from agricultural production estimates to market price variability and weather forecasts, means that interpreting food security signals is not an easy task. Each of these inputs is fraught with uncertainty which analysts need to assess when making projections about future food security. Understanding the accuracy rates of early warning systems is therefore of paramount importance to enable improvements to food security prediction. However, to date, limited analyses of early warning accuracy have been conducted. Here we analyze Famine Early Warning System Network (FEWS NET) early warning data for the Greater Horn of Africa and show that, despite accuracy in projections, there remain important challenges for food security projections. The two major sources of uncertainty are associated with complex weather phenomena and conflict – with uncertainty in weather forecasts being twice as important as conflict in overall FEWS NET accuracy. Indeed, the least accurate projections are recorded in seasons with particularly complex weather events such as the 2015/2016 El Niño Southern Oscillation as well as in zones that are affected by internal conflict (e.g. South Sudan). With respect to predicting crisis transitions, areas with more frequent transitions tend to be more accurate, possibly because predicting the drivers behind these transitions are better understood. Our novel analysis provides a framework to invest resources in specific aspects of early warning. We also hope that by measuring the reliability of these systems, we can increase the confidence of decision makers to act early to mitigate the growing risks posed by hunger and famine.

Famines have long been associated with drought. With the severity of droughts growing in association with climate change, there is increasing pressure to do a better job predicting famines and delivering international aid to avert human suffering and civil instability. We examine recent advances in remote sensing technology, focusing on the latency, historical availability and spatial and temporal scales of the data these satellites provide. Because of their global coverage, seven variables derived from satellite observations emerge as especially pertinent to drought and famine: precipitation (TRMM/GPM), groundwater (GRACE/GRACE-FO), snow (MODIS), soil moisture (SMOS, SMAP, Sentinel-1), evapotranspiration (MODIS, ECOSTRESS), vegetation health (Landsat, AVHRR, MODIS, SPOT) and chlorophyll fluorescence (OCO-2). We discuss tipping point theory as a possible framework for taking advantage of long time series of these satellite data where they exist in order to enhance the effectiveness of existing famine early warning systems.

This is an unformatted draft of a chapter/article that has been accepted for publication by Cambridge University Press in the book “Agricultural Resilience: Perspectives from Ecology and Economics” edited by Sarah Gardner, Stephen Ramsden, Rosie Hails due for publication in late 2018: https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/publications/ecological-reviews/ https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Agricultural-Resilience_Bookcontent.pdf

This chapter outlines the problems of exaggeration, misuse of statistics, and publication bias that plague all scientific disciplines, but that may be especially acute in the mission-oriented field of conservation. Because conservation describes itself as a crisis discipline, its scientific publications tend to reinforce that view, even when the data are lacking. And when data run counter to accepted wisdom, out of fear such results might be misinterpreted or misused to counter conservation’s mission, the review process sometimes favors dogma over data. Black-box models, data gaps filled with expert opinion, and a general lack of easy access to key data make the testing of alternative hypotheses or interpretations extremely difficult. Self-correction and iteration are key to scientific progress. In conservation especially, with the fate of biodiversity in the balance, it is essential that conservationists get the science right, even if it means admitting mistakes.

Executive Summary Several conservation organizations and scientists are promoting “sustainable intensification” as a strategy for simultaneously feeding the expanding human population and minimizing the need to clear more land for agriculture. While it is clear that higher crop yields per hectare can reduce pressure on land, there is no guarantee these yield gains will come without tradeoffs that degrade the environment in other dimensions. For this reason, there is a need for sustainability metrics that reflect the outcomes of agriculture as opposed to the practices of agriculture. Ideally sustainability metrics for agriculture should rely on data that exist at multiple scales, and that can be remotely sensed as much as possible. By focusing on outcomes, one can escape the often ideological arguments about GMO versus nonGMO, organic versus non-organic, and so forth. Most importantly, by focusing on outcomes, conservation interventions in the name of “sustainable intensification” can be evaluated.

“This changes everything!” reportedly wrote Robert MacArthur, one of the most influential ecologists of all time, in a handwritten letter to a young Bob Paine sometime in the late 1960s (Roberts 2016). How foretelling those three words would be for the field of ecology. At the time, Bob was an assistant professor of zoology at the University of Washington and had just published his now seminal 1966 paper on keystone predation in The American Naturalist (Paine 1966). Community ecology was thriving, with exciting discussions of how many species could coexist in any community and what factors governed the composition of communities. Two theories dominated the conversation. One was that intense competition drove populations to evolve smaller and narrower niches through time, ultimately resulting in more species packing into each habitat (MacArthur 1957). The other idea was physiologically based and posited that species segregated predictably along physical gradients—living where they did best, resulting in diversity patterns generated by physical forcing (Whittaker 1962). Bob’s work showing that sea stars regulated species coexistence on rocky shores (Paine 1966) transformed the world of ecology for two reasons. First, he convincingly showed that consumers could be the keystones that maintained species richness in a community. Second, it helped to usher in a new era of field experiments and demonstrated the power of manipulations in nature (fig. 1). Although it would take another 20–30 years of dialogue and publications, ecology would shift in large part because of Bob’s findings, from one where physical factors were thought to predominately control species distribution patterns to one in which species interactions, as well as abiotic factors, did so.