Content uploaded by Richard Buchholz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Richard Buchholz on Feb 03, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Behavioural biology: an effective and
relevant conservation tool
Richard Buchholz
Department of Biology, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677-1848, USA
‘Conservation behaviour’ is a young discipline that
investigates how proximate and ultimate aspects of
the behaviour of an animal can be of value in preventing
the loss of biodiversity. Rumours of its demise are
unfounded. Conservation behaviour is quickly building
a capacity to positively influence environmental decision
making. The theoretical framework used by animal beha-
viourists is uniquely valuable to elucidating integrative
solutions to human-wildlife conflicts, efforts to reintro-
duce endangered species and reducing the deleterious
effects of ecotourism. Conservation behaviourists must
join with other scientists under the multidisciplinary
umbrella of conservation biology without giving up on
their focus: the mechanisms, development, function and
evolutionary history of individual differences in beha-
viour. Conservation behaviour is an increasingly relevant
tool in the preservation of nature.
The origins of conservation behaviour
Behavioural biology did not rank among the fields included
under the multidisciplinary umbrella of conservation
biology when this new science was created in 1985 [1].
Perhaps as a consequence, behavioural study was not
incorporated into the first conservation biology textbooks
and conservation was not mentioned in the animal beha-
viour texts of the era [2]. It required another decade for the
nascent field of ‘conservation behaviour’ to coalesce from
symposia, workshops and the resulting multi-authored
volumes that appeared after the mid-1990s (citations in
[3]). Some have suggested that behavioural biologists
became interested in conservation only because they
anticipated a new source of research funding [3,4], but
those of us who were graduate students at the time know
the real reason that conservation behaviour arose: in the
face of biodiversity loss and widespread habitat destruc-
tion, we wanted our science to be relevant to saving the
natural world.
Wishing for behavioural biology to be useful to
conservation, however, is not evidence that it is. Indeed,
some early proponents of conservation behaviour recently
seem to have lost their faith in the discipline
*
. Likewise, I
have observed that some aspiring conservation behaviour-
ists are questioning the success of conservation behaviour
at integrating with mainstream conservation efforts. Their
pessimism is in sharp contrast to my own view: a decade
after I co-edited the first book on the subject [5],Iam
pleased with recent developments in the adolescence of
conservation behaviour. After only a decade of existence, it
is premature to dismiss the relevancy of the conservation
behaviourist to saving biodiversity. Here, I show evidence
of the vibrancy of this growing field (Box 1) and then
recount how the theoretical framework of conservation
behaviourists is already positioning them to help solve
the types of conservation issues that will be especially
vexing in the coming decades.
Defining conservation behaviour
It is obvious that species-typical patterns of animal
movement, feeding and mating must be considered in
conservation planning. Thus, the debate over the role of
modern animal behaviour studies in conservation is not a
question of whether major differences in species comport-
ment (e.g. seasonal migration versus year-round resi-
dency) are important to conservation planning. Instead,
it is a disagreement over whether the discipline-specific
training of animal behaviourists, sensu stricto, is a valu-
able addition to conservation action teams [6]. I have
observed two possible reasons why conservation behaviour
has not made major in-roads in traditional conservation
biology circles: conservation ecologists believe that they
already ‘do’ behaviour, and many think that animal beha-
viourists work at scales of minor value to protecting entire
landscapes, the most cost-effective means of conservation.
Behaviour thinking
On the surface, ‘doing’ behaviour seems relatively easy. For
example, conservation biologists might walk through a
forest quantifying territorial vocalizations to census a
population of songbirds. Such superficial uses of beha-
vioural biology are no doubt useful, but they, like
species-typical behavioural descriptions by natural histor-
ians [7], are not conservation behaviour. Conservation
behaviour takes advantage of an investigatory framework
implicit to all modern animal behaviour studies. This
framework is commonly referred to as Tinbergen’s ‘four
questions’, because it was first proposed by Nobel-Prize-
winning ethologist Niko Tinbergen as a way to guide
behavioural research [8]. Tinbergen suggested that we
can ask four mutually exclusive questions about any one
behaviour by considering both proximate and ultimate
explanations for the cause and origin of that behaviour
pattern (see Table I in Box 2). Some refer to this use of
Tinbergen’s framework as ‘behaviour thinking’, and to
Opinion TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution Vol.22 No.8
Corresponding author: Buchholz, R. (byrb@olemiss.edu).
*
Caro, T. (2006) Challenges and opportunities for behavioural ecologists to save
Planet Earth. 25 July Plenary session, 11th Congress of the International Society for
Behavioral Ecology, Tours, France.
Available online 27 June 2007.
www.sciencedirect.com 0169-5347/$ – see front matter ß2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.06.002
proximate and ultimate explanations as ‘how’ and ‘why’
questions.
Proximate questions about behaviour consider how
an individual is able to perform an activity. They ask
about the mechanisms within an organism that make it
possible for it to behave in a certain way. The proximate
causes of behaviour include the sensory and endocrine
mechanisms that regulate behaviour. However, we know
that these mechanisms can be modified by individual
experience; thus, we must consider the proximate origins
of behaviour as well (i.e. how learning modifies beha-
viour).
Ultimate questions about behaviour, on the other hand,
ask why animal species have evolved the proximate sys-
tems that enable them to behave the way they do. The
ultimate cause of a behaviour must explain how it helps the
individual survive and reproduce. If we ponder the ulti-
mate origin of that same behaviour pattern, we are exam-
ining its evolutionary history by comparing how that
behaviour differs across a group of related species. Tinber-
gen’s framework is most easily explained by applying it to a
behavioural example (Box 2).
The beauty of Tinbergen’s four questions is that they
force us to consider multiple, complementary explanations
for the same behaviour [9]. In terms of saving biodiversity,
this framework is especially effective in situations in which
the behavioural adaptations of wildlife are at odds with
anthropogenic landscapes [10]. Conservationists might
eventually stumble upon the need for knowing both
the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ of animal behaviour (Box 3), but
it would be much more cost effective and time efficient
if Tinbergen’s framework was applied at the onset of
conservation research.
Where does conservation behaviour fit?
It would be preposterous to claim that behavioural biology
is the conservation ‘cure all’. Behavioural study is neither
appropriate nor a priority at all levels of conservation
action (Table 1 and [11]). The need for behaviourists will
be greatest when we are confronted with the challenge of
maintaining animals marooned in protected islands of
habitat, isolated in a sea of humanity, and managing
Box 1. The influence of conservation behaviour is growing
This tenth anniversary of the publication of the first books on
conservation behaviour [5,44] is an arbitrary date on which to assess
this young discipline’s success at integrating with conservation
biology. Rather than expecting conservation behaviour to be fully
fledged at this point, we should look for signs that it continues to
strengthen in terms of training resources, pervasiveness in the
published literature, and acceptance by grant-awarding agencies
and career mentors. Supportive evidence includes the following.
Eighty percent of recently published animal behaviour texts
address conservation in some fashion [2]. Page content that
contains reference to conservation now averages 2% for texts
published during the past five years, compared with 0% in the
decades before that.
Conservation behaviour training resources are readily available
on the Internet (http://www.animalbehavior.org/Committees/
Conservation). It is now easier for aspiring conservation beha-
viourists (and their mentors) to access background information,
including a general bibliography, funding sources and graduate
programs. Also available for download is ‘The Conservation
Behaviorist’, a journal written for both behaviourists and non-
scientist decision makers.
The use of behavioural biology in published conservation studies
is not uncommon; in fact, it is growing. Linklater [45] discovered
that the percentage of conservation publications that mention
behaviour has increased nearly threefold since the conception of
conservation behaviour in the early 1990s.
The EO Wilson Student Conservation Research Grant Award of
the Animal Behavior Society (ABS) was created to provide an
annual small grant to foster the career development of con-
servation behaviourists. Conservation grant awardees have
studied logging effects on tree shrew mating systems, stream
pollution interference with fish communication and dragonfly
oviposition requirements as bioindicators of wetland quality.
Perhaps more significant than these new conservation behaviour
research funds are the types of research that ‘regular’ student
behaviourists are doing. In 2006, 15% of the standard Student
Research Awards from the ABS were for projects with conserva-
tion themes.
The ‘father’ of conservation biology, Michael Soule´ , said that
the new discipline: ‘‘should attract and penetrate every field
that could possibly benefit and protect the diversity of life’’ [46].
These demographics suggest that the population of conservation
behaviourists is indeed growing.
Box 2. Understanding Tinbergen’s framework for studying
behaviour
Tinbergen’s four complementary approaches to studying a beha-
viour pattern are implicit to modern animal behaviour studies (see
Table I). This framework is most easily explained by applying it to an
example of human behaviour: automobile drivers stop their cars
when a traffic light turns red.
Mechanisms
We can ask how automobile drivers are able to perceive the red
colour of the traffic light, the pattern of neural depolarization that
allows a decision to be made in the central nervous system and how
that decision is conveyed to the muscles that control the placement
of the foot on the brake. The problem of ‘road rage’ suggests that
latency to apply the brake may be affected by the hormonal milieu of
the driver.
Ontogeny
Humans are not born knowing how to drive an automobile. We can
ask questions about how humans go about learning to stop at a red
light and how it is that development affects the ability to learn. For
example, accident statistics suggest that teenagers and senior
citizens may have greater difficulty stopping at red lights than other
drivers.
Function
We can investigate why stopping at red lights allows drivers to live
longer and reproduce successfully. The legal and financial costs and
benefits that contribute to the individual fitness of drivers are
worthy of study. We might also consider why some individuals are
more likely to cooperate with other drivers in their society.
Phylogeny
An investigation of the history of traffic signals might tell us how
responses to red lights have changed over time. In humans, we can
look at how populations have independently developed means of
making intersections safer. If we compare humans to other species,
we might ask how the colour red has evolved as a warning signal.
Table I. Tinbergen’s framework for organizing the study of
behaviour proposes that any behaviour pattern should be
investigated from four complementary perspectives
Cause Origin
Proximate Mechanisms Ontogeny
Ultimate Function Phylogeny
402 Opinion TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution Vol.22 No.8
www.sciencedirect.com
the inevitable conflicts between the daily needs of humans
and other animals. It is not pleasant to think of a future in
which most of nature is drastically altered by humans, but
the reality is undeniable [12].
Global warming
Conservation behaviourists are developing predictive tools
for understanding which species in pristine communities
will need behavioural management when their habitats
are altered by direct and indirect human disturbance. Paz
y Min
˜o[13] has termed these circumstances ‘behavioural
unknowns’ (after Myers ‘environmental unknowns’ [14]).
The most pressing of these, perhaps, is the need to under-
stand how the mechanisms, ontogeny, adaptiveness and
phylogenetic diversity of animal behaviour will respond to
climate change due to global warming. Conservation beha-
viourists have already begun to develop a body of literature
that addresses behavioural responses to rapid climatic
alterations (Box 4).
Restoring balance to ecosystems
Other behavioural unknowns may have less to do with how
we are destroying habitat and more to do with our attempts
to restore ecological integrity to human-altered land-
scapes. The reintroduction of large carnivores appears to
enhance ecosystem biodiversity and stability [15]. None-
theless, game managers fear that huntable (by humans)
prey species will be decimated because of their naivete
´
after generations without non-human predation. By exper-
imentally investigating the anti-predator responses of
ungulates to predator cues before and after carnivore
reintroduction, Berger [16] found that prey typically return
to ‘normal’ anti-predator strategies within one generation
of carnivore return. If politically feasible, conservation
behaviour data such as these will be used to support the
repatriation of carnivores so that balanced ecosystems are
restored.
Ecological prediction is a mainstay of traditional
conservationists [17]. Game theory, and other skills in
the behaviourist’s toolbox that take advantage of individ-
ual differences in behaviour, are currently being used to
anticipate the population consequences of management
options [18]. In addition to predicting how animals will
respond to anthropogenic disturbances, animal behaviour-
ists are influencing conservation management directly.
Conservation behaviourists in action
To date, the contributions of conservation behaviourists
are much more than theoretical. Conservation behaviour-
ists are already involved in hands-on efforts to restore and
protect animal species. Here, I briefly review some recent
contributions of note.
Species reintroduction
Although the future of biodiversity is in the wild, captive
breeding of endangered species is sometimes an irreplace-
able component of the conservationist’s toolbox [11,19].
Conservation behaviourists have concentrated on two
important aspects of captive propagation of endangered
species: preventing ‘captive selection’ (i.e. maladaptive
heritable changes in behaviour), and behavioural training
Box 3. Harbour porpoises and gill nets: application of
Tinbergen’s framework
In 1994
y
, Marquez and I used the example of a ‘real-world’
conservation problem, the drowning of harbour porpoises Phocoe-
na phocoena following entanglement in the gill nets of commercial
fisherman, to explain how Tinbergen’s four questions could guide
conservation research. Read and colleagues [47] had called for
improved understanding of the behaviour of harbour porpoises
around gill nets. Incidental bycatch of harbour porpoises in the US
Gulf of Maine groundfish gill net fishery alone averaged over 2000
individuals per year in the early 1990s, more than twice the
allowable take rate.
For heuristic purposes, we suggested that behavioural aspects
of gill net bycatch research could be approached simultaneously
from mechanistic, ontogenetic, functional and phylogenetic
perspectives. Revisiting the problem now, it is rewarding to see
that anti-entanglement research evolved within Tinbergen’s
framework.
Harbour porpoises appear to be in the vicinity of nets because
nets are placed where porpoise prey are abundant [48]. Making nets
from material that is more reflective of porpoise sonar did reduce
bycatch significantly, but perhaps only because the nets were stiffer
and less likely to entangle the porpoises [49]. Adding acoustic
alarms, called ‘pingers’, to gill nets reduces the bycatch mortality of
harbour porpoises [50]. Harbour porpoises show aversive reactions
to pinging, including spatial avoidance and increasing respiration
rate [51].
Other small cetaceans, however, do not necessarily react the
same way [51]. In a field experiment, bottlenose dolphins Tursiops
truncatus (Figure I) appeared to use fish caught in the gill net as a
food source, but dolphin groups were less likely to approach the
net’s ‘zone of vulnerability’ when the pingers were activated [50].
There is considerable interest in investigating how these species will
react to long-term use of acoustic alarms. Will cetaceans become
sensitized to pingers and avoid them more often, or will pingers
become a ‘dinner bell’ of sorts, attracting porpoises and dolphins to
pre-caught fish?
Although the gill net responses of relatively few cetaceans
have been studied so far, some researchers have hypothesized
that vulnerability to natural predators, such as sharks and killer
whales Orcinus orca, might explain species differences in the
efficacy of using acoustic alarms to reduce incidental bycatch
mortality.
I do not mean to suggest that these studies are the result of our
Society for Conservation Biology poster; these works developed
organically from the need to solve the gill net entanglement
problem. Nevertheless, this conservation problem demonstrates
how a priori use of a conservation behaviour framework would
foster an efficient conservation research plan [52].
Figure I. Bottlenose dolphins are attracted to the fish caught in commercial gill
nets (photo by Jill Frank).
y
Marquez, M. and Buchholz, R. (1994) An Ethological Framework for
Conservation Biology. Poster at the annual meeting of the Society for
Conservation Biology, University of Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.
Opinion TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution Vol.22 No.8 403
www.sciencedirect.com
and management to maximize post-release survival of
reintroduced individuals.
Often, captive conditions impose different selection
pressures on animal genomes than natural selection,
resulting in behaviour that is advantageous to the survival
and reproduction of individuals in captivity, but maladap-
tive should they be reintroduced to the wild. For example,
captivity selects for aggressive behaviour in place of fora-
ging behaviour in breeding colonies of the endangered
butterfly splitfin fish Ameca splendens [20]. Behaviourists
are helping to modify aquaculture programs to produce fish
that will forage rather than fight when released to their
restored habitat.
In other cases, the protected nature of captive
environments might allow genetic release from directional
selection. The escape behaviour of captive-bred oldfield
mice Peromyscus polionotus, for example, is never sub-
jected to selection by owls, stoats, snakes or any of the
predators that normally threaten the survival of free-living
rodents. As a result, they have long escape latencies that
would make them highly susceptible to predators in the
wild [21]. By considering the genetic mechanisms under-
lying variation in behaviour, McPhee and Silverman [22]
conclude that we need not abandon reintroduction of such
individuals. Their solution is to simply use the variance in
escape behaviour to recalculate the number of released
animals sufficient to ensure a surviving nucleus of bree-
ders. By understanding the genetic mechanisms under-
lying behaviour, conservation behaviourists are able to
provide release and survival estimates that are more
realistic. This would thus engender more reasonable expec-
tations and cost planning by wildlife managers and
political decision-makers, and more patience for success
from the general public.
Similarly careful behavioural preparation of captive-
raised animals will lessen animal welfare concerns over
the poor survival of individuals released to the wild for
conservation purposes. Anti-predator training of captive-
reared prairie dogs Cynomys ludovicianus appears to
increase survival upon reintroduction [23]. But the value
of behavioural manipulation is not limited to potential prey
species. Poor attention to the social management of African
wild dog Lycaon pictus groups during ‘soft’ releases to the
wild might explain several costly reintroduction failures
[24]. If individuals are chosen to minimize dominance
conflicts among members of the released wild dog pack,
the reintroduced animals are more likely to behave coop-
eratively and hopefully survive to reproduce.
Box 4. Etho-conservation tackles global warming
The weather systems of the Earth are expected to become more
extreme, perhaps suddenly and with great spatial heterogeneity,
owing to the atmospheric retention of heat energy from anthro-
pogenic ‘greenhouse gas’ production. How animals might react to
climate change is one of the many ‘behavioural unknowns’ caused
by environmental degradation [13] that is being investigated using
Tinbergen’s four questions.
Mechanisms
Cactus-living Drosophila species might respond to climate
change via selection on the timing of their active period in the
circadian clock mechanism [53]. By becoming active at cooler
times of the day, they are able to avoid deleterious exposure to
heat extremes. The physiological stress responses of vertebrate
organisms are likely to be dependent on individual differences in
social status and the social function of dominance in that species
[31,54].
Ontogeny
Culturally determined foraging movements of sperm whale Phys-
eter macrocephalus clans might make some song clans predictably
susceptible to changes in ocean-current-dependent food sources
[55]. For species with temperature-mediated sex determination,
such as turtles and crocodilians, behavioural commitment to
reusing traditional nest sites will impede adaptive population-level
responses in these long-lived animals. For example, if global
warming occurs as forecast, modelling suggests that natal site
philopatry by egg-laying painted turtles will condemn them to
producing such biased sex ratios that the population becomes
inviable [43].
Function
Species with poor mobility might experience rapid evolutionary
behavioural adaptation in response to micro-climatic divergence.
For example, wood frog tadpoles in shaded, cool ponds appear to
evolve adaptive thermal preferences quickly [56]. Populations in
warmer sun-lit ponds, however, seem to lack growth-benefiting
thermal preferences, suggesting that global warming would cause
meta-population sinks with predictable localized patterns of species
extirpation. Hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata females might
be able to adjust to a hotter climate through existing preferences for
tree-shaded beach nesting sites. Unfortunately, beach deforestation
may prevent this endangered species from avoiding climate-
induced biased sex ratios [57].
Phylogeny
Sexual selection may have an impact on the response of animals
to climate change. The degree of advancement of spring migration
in birds is associated with the strength of female choice across
species [58]. Colonizing warmer habitats appears to release
energetic constraints on sexual selection in dark-eyed juncos Junco
hyemalis [59]. The relaxation of cold climate extremes might select
against isolating mechanisms, such as reproductive diapause in
mustelids [60].
Table 1. Behavioural biology is relevant to multiple conservation contexts
Conservation context Conservation tool Example of use
Preventing biodiversity loss Reserve design
a
[37]
Ecosystem management
b
[15]
Population viability analysis
b
[43]
Compromises with economic development Sustainable use
b
[29]
Species and habitat restoration Field recovery of endangered species
a
[23]
Captive breeding and reintroduction
a
[20]
Ecosystem restoration
a
[16]
a
Tools with current behaviour usage.
b
Tools that will need more behaviourist input as habitat degradation continues (after Beissinger [11]).
404 Opinion TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution Vol.22 No.8
www.sciencedirect.com
Conservation behaviour and natural populations
There are two major areas of inquiry in which ‘behaviour
thinking’ is already being applied to the conservation of
wild populations: improving population viability by adap-
tively managing individual survival and reproductive suc-
cess in isolated populations, and identifying and managing
deleterious effects of ecotourism.
Managing survival and reproduction
Re-establishing prairie dog populations in protected areas
is important to ecosystem functioning [25], and is crucial to
efforts to establish a prey base to grow viable populations
of the highly endangered black-footed ferret Mustela
nigripes. Behaviourist Debra Shier took advantage of exist-
ing behavioural information on the adaptive nature of kin
groups to demonstrate experimentally that translocating
entire wild prairie dog families achieves conservation goals
more successfully and efficiently than moving unrelated
animals [26]. The red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides bor-
ealis is another endangered US species that has benefited
from a behaviourist’s understanding of kin recognition
mechanisms. Wallace and I showed that, by exchanging
nestlings between nesting cavities at an age young enough
that parents had not yet learned to identify their offspring,
we could overcome genetic isolation in a fragmented
habitat without reducing survivorship of translocated
individuals [27].
Behaviourists have shown how evolutionary conflicts
among individual animals can give us insight into man-
agement methods that would not be apparent to a
traditionally trained wildlife ecologist or conservation
geneticist. When it comes to population viability, larger
population size is usually better. Unfortunately, small
populations do not always have room to grow. A case in
point is the threatened Cuban iguana Cyclura nubile
population confined to the US Naval base at Guanta-
namo Bay, Cuba. In the absence of opportunities to
increase the overall lizard population, Alberts et al.
[28] showed how the negative impact of male dominance
on population-wide genetic variation (N
e
) could be over-
come through behavioural management. Temporarily
removing dominant males allowed other adult males to
obtain mates.
Sustainable ecotourism
Ecotourism, the other doyen of sustainable-use advocates,
must also consider the behaviourally mediated impact of
human disturbance on population viability. Descriptive
behavioural studies are likely to find that wildlife change
their behaviour in response to human visitors, but that
changes in behaviour are not necessarily bad for the
animal under observation. For example, although foraging
brown bears Ursus arctos alter their feeding activities so
that they can be vigilant in the presence of tourists, this
behavioural change has no apparent effects on body con-
dition [29]. Therefore, human disturbance probably does
not translate into reduced survival and lower population
viability in this case. Nesting Magellanic penguins Sphe-
niscus magellanicus appear to habituate to frequent tour-
ists, but previously undisturbed colonies are markedly
stressed by the arrival of human visitors [30]. Because
stressed animals are likely to experience tradeoffs in
reproductive investment or survival [31], opening new
colonies to tourism is not recommended without careful
determination of the human activities that cause the most
stress to nesting penguins. The complexity of the inter-
specific and intraspecific responses of wild animals to
anthropogenic and natural stressors benefits from being
managed in a conservation behaviour framework.
Should conservation behaviour conform to the
emphases of conservation biology?
I think the only way that behavioural biology makes
sense for conservation is if we retain our unique
perspective on animal diversity. The ecologists that
helped found the Society for Conservation Biology [32]
did not abandon island biogeography theory to work in
conservation; they applied the concept to the habitat
islands that are nature reserves. Likewise, population
geneticists did not ignore Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium
to promote the conservation of bottlenecked populations;
rather, they found ways to inform us of the practical
importance of theoretical genetics. Conservation beha-
viourists are conservation biologists; we should be
constructively critical of endangered species recovery
plans [33]. Decisions are often made with very little or
faulty evidence. For example, decisions to allow habitat
destruction in the dwindling range of the endangered
Florida panther Puma concolor coryi were based on
questionable evidence and the illogical opinion of one
researcher that this subspecies is a forest obligate (for a
shocking review, see [34]).
It has become a conservation platitude of sorts that
conservation behaviourists must ‘‘translate behavior into
currencies relevant to conservation at large spatial scales’’
[11]. But conflicts with large carnivores and other species of
potential harm to humans attract much popular press
and political interest. It is the young panther that
disperses 350 miles [34] or the few African elephants
Loxodonta africana that invade villages or kill rhinos
[35,36] that threaten to scuttle goodwill for conservation,
not the average behaviour of the population. It is ridiculous
to suggest that individualistic responses of animals are
unimportant to conservation.
Conservation behaviourists will rise to the challenge
of the important discoveries being made at the interface
of conservation ecology and genetics. For example, Riley
and colleagues [37] recently used microsatellite analysis
combined with radiotelemetry to discover that carnivore
territories tend to pile up at habitat edges along an
automotive freeway in California, USA. The intense
social challenges faced by individual bobcats Lynx rufus
and coyotes Canis latrans attempting to disperse
through the gauntlet of territories concentrated near
large roadways accentuated the limits on gene flow
imposed by the physical barrier of the road itself. Popu-
lations on either side of the highway show evidence of
genetic differentiation as a result. The problem of
‘territory piling’ [37] along roadways is one well suited
to Tinbergen’s framework. These crowded carnivores
should expect a visit from some local conservation
behaviourists [38].
Opinion TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution Vol.22 No.8 405
www.sciencedirect.com
The next step
Caro’s [3] charges of irrelevancy levied against conserva-
tion behaviour are genuine, but not unique to our field.
There are problems with the application of any science to
public policy. Academic scientists get caught up in grant
writing, hypotheses testing and data collection, whereas
conservation practitioners need practical advice today [39].
The reverse is also true; conservation monitoring programs
often take on a life of their own and do not achieve con-
servation objectives [40].
Nearly 100 years ago, conservationist William T Horna-
day [41] declared: ‘‘We will endeavor to avoid the discus-
sion of academic questions, because the business of
conservation is replete with urgent practical demands’’. I
believe that it is this sort of concern, that there is an
opportunity cost to the ‘theoretical’ concerns of conserva-
tion behaviour, that has led some of my colleagues to
retreat from conservation behaviour. Instead, they must
come to realize that we approach a time of desperate need
for applied behaviourists. One need only look at costly
efforts to recover species listed under the US Endangered
Species Act [42] to see that, although all is not lost, all is not
well either. Wildlife managers have stopped many endan-
gered species from going extinct, but few species have
recovered sufficiently to be de-listed. We can improve
conservation management decisions. The behaviour of
individual animals matters to conservation. The growing
pains of conservation behaviour are not symptoms of dys-
function, but rather positive signs of a thriving adoles-
cence. Conservation behaviour is relevant right now and
the time is ripe for the conservation behaviourist to make a
difference.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Cliff Ochs, Guillermo Paz y Min
˜o and Suhel Quader for
commenting on an earlier draft of this paper. Detailed suggestions by Dan
Blumstein, Marco Festa-Bianchet and an anonymous reviewer improved
the manuscript. Communications with Steve Beissinger and Joel Berger
were helpful ten years ago and now too. Tim Caro suggested that I put it
in writing, and I am very appreciative of his and the editors’ assistance
and generous patience. Jill Frank and Glenn Parsons kindly offered the
use of their dolphin photos.
References
1 Soule
´, M.E. (1985) What is conservation biology? Bioscience 35, 727–
734
2 Buchholz, R. (2006) Should animal behaviorists teach conservation?
Conserv. Behav. 4, 3–4
3 Caro, T. (2007) Behaviour and conservation: a bridge too far? Trends
Ecol. Evol. (in press)
4 Knight, J. (2001) If they could talk to the animals....Nature 414, 246–
247
5 Clemmons, J.R. and Buchholz, R., eds (1997) Behavioral Approaches
to Conservation in the Wild, Cambridge University Press
6 Arcese, P. et al. (1997) Why hire a behaviorist into a conservation or
management team? In Behavioral Approaches to Conservation in the
Wild (Clemmons, J.R. and Buchholz, R., eds), pp. 48–71, Cambridge
University Press
7 Greene, H.W. (2005) Organisms in nature as a central focus for biology.
Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 23–27
8 Tinbergen, N. (1963) On aims and methods of ethology. Z. Tierpsychol.
20, 410–433
9 Blumstein, D.T. (2007) Tinbergen’s four questions. In The Encyclopedia
of Applied Animal Behaviour and Welfare (Mills, D. ed), (in press), CAB
International
10 Schlaepfer, M.A. et al. (2002) Ecological and evolutionary traps. Trends
Ecol. Evol. 17, 474–480
11 Beissinger, S.R. (1997) Integrating behavior into conservation biology:
potentials and limitations. In Behavioral Approaches to Conservation
in the Wild (Clemmons, J.R. and Buchholz, R., eds), pp. 23–47,
Cambridge University Press
12 Sanderson, E.W. et al. (2002) The human footprint and the last of the
wild. Bioscience 52, 891–904
13 Paz-y-Min
˜o, C. (2006) Behavioral unknowns: an emerging challenge for
conservation. Conserv. Behav. 4, 2
14 Myers, N. (1995) Environmental unknowns. Science 269, 358–360
15 Fortin, D.L. et al. (2005) Wolves influence elk movements: behavior
shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 86,
1320–1330
16 Berger, J. Carnivore repatriation and Holarctic prey: narrowing the
deficit in ecological effectiveness. Conserv. Biol. (in press)
17 Purvis, A. et al. (2000) Predicting extinction risk in declining species.
Proc. Biol. Sci. 267, 1947–1952
18 Sutherland, W.J. (2006) Predicting the ecological consequences of
environmental change: a review of the methods. J. Appl. Ecol. 43,
599–616
19 Snyder, N.F.R. et al. (1996) Limitations of captive breeding in
endangered species recovery. Conserv. Biol. 10, 338–348
20 Kelley, J.L. (2006) Captive breeding promotes aggression in an
endangered Mexican fish. Biol. Conserv. 133, 169–177
21 McPhee, M.E. (2004) Generations in captivity increases behavioral
variance: considerations for captive breeding and reintroduction
programs.Biol. Conserv. 115, 71–77
22 McPhee, M.E. and Silverman, E.D. (2004) Increased behavioral
variation and the calculation of release numbers for reintroduction
programs. Conserv. Biol. 18, 705–715
23 Shier, D.M. and Owings, D.H. (2006) Effects of predator training on
behavior and post-release survival of captive prairie dogs (Cynomys
ludovicianus). Biol. Conserv. 132, 126–135
24 Gusset, M. et al. (2006) Divided we fail: the importance of social
integration for the re-introduction of endangered African wild dogs
(Lycaon pictus). J. Zool. 270, 502–511
25 Davidson, A.D. and Lightfoot, D.C. (2006) Keystone rodent
interactions: prairie dogs and kangaroo rats structure the biotic
composition of a desertified grassland. Ecography 29, 755–765
26 Shier, D.M. (2006) Effect of family support on the success of
translocated blacktailed prairie dogs. Conserv. Biol. 20, 1780–1790
27 Wallace, M.T. and Buchholz, R. (2001) Translocation of red-cockaded
woodpeckers by reciprocal fostering of nestlings. J. Wildl. Manage. 65,
327–333
28 Alberts, A.C. et al. (2003) Temporary alteration of local social structure
in a threatened population of Cuban iguanas (Cyclura nubila). Behav.
Ecol. Sociobiol. 51, 324–335
29 Rode, K.D. et al. (2006) Behavioural responses of brown bears mediate
nutritional effects of experimentally introduced tourism. Biol. Conserv.
133, 70–80
30 Walker, B.G. et al. (2006) Habituation of adult Magellanic penguins to
human visitation as expressed through behaviour and corticosterone
secretion. Conserv. Biol. 20, 146–154
31 Wingfield, J.C. and Sapolsky, R.M. (2003) Reproduction and resistance
to stress: when and how. J. Neuroendocrinol. 15, 711–724
32 Ralls, K. (1997) On becoming a conservation biologist. In Behavioral
Approaches to Conservation in the Wild (Clemmons, J.R. and Buchholz,
R., eds), pp. 356–372, Cambridge University Press
33 Boersma, P.D. et al. (2001) How good are endangered species recovery
plans? Bioscience 51, 643–649
34 Gross, L. (2005) Why not the best? How science failed the Florida
panther. PLoS Biol. 3, e333
35 Rode, K.D. et al. (2006) Nutritional ecology of elephants in Kibale
National Park, Uganda, and its relationship with crop-raiding
behaviour. J. Trop. Ecol. 22, 441–449
36 Slowtow, R. and van Dyk, G. (2001) Role of delinquent young ‘‘orphan’’
male elephants in high mortality of white rhinoceros in Pilanesberg
National Park, South Africa. Koedoe 44, 85–94
37 Riley, S.P.D. et al. (2006) A southern California freeway is a physical
and social barrier to gene flow in carnivores. Mol. Ecol. 15, 1733–1741
38 Blumstein, D.T. and Ferna
´ndez-Juricic, E. (2004) The emergence of
conservation behavior. Conserv. Biol. 18, 1175–1177
406 Opinion TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution Vol.22 No.8
www.sciencedirect.com
39 Cabin, R.J. (2007) Science-driven restoration: a square grid on a round
Earth? Restor. Ecol. 15, 1–7
40 Nichols, J.D. and Williams, B.K. (2006) Monitoring for conservation.
Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 668–673
41 Hornaday, W.T. (1914) Wild Life Conservation in Theory and Practice,
Yale University Press
42 Male, T.D. and Bean, M.J. (2005) Measuring progress in US
endangered species conservation. Ecol. Lett. 8, 986–992
43 Morjan, C. (2003) How rapidly can maternal behavior affecting
primary sex ratio evolve in a reptile with environmental sex
determination? Am. Nat. 162, 205–219
44 Caro, T. ed. (1998) Behavioural Ecology and Conservation Biology,
Oxford University Press
45 Linklater, W.L. (2004) Wanted for conservation research:
behavioral ecologists with a broader perspective. Bioscience 54,
352–360
46 Soule
´, M.E. (1986) Conservation biology and the ‘‘real world’’. In
Conservation Biology: the Science of Scarcity and Diversity (Soule
´,
M.E., ed.), pp. 1–12, Sinauer Associates
47 Read, A.J. et al. (1993) Harbor porpoises and gill nets in the Gulf of
Maine. Conserv. Biol. 7, 189–193
48 Carlstrom, J. et al. (2002) A field experiment using acoustic alarms
(pingers) to reduce harbour porpoise by-catch in bottom-set gillnets.
ICES J. Mar. Sci. 59, 816–824
49 Larsen, F. et al. (2002) Reduction in harbour porpoise by-catch in the
North Sea by high density gillnets. Paper SC/54/SM30, International
Whaling Commission Scientific Committee (www.cetaceanbycatch.org/
Papers/larse02.pdf)
50 Cox, T.M. et al. (2003) Behavioral responses of bottlenose dolphins,
Tursiops truncatus, to gillnets and acoustic alarms. Biol. Conserv. 115,
203–212
51 Kastelein, R.A. et al. (2006) Differences in the response of a striped
dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) and a harbour porpoise (Phocoena
phocoena) to an acoustic alarm. Mar. Environ. Res. 61, 363–378
52 Naidoo, R. et al. (2006) Integrating economic costs into conservation
planning. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 681–687
53 Sørensen, G.K. and Loeschcke, V. (2002) Natural adaptation to
environmental stress via physiological clock-regulation of stress
resistance in Drosophila.Ecol. Lett. 5, 16–19
54 Cockrem, J.F. (2005) Conservation and behavioral neuroendocrinology.
Horm. Behav. 48, 492–501
55 Whitehead, H. and Rendell, L. (2004) Movements, habitat use and
feeding success of cultural clans of South Pacific sperm whales.
J. Anim. Ecol. 73, 190–196
56 Freidenburg, L.K. and Skelly, D.K. (2004) Microgeographical variation
in thermal preference by an amphibian. Ecol. Lett. 7, 369–373
57 Kamel, S.J. and Mrosovsky, N. (2006) Deforestation: risk of sex ratio
distortion in Hawksbill sea turtles. Ecol. Appl. 16, 923–931
58 Spottiswoode, C.N. et al. (2006) Sexual selection predicts advancement
of avian migration in response to climate change. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B.
Biol. Sci. 273, 3023–3029
59 Yeh, P.J. (2004) Rapid evolution of a sexually selected trait following
population establishment in a novel habitat. Evolution 58, 166–174
60 Thom, M.D. et al. (2004) The evolution and maintenance of delayed
implantation in the Mustelidae (Mammalia: Carnivora). Evolution 58,
175–183
A Special Issue of Current Biology
21st August 2007
This special issue of Current Biology takes a broad look at the importance of sociality in biology, from the evolution of
cooperation to the way that social living might have facilitated the evolution of human intelligence. The issue
illustrates the fascinating variety of biological societies with articles on social amoebae, social spiders, eusocial
insets, crows, hyenas and humans.
Guest Editorial
All life is social
Steve Frank
Reviews
Evolutionary explanations for cooperation
Stuart West, Ashleigh Griffin and Andy Gardner
Kin selection versus sexual selection in eusocial
insects
Jacobus Boomsma
Social learning
Lars Chittka
The Cold War of the social amoebae
Gad Shaulsky and Richard Kessin
Social cognition in humans
Chris Frith
Sociality, evolution and cognition
Richard Byrne and Lucy Bates
Social immune systems
Sylvia Cremer
Primers
The social life of corvids
Nicky Clayton and Nathan Emery
Hyena societies
Heather Watts and Kay Holekamp
Quick Guide
Social spiders
Duncan Jackson
Opinion TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution Vol.22 No.8 407
www.sciencedirect.com
