Background: Establishing Protected Areas (PAs) is among the most common conservation interventions. Protecting areas from the threats posed by human activity will by definition inhibit some human actions. However, adverse impacts could be balanced by maintaining ecosystem services or introducing new livelihood options. Consequently there is an ongoing debate on whether the net impact of PAs on human well-being at local or regional scales is positive or negative. We report here on a systematic review of evidence for impacts on human well-being arising from the establishment and maintenance of terrestrial PAs. Methods: Following an a priori protocol, systematic searches were conducted for evidence of impacts of PAs post 1992. After article title screening, the review was divided into two separate processes; a qualitative synthesis of explanations and meaning of impact and a review of quantitative evidence of impact. Abstracts and full texts were assessed using inclusion criteria and conceptual models of potential impacts. Relevant studies were critically appraised and data extracted and sorted according to type of impact reported. No quantitative synthesis was possible with the evidence available. Two narrative syntheses were produced and their outputs compared in a metasynthesis.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Peatlands cover 2 to 5 percent of the global land area, while storing between 30 and 50 percent of all global soil carbon (C). Peatlands constitute a substantial sink of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) via photosynthesis and organic matter accumulation, but also release methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), and CO 2 through respiration, all of which are powerful greenhouse gases (GHGs). Lowland peats in boreo-temperate regions may store substantial amounts of C and are subject to disproportionately high land-use pressure. Whilst evidence on the impacts of different land management practices on C cycling and GHG fluxes in lowland peats does exist, these data have yet to be synthesised. Here we report on the results of a Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) systematic review of this evidence. Methods: Evidence was collated through searches of literature databases, search engines, and organisational websites using tested search strings. Screening was performed on titles, abstracts and full texts using established inclusion criteria for population, intervention/exposure, comparator, and outcome key elements. Remaining relevant full texts were critically appraised and data extracted according to pre-defined strategies. Meta-analysis was performed where sufficient data were reported.

The continuing decline and loss of biodiversity has caused an increase in the use of interventionist conservation tools, such as translocation. However, many translocation attempts fail to establish viable populations, with poor release site selection often flagged as an inhibitor of success. We used species distribution models (SDMs) to predict the climate suitability of 102 release sites for amphibians, reptiles, and terrestrial insects and compared suitability predictions between successful and failed attempts. We then quantified the importance of climate suitability relative to 5 other variables frequently considered in the literature as important determinants of translocation success: number of release years, number of individuals released, life stage released, origin of the source population, and position of the release site relative to the species' range. Probability of translocation success increased as predicted climate suitability increased and this effect was the strongest among the variables we considered, accounting for 48.3% of the variation in translocation outcome. These findings should encourage greater consideration of climate suitability when selecting release sites for conservation translocations and we advocate the use of SDMs as an effective way to do this.

No abstract

The alarming current and predicted species extinction rates have galvanized conservationists in their efforts to avoid future biodiversity losses, but for species extinct in the wild, few options exist. We posed the questions, can these species be restored, and, if so, what role can ex situ plant collections (i.e., botanic gardens, germplasm banks, herbaria) play in the recovery of plant genetic diversity? We reviewed the relevant literature to assess the feasibility of recovering lost plant genetic diversity with using ex situ material and the probability of survival of subsequent translocations. Thirteen attempts to recover species extinct in the wild were found, most of which used material preserved in botanic gardens (12) and seed banks (2). One case of a locally extirpated population was recovered from herbarium material. Eight (60%) of these cases were successful or partially successful translocations of the focal species or population; the other 5 failed or it was too early to determine the outcome. Limiting factors of the use of ex situ source material for the restoration of plant genetic diversity in the wild include the scarcity of source material, low viability and reduced longevity of the material, low genetic variation, lack of evolution (especially for material stored in germplasm banks and herbaria), and socioeconomic factors. However, modern collecting practices present opportunities for plant conservation, such as improved collecting protocols and improved cultivation and storage conditions. Our findings suggest that all types of ex situ collections may contribute effectively to plant species conservation if their use is informed by a thorough understanding of the aforementioned problems. We conclude that the recovery of plant species currently classified as extinct in the wild is not 100% successful, and the possibility of successful reintroduction should not be used to justify insufficient in situ conservation.

Translocation is increasingly used as a management strategy to mitigate the effects of human activity on biodiversity. Based on the current literature, we summarised trends in terrestrial insect translocations and identified factors associated with success and failure. As the authors' definitions of success and failure varied according to the individual sets of goals and objectives in each project, we adopted a standardised species-specific definition of success. We applied generalised linear models and information-theoretic model selection to identify the most important factors associated with translocation success. We found literature documenting the translocation of 74 terrestrial insect species to 134 release sites. Of the translocations motivated by conservation, 52% were considered successful, 31% were considered to have failed and 17% were undetermined. Our results indicate that the number of individuals released at a translocation site was the most important factor associated with translocation success, despite this being a relatively infrequent perceived cause of failure as reported by authors. Factors relating to weather and climate and habitat quality were the most commonly perceived causes of translocation failure by authors. Consideration of these factors by managers during the planning process may increase the chance of success in future translocation attempts of terrestrial insects. Introduction Translocation represents a valuable tool for wildlife conservation (Fischer and Lindenmayer, 2000;Germano and Bishop, 2009). There has been substantial growth in translocation practice during the past three decades Taylor et al., 2017), resulting in a taxonomically diverse assemblage of translocation case studies. In response to the growing use of translocation as a management tool, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) published a set of broad guidelines in 2013 for conservation-based translocations (IUCN, 2013). These guidelines offer a detailed framework for all phases of a translocation, generalised for all organisms and have likely contributed to the successful recovery of threatened species. In addition to the IUCN guidelines, there have been a number of global reviews, covering amphibians and reptiles (e.g.