Chapter 25 Seagrass Conservation Biology
605
to understand the importance of connectivity among
and between widely dispersed elements of the seagrass biome (e.g. Roberts, 1997; Jameson et al.,
2002).
One of the many fundamental roles science must
take in the conservation of seagrasses is to identify
the processes linking coastal systems and educate resource managers and the public on this connectivity
before effective geographical boundaries of conservation actions can be defined (sensu Jameson et al.,
2002). In this activity the value of different scientific disciplines working together in conservation biology must be recognised (e.g. landscape ecologists,
physical oceanographers, and biogeographers). With
widespread acknowledgement of a ‘crisis of degradation’ in marine biomes around the globe, especially the deterioration of fisheries and their habitats, the stage is set to focus marine scientists and
seagrass ecologists on the principles of conservation biology beyond the charismatic megafauna,
in order to develop a comprehensive program of
sustainable resource management (sensu Duarte,
1999).
III. Seagrasses Conservation Biology:
An Approach for the Future
A. What Managers Need
Scientists and managers are faced with both shortand long-term resource management problems at a
variety of spatial scales that require an adaptive approach in identifying research priorities. A fundamental challenge for science is to develop predictive capabilities that managers can use at different
temporal and spatial scales (Fonseca, 1996; Duarte,
1999; Virnstein, 2000; Duarte, 2002; Fonseca et al.,
2004). Many problems need to be resolved immediately, without benefit of input from lengthy, carefully
designed, and replicated experiments to determine
the best management practices for conservation purposes. Quite often, managers must make decisions
in a situation of urgency with a paucity of data.
Consequently, the synthesis of existing information
(e.g. Duarte, 2002) and ‘real time’ applied science
is extremely relevant to adaptive management (e.g.
Kenworthy et al., 2002; Orth et al., 2002; Whitfield
et al., 2002).
Scientists must provide managers with the information and tools necessary to meet the conservation
needs articulated by the public and resource managers. These needs are currently addressed by several different types of management actions, including but not restricted to: (1) statutory authority (prescriptive approaches), (2) general consensus (nonprescriptive approaches), (3) a response to identification of lost or damaged resources (restoration), or
(4) application of socio-cultural principles. Within
this framework of defined actions we can identify
the main elements of seagrass conservation biology
as; (a) basic hypothesis testing, descriptive science
and quantitative synthesis; (b) applied science that
develops the tools for conservation of biodiversity
using the results of (a) and adapting recommendations to changing needs; (c) scientific support for
the development and implementation of tools that
managers and the public use to protect seagrass
biomes; and (d) interpretation and application of social and cultural values for the benefit of conservation. Element (a) includes basic research in traditional fields such as biology, chemistry, physics,
and ecology (Brussard, 1991), but seagrass science
has been dominated largely by descriptive work and
now should focus more on hypothesis testing, synthesis and prediction to guide conservation decisions
(Duarte, 1999). In elements (b) and (c) scientists interact with a broad spectrum of resource managers
and stakeholders to formulate tools for conservation. These two elements depend heavily on feedback among science, management and the public,
and frequently require scientists to make uncertain
predictions and recommendations with limited data
and shifting management goals. One of the most important aspects of this process is the quality of the
dialogue between scientists and all stakeholders. The
fourth element attempts to link existing conservation
policies to historical cultural values for the benefit of
conservation.
In all four elements the rigor of the scientific
method must be maintained to assure that information is valid and defensible in management and litigation forums. In addition, scientific results must be
transferred to managers and to the public in a format
appropriate for effective translation into conservation tools. Scientific ideas and judgments resulting
in the ideas must be comprehensible to managers and
user groups so that the full scope of management
consequences can be understood, discussed and debated. Finally, scientific solutions must be legally
defensible, because the risk that particular decisions
will be challenged by those seeking alternative forms
605
to understand the importance of connectivity among
and between widely dispersed elements of the seagrass biome (e.g. Roberts, 1997; Jameson et al.,
2002).
One of the many fundamental roles science must
take in the conservation of seagrasses is to identify
the processes linking coastal systems and educate resource managers and the public on this connectivity
before effective geographical boundaries of conservation actions can be defined (sensu Jameson et al.,
2002). In this activity the value of different scientific disciplines working together in conservation biology must be recognised (e.g. landscape ecologists,
physical oceanographers, and biogeographers). With
widespread acknowledgement of a ‘crisis of degradation’ in marine biomes around the globe, especially the deterioration of fisheries and their habitats, the stage is set to focus marine scientists and
seagrass ecologists on the principles of conservation biology beyond the charismatic megafauna,
in order to develop a comprehensive program of
sustainable resource management (sensu Duarte,
1999).
III. Seagrasses Conservation Biology:
An Approach for the Future
A. What Managers Need
Scientists and managers are faced with both shortand long-term resource management problems at a
variety of spatial scales that require an adaptive approach in identifying research priorities. A fundamental challenge for science is to develop predictive capabilities that managers can use at different
temporal and spatial scales (Fonseca, 1996; Duarte,
1999; Virnstein, 2000; Duarte, 2002; Fonseca et al.,
2004). Many problems need to be resolved immediately, without benefit of input from lengthy, carefully
designed, and replicated experiments to determine
the best management practices for conservation purposes. Quite often, managers must make decisions
in a situation of urgency with a paucity of data.
Consequently, the synthesis of existing information
(e.g. Duarte, 2002) and ‘real time’ applied science
is extremely relevant to adaptive management (e.g.
Kenworthy et al., 2002; Orth et al., 2002; Whitfield
et al., 2002).
Scientists must provide managers with the information and tools necessary to meet the conservation
needs articulated by the public and resource managers. These needs are currently addressed by several different types of management actions, including but not restricted to: (1) statutory authority (prescriptive approaches), (2) general consensus (nonprescriptive approaches), (3) a response to identification of lost or damaged resources (restoration), or
(4) application of socio-cultural principles. Within
this framework of defined actions we can identify
the main elements of seagrass conservation biology
as; (a) basic hypothesis testing, descriptive science
and quantitative synthesis; (b) applied science that
develops the tools for conservation of biodiversity
using the results of (a) and adapting recommendations to changing needs; (c) scientific support for
the development and implementation of tools that
managers and the public use to protect seagrass
biomes; and (d) interpretation and application of social and cultural values for the benefit of conservation. Element (a) includes basic research in traditional fields such as biology, chemistry, physics,
and ecology (Brussard, 1991), but seagrass science
has been dominated largely by descriptive work and
now should focus more on hypothesis testing, synthesis and prediction to guide conservation decisions
(Duarte, 1999). In elements (b) and (c) scientists interact with a broad spectrum of resource managers
and stakeholders to formulate tools for conservation. These two elements depend heavily on feedback among science, management and the public,
and frequently require scientists to make uncertain
predictions and recommendations with limited data
and shifting management goals. One of the most important aspects of this process is the quality of the
dialogue between scientists and all stakeholders. The
fourth element attempts to link existing conservation
policies to historical cultural values for the benefit of
conservation.
In all four elements the rigor of the scientific
method must be maintained to assure that information is valid and defensible in management and litigation forums. In addition, scientific results must be
transferred to managers and to the public in a format
appropriate for effective translation into conservation tools. Scientific ideas and judgments resulting
in the ideas must be comprehensible to managers and
user groups so that the full scope of management
consequences can be understood, discussed and debated. Finally, scientific solutions must be legally
defensible, because the risk that particular decisions
will be challenged by those seeking alternative forms