Is there a special conservation biology?

Ecological risk assessment (ERA) is the process used to evaluate the safety of manufactured chemicals to the environment. Here we review the pros and cons of ERA across levels of biological organization, including suborganismal (e.g., biomarkers), individual, population, community, ecosystem and landscapes levels. Our review revealed that level of biological organization is often related negatively with ease at assessing cause–effect relationships, ease of high-throughput screening of large numbers of chemicals (it is especially easier for suborganismal endpoints), and uncertainty of the ERA because low levels of biological organization tend to have a large distance between their measurement (what is quantified) and assessment endpoints (what is to be protected). In contrast, level of biological organization is often related positively with sensitivity to important negative and positive feedbacks and context dependencies within biological systems, and ease at capturing recovery from adverse contaminant effects. Some endpoints did not show obvious trends across levels of biological organization, such as the use of vertebrate animals in chemical testing and ease at screening large numbers of species, and other factors lacked sufficient data across levels of biological organization, such as repeatability, variability, cost per study and cost per species of effects assessment, the latter of which might be a more defensible way to compare costs of ERAs than cost per study. To compensate for weaknesses of ERA at any particular level of biological organization, we also review mathematical modeling approaches commonly used to extrapolate effects across levels of organization. Finally, we provide recommendations for next generation ERA, submitting that if there is an ideal level of biological organization to conduct ERA, it will only emerge if ERA is approached simultaneously from the bottom of biological organization up as well as from the top down, all while employing mathematical modeling approaches where possible to enhance ERA. Because top-down ERA is unconventional, we also offer some suggestions for how it might be implemented efficaciously. We hope this review helps researchers in the field of ERA fill key information gaps and helps risk assessors identify the best levels of biological organization to conduct ERAs with differing goals.

Conservation biology emerged in the mid-1980s, drawing on established disciplines and integrating them in pursuit of a coherent goal: the protection and perpetuation of the Earth's biological diversity. Opportunistic in its borrowing and application of knowledge, conservation biology had its roots within the established biological sciences and resource management disciplines but has continually incorporated insights from the empirical experience of resource managers, from the social sciences and humanities, and from diverse cultural sources. The Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) has represented the field's core constituency, while expanding that constituency in keeping with the field's integrative spirit. Conservation Biology has served as SCB's flagship publication, promoting research, dialog, debate, and application of the field's essential concepts. Over the last 20 years the field, SCB, and the journal have evolved to meet changing conservation needs, to explore gaps in our knowledge base, to incorporate new information from related fields, to build professional capacity, and to provide expanded opportunities for international participation. In turn, the field, SCB, and journal have prompted change in related fields, organizations, and publications. In its dedication to advancing the scientific foundations of biodiversity conservation and placing that science at the service of society in a world whose variety, wildness, and beauty we care for conservation biology represents both a continuation and radical reconfiguration of the traditional relationship between science and conservation.

Conservation biology, though rooted in older scientific, professional, and philosophical traditions, gained its contemporary definition only in the mid-1980s. Anyone seeking to understand the history and growth of conservation biology thus faces inherent challenges. The field has formed too recently to be viewed with historical detachment, and the trends shaping it are still too fluid to be easily traced. Conservation biology’s practitioners remain embedded within a process of change that has challenged conservation “in the old sense,” even while extending conservation’s core commitment to the future of life, human and non-human, on Earth. There is as yet no comprehensive history of conservation that allows us to understand the causes and context of conservation biology’s emergence. Environmental ethicists and historians have provided essential studies of particular conservation ideas, disciplines, institutions, individuals, ecosystems, landscapes, and resources. Yet we still lack a broad, fully integrated account of the dynamic coevolution of conservation science, philosophy, policy, and practice (Meine 2004). The rise of conservation biology marked a new “rallying point” at the intersection of these domains; exactly how, when, and why it did so are still questions awaiting exploration.

Temperature is one of the most important environmental factors driving the genome-to-phenome relationship. Metabolic rates and related biological processes are predicted to increase with temperature due to the biophysical laws of chemical reactions. However, selection can also act on these processes across scales of biological organization, from individual enzymes to whole organisms. Although some studies have examined thermal responses across multiple scales, there is no general consensus on how these responses vary depending on the level of organization, or whether rates actually follow predicted theoretical patterns such as Arrhenius-like exponential responses or thermal performance curves (TPCs) that show peak responses. Here, we performed a meta-analysis on studies of ectotherms where biological rates were measured across the same set of temperatures, but at multiple levels of biological organization: enzyme activities, mitochondrial respiration, and/or whole-animal metabolic rates. Our final dataset consisted of 235 pairwise comparisons between levels of organization from 13 publications. Thermal responses differed drastically across levels of biological organization, sometimes showing completely opposite patterns. We developed a new effect size metric, "organizational disagreement" (OD) to quantify the difference in responses among levels of biological organization. Overall, rates at higher levels of biological organization (e.g., whole animal metabolic rates) increased more quickly with temperature than rates at lower levels, contrary to our predictions. Responses may differ across levels due to differing consequences of biochemical laws with increasing organization or due to selection for different responses. However, taxa and tissues examined generally did not affect OD. Theoretical TPCs, where rates increase to a peak value and then drop, were only rarely observed (12%), possibly because a broad range of test temperatures was rarely investigated. Exponential increases following Arrhenius predictions were more common (29%). This result suggests a classic assumption about thermal responses in biological rates is rarely observed in empirical datasets, although our results should be interpreted cautiously due to the lack of complete thermal profiles. We advocate for authors to explicitly address OD in their interpretations and to measure thermal responses across a wider, more incremental range of temperatures. These results further emphasize the complexity of connecting the genome to the phenome when environmental plasticity is incorporated: the impact of the environment on the phenotype can depend on the scale of organization considered.

Science on the Bridge

Explanation of natural phenomena at one level of biological organisation almost always involves causes that are found at other levels. Although scientists thinking across levels find it easy to explain physiological phenomena, students often perceive this as a challenge. We developed a new graphic organiser called Zoom Map, which is a mode for structuring biological information along the levels of biological organisation and is designed to guide biology students when they need to consider the levels of organisation. The aim of this study is to examine how Zoom Map helps students explain a common phenomenon in plant physiology: leaves that are upright or wilted. Accordingly, we designed a teaching experiment covering 13 students. During the experiments, the students were videotaped. We used qualitative content analysis to examine the explanations. Our findings indicate that Zoom Map improved students’ explanations of the phenomenon across multiple levels of organisation: The students used more levels than before, and they referred to lower levels that were lacking previously. Therefore, it can be concluded that students who use Zoom Map are supported in their ability to explain a biological phenomenon across the levels of biological organisation.

Questionnaires were sent to 298 graduate programs in conservation biology and other areas of the biological and agricultural sciences and to 702 public and private organizations that employ, or might employ, conservation biologists. The focus of the questionnaires was on the need for training conservation biologists in human interaction skills (e.g., interpersonal communication, leadership, group decision making). Respondents were asked to indicate the current availability of such training at their institutions or organizations. Questionnaires were returned by 28.5% of the graduate programs and 21.1% of the conservation organizations. A majority of both groups of respondents indicated a high need for training in the following seven areas: written and oral communication; explaining science and values of biodiversity to the lay public; group decision making; interpersonal skills; group planning; leadership; and advocacy. Despite the high level of perceived training need, relatively few academic institutions and even fewer conservation organizations offer or require courses in human interaction skills (with the exceptions of written and oral communication and foreign languages). Sixty‐four percent of the graduate faculty respondents and 78% of the employer organization respondents indicated that human interaction skills are equally important or more important to the work of conservation biologists than science knowledge and skill. We suggest that follow‐up research should be conducted to delineate further the need for human interaction skills training and to assess the relationship between specific human interactions skills and conservation outcomes. We also recommend that a curriculum on human interaction should be designed and developed for conservation biologists, perhaps through a cooperative effort of interested faculty and employers facilitated by the Society for Conservation Biology and conservation organizations.

Emergent biological processes result from complex interactions within and across levels of biological organization, ranging from molecular to environmental dynamics. Powerful theories, database tools, and modeling methods have been designed to characterize network connections within levels, such as those among genes, proteins, biochemicals, cells, organisms, and species. Here, we propose that developing integrative models of organismal function in complex environments can be facilitated by taking advantage of these methods to identify key nodes of communication across levels of organization. Mapping key drivers or connections among levels of organization will provide data and leverage to model potential rule-sets by which organisms respond and adjust to perturbations at any level of biological organization.

The ongoing destruction of habitats in the tropics accelerates the current rate of species extinction. Range-restricted species are exceptionally vulnerable, yet we have insufficient knowledge about their protection. Species’ current distributions, range sizes, and protection gaps are crucial to determining conservation priorities. Here, we identified priority range-restricted bird species and their conservation hotspots in the Northern Andes. We employed maps of the Area of Habitat (AOH), that better reflect their current distributions than existing maps. AOH provides unprecedented resolution and maps a species in the detail essential for practical conservation actions. We estimated protection within each species’ AOH and for the cumulative distribution of all 335 forest-dependent range-restricted birds across the Northern Andes. For the latter, we also calculated protection across the elevational gradient. We estimated how much additional protection community lands (Indigenous and Afro-Latin American lands) would contribute if they were conservation-focused. AOHs ranged from 8 to 141,000 km2. We identified four conservation priorities based on cumulative species richness: the number of AOHs stacked per unit area. These priorities are high-resolution mapped representations of Endemic Bird Areas for the Tropical Andes that we consider critically important. Protected areas cover only 31% of the cumulative AOH, but community lands could add 19% more protection. Sixty-two per cent of the 335 species have ranges smaller than their published estimates, yet IUCN designates only 23% of these as Threatened. We identified 50 species as top conservation priorities. Most of these concentrate in areas of low protection near community lands and at middle elevations where, on average, only 34% of the land is protected. We highlight the importance of collaborative efforts among stakeholders: governments should support private and community-based conservation practices to protect the region with the most range-restricted birds worldwide.

International Consortium to Advance Cross-Species Extrapolation of the Effects of Chemicals in Regulatory Toxicology.

The most evident aspect of biodiversity is the variety of complex forms and behaviors among organisms, both living and extinct. Comparative molecular and physiological studies show that the evolution of complex phenotypic traits involves multiple levels of biological organization (i.e. genes, chromosomes, organelles, cells, individual organisms, species, etc.). Regardless of the specific molecular mechanisms and details, the evolution of different complex biological organizations share a commonality: cooperation and conflict among the parts of the biological unit under study. The potential for conflict among parts is abundant. How then do complex systems persist, given the necessity of cooperative behavior for their maintenance, when the potential for conflict occurs across all levels of biological organization? In this Research Topic and eBook we present ideas and work on the question, how coexistence of biological components at different levels of organization persists in the face of antagonistic, conflicting or even exploitative behavior of the parts? The goal of this topic is in presenting examples of cooperation and conflict at different levels of biological organization to discuss the consequences that this “tension” have had in the diversification and emergence of novel phenotypic traits. Exemplary cases are studies investigating: the evolution of genomes, formation of colonial aggregates of cells, biofilms, the origin and maintenance of multicellular organisms, and the stable coexistence of multispecies consortia producing a cooperative product. Altogether, we hope that the contributions to this Research Topic build towards mechanistic knowledge of the biological phenomenon of coexistence in the face of conflict. We believe that knowledge on the mechanisms of the origin and evolutionary maintenance of cooperation has implications beyond evolutionary biology such as novel approaches in controlling microbial infections in medicine and the modes by studies in synthetic biology are conducted when designing economically important microbial consortia.The most evident aspect of biodiversity is the variety of complex forms and behaviors among organisms, both living and extinct. Comparative molecular and physiological studies show that the evolution of complex phenotypic traits involves multiple levels of biological organization (i.e. genes, chromosomes, organelles, cells, individual organisms, species, etc.). Regardless of the specific molecular mechanisms and details, the evolution of different complex biological organizations share a commonality: cooperation and conflict among the parts of the biological unit under study. The potential for conflict among parts is abundant. How then do complex systems persist, given the necessity of cooperative behavior for their maintenance, when the potential for conflict occurs across all levels of biological organization? In this Research Topic and eBook we present ideas and work on the question, how coexistence of biological components at different levels of organization persists in the face of antagonistic, conflicting or even exploitative behavior of the parts? The goal of this topic is in presenting examples of cooperation and conflict at different levels of biological organization to discuss the consequences that this “tension” have had in the diversification and emergence of novel phenotypic traits. Exemplary cases are studies investigating: the evolution of genomes, formation of colonial aggregates of cells, biofilms, the origin and maintenance of multicellular organisms, and the stable coexistence of multispecies consortia producing a cooperative product. Altogether, we hope that the contributions to this Research Topic build towards mechanistic knowledge of the biological phenomenon of coexistence in the face of conflict. We believe that knowledge on the mechanisms of the origin and evolutionary maintenance of cooperation has implications beyond evolutionary biology such as novel approaches in controlling microbial infections in medicine and the modes by studies in synthetic biology are conducted when designing economically important microbial consortia.

Effects of environmental stressors such as contaminants on the health of aquatic ecosystems usually involve a series of biological responses ranging from the biomolecular/biochemical to the population and community levels. To establish relationships and to determine the feasibility of extrapolating between higher and lower levels of biological organization, spatial patterns in fish responses to contaminant loading were investigated in a stream receiving point-source discharges of various contaminants near its headwaters. Relationships among fish responses at four major levels of biological organization (biochemical/physiological, individual, population, and community levels) were evaluated relative to patterns in contaminant loading along the spatial gradient of the stream. Both individual and integrated response analysis demonstrated that bioindicators at several levels of biological organization displayed similar downstream patterns in their response to contaminant loading within the stream. Some of the bioindicator responses at lower levels of organization appear to be useful for the ecological risk assessment process because of their sensitivity and apparent relationships to higher levels. By identifying and establishing relationships between levels of biological organization we should be better able to understand the mechanisms of stress responses in ecological systems that could ultimately result in improved predictive capability of ecological risk assessment and also allow for more informed decisions regarding remedial actions.

The relationship between structure and function is a major constituent of the rules of life. Structures and functions occur across all levels of biological organization. Current efforts to integrate conceptual frameworks and approaches to address new and old questions promise to allow a more holistic and robust understanding of how different biological functions are achieved across levels of biological organization. Here, we provide unifying and generalizable definitions of both structure and function that can be applied across all levels of biological organization. However, we find differences in the nature of structures at the organismal level and below as compared to above the level of the organism. We term these intrinsic and emergent structures, respectively. Intrinsic structures are directly under selection, contributing to the overall performance (fitness) of the individual organism. Emergent structures involve interactions among aggregations of organisms and are not directly under selection. Given this distinction, we argue that while the functions of many intrinsic structures remain unknown, functions of emergent structures are the result of the aggregate of processes of individual organisms. We then provide a detailed and unified framework of the structure-function relationship for intrinsic structures to explore how their unknown functions can be defined. We provide examples of how these scalable definitions applied to intrinsic structures provide a framework to address questions on structure-function relationships that can be approached simultaneously from all subdisciplines of biology. We propose that this will produce a more holistic and robust understanding of how different biological functions are achieved across levels of biological organization.

Conservation biology has traditionally focused on the fine scale and the species level of biological organization (Soule and Wilcox 1980), and biotic conservation is only one of the various goals that has directed the preservation and management of natural areas and resources. Resource management goals have largely been utilitarian or commercial, such as the maintenance of large areas for watersheds; preservation of marshes, bogs, and seasonal wetlands for flood water storage, nursery areas, and flow continuity in river systems, and the sustained yield of forests, fisheries, and wildlife (Temple et al. 1988; Aplet, Laven, and Fiedler in press). There have, however, been both practically and theoretically motivated calls for widening the focus to include scales beyond that of the individual site and levels of organization above that of the species (Soule 1989; Western 1989) to approach new goals. This essay will explore the relationship of this new frontier for conservation biology to advances in ecology. Much of the new ecological focus of conservation biology is driven by the shift in the overarching paradigm of ecology itself. We begin by defining the concept of paradigm and characterizing the classical paradigm of ecology. The classical paradigm had definite implications for conservation, and these are shown to be problematical. Therefore, we outline the contemporary paradigm in ecology and show how the science of ecology has been affected by the shift in paradigm.

Knowledge about seed dispersal is required to explain problems in ecology, phylogeography, and conservation biology. Even though seed dispersal is a fundamental mechanism to understand problems at different levels of biological organization (individual, population, species, landscape), it remains one of the least recognized processes. Similar to other groups of plants, very little is known regarding patterns and distances of seed dispersal in orchids. Orchid seeds are generally assumed to be widely dispersed by wind because of their small size and low weight. Between 2006 and 2008, we conducted a field study of the distances at which orchid seeds are dispersed, and determined factors affecting dispersal. Investigations included 13 populations of six terrestrial orchid species – <em>Cypripedium calceolus</em>, <em>Cephalanthera rubra</em>, <em>Epipactis helleborine</em>, <em>Goodyera repens</em>, <em>Neottia ovata</em>, and <em>Platanthera bifolia</em>. To evaluate seed dispersal in orchid populations, 8.5-cm Petri dishes (traps) with self-adhesive paper were placed along transects, starting from a group of fruiting plants, which were considered to be the dispersal source. Seeds of the investigated orchid species were dispersed over relatively short distances. There were statistically significant negative correlations between seed density and distance from the fruiting plants. Seeds of species with taller fruiting shoots were dispersed farther than those with shorter ones (<em>R</em> = 0.68, <em>p</em> < 0.05). We discuss the causes and consequences of the dispersal patterns of orchid seeds.