That we always conserve for someone and with some purpose. This implies that your way and objective to conserve may differ from your neighbor's and what should be found is a common middle path-good-for-all sense of what should be conserved and how. Accept that everything changes, even live. It is just that our current knowledge shows us that we have a moral duty to control the changes we make in order to preserve nature, and hence ourselves. My neighbor, however, might disagree with that....

Danilo Boscolo is right, concept of conservation may be different at different times and in different areas. One should look around its surroundings / environemnt and address the top priority issues in conservation and then decide itself at local lavel that which issue and concept should be the most important one.

some thoughts (in no particular order) :

In both works the founders of the discipline (Soulé & Wilcox 1980, Soulé 1986) no chapter deals with the marine realm in the first and in the second one (Johannes & Hatcher 1986). It should actually wait years to see a first books entirely devoted to the conservation of marine biodiversity (Norse & Crowder 2005).

Criteria of rarity, vulnerability, specific richness and diversity are overwhelmingly posed as assumptions that justify, in itself, considering that certain species and habitats and the proposed conservation measures. In conservation biology, the writings of great authors have certainly been instrumental in the acceptance of these criteria. Soulé, in the 1980s, describes the conservation biology as a science of scarcity and diversity (Soulé 1986) and posits that conservation biology is a "crisis discipline" and postulates that the diversity of organisms is good (Soulé 1985).

But in theory, if all the elements are part of the natural heritage, this is incompatible with the pragmatism necessary in the field of nature conservation. But conservation biology requires a selection of what should be preserved first. Propose conservation measures involves not only know the best natural heritage referred to, but also to achieve prioritize conservation priorities. It is therefore natural elements "heritage more than others", ie one which gives more conservation value than others.

If conservation biology has often highlighted the urgency of conservation of the features rich, rare and vulnerable coastal natural elements "ordinary" do not they also need to be kept? How to prioritize the different needs of conservation of natural heritage coastline? Finally, if there is now a wide range of paradigms of conservation measures spanning most functional vision to those with a decidedly human, what is the most appropriate way for sustainable conservation??

Our media and policies for environment protection and sustainable development see “Biodiversity” only through what species do (their ecological roles, the “services” they can perform) and forget what species have. However the value we confer to a species cannot be ecologically based only. Rare organs, rare structures, rare character mosaics are valuable as unique products of a historical process even if the species exhibiting them are negligible in terms of ecosystem dynamics. Coelacanths, the platypus, can perfectly disappear from the surface of the planet without any significant ecological impact. The “ecological order” does not reflect the historical order. Without systematics, we lose the historical dimension of what exists, and we simply lose the knowledge of what is what we are facing.

It's hard to give real meaning to words like "conservation" and "sustainability." When looked at closely, these are entirely subjective, and usually dependent on a human value such as economics, aesthetics or culture. A person who works in conservation must understand that these things are always in operation, but a conservationist works somewhat outside of this, in the realm of ecology, which is always changing, and has no concern for human politics, needs or desires. Conservation doesn't need to mean keeping things the same or not allowing them to change. It might need to be defending nature's right and ability to respond and change the way it needs to and helping people adapt to that.

Landscape scale conservation is imperative, creation and preservation of wildlife corridors throughout the landscape allows species to respond to the multitude of impacts it can expect into the future including climate change, human impacts, devlopment and invasive species. To preserve an area for wildlife thus producing "island" conservation leaves all species in a very vulnerable position and ultimately is likely to die out in those area.

The fundamental concept that is unique to Conservation Biology is ‘conservation’. I would hope that undergraduates would be encouraged to embrace the idea that conservation is a philosophy not a science and to appreciate that people have different conservation values. I would advocate the view put forward by Holland & Rawles (1993) that "Conservation is about negotiating the transition from past to future in such a way as to secure the transfer of maximum significance.” http://www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/philosophy/awaymave/onlineresources/ethics%20of%20conservation%20_holland,%20rawles_.pdf. However, importantly, Professor T. Christopher Smout notes that "We need to be informed by history not ruled by it". This chimes with Holland & Rawles suggestion that "Conservation is not about hanging on to features of a past which no longer have any significance; but it is about creating a future we actually want, rather than being swept into a future which is none of our choosing". Put another way, Conservation Biology needs to look to the future to help find sustainable solutions.

Conservation biology and environmental ethics

We can consider the conservation biology as a response to the recent wave of global environmental change that threatens to eliminate a huge portion of the world's biological diversity, creating protected areas, endangered species listing, managing programs breeding and reintroduction ... But there is a crisis discipline "like cancer" said Arne Naess (since 1989), an instrument made necessary in an emergency situation.

More ecologists believe that conservation biology, "must move from being recorded disasters science a science of action ... ". It is a synthetic discipline that applies the principles of ecology, biogeography, genetics of populations, anthropology, economics, sociology, etc.., The maintenance of biological diversity the entire planet (Barbault, 1997).

I think it is this teaching that can address aspects of environmental ethics. This philosophical approach has been widely criticized and caricatured by some, yet it is not a specific doctrine, but a "platform of reflection" on which all the thinkers of the ecology may be based. The recent development of knowledge of the functioning of ecosystems, particularly the many interrelations between the various elements that compose them. "It raises awareness of the profound ignorance about human relationships formed within the biosphere, and therefore the effects of disturbances that human activities can introduce" (Naess, 1973).

The central issue is that of a change in our perception that will determine the priorities and actions to implement: when perception of biodiversity by the public is often limited to a few iconic species of fauna and flora, it is crucial to restore the biodiversity in terms of its ubiquity as the foundation of life and its many interactions with human societies (Chevassus-au-Louis et al., 2009).

Environmental ethics is given a new object, the natural world is worthy of moral consideration for himself, that is to say, regardless of any coefficient value for human existence. The environment must be considered for its intrinsic values ​​and rights holder causing a number of moral and legal obligations. While the classical view raises the satisfaction of human needs as a goal (human-centered) and assigns the rest of the living status of "resource" deep ecology re-entered the human purposes in a broader perspective, the of living in order to take into account the needs of the entire biosphere, including humans because co-operates with other species for millions of years.

In my opinion a student of Conservation Biology should understand the urgency to reverse the current biodiversity loss and the importance of setting priorities for conservation. He/she should learn that conservation needs information and sound scientific basis but is also a complex process, in which multiple stakeholders are usually involved, that needs dialogue and participation.

Maybe the concept of "a balanced decision-making process", that is to say a process based both on experts' opinion and field-evidence on one hand, and on questions/needs from/of the society on the other hand ?

I note you asked about the lessons that students of "conservation biology" need to learn. To me they need to know that there will be a great deal more that just the biology needed and a great many more people than biologists engaged if there is to be any kind of conservation.

I agree with Brendan. Conservation biology has become an integrative science: integrating biological, economic, political and sociological factors. Any conservation project that focuses solely on biological aspects (i.e. ignores the interests of other stakeholders) is likely to fail in the long-term.

A good paper for undergraduates to read is:

Grumbine, R.E. 1994. What is Ecosystem Management? Conserv. Biol. 8: 27–38.

To me, to understand the "Tragedy of the commons" in detail is one of the most important conceps in conservation biology: it touches on sustainability (marine/land), environment destruction, human inflicted climate change, removal of diversity for profit, ....., and also ethics and economy.

I think the most important thing I learnt is the link between conservation and utilisation.

We can only see the world as humans, and we cannot know what is best for another species. We could argue that extinction is 'bad' for a species, but we have no way to know this, and over time all species become extinct.

As humans, we evolved to live in rich diverse environments, and they enable our health, so it is in our interest to support biodiversity. A utilitarian argument seems more powerful than a moral-based one.

Conservation is expensive, and it seems impossible to conserve something 'because it's right' - a time may come when the conservation ends due to lack of funding, and then maybe the whole effort was wasted. Pragmatically, to conserve something we somehow need to find a way for that effort to fit into an economic model and be self-sustaining, through tourism, or sustainable exploitation.

I also support the idea of landscape- or ecosystem-scale conservation as being key, and somehow to manage enough human economic activity to sustain the landscape without overwhelming it.

I completely agree with Alex and Environmental ethic approach. Perception of biodiversity by the public is often limited to a few iconic species of fauna and flora, it is crucial to restore the biodiversity in terms of its ubiquity as the foundation of life and its multiple interactions with human societies. While the classical view raises the satisfaction of human needs as a goal (anthropocentrism) and assigns the rest of the living status of "resource" deep ecology re-entered the human purposes in a wider perspective, that of the living (biocentrism ) to take into account the needs of the entire biosphere, especially because the human species co-evolve with the other species over millions of years.

"It raises awareness of the profound ignorance about human relationships formed within the biosphere, and therefore the effects of disturbances that human activities can introduce" (Naess, 1973).

Yes I agree that the ethic approach is central, as it does not focus on the biological side of conservation but on the interface of biology and society. Coming back to the "important concept" and the initial question, I believe the concept of "ecosystem of reference" used in conservation and restoration ecology is an opportunity to deal, in biological terms, with such issues. In other words, what do we have in mind when conserving or restoring, for what purpose, for who, for what ecosystem services, which criteria can define reference(s)? My experience in discussing with many scientists and stakeholders, is that nobody really agree for what would be the "ideal state", probably because of many points of view, probably also because the target is moving. Do we conserve ecosystems or ecosystems trajectories?

This is actually the central issue in conservation biology, but also the most complex. There is no ideal state. I think that there is no single answer, it depends on many parameters. Prenier in place in many regions, there is more ecosystems that have not undergone human action. It handles the most anthroposystems. And often we like to freeze ecosystems in a state that are considered interesting. But why fight against the natural dynamics. It is sometimes useful: for example maintain wet meadows in the river floodplain which is channeled. We can set up mowing or grazing. Without this management, taking into account the dynamic river is blocked, prairie disappear and can not recreate it.

Sometimes management can maintain habitats, but not without asking the question why.

In keeping with the stimulating tone of this thread, I am tempted to answer that first and foremost anyone contemplating a 'fulfilling' career in Conservation Biology should be prepared to a life of fighting political inertia in order to impose sound (science-based) conservation objectives.

In most countries that I know, the cause of biodiversity is losing the fight against the private interests of extractive industries (e.g., oil and gas; fisheries; etc). Protected areas and protective decrees do exist on paper, for sure, but how many of them are enforced? Aspiring conservation scientists must become not only proficient in biology and ecosystem management but also in environmental law ... and in debating skills.

Maybe causes, cascade effects and rates of extintion

Hands down: The enormity of the global biodiversity crisis (extinction crisis) and how it directly affects and threatens humanity. I've taught both graduate and undergraduate conservation biology courses and I've found that this can be a surprisingly complex and difficult problem for students to fully process.

Conservation biology is a very broad field. I think you need to be flexible to what it is that each student wants to get from this paper. For myself there is two fundamental areas that are required to be covered and that is terrestrial and aquatic. From there then as a class you would look at two projects both aquatic and terrestrial that is important to your area. Id be teaching the methodology of how you would like to get your students to approach this may it be qualitative or quantitative. you may have 10 students in the class but you will have 10 different project reports at the end and not one will be the same as each interpretation be different. Your goal at the end of the day is to allow your students to apply knowledge they have gained to there report. Your students need to be involved physically to understand conservation biology and how it functions.

To me, the short answer is that Conservation biology is a science that applies and synthesises knowledge from other sciences (e.g. ecology, evolution, genetics) with the clear purpose to preserve biodiversity and avoid "unnatural" extinctions of species. So it differs from the basic sciences it is founded on in that it is applied and purpose driven (in contrast, a population extinction is a just a fact in ecology, not good/bad). This purpose or goal coupled to the rapid ongoing loss of biodiversity is the reason for the label "crisis dicipline". Since Conservation biology clearly places value in biodiversity it involves ethical considerations, but in my mind this can also be seen as an axiom to it (for Conservation biology to make sense you have to accept the preservation of biodiversity as inherently "good"). Another important component is the management of natural resources with regard to multiple interests/stakeholders while preserving biodiversity, ecosystems, and ecosystem services. This aspect is inherently pragmatic and less idealistic than the goals of Conservation biology, but unavoidable in practical applications.

Because of its specific goals, Conservation biology also has some concepts of its own, which an undergraduate student should know about. These include "Extinction risk", Levels and metrics of biodiversity, "Population viability analysis", fragmentation and metapopulation dynamics, "Keystone (and umbrella) species", "Coupled/cascading extinctions" and "Adaptive management". However, the list can be made much longer and this is just a selection. Gilpin & Soulé's extinction vortices are also useful to look at as theoretical models, since they tie to many other concepts (inbreeding, genetic drift, variance in population growth, fragmentation).

As a sidenote, I would argue that the ethical considerations of "Conservation" and different interpretations of this concept should be made secondary. While interesting, it is a stated goal of Conservation biology to halt the loss of biodiversity, and this is what the methods and concepts are dealing with. I also wouldn't emphasize the connection between traditional political "conservatism" and Conservation biology (even though there is some ideological common ground). The conservation in "Conservation biology" as a science is not about halting change for the sake of it, but about managing the utilization of our environment to protect entities with inherent (and instrumental) value. In that sense I think that "conservation" is an unfortunate term, since it has connotations of backwardness, stasis and resisting change.

There is a very good book (and it is FREE), which works as a baseline for every student/scientist working in this field: "Conservation Biology for All" (http://www.mongabay.com/conservation-biology-for-all.html)

I agree with several of the points already raised (e.g., the need for a landscape, or macroecological, perspective; a need to address the unfolding biodiversity crisis). But, to focus on the question of the most important concept an undergraduate student of conservation biology can learn, I would say there are actually (at least) three key concepts by which all conservation biologists need to opeate:

i) Leibig's Law of the Minimum -- all speicies have minimal conditions that they require to ocupy a given habitat; if those minimal conditions for existence are not present for a given species, no measure of conservation action will alow them to persist in that habitat.

ii) Shelford's Law of Tolerance -- all species can withstand a level of change or disturbance to their habitat; if that range of tolerance(s) is exceeded, the species in question would not be able to persist in that habitat for the long-term.

iii) Students of conservation biology need to most forcefully communicate concepts i) and ii) to politicians and policy-makers, because these concepts do not seem to play much of a part in the general current outlook of political planning and policy-making.

1) Diversity is a function of both extinction and speciation rates.

2) Species come - species go...

3) Extinction is forever

"For in the end, we will conserve only what we love. We will love only what we understand. We will understand only what we are taught." Dioum, Baba

It might seem a bit trivial or "catchy" and it is certainly not an academic concept, but it is very true, in particular for undergraduate students in developing countries IMHO.

I agree with Manuel. Seems like a bumper sticker, but really it's the recipe for how to conserve... says the professor!

Following on from Frederic Briand's comments, I 'd say that it's vital to understand that the most complex, and most important task for conservation biology is to change people's minds. If that isn't regarded as a core part of conservation biology, then it can become merely the science of observing (in detail) the way that things are being lost to us and future generations. Frankly, doing the science is easy in comparison to changing minds, and too many of us take refuge in a serene academic sphere rather than the bruising real world.

Agreeing with most answers already given, I would only add that there is an urgent need for a revival of natural history knowledge in schools; that is, a need for a reenhancement of interest in ideographic science (and not only the nomothetic aspects) to the schools and universities.

What we are losing is diversity (biodiversity) in all its facets, and complete natural histories are needed more than ever. But natural histories themselves are becoming more and more scarce...

Of course, we cannot keep saying "we need to know better before preserving"; we already have accumulated a good deal of knowledge so as to apply it to preserve areas and landscapes that we know are critical for biodiversity sensu lato.

But at the same time, we must continue developing ideographic knowledge as a basis for a sound nomothetic advance in conservation biology.

I agree that few things can be changed in the direction of interest without action. How ecological knowledge is translated into effective conservation action? Examples and praxis in this field would be greatly useful for students.

As it has been said above, if unwanted extinctions and ecosystem destructions are to be avoided, conservation biologists should have the commitment to communicate with people and politicians/stakeholders. There is a lot of work to do to inforce, press or convince administrations and governments that there are critical conservation priorities.

I think its important to remember that humans, like other organisms, are part of the environment. This works in multiple ways, a wolf eats a caribou, it natural. How about when a human eats a farm animal (i.e., chicken, pig, cow, etc)? Most of the classes i took as an undergraduate student, projected humans as non-natural elements in the environment, this is not true. We are however increasingly out of balance with the environment around us. How do we get that balance back?

I think the most important is the three themes: SOCIETY, ECONOMY and ENVIRONMENTAL for sustentability. Is relevant know methods and focus in this three themes.

I believe that 2 simple things are important (they are not related each other): 1) the basic problem of Conservation Biology is the increasing human world population and 2) extinction is a natural phenomenon (I mean that not all extinctions are a consequence of human activities). Keith Nicholls has already considered the second point. I appreciated her post.

I agree in general with the most part of the comments, but I think that something really importante is missing: the rate of consumption of resources by human population is one of the main sources of environmental degradation. This point should be recognized in order to address decissions regarding prioritisation for conservation. This way, I think it is really important for undergraduate students to recognize global patterns of consumption. Besides, I think that knowing the basis of contemporary economic models as well as economic theory is a main point in Conservation Biology. Finally, I believe a conservation biologist should be familiar with a vast array of prioritisation criteria, with environmental ethics and have the ability to communicate with people and stakeholders, as mentioned above by Juan Delgado. Here are two points of view I've found usefull once I asked myself a similar question: https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/allendorf/webpage/Teri_files/Allendorf%20and%20Allendorf%202012%20human%20pop.pdf; http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/399598/2138260733/name/2010_Whay+Every+Conservation+Biologist+Should+Know+about+Economic+Theory_Conservation+Biology_in+press.pdf

Taxonomy. Every species is important. We must not ignore them, who they are , where they live, and what they do. We are always helpless because they disappear before we know them.

I think Fredrick and Allison have the right idea. Conservation, biodiversity, and landscape dynamics seem to be the most important aspects for students to take away from conservation biology. I know when I was an undergraduate student in wildlife biology it was very focused on individual species management, smaller habitats and ecosystems. I think that where the big difference should lie between conservation biology and the other fields.

exactly, we change the concept of conservation. Interress least one species, but more and more and ecosystem functioning. Functionality and functionality conservation approach is increasingly shared, even if it remains a complex concept and requires much research program.

If conservation practice is not directed to the real "ecopolitical" context, and there is no political will, it can not succeed.

Example: We have to preserve an endangered mammal, with all its space and prey requirements, and thus indirectly gain amplified ecological benefit from its key role (an umbrella species). Lets envisage we invest mainly or only in captivity breeding infrastructure, monitoring programs and releasing schedules in suitable habitat, and qualified staff. But we don't invest in maintaining the integrity of the core habitat of the species plus buffering areas to allow movements: i.e. we do not invest in avoiding roadkills in nearby busy roads, The likely result is that our expensive investment in raising animals dies on the road to cars; or if we do not hamper uncontrolled urban sprawl or other territory-consuming activities...as a probable consequence, we expend a lot of (mostly public) money and effort in captivity breeding programs but reintroduction fails to some of the above causes.

Ecology, Society and Economy are indeed the three pillars of conservation and sustainability, but it is closer to the truth to picture them, not as three equal pillars, but as nested sets: Economy is a subset of Society, Society is a subset of Ecology. Politicians usually envision it the other way around.

Seeing a landscape doesn't show you how it has always been nor how it will always be. Conservation biologists need to take a long view (1000s of years) into the past and future as well as doing our best to understand and take action in the present.

Yes, looking a landscape we need to know who they are, what they are doing, and where they live within the landscape.

The most important concept an undergraduate student (AND PROFESSIONALS) of Conservation Biology can learn: ConSerVation with no action is just conVerSation!

I will use this phrase to explain my point of view: " the rate of consumption of resources by human population is one of the main sources of environmental degradation" (Palacio)

A student, on conservation biology, must understand that CONSERVATION is unattainable, just approachable (not 100% achieved)

As the chairman of a biodiversity society in Southeast Asia, I think wildlife biology is on of the fundamentals of conservation biology. However, it often can be inefficient to focus on a particular species, which many conservation groups still tend to do. I think conservation biology can often be bogged down by the 'biology' of things because conservationists are so into their species or their ecosystems that they try to appeal to others using ethics, or right and wrong. I think 'biology' should be dropped, and conservation needs to recognised as a multidisciplinary field. Conservation (biologists) need to know the following: 1) the biology of their species / study area, 2) they need to understand the abiotic factors affecting the region they study in (geography / climate), 3) they need to understand the people the derive their livelihoods from their study sites (anthropology / sociology / political ecology), 4) they need to understand how best to use extremely limited resources to achieve conservation goals and be able to assess the efficiency of expenditure in developing the communities around (economics / econometrics), 5) they need to be able raise awareness without antagonising and raise funds to continue their work (business planning / marketing), 6) they need to understand and balance peoples' values and interests and what can be traded off against each other (political science / political economy).

The tragedy of the conservation field is that so many of us focus on the biology that it practically becomes 'preservation' instead of conservation. In actuality, conservation is probably one of the most difficult fields of human endeavour. Universities are also slow to recognise that because so many courses only teach course upon course of Linnean level biology.

The idea of simply running through forests and spending nights out is outdated for at least half a century.

It probably doesn't get any more complex or even "wicked" (in the sense of wicked problems where there never are clear solutions) than in conservation. So, yes, we need far more scientists and practitioners with multidisciplinary skills in economics, social studies, policy work, communication, business etc.. But first of all we need people who care about species, wildlife, diversity. That care and fascination often deepens with biological study, and taking the biology out of conservation could alienate exactly those people that we would like to attract to conservation. So, a bit of both. Make sure that the biology in conservation biology remains exciting, but also get students to understand that they will need a lot of other skills and insights if they ever want to be effective in real-world conservation. Ask them to study conservation programs and they will quickly see the enormous extent to which conservation failure outweighs success. That might get them (or us) thinking.

Well, for successful work one should get in mind, that there is no "universal recipes". What works perfectly in the West, does not necessarily works in the East (of europe, and in the World).

Next what one should learn - it does not mattter where you are from and what you know already. Before giving advice for conservation in different country/community/ecosystem, please take time to learn local peculiarities. Talk to locals. Spend time with them. Take couple of beer, maybe. Even if they seem to you not enough educated, they know better - they live there.

Hello Sadie,

My two cents here (I didn't read the full thread of response, but I agree with most of the answers I have read).

I would spend some time explaining the difficult concepts of ethics and values (intrinsic and utilitarian) of biodiversity. Once those concepts are "relatively" understood, I would spend more time on politics and legislations, as they are the only valuable means of actions we have in conservation.

So many good answers here! Directly to the question, I had my aha-moment as a grad student when I came to understand the related concepts of "evolutionary potential" and "evolutionarily significant units." As a sustainability scientist, I have found these ideas to be fundamental to conceiving of a sustainable society. In a general sense, I think that students need to understand that the act of conservation is a social act and that good social science, therefore, is needed in addition to the natural sciences that may have initially captivated them.

Conservation biology connects the sciences of ecology to sociology with practical action in the field and in the community. In large parts of the world, conservation can merely be achieved by SUSTAINABLE USE of natural ressources and ecosystems. Stakeholder inclusion and education are crucial. In most cases, conservation cannot work with fencing nature off man. It also depends on dynamic procedures, that adapt specifically to the local situation.

The most important thing a Conservation Biology student (and anyone else) can learn is that, like all living systems, their success will depend upon achieving balance, so a liberal arts background that would have provided them with the opportunity to encounter the following quote would be valuable " In this world of sin and sorrow, if virtue triumphs over vice it is not because it is virtuous, but because it has bigger and better guns; if honesty prevails over double-dealing, it is not because it is honest, but because it has a stronger army more nobly led; and if good overcomes evil it is not because it is good, but because it has a well-lined purse. It is well to have right on your side, but it is madness to forget that unless we have might as well it will avail us nothing. We must believe that God loves men of good will but there is no evidence to show that He will save fools from the results of their folly. " W. Somerset Maugham

also, do not trust politicians - their decisions not necessarily are conservation based. Use lobbying.

Carrying capacity of an ecosystem, then they will understand humans are a pest on the earth.

Young people/students in general should understand that conservation strategy can be approached from biological, physical, chemical and social point of view. To my experience particularly in the developing countries, the act of conservation is more of a social art. which can only be conducted successfully when people's stomach are full. Therefore, people must strictly participate in birth control programme to slow down the doubling-time, which in turn rise their education, health and wealth as such, so that they are not simply abuse whatever resources in this Earth.

The most important thing is to learn about making values explicit, rather than assuming that they are implicit. Conservation Biology is a value based science and therefore is about the application of objective science based methods to produce outcomes that are based on highly subjective values. This requires some real education in political science, sociology and philosophy / ethics to compliment the biology and to understand the context within which science is being used.

Nothing of the value-based science allows framing conservation correctly. The success of the profession relies in the wise administration of the resources one's manage to conserve. The imperative for an undergraduate is to know that Conservation is not only a science but also an art; as the emotion that triggers prioritization of flagship species or selection of indicator species to which to protect, or for how long, will ultimately depend on political decisions moved by emotion, passion and sometimes hidden agendas.

Sounds simple-minded, but: Teaching kids to avoid stereotype behaviour that could harm the environment when they become consumers, voters, decision makers, managers and politicians is the most important concept I am trying to learn at the moment. Dealing with questions like how water could become a trading commodity of private companies, what are the benefits of intact rainforest, why is it better to offer ecotourism than clearing forest and keeping cattle. Such teaching process is definitely not simple.

Hello Robert, you are right. I voted your answer.

All very good. The exploding human population is the main source of our environmental problems. Unfortunately, people are ruled more by desire and fear than by logic. Most people require training to begin to understand the consequences of their actions. Liberal arts and natural science education have to be a central concerns for conservationists.

I am not sure if i could pick just one concept since the majority is interdependant ... but when I used to teach environmental disciplines for engineers I could perceive that "entropy" is something *importantish*!

And depends from where and how you approach very understandable and a good start!

Sustainable exploitation.

As one imminent necessity, not two opposing ideologies

Garry, the exploding human population is just one part of the problem, the other one being the exploding overexploitation of resources by developed countries. One should not be addressed in isolation, both are tragically relevant.

Oh, you are right, of course. I just think population deserves emphasis. I can't even argue that over-exploitation needs customers to be profitable, though developing a market's appetite can take time, because I guess there is no real limit to what a person can consume. But then there are instances of declining wildlife and carrying capacity occurring in the poorest places as human crowding continues.

has it (overcrowding and overexploitation) adds the problems of pollution, in particular the introduction into the environment of chemical compounds whose environmental impact is still very little known. This is the field of ecotoxicology is necessary to raise awareness, including the general public. Today, it is estimated that more than 100,000 chemicals that are regularly used in industry and agriculture and are potential contaminants and pollutants ecosystems. Since the 30s the global production of chemicals has been multiplied by 400. Currently, only 3000 molecules were thoroughly their environmental impact analyzes.

In fact we are the only one specie that consumes more than we need....

All the others base their three basics (shelter or protection, food and reproduction) in what they need .... naturally if there is an unbalanced condition in one of these requirements there are changes in the others...

But not us, humans... we don't have enough food, neither enough shelter.... but we still reproducing... we are the only specie to go for a dinner and eat much, much more than we need to keep alive... and even than we can spend in energy...

There are no "free food" ... we will pay the cost for our choices.

while we don't have equity in education we will not achieve it also in the distribution and neither in the consumption of wealth.

I will replace 'concept' with 'skill' for the following discussion, because this is how I interpret the question.

If one is studying conservation biology then the conservation aspect would be very important to that student. So one of the most important skills a conservation biologist could achieve is that of communicating effectively with the layperson. This would include listening skills so that the scientist understands what the requirements are of the ordinary person.

For an example of this, suggested reading is Chapter 12 of "The Enchanted Braid" by Osha Gray Davidson, published by Wiley 1998.

Further information about the success of scientists and laypeople collaborating on a conservation project can be found at:

http://www.ecotippingpoints.org/video/apo-island/index.html

This explains the origin and success of the Apo Island coral reef conservation project that involved scientists communicating effectively with local fishermen.

I believe this is one of the best skills a conservation scientist can have: to use all the scientific knowledge they have to educate the layperson about how to put in place sustainable work practices that benefit the ecosystems.

Sandi,

I do understand about what you say. But I tend to not completely agree with you.

There are for sure differences between concepts and skills.

The fact is even if a scientist have the ability to have an effective communication and more... to promote the understanding among different groups involved in a project... if he/she does not have a clear idea about some fundamental concepts should be only one more person with good intentions.

The opposite, as you describe is always a no desirable situation... sure.

However, I understood the question as it posted ... she asked about concepts to teach and/or talk about... why we don't know. smile....

But should be nice to discuss about skills as well ... in other topic maybe.

Best

Liliana

Hi Liliana,

Thankyou very much for your feedback on my contribution. I have since put in a question on the topic of communication skills for scientists.

Cheers,

Sandi

This is a very interesting question. I would say that knowing what is 'biodiversity' (current and past) and why it is so important for mankind is the most important 'concept'. In what skills are concerned, the ability to communicate the values of biological diversity and ecosystem services is as important as the ability to listen other points of view and be able to argue properly.

Cheers,

JE

Hi Sandi,

I will follow your topic. I has been devoting sometime to conflict resolution, mediation, consensus building. And there are lots to discuss about in order to approximate the knowledge produced in the academia to the knowledge that comes from communities.

Will be interesting to follow what others think about and learn from you!

best

Liliana

What are the most important skills for a conservation biologist?

She/he must be a first class expert in biology, ecology, mathematics, chemistry, toxicology and biotechnology and able to use the mistakes of businessmen and policymakers.

Last but not least he/she should be an iron man or woman in the concrete jungle.

Io not remember - did I mention negotiating skills? this is plus to Andreas list.

I am sorry I was too slow or too quick, or both. Unfortunately, I have jumped over the body of the discussion and seen only its beginning and end. I followed too quickly Sandy Worral-Hart: "I will replace 'concept' with 'skill' for the following discussion, because this is how I interpret the question".

I am very sorry I was a bull in a China shop.

Biosphere is a wonderful and relatively perfect perpetuum mobile which has been attacked at each hierarchical levels of its structure. This is the outcome of Homo destructivus’ egoism and errors. Unfortunately, structural interventions caused system failures and thus the network of troubles became global.

How to repair and protect biosphere? How to conserve biodiversity?

Experts wrote somewhere: Nature needs about 10 million years to repair wounds people have inflicted. The destruction is multi-sided. The answer must be multi-sided.

How is it possible to find a single fundamental concept which can be efficient versus the galloping devastation and would train conservation biologists?

How many years do we need to do the job of environmental protection?

There are champion nations in destructing biological systems and the consequence influences everybody. See Red List (http://www.iucnredlist.org). Where and how should be conserved biodiversity? Main question: Who will pay the bill?

It is a pleasure to see undergraduates are so enthusiastic.

Well well well... If there is a choice between conservation and wellbeing of humans? Between species and famina? Between forests and education? It's easy to ask and answer being rich country... and to advice what should be done. I am not trying to switch discussion to other side, but: undergraduates should be aware of differences between East and West, between rich and poor, and, TRY these differences.

Hi Andras,

I am sorry I sent the discussion off at a tangent. However your final statement, in your first post, can be viewed as a concept. It would be very advantageous for an undergraduate to have the idea of needing to be "an iron man or woman in the concrete jungle".

I noticed you have participated in the discussion on Research Gate about Naytura 2000. If undergraduates understand about the idea that scientists need to meld with the political community, then they will probably try to learn how to take their well-researched data to the concrete jungle and use it to fight for conservation of the environment.

Undertanding that it is an advantage for scientists to be able to communicate with the grass-roots sector of society would be a great concept to have as well...if I may rephrase my original post. Again, the Apo Island situation is an excellent example of where this has worked.

Dear Sandy,

Thanks for your kindness. I have read somewhere: without women men would have become monsters.

I think everybody must have his/her own responsibility. There are too many people in the world, thus tolerance is a question of surviving.

The most important skill a student in conservation biology must have, is acute senses.

.

The sense of sight, looking to see that the set does not get lost in details.

.

The sense of touch to notice tiny details playing in big changes.

.

The sense of hearing to better hear the rivers, the birds and men.

.

Conservation is not a science in which man must modify the nature, but rather seek finding the best way for those who live there do not conflict.

.

Frederic, properly enumerated several current conflicts, but in a few years some of them will still exist and new will emerge, one that is dedicated to conservation if not all senses sharp and may fail to anticipate the problems, and the earlier you start feel will be easier to come up with solutions.

.

Unfortunately there is not one equation that tells how a new human action may cause problems in the future, but with acute senses sooner we can feel, describeand  measure them, the sooner we'll find them and seek solutions.

.

The main terms in science is a problem well placed, because any false problem can lead to false solutions which often bring irrecoverable losses.

I am not sure if this is the most important concept but I am sure is one of them, "points of view" should be a concept that is necessary to understand if we want to make conservation. Point of view since an ecological and social approach. For instance, what does mean an peace of leaf for an insect or for a mammal?, or an hectare of forest for an small farm and for a company? or carbon credits for a developing country and for a developed country?. I know a very nice group activity to teach this "points of view". If you are interested please tell me.

Perhaps recognizing that "progress" and "development" must be reversed and human population must be shrunk are the essential concepts.

I agree with Garry. It seems like human overpopulation is a taboo subject that no-one seems willing to talk about or address, but if we did, it would help lessen future threats to biodiversity, in terms of rapid climate change, habitat alteration, bushmeat, alien invasive species, and pretty much all the other human-induced threats to species.

In my mind the most important concept to learn is that conservation is about field implementation.

The gulf between research, theory and actual management remains wide. Unless knowledge converts to results at meaningful landscape scales - nothing changes. The skills for that to occur are many and varied (political, social, economic, technical etc.) - but publishing a paper doesn't in itself change anything. While an individual can't do the whole thing by themselves they can integrate themselves into social systems to carry out that necessary and practical change.

Dear Garry and Lindy.

Overpopulation is not a taboo, is simply something difficult to define, and completely nonsense to try to enforce populations.

.

If we consider the 20 countries with the highest populational density with population above 10 million.

.

Country and Pop per km2

Bangladesh 1199;

Taiwan 714;

South Korea 502;

Netherlands 495;

Rwanda 448;

India 395;

Haiti 353;

Japan 348;

Belgium 344;

Philippines 335;

Sri Lanka 333;

Vietnam 289;

United Kingdom 258;

Pakistan 239;

Germany 236;

Nepal 202;

Italy 197;

North Korea 189;

Uganda 169 and

Nigeria 167.

.

We arrived to this list very interesting, as it shows that the continents are more overpopulated excencialmente Europe, Asia later (do not forget that Russia and other Asian countries of the former USSR are immense demographic gaps), after Africa, America and Oceania.

.

I want to know how they will react the Dutch, South Korean, Indian, Japanese, Belgian, British, German, Italian and North Koreans if someone speaks a foreign policy of limitation of population for species preservation!

.

Sorry, policies to combat global overpopulation, apart from impinging the sovereignty of the people are stupid and antidemocratic.

.

Look, I live in a country where the population density is less of a problem.

I live in a small desert valley where humans drill wells for drinking and irrigation water. As the number of people has grown, the number of wells and the amount of withdrawn water have increased. Springs and streams are drying up and the animals that depend on them are dying. In my valley, there are other instances where the increase in people has removed resources needed by wildlife. If the global increase in human population that I see reported on the news is exhausting resources elsewhere as it is in my valley, I feel that the human population needs to shrink. Our leaders should be telling us to control our appetites and desires and have fewer children.

Dear Garry, having fewer children is only part of the equation, and probably not the most immediate or significant. Lowering our rate of resource consumption is more important, especially in the USA. The average US citizen uses up more energy, orders of magnitude more, than say Mexicans or Peruvians.

Juan, I agree that lowering resource consumption would make a great difference. Were our local water use tightly controlled, we might sustain our current population with acceptable impacts for many years. Our local leaders give a wink and a nod to water rationing (children are told they do not need to rinse their tooth brushes before use), but of course, our leaders devote most of their energy to growth.

Garry and Juan, this part of discussion is interesting. I have already heard about limitations, far ago - in Soviet times. I can agree on very harsh measures of saving and limiting, but ony in one case - these measures are applied to ALL. when part of the world lives in the luxury, and the second half is starving, what is the difference about concepts to undergraduate students? In one valley children are saving water bynot rinsing toothbrushes, in the hotel of Seattle I get 5$ for using tovel more than once and not throving it on the floor everyday? Is this a concept?

Come on with the nature... we are saving it for future generations? And what if tomorrow never comes?

Dear Garry (in portuguese Roger is Rogerio)

Very often we scare by projections poorly made, I put to better illustrate the Brazilian case of population growth (see attached file, Source IBGE .

I put the population growth of the population by 2010 and the projection of Brazilian statistical organ (IBGE) made ​​in 2008 (in 2012 the projection has declined), as you can see in the first picture it seems that the population grows exponentially, but the fertility rate declined from 2.89 in 1991 to 1.76 in 2010, ie in the present day have already reached a rate less than the rate of population replacement.

What causes this? Better living conditions and urbanization, there was no need population control program, just give more jobs and education!

The change implies especially education for women in rural villages. Educating women empowers them to attend more activities, including economic activities, other than bearing and raising children.

But I insist, this concerns just the overpopulation side of the issue. The overconsumption flank also depends on education (environmental education in developed countries), but I suspect that harsh regulations by the government will be needed to curb the unsustainable way of life up there.

I think that the best we concept for our students to leave University with is that of thinking critically. To my mind it is the cornerstone of scientific endeavour. The field of conservation biology is highly dynamic, and the systems we study are complex. If students take what we teach them to be the gospel truth without developing the skill to question what we say and why, then I don't think we'll be doing them or the discipline any justice.

Life cycle, population dynamics, rehabilitation could be three concepts, which play major role in conservation biology

I think sustainability is the most important objective of conservation biology and students should realize that it is their job to deliver the message to the wider society.

Any student of conservation biology should first know that environmental conservation should be a conservation by inclusion. This means that we cannot conserve without people's participation. In many countries they think it should be conservation by exclusion. All such attempts have failed in the long run. The people should be scientifically educated, the usual conservation advocacy will only create enmity and it can many times create negative impacts. If people can be convinced that conservation is for their good, who will disagree?

Dear Sadie Jane Ryan,

Without knowing the values of the natural resources, one cannot understand the conservation. Conservation biology is a core subject which provides insight knowledge about the values of the natural resources/biodiversity, their status, habitat, threats and to find out ways and measures to save and conserve the biodiversity in the natural habitat as well man made habitats. Conservation cannot be effective without public partnership. All stakeholders play important role in conservation i.e. Researchers, Government, Non Government Organizations and Community. It is most important branch of Biological Sciences and must be an integral part of the undergraduate as well graduate courses covering all these aspects.

These links of papers may be useful.....

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/277/5325/515.short

http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=MF11086

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00077.x/full

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=C7DF905540535C6759700D5B3461211F.journals?fromPage=online&aid=763068

Perhaps, for students of a western University, the concept and practice of frugality would be the most important lesson they could take away from any class to do with conservation. Conservation means restraining oneself and others from exploiting resources; Conservation Biology would mean that students should, without thinking, happily 'do without' to leave enough for other life forms to survive. Only when they behave in that manner can they convincingly work in the field and by example, deter local communities from exploiting local resources to conserve rare species. As Jose Kallarackal noted above, conservation without local co-operation is only on paper. To obtain local co-operation, one has to set the example.

In this context, it would be useful to remember Mahatma Gandhi, who gladly did without goods of British manufacture, to set the trend for the economic blockade of exploitative industries (eg. cotton cloth). Conservation can only be achieved by leading from the front and to be considered a leader, one must practice what one preaches.

Western lifestyles use so much energy that people from poorer countries are often astounded at the unconscious guzzling and wastage that is normal for a westerner, or even someone leading a western lifestyle in a poor country. Students MUST be made aware of this so that, unknowingly, their habits do not put people off by appearing to be incompatible with their stated goals.

In a word, conservation, whether of resources, habitats, life forms, whatever, starts at home, with oneself.

Dear Sadie

Despite your question is quite old, the recent answers show that the debate is still open! So...

This is an interesting the way you formulate the question. If you consider that conservation biology is just "ecology in the real world", then student should be able to integrate economic and social issues in the ecological concepts and approaches. Ecology (and biology) has developped hierarchical and integrative approaches (e.g. from gene to ecosystem), conservationists should be able to be even more integrative because the purpose for Conservation Biology is (also) to respond to human needs, local or global (water quality in a river basin, hay in a field, or biodiversity for its simple value!). What are the concepts behind this? Sustainability, Ecosystem services for example could not be ignored. If we conserve for someone, then we have to integrate the someone's point of view in the scientific debate. Yours.

Here is a great overview for undergrad./grad. students: http://www.mongabay.com/conservation-biology-for-all.html

and it's free. Navjot S. Sodhi was a great scientist RIP.