A Critique of the Recovery of Greenback Cutthroat Trout

Abstract: There are no examples of recovery of fish listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, but the number of federally threatened greenback cutthroat trout (  Oncorhynchus clarki stomias ) populations is approaching the delisting goal. We evaluated recovery of this subspecies in light of developing theory in conservation biology and with regard to recovery of other salmonids in the inland western United States. Four of the five criteria used to define populations that would count toward delisting appeared to underestimate the risk of extinction of those populations. Typically, recovery goals for numbers of greenback cutthroat trout populations were less stringent than those for other inland salmonids petitioned for listing or listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act and were comparable to those for a federally endangered species. Before delisting is considered, we propose that historical populations be replicated in additional waters to protect genetic diversity and that existing populations be enlarged to reduce their vulnerability to demographic variation, to increase their access to refugia, and to permit reestablishment of mobile life histories. Existing stocks should also be evaluated to determine whether they represent distinct population segments.     

Predicting Recovery Criteria for Threatened and Endangered Plant Species on the Basis of Past Abundances and Biological Traits

Recovery plans for species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act are required to specify measurable criteria that can be used to determine when the species can be delisted. For the 642 listed endangered and threatened plant species that have recovery plans, we applied recursive partitioning methods to test whether the number of individuals or populations required for delisting can be predicted on the basis of distributional and biological traits, previous abundance at multiple time steps, or a combination of traits and previous abundances. We also tested listing status (threatened or endangered) and the year the recovery plan was written as predictors of recovery criteria. We analyzed separately recovery criteria that were stated as number of populations and as number of individuals (population‐based and individual‐based criteria, respectively). Previous abundances alone were relatively good predictors of population‐based recovery criteria. Fewer populations, but a greater proportion of historically known populations, were required to delist species that had few populations at listing compared with species that had more populations at listing. Previous abundances were also good predictors of individual‐based delisting criteria when models included both abundances and traits. The physiographic division in which the species occur was also a good predictor of individual‐based criteria. Our results suggest managers are relying on previous abundances and patterns of decline as guidelines for setting recovery criteria. This may be justifiable in that previous abundances inform managers of the effects of both intrinsic traits and extrinsic threats that interact and determine extinction risk. Predicción de Criterios de Recuperación para Especies de Plantas en Peligro y Amenazadas con Base en Abundancias Pasadas y Atributos Biológicos     

Translating effects of inbreeding depression on component vital rates to overall population growth in endangered bighorn sheep

Evidence of inbreeding depression is commonly detected from the fitness traits of animals, yet its effects on population growth rates of endangered species are rarely assessed. We examined whether inbreeding depression was affecting Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis sierrae), a subspecies listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Our objectives were to characterize genetic variation in this subspecies; test whether inbreeding depression affects bighorn sheep vital rates (adult survival and female fecundity); evaluate whether inbreeding depression may limit subspecies recovery; and examine the potential for genetic management to increase population growth rates. Genetic variation in 4 populations of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep was among the lowest reported for any wild bighorn sheep population, and our results suggest that inbreeding depression has reduced adult female fecundity. Despite this population sizes and growth rates predicted from matrix-based projection models demonstrated that inbreeding depression would not substantially inhibit the recovery of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep populations in the next approximately 8 bighorn sheep generations (48 years). Furthermore, simulations of genetic rescue within the subspecies did not suggest that such activities would appreciably increase population sizes or growth rates during the period we modeled (10 bighorn sheep generations, 60 years). Only simulations that augmented the Mono Basin population with genetic variation from other subspecies, which is not currently a management option, predicted significant increases in population size. Although we recommend that recovery activities should minimize future losses of genetic variation, genetic effects within these endangered populations-either negative (inbreeding depression) or positive (within subspecies genetic rescue)-appear unlikely to dramatically compromise or stimulate short-term conservation efforts. The distinction between detecting the effects of inbreeding depression on a component vital rate (e.g., fecundity) and the effects of inbreeding depression on population growth underscores the importance of quantifying inbreeding costs relative to population dynamics to effectively manage endangered populations.     

Developing a Criterion for Delisting the Southern Sea Otter under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Recent surveys of recovery plans indicate that criteria, such as population sizes, for delisting species from the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) are often unrealistically low by scientific standards. We describe the delisting criterion for the threatened southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) developed by the Southern Sea Otter Recovery Team. A major oil spill is the most serious threat to this sea otter population. After extensive modeling of oil spills, the recovery team concluded that it was not scientifically defensible to develop a delisting criterion in terms of a single probability of extinction over a specified time period. Instead, the team decided to define a size at which it would consider the population endangered and to consider the population threatened as long as a major oil spill might reduce it to that size. The effective population size (N_e) for endangered status was set at 500, estimated to be about 1850 otters. Using a spill the size of the Exxon Valdez spill (250,000 bbl), the oil spill model was iterated to generate a frequency distribution of the number of sea otters contacted by oil, from which the team estimated that less than 800 otters would be killed by 90% of the simulated spills. Thus, the delisting criterion was set at 1850 + 800 = 2650 individuals. There have been several proposals to improve the Endangered Species Act by providing quantitative guidance, in the form of specific probabilities of extinction within some time frame or specific criteria like those used by the World Conservation Union as to the levels of extinction risk represented by the terms "threatened" and "endangered." Experiences of the Sea Otter Recovery Team indicate that guidelines should not be overly rigid and should allow flexibility for dealing with specific situations. The most important consideration is to appoint a recovery team that is both technically well qualified and unconstrained by pressures from management agencies.     

Taxonomic and Geographic Patterns of Decline for Threatened and Endangered Species in the United States

Abstract: Species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (i.e., listed species) have declined to the point that the probability of their extinction is high. The decline of these species, however, may manifest itself in different ways, including reductions in geographic range, number of populations, or overall abundance. Understanding the pattern of decline can help managers assess extinction probability and define recovery objectives. Although quantitative data on changes in geographic range, number of populations, and abundance usually do not exist for listed species, more often qualitative data can be obtained. We used qualitative data in recovery plans for federally listed species to determine whether each listed species declined in range size, number of populations, or abundance relative to historical levels. We calculated the proportion of listed species in each state (or equivalent) that declined in each of those ways. Nearly all listed species declined in abundance, and range size or number of populations declined in approximately 80% of species for which those data were available. Patterns of decline, however, differed taxonomically and geographically. Declines in range were more common among vertebrates than plants, whereas population extirpations were more common among plants. Invertebrates had high incidence of range and population declines. Narrowly distributed plants and invertebrates may be subject to acute threats that may result in population extirpations, whereas vertebrates may be affected by chronic threats that reduce the extent and size of populations. Additionally, in the eastern United States and U.S. coastal areas, where the level of land conversion is high, a greater percentage of species’ ranges declined and more populations were extirpated than in other areas. Species in the Southwest, especially plants, had fewer range and population declines than other areas. Such relations may help in the selection of species’ recovery criteria.     

Mutation and Conservation

Mutation can critically affect the viability of small populations by causing inbreeding depression, by maintaining potentially adaptive genetic variation in quantitative characters, and through the erosion of fitness by accumulation of mildly detrimental mutations. I review and integrate recent empirical and theoretical work on spontaneous mutation and its role in population viability and conservation planning. I analyze both the maintenance of potentially adaptive genetic variation in quantitative characters and the role of detrimental mutations in increasing the extinction risk of small populations. Recent experiments indicate that the rate of production of quasineutral, potentially adaptive genetic variance in quantitative characters is an order of magnitude smaller than the total mutational variance because mutations with large phenotypic effects tend to be strongly detrimental. This implies that, to maintain normal adaptive potential in quantitative characters under a balance between mutation and random genetic drift (or among mutation, drift, and stabilizing natural selection), the effective population size should be about 5000 rather than 500 (the Franklin-Soulé number). Recent theoretical results suggest that the risk of extinction due to the fixation of mildly detrimental mutations may be comparable in importance to environmental stochasticity and could substantially decrease the long-term viability of populations with effective sizes as large as a few thousand. These findings suggest that current recovery goals for many threatened and endangered species are inadequate to ensure long-term population viability.     

Intraspecific Chromosome Number Variation: a Neglected Threat to the Conservation of Rare Plants

Abstract: The effectiveness of rare plant conservation will increase when life history, demographic, and genetic data are considered simultaneously. Inbreeding depression is a widely recognized genetic concern in rare plant conservation, and the mixing of genetically diverse populations in restoration efforts is a common remedy. Nevertheless, if populations with unrecognized intraspecific chromosome variation are crossed, progeny fitness losses will range from partial to complete sterility, and reintroductions and population augmentation of rare plants may fail. To assess the current state of cytological knowledge of threatened and endangered plants in the continental United States, we searched available resources for chromosome counts. We also reviewed recovery plans to discern whether recovery criteria potentially place listed species at risk by requiring reintroductions or population augmentation in the absence of cytological information. Over half the plants lacked a chromosome count, and when a taxon did have a count it generally originated from a sampling intensity too limited to detect intraspecific chromosome variation. Despite limited past cytological sampling, we found 11 plants with documented intraspecific cytological variation, while 8 others were ambiguous for intraspecific chromosome variation. Nevertheless, only one recovery plan addressed the chromosome differences. Inadequate within‐species cytological characterization, incomplete sampling among listed taxa, and the prevalence of interspecific and intraspecific chromosome variation in listed genera, suggests that other rare plants are likely to have intraspecific chromosome variation. Nearly 90% of all recovery plans called for reintroductions or population augmentation as part of recovery criteria despite the dearth of cytological knowledge. We recommend screening rare plants for intraspecific chromosome variation before reintroductions or population augmentation projects are undertaken to safeguard against inadvertent mixtures of incompatible cytotypes.     

Critique of the Evolutionarily Significant Unit as a Definition for "Distinct Population Segments" under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

The U.S. Endangered Species Act grants protection to species, subspecies, and "distinct population segments" of vertebrate species. Historically, Congress included distinct population segments into endangered species legislation to enable the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to implement a flexible and pragmatic approach in listing populations of vertebrate species. Recently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have proposed a policy that would narrowly define distinct population segments as evolutionarily significant units based on morphological and genetic distinctiveness between populations. Historically, the power to list species or populations as distinct population segments has been used to tailor management practices to unique circumstances; grant varied levels of protection in different parts of a species' range; protect species from extinction in significant portions of their ranges as well as to protect populations that are unique evolutionary entities. A strict redefinition of distinct population segments as evolutionarily significant units will compromise management efforts because the role of demographic and behavioral data will be reduced. Furthermore, strictly cultural, economic, or geographic justifications for listing populations as threatened or endangered will be greatly curtailed.     

The Normative Dimension and Legal Meaning of Endangered and Recovery in the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Abstract:  The ethical, legal, and social significance of the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) is widely appreciated. Much of the significance of the act arises from the legal definitions that the act provides for the terms threatened species and endangered species. The meanings of these terms are important because they give legal meaning to the concept of a recovered species. Unfortunately, the meanings of these terms are often misapprehended and rarely subjected to formal analysis. We analyzed the legal meaning of recovered species and illustrate key points with details from "recovery" efforts for the gray wolf ( Canis lupus ). We focused on interpreting the phrase "significant portion of its range," which is part of the legal definition of endangered species. We argue that recovery and endangerment entail a fundamentally normative dimension (i.e., specifying conditions of endangerment) and a fundamentally scientific dimension (i.e., determining whether a species meets the conditions of endangerment). Specifying conditions for endangerment is largely normative because it judges risks of extinction to be either acceptable or unacceptable. Like many other laws that specify what is unacceptable, the ESA largely specifies the conditions that constitute unacceptable extinction risk. The ESA specifies unacceptable risks of extinction by defining endangered species in terms of the portion of a species' range over which a species is "in danger of extinction." Our analysis indicated that (1) legal recovery entails much more than the scientific notion of population viability, (2) most efforts to recover endangered species are grossly inadequate, and (3) many unlisted species meet the legal definition of an endangered or threatened species.     

Geography and Recovery under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Abstract: The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) defines an endangered species as one “at risk of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The prevailing interpretation of this phrase, which focuses exclusively on the overall viability of listed species without regard to their geographic distribution, has led to development of listing and recovery criteria with fundamental conceptual, legal, and practical shortcomings. The ESA's concept of endangerment is broader than the biological concept of extinction risk in that the “esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific” values provided by species are not necessarily furthered by a species mere existence, but rather by a species presence across much of its former range. The concept of “significant portion of range” thus implies an additional geographic component to recovery that may enhance viability, but also offers independent benefits that Congress intended the act to achieve. Although the ESA differs from other major endangered‐species protection laws because it acknowledges the distinct contribution of geography to recovery, it resembles the “representation, resiliency, and redundancy” conservation‐planning framework commonly referenced in recovery plans. To address representation, listing and recovery standards should consider not only what proportion of its former range a species inhabits, but the types of habitats a species occupies and the ecological role it plays there. Recovery planning for formerly widely distributed species (e.g., the gray wolf [Canis lupus]) exemplifies how the geographic component implicit in the ESA's definition of endangerment should be considered in determining recovery goals through identification of ecologically significant types or niche variation within the extent of listed species, subspecies, or “distinct population segments.” By linking listing and recovery standards to niche and ecosystem concepts, the concept of ecologically significant type offers a scientific framework that promotes more coherent dialogue concerning the societal decisions surrounding recovery of endangered species.     

What Exactly Is an Endangered Species? An Analysis of the U.S. Endangered Species List: 1985–1991

Critics of the Endangered Species Act have asserted that is protects an inordinate number of subspecies and populations, in addition to full species, and that the scientific rationale for listing decisions is absent or weak. We reviewed all U.S. plants and animals proposed for listing or added to the endangered species list from 1985 through 1991 to determine the relative proportion of species, subspecies, and populations, and their rarity at time of listing. Approximately 80% of the taxa added to the list were full species, 18% were subspecies, and 2% were distinct populations segments of more widespread vertebrate species. The proportion of subspecies and populations was considerably higher among birds and mammals than among other groups. The median populations size at time of listing for vertebrate animals was 1075 individuals; for invertebrate animals it was 999. The median population size of a plant at time of listing was less than 120 individuals. Earlier listing of declining species could significantly improve the likelihood of successful recovery, and it would provide land managers and private citizens with more options for protecting vanishing plants and animals at less social or economic cost.     

Developing Classification Criteria under the U.S. Endangered Species Act: Bowhead Whales as a Case Study

Abstract: Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, a species is classified as endangered, threatened, or recovered based on the extent to which its survival is affected by one or more of five subjective factors. A key criticism of the act is that it makes no reference to quantitative or even qualitative parameters of what constitutes "danger of extinction." Without objective standards to guide decisionmakers, classification decisions fall prey to political and social influences. We recommend the development of species-specific, status-determining criteria as a means to rationalize and expedite the listing process and reclassification decisions, independent of the requirement for delisting criteria in recovery plans. Such criteria should (1) clearly define levels of vulnerability, (2) identify gaps in information on life-history parameters, and (3) address uncertainty in existing data. As a case study, we developed preliminary criteria for bowhead whales (    Balaena mysticetus ). Thresholds for endangered and threatened status were based on World Conservation Union ( IUCN) Red List criteria and population viability analyses. Our analysis indicates that particular attention must be focused on population structure within the species to appropriately classify the degree to which one or more components of a species are vulnerable to extinction. A similar approach could be used in the classification of other species. According to our application of the IUCN criteria and those developed for similar species by Gerber and DeMaster (1999) , the Bering Sea population of bowhead whales should be delisted, whereas the other four populations of bowheads should continue to be considered endangered.     

Climate Change,Marine Environments,and the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Climate change is expected to be a top driver of global biodiversity loss in the 21st century. It poses new challenges to conserving and managing imperiled species, particularly in marine and estuarine ecosystems. The use of climate‐related science in statutorily driven species management, such as under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), is in its early stages. This article provides an overview of ESA processes, with emphasis on the mandate to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to manage listed marine, estuarine, and anadromous species. Although the ESA is specific to the United States, its requirements are broadly relevant to conservation planning. Under the ESA, species, subspecies, and “distinct population segments” may be listed as either endangered or threatened, and taking of most listed species (harassing, harming, pursuing, wounding, killing, or capturing) is prohibited unless specifically authorized via a case‐by‐case permit process. Government agencies, in addition to avoiding take, must ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or conduct are not likely to jeopardize a listed species’ continued existence or adversely affect designated critical habitat. Decisions for which climate change is likely to be a key factor include: determining whether a species should be listed under the ESA, designating critical habitat areas, developing species recovery plans, and predicting whether effects of proposed human activities will be compatible with ESA‐listed species’ survival and recovery. Scientific analyses that underlie these critical conservation decisions include risk assessment, long‐term recovery planning, defining environmental baselines, predicting distribution, and defining appropriate temporal and spatial scales. Although specific guidance is still evolving, it is clear that the unprecedented changes in global ecosystems brought about by climate change necessitate new information and approaches to conservation of imperiled species. El Cambio Climático, los Ecosistemas Marinos y el Acta Estadunidense de Especies en Peligro     

Actual and Potential Use of Population Viability Analyses in Recovery of Plant Species Listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Use of population viability analyses (PVAs) in endangered species recovery planning has been met with both support and criticism. Previous reviews promote use of PVA for setting scientifically based, measurable, and objective recovery criteria and recommend improvements to increase the framework's utility. However, others have questioned the value of PVA models for setting recovery criteria and assert that PVAs are more appropriate for understanding relative trade‐offs between alternative management actions. We reviewed 258 final recovery plans for 642 plants listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act to determine the number of plans that used or recommended PVA in recovery planning. We also reviewed 223 publications that describe plant PVAs to assess how these models were designed and whether those designs reflected previous recommendations for improvement of PVAs. Twenty‐four percent of listed species had recovery plans that used or recommended PVA. In publications, the typical model was a matrix population model parameterized with ≤5 years of demographic data that did not consider stochasticity, genetics, density dependence, seed banks, vegetative reproduction, dormancy, threats, or management strategies. Population growth rates for different populations of the same species or for the same population at different points in time were often statistically different or varied by >10%. Therefore, PVAs parameterized with underlying vital rates that vary to this degree may not accurately predict recovery objectives across a species’ entire distribution or over longer time scales. We assert that PVA, although an important tool as part of an adaptive‐management program, can help to determine quantitative recovery criteria only if more long‐term data sets that capture spatiotemporal variability in vital rates become available. Lacking this, there is a strong need for viable and comprehensive methods for determining quantitative, science‐based recovery criteria for endangered species with minimal data availability. Uso Actual y Potencial del Análisis de Viabilidad Poblacional para la Recuperación de Especies de Plantas Enlistadas en el Acta de Especies En Peligro de E.U.A     

Avian Conservation under the Endangered Species Act: Expenditures versus Recovery Priorities

Abstract: Budget constraints require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to prioritize species for recovery spending. Each listed species is ranked according to the degree of threat it faces, its recovery potential, and its taxonomic distinctness. We analyzed state and federal government expenditures for recovery of threatened and endangered birds ( n = 85 species) from 1992 to 1995 to determine if the priority system was being followed. Although recovery spending correlated with priority rank, priority rank explained <5% of the variation in spending. A small number of the same moderately ranked species dominated expenditures each year (41–79% of total annual budgets). Species with wide distributions, high recovery potential, and captive breeding programs received the most funding, and more funding than their priority ranks dictated. Island species received significantly less funding than expected based on priority rank. Twelve species, 10 of which resided on islands, received <$5000 at least once from 1992 to 1995. Recovery spending was unrelated to degree of threat, taxonomic distinctness, and migratory status. There also was no relationship between land-purchase expenditures and priority ranks. To improve the relationship between recovery spending on threatened and endangered birds and their priority rank, significant changes need to be made within the private sector ( less litigation and special-interest lobbying  ), U.S. Congress (increased budget and reduced earmarking  ), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (restructuring of regional offices and increased accountability).     

Application of multiple-population viability analysis to evaluate species recovery alternatives

Population viability analysis (PVA) is a powerful conservation tool, but it remains impractical for many species, particularly species with multiple, broadly distributed populations for which collecting suitable data can be challenging. A recently developed method of multiple-population viability analysis (MPVA), however, addresses many limitations of traditional PVA. We built on previous development of MPVA for Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT) (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi), a species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, that is distributed broadly across habitat fragments in the Great Basin (U.S.A.). We simulated potential management scenarios and assessed their effects on population sizes and extinction risks in 211 streams, where LCT exist or may be reintroduced. Conservation populations (those managed for recovery) tended to have lower extinction risks than nonconservation populations (mean = 19.8% vs. 52.7%), but not always. Active management or reprioritization may be warranted in some cases. Eliminating non-native trout had a strong positive effect on overall carrying capacities for LCT populations but often did not translate into lower extinction risks unless simulations also reduced associated stochasticity (to the mean for populations without non-native trout). Sixty fish or 5–10 fish/km was the minimum reintroduction number and density, respectively, that provided near-maximum reintroduction success. This modeling framework provided crucial insights and empirical justification for conservation planning and specific adaptive management actions for this threatened species. More broadly, MPVA is applicable to a wide range of species exhibiting geographic rarity and limited availability of abundance data and greatly extends the potential use of empirical PVA for conservation assessment and planning.     

Prevalence of sustainable and unsustainable use of wild species inferred from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

Unsustainable exploitation of wild species represents a serious threat to biodiversity and to the livelihoods of local communities and Indigenous peoples. However, managed, sustainable use has the potential to forestall extinctions, aid recovery, and meet human needs. We analyzed species-level data for 30,923 species from 13 taxonomic groups on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species to investigate patterns of intentional biological resource use. Forty percent of species (10,098 of 25,009 species from 10 data-sufficient taxonomic groups) were used. The main purposes of use were pets, display animals, horticulture, and human consumption. Intentional use is currently contributing to elevated extinction risk for 28–29% of threatened or near threatened (NT) species (2752–2848 of 9753 species). Intentional use also affected 16% of all species used (1597–1631 of 10,098). However, 72% of used species (7291 of 10,098) were least concern, of which nearly half (3469) also had stable or improving population trends. The remainder were not documented as threatened by biological resource use, including at least 172 threatened or NT species with stable or improving populations. About one-third of species that had use documented as a threat had no targeted species management actions to directly address this threat. To improve use-related red-list data, we suggest small amendments to the relevant classification schemes and required supporting documentation. Our findings on the prevalence of sustainable and unsustainable use, and variation across taxa, can inform international policy making, including the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.     

Genetics, Taxonomy, and Conservation of the Threatened California Gnatcatcher

Abstract: The California Gnatcatcher (   Polioptila californica ) has become a flagship species in the dispute over development of southern California's unique coastal sage scrub habitat, a fragile, geographically restricted ecosystem with high endemism. One aspect of the controversy concerns the status of the subspecies of this bird in southern California coastal sage scrub that is currently listed as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. To investigate the recent population history of this species and the genetic distinctiveness of subspecies and to inform conservation planning, we used direct sequencing of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) for 64 individuals from 13 samples taken throughout the species' range. We found that coastal sage scrub populations of California Gnatcatchers are not genetically distinct from populations in Baja California, which are dense and continuously distributed throughout the peninsula. Rather, mtDNA sequences from this species contain the signatures of population growth and support a hypothesis of recent expansion of populations from a southern Baja California refugium northward into the southern coastal regions of California. During this expansion, stochastic events led to a reduction in genetic variation in the newly occupied range. Thus, preservation of coastal sage scrub cannot be linked to maintaining the genetic diversity of northern gnatcatcher populations, despite previous recognition of subspecies. Our study suggests that not all currently recognized subspecies are equivalent to evolutionarily significant units and illustrates the danger of focusing conservation efforts for threatened habitats on a single species.     

A Diverse and Endangered Aquatic Ecosystem of the Southeast United States

We document the biodiversity and conservation status of an extraordinarily diverse and endangered ecosystem in the United States that has failed to attract the same attention as tropical ecosystems—the rivers and streams of Alabama and adjoining states. Relative to North America as a whole, Alabama is a highlight of aquatic diversity supporting 38% of native fresh water fishes, 43% of native freshwater gill-breathing snails, 60% of native mussels, and 52% of native freshwater turtles. Of these, 41%, 77%, 34%, and 22% of the fishes, snails, mussels, and turtles, respectively, are endemic to Alabama and an adjacent state. Like many tropical systems of developing nations, this fauna is in an imperiled state, with 10%, 65%, 69%, and 43% of Alabama's fishes, gill-breathing snails, mussels, and turtles, respectively, considered either extinct, endangered, threatened, or of special concern. Unlike tropical systems, however, little effort has been made to protect the taxa and their habitats. Only 40% of fishes, 1% of gill-breathing snails, 32% of mussels, and 20% of freshwater turtles are formally listed as either threatened or endangered via the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973; no critical habitat has been protected. Clearly, the biodiversity crisis in not limited to tropical systems of developing nations. Although the Endangered Species Act of 1973 helps to ensure a future of sustainable diversity, efforts must be made to hasten recognition, protection, and recovery of critical habitat, particularly for hotspots such as the aquatic systems of Alabama.     

Quantitative tools for implementing the new definition of significant portion of the range in the U.S. Endangered Species Act

In 2014, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service announced a new policy interpretation for the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). According to the act, a species must be listed as threatened or endangered if it is determined to be threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range (SPR). The 2014 policy seeks to provide consistency by establishing that a portion of the range should be considered significant if the associated individuals’ “removal would cause the entire species to become endangered or threatened.” We reviewed 20 quantitative techniques used to assess whether a portion of a species’ range is significant according to the new guidance. Our assessments are based on the 3R criteria—redundancy (i.e., buffering from catastrophe), resiliency (i.e., ability to withstand stochasticity), and representation (i.e., ability to evolve)—that the FWS uses to determine if a species merits listing. We identified data needs for each quantitative technique and considered which methods could be implemented given the data limitations typical of rare species. We also identified proxies for the 3Rs that may be used with limited data. To assess potential data availability, we evaluated 7 example species by accessing data in their species status assessments, which document all the information used during a listing decision. In all species, an SPR could be evaluated with at least one metric for each of the 3Rs robustly or with substantial assumptions. Resiliency assessments appeared most constrained by limited data, and many species lacked information on connectivity between subpopulations, genetic variation, and spatial variability in vital rates. These data gaps will likely make SPR assessments for species with complex life histories or that cross national boundaries difficult. Although we reviewed techniques for the ESA, other countries require identification of significant areas and could benefit from this research.