Knowledge of mammal migrations is low, and human impacts on migrations high. This jeopardizes efforts to conserve terrestrial migrations. To aid the conservation of these migrations, we synthesized information worldwide, describing 24 large-bodied ungulates that migrate in aggregations. This synthesis includes maps of extinct and extant migrations, numbers of migrants, summaries of ecological drivers and threats migrants confront. As data are often lacking, we outlined steps for science to address and inform conservation actions. We evaluated migrants against this framework, and reported their status. Mass migrations for 6 species are extinct or unknown. Most remaining migrants (n = 9) occur from 6 locations in Africa, with Eurasia and North America containing 6 and 4 remaining mass migrants, respectively (with caribou/reindeer Rangifer tarandus occurring in both regions). All migrants declined in abundance, except wildebeest and other migrants in the SerengetiMara Ecosystem (SME), white-eared kob and tiang in Sudan, and some caribou populations. Protected areas only contain migrations for 5 species in the SME, chiru on the Tibetan Plateau, and some caribou populations in North America. Most mass migrants track the seasonal and shifting patterns of greening vegetation over expanses of savannahs, steppes, and grasslands. Principal threats include overhunting and habitat loss from livestock, agriculture, and fencing that excludes animals from forage or water. Conservation science overlooks numerous migrations, so many have already disappeared and continue to do so. Key principles for conserving migrants, exemplified by the SME and Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), include securing seasonal ranges, resource protection, government support and minimizing fences. This review forms a baseline for initiating conservation action for many ungulate migrations needing attention.

Small geographical range size is the single best predictor of threat of extinction in terrestrial species. Knowing how small a species' range has to be before authorities consider it threatened with extinction would allow prediction of a species' risk from continued deforestation and warming climates and provide a baseline for conservation and management strategies aspiring to mitigate these threats. To determine the threshold at which forest-dependent bird species become threatened with extinction, we compared the range sizes of threatened and nonthreatened species. In doing so, we present a simple, repeatable, and practical protocol to quantify range size. We started with species' ranges published in field guides or comparable sources. We then trimmed these ranges, that is, we included only those parts of the ranges that met the species' requirements of elevation and types of forest preferred. Finally, we further trimmed the ranges to the amount of forest cover that remains. This protocol generated an estimate of the remaining suitable range for each species. We compared these range estimates with those from the World Conservation Union Red List. We used the smaller of the two estimates to determine the threshold, 11,000 km2, below which birds should be considered threatened. Species considered threatened that have larger ranges than this qualified under other (nonspatial) red list criteria. We identified a suite of species (18) that have not yet qualified as threatened but that have perilously small ranges--about 11% of the nonthreatened birds we analyzed. These birds are likely at risk of extinction and reevaluation of their status is urgently needed.

Managers in southern Africa are concerned that continually increasing elephant populations will degrade ecosystems. Culling, translocation and birth control are flawed solutions. An alternative is providing elephants more space but this hinges on identifying landscape preferences. We examined two diverse ecosystems and uncovered similarities in elephant habitat use, expressing these as 'rules'. We considered arid Etosha National Park, (Namibia) and the tropical woodlands of Tembe Elephant Park (South Africa) and Maputo Elephant Reserve (Mozambique). Landscape data consisted of vegetation types, distances from water and settlements. To surmount issues of scale and availability we incorporated elephant movements as a function that declined as distance from an elephant's location increased. This presumes that elephants optimize tradeoffs between benefiting from high-quality resources and costs to find them. Under a likelihood-based approach we determined the important variables and shapes of their relationships to evaluate and compare models separated by gender, season and location. After consid-ering elephants' preferences for areas nearby, habitat use usually increased with proximity to water in all locations. Elephants sought places with high proportions of vegetation, especially when neighbouring areas had low vegetative cover. Lastly, elephants avoided human settlements (when present), and cows more so than bulls. In caricature, elephants preferred to move little, drink easily, eat well, and avoid people. If one makes more areas available, elephants will probably favour areas near water with high vegetative cover (of many different types) and away from people. Managers can oblige elephants' preferences by supplying them. If so, they should anticipate higher impacts to neighbouring vegetation.

No abstract