Bringing Science Back to the Conservation of the Iberian Lynx

The link between the inefficiency of Iberian lynx con- servation measures and a lack of scientific monitoring was identified more than a decade ago (Rodr´ıguez et al.

2000). Simo´n et al. argue that the Iberian lynx LIFE project team conducts scientific monitoring because the team in- cludes scientists who evaluate management actions, the conservation programs are reviewed by an external sci- entific panel, and the populations of lynx and their prey (the European rabbit [Oryctolagus cuniculus]) are mon- itored with standardized techniques. Monitoring should examine the extent to which the change one observes in a given behavioral or demographic parameter in the Iberian lynx can be attributed to one or more conserva- tion actions. Estimating abundances of lynx and rabbits (Garrote et al. 2011; Gil-S´anchez et al. 2011) with meth- ods such as camera trapping and counting rabbits in lin- ear transects, respectively, will allow data collected over time to be compared. But use of such methods does not directly address the more important question of whether changes in lynx abundance are the result of previous management efforts.

Simo´n et al. seem to assume that increases in abun- dance or number of populations of lynx or rabbits are mostly a consequence of management, but such relations may be correlative. For example, during the last decade many lynx emigrated from and started to breed outside Don˜ana National Park. In other words, natural coloniza- tion occurred first, breeding females were discovered later (because areas outside the park were not monitored until lynx were occasionally detected), and management was eventually applied to colonized areas. We question whether such expansion could be attributed to manage- ment.

Likewise Simo´n et al. report significant increases in rabbit abundance in some areas but, as pointed out by Palomares et al. (2011), it is unclear whether these increases were a response to management or largely to extrinsic factors (e.g., higher resistance to viral dis- eases or reduced mortality attributed to other predators), whether some measures were more efficient than others, or whether particular measures will reliably increase rab- bit abundance elsewhere. Nevertheless, the short-term assessment of effects of supplementary feeding on lynx behavior and demography by Lo´pez-Bao and co-workers

is a recent example of monitoring of the efficiency of a specific conservation measure, perhaps the only case in the history of Iberian lynx conservation. In this case, lynx responses (Lo´pez-Bao et al. 2008, 2010) and some of the mechanisms involved in their responses (Lo´pez-Bao et al.

2009, 2011) were investigated.

Simo´n et al. conclude that efforts to conserve the Iberian lynx have been consistent because funding for conservation projects has been continuous since 1994. However, the actions implemented, the locations where they were applied, and funding of each action in each area often varied from one 5-year LIFE project to the next. As a result, it is difficult to assess the efficacy of a given conservation action (Lo´pez-Bao et al. 2010). Also, actions that are expected to be beneficial only in the long term were interrupted before they could have a measurable effect. For example, a plan to increase the carrying capacity of the core area of Don˜ana National Park for breeding lynx was initiated in 2004 under the auspices of the Iberian lynx LIFE project team. Although preliminary results were promising in terms of retention of breeding adults (Lo´pez-Bao et al. 2008, 2010), actions such as supplementary feeding of lynx or rabbit restock- ing in predator-proof enclosures were discontinued 3 years later. Three years may be too short a period to ex- pect definitive results or even to generate sufficient data on which to base decisions about the effectiveness of a specific plan. For example, although food availability in- creased, general lynx scarcity in the region resulted in lit- tle immigration and reduced opportunities for dispersers to establish territories in managed habitat (Lo´pez-Bao et al. 2010).

Table 1 in Simo´n et al. shows the reliance of con- servation of Iberian lynx on external funding. Although regional governments execute environmental policies, including species conservation, on average European Union funds made up 68.3% of the total cost of the 27 projects (93%) reported on in Simo´n et al. (LIFE Nature

2012). Dependence on EU funding makes continuity of conservation action even less likely, especially during pe- riods of economic uncertainty. Moreover, regional recov- ery plans were made mandatory by a 1990 law, but it took 13–21 years to approve the plans in 3 autonomous regions, and 2 other regions have not approved them yet. Limited funding and marked slowness in establishing spe- cific regulations suggest there is room for improvement in the resolution with which regional governments act regarding Iberian lynx conservation.

Until 2008 managers and professional researchers co- operated, and scientific knowledge guided management, especially in the Don˜ana population of lynx. Since 2002 scientists who are members of the Iberian lynx LIFE project team have documented variation in lynx and rab- bit abundances, which is necessary but not sufficient to evaluate implemented management actions on the ba- sis of sound science. Data from scientific monitoring of

Conservation Biology

Volume 26, No. 4, 2012