Simple Summary: Acting to preserve biodiversity can involve harming individual animals. It has recently been argued that conventional practice has placed too much emphasis on the preservation of collective entities, such as populations and species, at the expense of suffering for individuals. At least some advocates of the 'Compassionate Conservation' movement find any deployment of lethal measures in the interests of conservation to be unacceptable. This shifts the balance of priorities too far. While conservationists have a duty to minimise harm, and to use non-lethal measures where feasible, there will be serious implications for conservation if this movement were to be widely influential. Furthermore, the 'do-no-harm' maxim the compassionate conservationists advocate does not always promote the welfare of individual animals.Abstract: Human activity affecting the welfare of wild vertebrates, widely accepted to be sentient, and therefore deserving of moral concern, is widespread. A variety of motives lead to the killing of individual wild animals. These include to provide food, to protect stock and other human interests, and also for sport. The acceptability of such killing is widely believed to vary with the motive and method. Individual vertebrates are also killed by conservationists. Whether securing conservation goals is an adequate reason for such killing has recently been challenged. Conventional conservation practice has tended to prioritise ecological collectives, such as populations and species, when their interests conflict with those of individuals. Supporters of the 'Compassionate Conservation' movement argue both that conservationists have neglected animal welfare when such conflicts arise and that no killing for conservation is justified. We counter that conservationists increasingly seek to adhere to high standards of welfare, and that the extreme position advocated by some supporters of 'Compassionate Conservation', rooted in virtue ethics, would, if widely accepted, lead to considerable negative effects for conservation. Conservation practice cannot afford to neglect consequences. Moreover, the do-no-harm maxim does not always lead to better outcomes for animal welfare.

Urbanization poses a serious threat to local biodiversity, yet towns and cities with abundant natural features may harbor important species populations and communities. While the contribution of urban greenspaces to conservation has been demonstrated by numerous studies within temperate regions, few consider the bird communities associated with different landcovers in Neotropical cities. To begin to fill this knowledge gap, we examined how the avifauna of a wetland city in northern Amazonia varied across six urban landcover types (coastal bluespace; urban bluespace; managed greenspace; unmanaged greenspace; dense urban; and sparse urban).We measured detections, species richness, and a series of ground cover variables that characterized the heterogeneity of each landcover, at 114 locations across the city. We recorded >10% (98) of Guyana's bird species in Georgetown, including taxa of conservation interest. Avian detections, richness, and community composition differed with landcover type. Indicator species analysis identified 29 species from across dietary guilds, which could be driving community composition. Comparing landcovers, species richness was highest in managed greenspaces and lowest in dense urban areas. The canal network had comparable levels of species richness to greenspaces.The waterways are likely to play a key role in enhancing habitat connectivity as they traverse densely urbanized areas. Both species and landcover information should be integrated into urban land-use planning in the rapidly urbanizing Neotropics to maximize the conservation value of cities. This is imperative in the tropics, where anthropogenic pressures on species are growing significantly, and action needs to be taken to prevent biodiversity collapse. K E Y W O R D Savian, bluespace, diversity, greenspace, Guyana, indicator species, species richness, urban planning

No abstract

Large mammals are key contributors to forest ecosystems globally, but Neotropical mammal populations are understudied. We employed remotely triggered camera traps and track surveys to assess the mammal community in the newly accessible upper Berbice region of Guyana. In a cumulative 2,821 trap nights between two camps and 14 km of track surveys we recorded 18 species of mammals. Camera trap records showed that Red-Rumped Agouti (Dasyprocta leporina (Linnaeus, 1758)) featured the highest relative abundance at both camps, while Tayra (Eira barbara (Linnaeus, 1758)), Amazonian Brown Brocket Deer (Mazama nemorivaga (F. Cuvier, 1817)), Giant Anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla (Linnaeus, 1758)) and Giant Armadillo (Priodontes maximus (Kerr, 1792)) the lowest. We also report naïve occupancy estimates. Detections of threatened and disturbance sensitive species indicate that the study site has a high biodiversity value. We provide recommendations for further study in this recently disturbed ecosystem and other understudied regions of Guyana.