Cheap and nasty? The potential perils of using management costs to identify global conservation priorities

The financial cost of biodiversity conservation varies widely around the world and such costs should be considered when identifying countries to best focus conservation investments. Previous global prioritizations have been based on global models for protected area management costs, but this metric may be related to other factors that negatively influence the effectiveness and social impacts of conservation. Here we investigate such relationships and first show that countries with low predicted costs are less politically stable. Local support and capacity can mitigate the impacts of such instability, but we also found that these countries have less civil society involvement in conservation. Therefore, externally funded projects in these countries must rely on government agencies for implementation. This can be problematic, as our analyses show that governments in countries with low predicted costs score poorly on indices of corruption, bureaucratic quality and human rights. Taken together, our results demonstrate that using national-level estimates for protected area management costs to set global conservation priorities is simplistic, as projects in apparently low-cost countries are less likely to succeed and more likely to have negative impacts on people. We identify the need for an improved approach to develop global conservation cost metrics that better capture the true costs of avoiding or overcoming such problems. Critically, conservation scientists must engage with practitioners to better understand and implement context-specific solutions. This approach assumes that measures of conservation costs, like measures of conservation value, are organization specific, and would bring a much-needed focus on reducing the negative impacts of conservation to develop projects that benefit people and biodiversity.

Faecal avoidance and selective foraging: do wild mice have the luxury to avoid faeces?

Host–parasite interactions are a key determinant of the population dynamics of wild animals, and behaviours that reduce parasite transmission and infection may be important for improving host fitness. While antiparasite behaviours have been demonstrated in laboratory animals and domesticated ungulates, whether these behaviours operate in the wild is poorly understood. Therefore, examining antiparasite behaviours in natural populations is crucial for understanding their ecological significance. In this study, we examined whether two wild rodents (white-footed mice, Peromyscus leucopus, and deer mice, Peromyscus maniculatus), selectively foraged away from conspecific faeces or avoided faeces altogether, and whether faecal gastrointestinal parasite status affected their behaviour. We also tested whether wild mice, when nesting, avoided using material that had previously been used by healthy or parasite-infected conspecifics. Our results, in contrast to laboratory mouse studies, suggest that wild mice do not demonstrate faecal avoidance, selective foraging or selective use of nesting material; they preferred being near faeces and did not differentiate between faeces from parasitized and uninfected conspecifics. Behavioural avoidance to reduce parasite infection may still represent an important strategy; however, mice in our study population appeared to favour the opportunity to feed and nest over the risks of coming into contact with faecal-transmitted parasites. Furthermore, the presence of conspecific faeces may actually provide a positive cue of a good foraging or nesting location. Ultimately, balancing the trade-off of performing antiparasite behaviours to reduce infection with missing an important feeding or nesting opportunity may be very different for animals in the wild facing complex and stochastic environments.

•

Parasites can be important for the fitness and dynamics of wild animals.

•

Transmission by faecal–oral contact is common for parasites of wild animals.

•

We examine whether wild mice selectively avoid faeces to reduce infection risk.

•

Surprisingly, wild mice did not avoid faeces during foraging, feeding or nesting.

•

Wild mice favour the chance to feed and nest over the risk of parasite contact.