Back to Students Track Spring's Journey North, by Elizabeth Donnelly

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to 1997 Election Results

A Conservation Biologist's Toolbox, by Katherine Ralls

Katherine Ralls received the 1996 Edward T. LaRoe III Memorial Award for her outstanding contributions to the field of conservation biology. In this essay, Ralls details some of the ways in which she has been able to translate the results of her research into management actions that benefit species and their habitats.

Scientists initiate conservation biology research projects in differing ways. Some researchers may begin a new line of investigation when they have an idea for improving existing theory. In contrast, my research projects in conservation biology usually have begun because I saw some practical problem that needed to be addressed. In my experience, research projects that begin in this way can be just as stimulating and scientifically productive as those begun for other reasons. As a mammalogist, I naturally have been most concerned with mammals.

My first research in what is now known as conservation biology concerned the effects of inbreeding on juvenile mortality in captive mammals at the National Zoological Park in Washington, D.C. When I began this study in 1977, conservation biology was not yet recognized as a separate discipline. However, as a scientist employed by the zoo, I felt that I should devote some of my research efforts to practical problems. My conversations with zoo curators indicated that research on the effects of inbreeding would meet a real management need, as managers were not sure whether inbreeding was likely to be a problem in captive populations. Furthermore, our zoo was a good place to undertake research on the effects of inbreeding because, thanks largely to the efforts of our registrar, Judith Block, unusually good records had been maintained on the parentage and survival of animals born there.

I soon was joined by Jon Ballou. Together, we spent several years compiling and analyzing the pedigrees of various zoo populations. Ultimately, we documented that inbred young had higher juvenile mortality rates in 41 of the 44 species of ungulates, primates, and small mammals for which we were able to obtain detailed pedigrees. It became apparent that mating close relatives was not a good idea, that zoo animals needed to be managed at the population level, and that fairly sophisticated genetic strategies would be needed. In 1984, Jon and I met this need by organizing a workshop on Genetic Management of Captive Populations and inviting a number of noted population geneticists to consider the problem. The guidelines developed at that workshop were widely adopted, although they largely were based on population genetic theory due to the lack of empirical data. Fortunately, recent Drosophila breeding experiments by Richard Frankham of Macquarie University and his collaborators have shown that the theoretical predictions were upheld in most respects. After this workshop, Jon continued research on the genetics of captive populations, but my attention increasingly turned toward field studies of threatened and endangered mammals.

In 1983, Don Siniff of the University of Minnesota and I began work on the threatened California sea otter population. The Minerals Management Service, which funded the study, had a practical need: a sea otter population model to interact with its oil spill model. Data to develop such a model were lacking, so we were able to justify a radiotelemetry study that produced much new basic information on sea otters. In 1989, our data on the water depths at which otters forage were used to support an extension of prohibitions against gill nets. Gill nets formerly were a major source of sea otter mortality at depths less than 30 fathoms over most of the otter's range in California. Before gill nets were prohibited, the otter population was declining; it is now increasing at about 5% per year. Other data we collected may prove useful in the future because management of any species is based on our cumulative knowledge of its biology.

In 1988, Don Siniff and P.J. White of the University of Minnesota and I began field work on another protected species in California, the endangered San Joaquin kit fox. Many of our findings have been incorporated into conservation planning. Dan Williams and Patrick Kelly of the San Joaquin Valley Endangered Species Recovery Program have chosen the kit fox as the umbrella species for recovery planning in the Valley. Because about 95% of the Valley is privately owned, the best chance to restore habitat linkages between the scattered remaining areas of natural habitat will be by retiring problem farm lands with saline soils. Dan, Pat, and I, together with a team of other scientists, recently began a multidisciplinary analysis of alternative farmland-retirement strategies for restoring San Joaquin Valley ecosystems.

I have also been involved with the conservation of the endangered Hawaiian monk seal. My work has focused on a behavioral problem known as "mobbing" in which adult male seals converge on females and immature seals, injuring and even killing them. Mobbing often occurs when adult sex ratios become male-biased, but the exact relationship between the sex ratio and the frequency of mobbing is unknown. Tony Starfield of the University of Minnesota and I concentrated on methods for making management decisions in the face of limited data and uncertainty. Our work supported the idea of removing males to equalize the sex ratio, and the National Marine Fisheries Service removed 22 male seals from Laysan Island in 1994. Results to date are encouraging: only one seal disappeared after mobbing in 1995 and no seals died or disappeared after mobbing in 1996, whereas an average of about five seals per year died or disappeared after mobbing between 1982 and 1994.

My work on protected species has convinced me of the importance of finding ways to make better management decisions in the face of uncertainty. Although research can reduce some uncertainty, uncertainty is inherent in the complex ecosystems we study and is not likely to disappear in the near future. We need to acknowledge this fact and devise methods of making robust management decisions despite uncertainty. To inform our colleagues of recent work in this area, Barbara Taylor of the National Marine Fisheries Service and I have organized a session, "Coping with uncertainty in marine conservation biology," for this year's meeting.

How can one translate research into management actions that benefit species and habitats? My experience has been first, that one should choose a research project that is likely to produce some useful information. Much insight into what kinds of research might be useful can be gained from talking with managers and decision-makers to better appreciate their concerns. Second, it is important to publish the research in reputable, peer-reviewed journals to establish scientific credibility. Third, to effectively influence policy, one must work with other scientists to achieve consensus upon management recommendations whenever possible. Finally, one must make sure that research results are conveyed to those in a position to influence management actions, whether they are zoo directors (as in our inbreeding work), non-governmental conservation organizations (as in our sea otter work), other scientists applying research findings to real-life problems (as in our kit fox work), or agency staff who know how to get things accomplished within their agency (as in our monk seal work). Scientists must work with others because converting science into policy or action usually requires the combined efforts of a number of people working in a variety of capacities. I believe that the extra effort required is well worth it because it can be tremendously satisfying, both personally and professionally, to translate research results into improving real-world conservation.

Back to Students Track Spring's Journey North, by Elizabeth Donnelly

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to 1997 Election Results