{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023191094619666047, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013450834879406308, 'mean_word_length': 4.845528455284553, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Fusion or Failure? The Future of Conservation Biology

As many of the papers in this special section celebrate, the field of conservation biology has achieved a great deal in the 20 years since the journal bearing its name first appeared (and indeed over the 37 years since the first issue of Biological Conservation). The magnitude of the crisis facing wild populations and places has been better documented, threats to individual species and habitats elucidated, priority areas systematically identified, and remedial interventions proposed and in many cases put into practice. Yet with global rates of loss of populations and biomes probably averaging between 0.5 and 1% each year and with threats from unsustainable consumption, population growth, and greenhouse gas emissions continuing to rise (Harrison & Pearce 2000; UNEP 2002; Balmford et al. 2003; Mace et al. 2005), it is clear that although we may be winning a few battles, we are still losing the war. With perhaps only another 20 years or so left to turn the tide, it is worth asking why. Unlike some (Whitten et al. 2001), we do not believe that this is the fault of conservation biology per se. We do not see the field as “a displacement activity for academia”—conservation biologists do what they do (often at the expense of giving up higher-impact research in other areas) because they are passionate about making a difference. Conservation as a whole is losing the war not because of any lack of commitment or focus but because of the sheer scale, growth, and complexity of the problems it faces. We think research has a vitally important role in finding solutions to these problems, but biology alone cannot provide all the answers. In some circumstances (such as managing populations in captivity or habitats in well-protected reserves) biological insights may be enough. But in the great majority of situations much more is needed. If we want to move beyond documenting losses or identifying specific causes of decline to understanding their underlying drivers and implementing interventions on anything other than a piecemeal basis, we need to undergo what one of us describes as “an