The SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19 illness are driving a global crisis. Governments have responded by restricting human movement, which has reduced economic activity. These changes may benefit biodiversity conservation in some ways, but in Africa, we contend that the net conservation impacts of COVID-19 will be strongly negative. Here, we describe how the crisis creates a perfect storm of reduced funding, restrictions on the operations of conservation agencies, and elevated human threats to nature. We identify the immediate steps necessary to address these challenges and support ongoing conservation efforts. We then highlight systemic flaws in contemporary conservation and identify opportunities to restructure for greater resilience. Finally, we emphasize the critical importance of conserving habitat and regulating unsafe wildlife trade practices to reduce the risk of future pandemics.

Abstract. Biodiversity persistence in human-modified landscapes is crucial for conservation and maintaining ecosystem services. Studies of biodiversity in landscapes where humans live, work, and extract resources could support defensible policy-making to manage land-use. Yet, research should cover relevant regions, and biases in study topics should not lead to gaps in the evidence base. We systematically reviewed the literature of biogeography in human-modified landscapes published in eight eminent biogeography, conservation, and ecology journals to assess geographical bias among biomes and geopolitical regions and taxonomic bias among species groups. We compared research output per biome to area, biome type, species richness, proportion of transformed land, and the ratio of transformed to protected land. We also compared research output per geopolitical region to area, proportion of transformed land, the ratio of transformed to protected land, and human population density. Research output was distributed unequally among biomes, geopolitical regions, and species groups. Biome type was a clear factor in research bias, and forest biomes were the subject of 87% of papers, while species richness was not generally associated with bias. Conservation in human-modified landscapes is most important in regions with low protected area coverage, high land conversion, and high pressure from human populations, yet the distribution of published papers did not generally reflect these threats. Seventy-five percent of studies focused on the Americas and Europe, while Africa and Asia were critically understudied. Taxonomically, plants and invertebrates were the most studied groups; however, research output was not correlated with species richness per group. Protected areas alone will not conserve biodiversity in the long term. Thus, a strong biogeographical evidence base is required to support policies for biodiversity maintenance on human-modified land. Under-studied regions and species groups deserve further research to elucidate what, where, and how biodiversity persists in human-modified landscapes to inform conservation policy and enhance efficacy.

Some conservationists argue for a focused effort to protect the most critically endangered species, and others suggest a large-scale endeavor to safeguard common species across large areas. Similar arguments are applicable to the distribution of scientific effort among species. Should conservation scientists focus research efforts on threatened species, common species, or do all species deserve equal attention? We assessed the scientific equity among 1909 mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians of southern Africa by relating the number of papers written about each species to their status on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List. Threatened large mammals and reptiles had more papers written about them than their nonthreatened counterparts, whereas threatened small mammals and amphibians received less attention than nonthreatened species. Threatened birds received an intermediate amount of attention in the scientific literature. Thus, threat status appears to drive scientific effort among some animal groups, whereas other factors (e.g., pest management and commercial interest) appear to dictate scientific investment in particular species of other groups. Furthermore, the scientific investment per species differed greatly between groups-the mean number of papers per threatened large mammal eclipsed that of threatened reptiles, birds, small mammals, and amphibians by 2.6-, 15-, 216-, and more than 500-fold, respectively. Thus, in the eyes of science, all species are not created equal. A few species commanded a great proportion of scientific attention, whereas for many species information that might inform conservation is virtually nonexistent.

Savannas once constituted the range of many species that human encroachment has now reduced to a fraction of their former distribution. Many survive only in protected areas. Poaching reduces the savanna elephant, even where protected, likely to the detriment of savanna ecosystems. While resources go into estimating elephant populations, an ecological benchmark by which to assess counts is lacking. Knowing how many elephants there are and how many poachers kill is important, but on their own, such data lack context. We collated savanna elephant count data from 73 protected areas across the continent estimated to hold ~50% of Africa’s elephants and extracted densities from 18 broadly stable population time series. We modeled these densities using primary productivity, water availability, and an index of poaching as predictors. We then used the model to predict stable densities given current conditions and poaching for all 73 populations. Next, to generate ecological benchmarks, we predicted such densities for a scenario of zero poaching. Where historical data are available, they corroborate or exceed benchmarks. According to recent counts, collectively, the 73 savanna elephant populations are at 75% of the size predicted based on current conditions and poaching levels. However, populations are at <25% of ecological benchmarks given a scenario of zero poaching (~967,000)—a total deficit of ~730,000 elephants. Populations in 30% of the 73 protected areas were <5% of their benchmarks, and the median current density as a percentage of ecological benchmark across protected areas was just 13%. The ecological context provided by these benchmark values, in conjunction with ongoing census projects, allow efficient targeting of conservation efforts.

Information on the response of herpetofauna to different land uses is limited though important for land-use planning to support conservation in human-modified landscapes. Though transformation is dogmatically associated with extinction, species respond idiosyncratically to land-use change, and persistence of species in habitat fragments may depend on careful management of the human-modified matrix. We sampled herpetofauna over a vegetation-type gradient representative of regional land uses (old-growth forest, degraded forest, acacia woodland (i.e. new-growth forest), eucalyptus plantation, and sugar cane cultivation) in the forest belt skirting the southeastern coast of Africa, part of a biodiversity hotspot hosting many endemic herpetofaunal species in a highly transformed landscape. We categorized species into 1 Author Contributions: MJT and RJvA designed the study. MJT carried out the project, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript with input from RJvA, who supervised the study.2 trait-derived functional groups, and assessed abundance and richness of groups and compared community metrics along the gradient. We further assessed the capacity of environmental variables to predict richness and abundance. Overall, old-growth forest harbored the highest richness and abundance, and frogs and reptiles responded similarly to the gradient. Richness was low in cultivation and, surprisingly, in degraded forest but substantial in acacia woodland and plantation. Composition differed between natural vegetation types (forest, degraded forest) and anthropogenic types (plantation, cultivation), while acacia woodland grouped with the latter for frogs and the former for reptiles. Functional group richness eroded along the gradient, a pattern driven by sensitivity of fossorial/ground-dependent frogs (F2) and reptiles (R2) and vegetationdwelling frogs (F4) to habitat change. Variables describing temperature, cover, and soil were good predictors of frog abundance, particularly of functional groups, but not for reptiles.Conserving forest and preventing degradation is important for forest herpetofaunal conservation, restoration and plantations have intermediate value, and cultivation is least beneficial. Our study demonstrates the utility of function-related assessments, beyond traditional metrics alone, for understanding community responses to transformation. Particularly, fossorial/ground-dependent frogs and reptiles and vegetation-dwelling frogs should be closely monitored.