Menu:

Research Interests

Example image - aligned to the right

1. Coupled human-natural systems and biodiversity conservation How can we assess biological diversity and ask what natural and human-caused processes maintain or threaten it?  I embrace ecological niche concepts, which figure prominently in evolutionary ecology and, increasingly, conservation.  This is because humans and wild animals often have overlapping niches by competing for shared food resources, particularily from the ocean. With this perspective, I use my natural science background to bridge to the social sciences.

A long-term project I led on Rainforest Wolves and their prey in coastal British Columbia revealed tremendous niche variation among populations and individuals, driven by both a naturally fragmented landscape and marine resource subsidies like salmon. A primary lesson from this work was the importance of salmon to a massive network of life on BC's coast. A new project - now in its second pilot year - extends this focus on salmon to assess how this precious resource is distributed among humans and bears (as surrogates for the entire ecosystem that salmon feeds). A combination of genetic, stable isotope, and modeling approaches on bears and salmon coupled with fisheries data are tools my team and I use. Insights from this work can help translate the principles of Ecosystem Based Management into practise.

 

2. Harvest selection and phenotypic evolution of exploited prey
Example image - aligned to the right In stark contrast with most natural predators, human fishers and hunters commonly target large, reproductively mature individuals and exploit high proportions of populations.  How does this affect biological diversity? What does this mean for marine ecosystem based management (EBM)?  Although never examined, rapid phenotypic changes in the morphology and reproductive biology of exploited prey should be a common pattern.  Using a meta-analytical approach, I am asking how evolutionary rates in human predator systems compare with those in studies examining both natural and other human-driven episodes of selection in the wild.  I am also using time series models to ask if rates might be particularly rapid during certain periods of exploitation, and if management prescriptions like moratoria and changes in capture technology can invoke ‘phenotypic restoration’ in exploited prey.  Finally, I am complementing these quantitative approaches by reviewing the broad suite of technological, economic, and political forces that allow industrial and recreational human predators to change the phenotypic face of biodiversity.

 

3. Conservation Ethics - taking Animal Welfare into the wild
Example image - aligned to the right Whether humans affect wild animals directly (e.g. exploitation) or indirectly (e.g. habitat change), we can cause remarkable suffering. This should not be of trivial concern to conservation scientists. We are well-equipped to recognize animal sentience. Indeed, this is why I practice and advocate for non-invasive research methods. What remains absent, however, is a united animal welfare ethic in the wild, largely because interested parties diverge in perspective. Specifically, conservation scientists focus concern at the population level, monitoring metrics like population growth. Animal welfare scientists, in contrast, largely overlook wild animals, instead concentrating on animals under human care, such as farm, research and companion animals. Most of the public interested in animal welfare likewise focus on these groups, but show disproportionate interest in the suffering of individual animals. How might we proceed when these perspectives collide? When ecological restoration calls for lethal removal of invasive animals? When threats of disease outbreaks argue for the slaughter of thousands of farm animals? I am working with a team of philosophers and scientists to establish guidelines that unite animal welfare and wildlife conservation so that these vexing ethical and practical problems can be addressed.