Applied Filters
- Perspective
- Integrative SciencesRemove filter
- Conservation and SustainabilityRemove filter
- Science and PolicyRemove filter
- Cooke, Steven JRemove filter
Journal Title
Publication Date
Author
- Bennett, Joseph R3
- Lapointe, Nicolas W R2
- Abrams, Alice E I1
- Algera, Dirk A1
- Bard, Brittany1
- Bihun, Christian J1
- Brooks, Jill L1
- Dick, Melissa1
- Glassman, Daniel M1
- Guay, Jessika D1
- Howarth, Andrew1
- Hudgins, Emma J1
- Jeanson, Amanda L1
- Kosziwka, Kerri1
- LaRochelle, Luc1
- Mandrak, Nicholas E1
- Medd, Alec M1
- Neigel, Kate L1
- Nguyen, Vivian M1
- Patterson, Sean1
- Piczak, Morgan L1
- Reid, Connor H1
- Rous, Andrew M1
Access Type
1 - 4of4
Save this search
Please login to be able to save your searches and receive alerts for new content matching your search criteria.
Filters
Search Name | Searched On |
---|---|
[Paper Type: Perspective] AND [Subject Areas: Integrative Sciences] AND [Subject Ar... (4) | 27 Sep 2024 |
You do not have any saved searches
- OPEN ACCESSContemporary conservation problems are typically positioned at the interface of complex ecological and human systems. Traditional approaches aiming to compartmentalize a phenomenon within the confines of a single discipline and failing to engage non-science partners are outmoded and cannot identify solutions that have traction in the social, economic, and political arenas in which conservation actions must operate. As a result, conservation science teams must adopt multiple disciplinary approaches that bridge not only academic disciplines but also the political and social realms and engage relevant partners. Five reasons are presented that outline why conservation problems demand multiple disciplinary approaches in order to move forward because: (i) socio-ecological systems are complex, (ii) multiple perspectives are better than one, (iii) the results of research must influence practice, (iv) the heterogeneity of scale necessitates it, and (v) conservation involves compromise. Presenting reasons that support multiple disciplinarity demands a review of the barriers that impede this process, as we are far from attaining a model or framework that is applicable in all contexts. Two challenges that impede multiple disciplinarity are discussed, in addition to pragmatic solutions that conservation scientists and practitioners can adopt in their work. Overall, conservation researchers and practitioners are encouraged to explore the multiple disciplinary dimensions of their respective realms to more effectively solve problems in biodiversity and sustainability.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Connor H. Reid,
- Emma J. Hudgins,
- Jessika D. Guay,
- Sean Patterson,
- Alec M. Medd,
- Steven J. Cooke, and
- Joseph R. Bennett
Invasive alien species (IAS) pose threats to native biodiversity globally and are linked to numerous negative biodiversity impacts throughout Canada. Considering the Canadian federal government’s commitments to environmental stewardship (e.g., the Convention on Biological Diversity), the successful management of IAS requires an understanding of how federal infrastructure, strategies, and decisions have contributed to previous outcomes. Here, we present an analysis of current efforts by the federal government to prevent IAS establishment in Canadian ecosystems and the unique challenges associated with Canadian IAS management. We then examine historical and current case studies of IAS in Canada with variable outcomes. By drawing comparisons with IAS management in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, we discuss how the Canadian government may refine its policies and practices to enable more effective responses to IAS threats. We conclude by considering how future interacting stressors (e.g., climate change) will shape how we address IAS threats, and list six lessons for successful management. Most importantly, Canada must regard biodiversity impacts from IAS with as much urgency as direct economic impacts that have historically garnered more attention. Although we focus on Canada, our findings may also be useful in other jurisdictions facing similar challenges with IAS management. - OPEN ACCESS
- Dirk A. Algera,
- Kate L. Neigel,
- Kerri Kosziwka,
- Alice E.I. Abrams,
- Daniel M. Glassman,
- Joseph R. Bennett,
- Steven J. Cooke, and
- Nicolas W.R. Lapointe
American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) were used as a case study to assess whether Ontario’s Endangered Species Act proponent-driven regulatory approach resulted in successful imperilled species management outcomes. American Eel observation databases and proponent-prepared mitigation plans and monitoring data were used to assess whether: (i) facilities within the distribution range were registered, (ii) effects monitoring protocols were adequate to evaluate adverse effects of facilities, (iii) proponents implemented mitigation actions that followed best management practices (BMPs), and (iv) effectiveness monitoring designs were adequate to evaluate effectiveness of mitigation actions. Less than half of the facilities (8 of 17) within the extant species range were registered. Few eels were observed at each facility, precluding proponents from effectively evaluating the facilities’ effects. Mitigation actions following BMPs were only implemented for eel out-migration at three facilities. Half of the registered facilities implemented effectiveness monitoring, but experimental designs did not follow best practices and standards. To improve this proponent-driven approach, regulators could reduce ambiguity in regulation language and provide clearer, quantitative requirements for facility registration, effects monitoring, mitigation actions, and effectiveness monitoring. Proponents could improve monitoring efforts to establish species occurrence and generate baseline data to measure facility effects and mitigation action effectiveness. - OPEN ACCESS
- Morgan L. Piczak,
- Jill L. Brooks,
- Brittany Bard,
- Christian J. Bihun,
- Andrew Howarth,
- Amanda L. Jeanson,
- Luc LaRochelle,
- Joseph R. Bennett,
- Nicolas W. R. Lapointe,
- Nicholas E. Mandrak, and
- Steven J. Cooke
A seminal report by Peter H. Pearse (1988; Rising to the Challenge: A New Policy for Canada’s Freshwater Fisheries, Canadian Wildlife Federation, Ottawa) outlined 62 policy recommendations focused on the management of Canada’s inland fisheries. Over three decades later, freshwater ecosystems and inland fisheries in Canada are still facing similar challenges with many emerging ones that could not have been foreseen. Here, we reflect on the contemporary relevance of the Pearse Report and propose recommendations that policy makers should consider. Broadly, our recommendations are: (1) manage fishes, fisheries, and habitat using a holistic co-management framework, with clearly defined fishery jurisdictions and partnerships with Indigenous governments; (2) engage in transparent, inclusive, and agile research to support decision-making; (3) facilitate knowledge co-production, involving interdisciplinary projects with diverse groups of actors and sectors including Indigenous Peoples, anglers, policy makers, scientists/researchers, governments, and the public; (4) embrace technological advances to support freshwater fisheries stock assessment and management; and (5) align policy and management activities in Canada with global initiatives related to increasing the sustainability of inland fisheries. We advocate for an updated comprehensive report such as the Pearse Report to ensure that we embrace robust, inclusive, and sustainable management strategies and policies for Canada’s inland fisheries for the next 30 years. It is time to again rise to the challenge.