More species in the world are threatened with extinction today than at any other time in recent history. In 2005, the Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE; https:// zeroextinction.org/) released its first inventory of highly threatened species (i.e., those listed as Critically Endangered or Endangered on the IUCN Red List) that are effectively confined to a single site. Updates were released in 2010 and 2018. Here we identify the species removed from the list in these updates, determine the reasons for these removals, identify species that no longer qualify as AZE species as a result of conservation actions, and examine which conservation actions produced these recoveries. In total, 360 species that qualified as AZE species in 2005 no longer qualified by 2018 (45% of those listed in 2005) due to improved knowledge of distribution or taxonomy (83%), genuine improvements resulting in species being downlisted to lower categories of extinction risk (12%), genuine range expansion of species such that they are no longer restricted to single sites (4%), or deterioration to extinction (1%). Our results show that while protected areas and site management are important to the successful conservation of AZE species, other conservation actions, such as species-level management or improved laws and policies, are also essential to safeguard these species from extinction. Sixty-eight percent of the original 2005 AZE sites are now fully or partially covered by protected areas, an increase of almost 20% in 15 years. Yet today, only 64% of current (2018) AZE sites are fully or partially covered by protected areas, with 36% lacking any formal protection. Continued efforts to safeguard and manage AZE sites would benefit not only the 1,483 AZE species but also potentially another 1,359 Critically Endangered and Endangered amphibian, bird, and mammal species whose distributions overlap with AZE sites.
Human–wildlife conflict (HWC) is becoming increasingly prevalent as human activity expands, and monitoring the impact of habitat quality on wildlife mortality related to HWC is critical for the well-being of wildlife and people. Using ten years of necropsies from free-ranging Asian elephants in the Northwestern Wildlife Region (NWR) of Sri Lanka, we quantified the effect of habitat quality on human–elephant conflict (HEC) (i.e., human-caused elephant mortality), hypothesizing that both artificial (e.g., forest cover loss) and natural (e.g., water availability, temperature) changes would be associated with elephant mortality. We collated necropsies from 348 elephants that died due to human activity from 2009 to 2018, comparing the results with data on forest cover loss, perennial water, rainfall, temperature, and human population sizes. Over the study period, we found that forest cover loss was significantly correlated with human-caused mortality in a district-specific manner. Similarly, access to perennial water and precipitation levels appeared to influence mortality, but not temperature, human population density, or percent land cover used for agriculture. We conducted emerging hot spot analyses to identify areas within the NWR that should be prioritized for protection, which included landscapes that are not currently protected (approximately 43% of the hot spots we identified). Similarly, areas that we identified as cold spots included many areas with minimal forest cover loss. Together, our results emphasize the impact that human activity can have on the measurable outcomes of HEC. We suggest that adaptive HWC management strategies that use retrospective analyses should inform any potential changes to the protection of vital wildlife habitats, such as the north central dry zone of Sri Lanka.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.