Is There Enough Science for Conservation Action?

Abstract

We argue that there is not enough science to appropriately support many of the conservation measures currently being proposed, and hence, we cannot be sure of the objectivity of the conservation actions being implemented. The objectivity claimed to be underlying conservation actions is more assumed than real. We also suggest that the approach to conservation is driven more by moral commitments than by tested concepts, and it is further biased by our anthropocentric evaluation of ecological processes and their outcomes. Conservation science is a young subject, which needs to be nourished while it continues to feed on its roots-ecology and evolutionary biology.

The tangled causes of population decline in two harvested plant species: a comment on Ticktin et al. (2012)

“…Studies examining the impacts of NTFP harvest have been critiqued for a lack of objectivity (Siebert ). As an applied science that informs management of natural resources, NTFP studies must be methodologically rigorous, objectively test proposed models of conservation action and be specific in extrapolating results for management (Shaanker & Ganeshaiah ).…”

“…() propose lopping of branches to control mistletoes in BRT, but such an approach does not address the underlying causes of increased mistletoe infection (Norton & Reid ) and may have strong negative impacts on amla growth rates according to the researchers who have directly assessed lopping impacts (Sinha ). Control of native species must be judicious, and referring to a species repeatedly as invasive, without proof of this classification, creates a biased precedent for its widespread lethal control (Shaanker & Ganeshaiah ).…”