Genetic Data and the Listing of Species Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Abstract:  Genetic information is becoming an influential factor in determining whether species, subspecies, and distinct population segments qualify for protection under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Nevertheless, there are currently no standards or guidelines that define how genetic information should be used by the federal agencies that administer the act. I examined listing decisions made over a 10-year period (February 1996–February 2006) that relied on genetic information. There was wide variation in the genetic data used to inform listing decisions in terms of which genomes (mitochondrial vs. nuclear) were sampled and the number of markers (or genetic techniques) and loci evaluated. In general, whether the federal agencies identified genetic distinctions between putative taxonomic units or populations depended on the type and amount of genetic data. Studies that relied on multiple genetic markers were more likely to detect distinctions, and those organisms were more likely to receive protection than studies that relied on a single genetic marker. Although the results may, in part, reflect the corresponding availability of genetic techniques over the given time frame, the variable use of genetic information for listing decisions has the potential to misguide conservation actions. Future management policy would benefit from guidelines for the critical evaluation of genetic information to list or delist organisms under the Endangered Species Act.     

Incorporating Climate Science in Applications of the U.S. Endangered Species Act for Aquatic Species

Aquatic species are threatened by climate change but have received comparatively less attention than terrestrial species. We gleaned key strategies for scientists and managers seeking to address climate change in aquatic conservation planning from the literature and existing knowledge. We address 3 categories of conservation effort that rely on scientific analysis and have particular application under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA): assessment of overall risk to a species; long‐term recovery planning; and evaluation of effects of specific actions or perturbations. Fewer data are available for aquatic species to support these analyses, and climate effects on aquatic systems are poorly characterized. Thus, we recommend scientists conducting analyses supporting ESA decisions develop a conceptual model that links climate, habitat, ecosystem, and species response to changing conditions and use this model to organize analyses and future research. We recommend that current climate conditions are not appropriate for projections used in ESA analyses and that long‐term projections of climate‐change effects provide temporal context as a species‐wide assessment provides spatial context. In these projections, climate change should not be discounted solely because the magnitude of projected change at a particular time is uncertain when directionality of climate change is clear. Identifying likely future habitat at the species scale will indicate key refuges and potential range shifts. However, the risks and benefits associated with errors in modeling future habitat are not equivalent. The ESA offers mechanisms for increasing the overall resilience and resistance of species to climate changes, including establishing recovery goals requiring increased genetic and phenotypic diversity, specifying critical habitat in areas not currently occupied but likely to become important, and using adaptive management. Incorporación de las Ciencias Climáticas en las Aplicaciones del Acta Estadunidense de Especies en Peligro para Especies Acuáticas     

入侵植物加拿大一枝黄花和本地一枝黄花的遗传多样性比较

为了阐明加拿大一枝黄花成功入侵的机制,利用简单序列重复区间标记(ISSR)方法对加拿大一枝黄花和本地一枝黄花的遗传多样性进行比较研究。从100条引物中筛选出12条引物用于PCR扩增,利用POPGEN32软件对2种一枝黄花进行遗传多样性分析。结果表明,加拿大一枝黄花在物种水平上的多态位点百分率为95.19%,Nei’s基因多样性指数为0.308 5,Shannon’s信息指数为0.415 8;本地一枝黄花在物种水平上的多态位点百分率(89.80%)、Nei’s基因多样性指数(0.249 1)和Shannon’s信息指数(0.383 4)都比加拿大一枝黄花小。加拿大一枝黄花和本地一枝黄花居群间遗传分化系数分别为0.118 2和0.131 3,居群内变异分别为0.881 8和0.868 7,表明2个物种居群间的遗传分化不明显,遗传一致度高,且主要的遗传变异存在于居群内。入侵植物加拿大一枝黄花具有较高遗传多样性,且高于本地一枝黄花,这可能是加拿大一枝黄花成功入侵的原因之一。     

群落中物种多度格局的研究综述

物种多度格局是群落结构的重要内容，但在目前的生态学研究中对其重视不够；多度格局研究早在３０年代就开始，在过去的数十年中得到了重要发展；现已建立了多种多度格局模型，它们各有所长；多度格局与物种多样性指数结合，对群落结构研究更具意义；在多度格局研究中也有一些问题值得讨论。     

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.     

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.     

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     

Species Listing under Canada's Species at Risk Act

Abstract: In a preliminary analysis of listing decisions under Canada's Species at Risk Act (SARA), Mooers et al. (2007) demonstrated an apparent bias against marine and northern species. As a follow‐up, we expanded the set of potential explanatory variables, including information on jurisdictional and administrative elements of the listing process, and considered an additional 16 species recommended for listing by SARA's scientific advisory committee as of 15 August 2006. Logistic model selection based on Akaike differences suggested that species were less likely to be listed if they were harvested or had commercial or subsistence harvesting as an explicitly identified threat; had Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) as a responsible authority (RA); were located in Canada's north generally, and especially in Nunavut; or were found mostly or entirely within Canada. Subsequent model validation with an independent set of 50 species for which a listing decision was handed down in December 2007 showed an overall misclassification rate of <0.10, indicating reasonable predictive power. In light of these results, we recommend that RAs under SARA adopt a two‐track listing approach to address problems of delays arising from extended consultations and the inconsistent use by the RAs of socioeconomic analysis; consider revising SARA so that socioeconomic analysis occurs during decisions about protecting species and their habitats rather than at the listing stage; and maintain an integrated database with information on species’ biology, threats, and agency actions to enable future evaluation of SARA's impact.     

Factors associated with preemptive conservation under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

In recent decades, there has been an increasing emphasis on proactive efforts to conserve species being considered for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) before they are listed (i.e., preemptive conservation). These efforts, which depend on voluntary actions by public and private land managers across the species’ range, aim to conserve species while avoiding regulatory costs associated with ESA listing. We collected data for a set of social, economic, environmental, and institutional factors that we hypothesized would influence voluntary decisions to promote or inhibit preemptive conservation of species under consideration for ESA listing. We used logistic regression to estimate the association of these factors with preemptive conservation outcomes based on data for a set of species that entered the ESA listing process and were either officially listed (n = 314) or preemptively conserved (n = 73) from 1996 to 2018. Factors significantly associated with precluded listing due to preemptive conservation included high baseline conservation status, low proportion of private land across the species’ range, small total range size, exposure to specific types of threats, and species’ range extending over several states. These results highlight strategies that can help improve conservation outcomes, such as allocating resources for imperiled species earlier in the listing process, addressing specific threats, and expanding incentives and coordination mechanisms for conservation on private lands.     

Taxonomic Considerations in Listing Subspecies Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Abstract:  The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) allows listing of subspecies and other groupings below the rank of species. This provides the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service with a means to target the most critical unit in need of conservation. Although roughly one-quarter of listed taxa are subspecies, these management agencies are hindered by uncertainties about taxonomic standards during listing or delisting activities. In a review of taxonomic publications and societies, we found few subspecies lists and none that stated standardized criteria for determining subspecific taxa. Lack of criteria is attributed to a centuries-old debate over species and subspecies concepts. Nevertheless, the critical need to resolve this debate for ESA listings led us to propose that minimal biological criteria to define disjunct subspecies (legally or taxonomically) should include the discreteness and significance criteria of distinct population segments (as defined under the ESA). Our subspecies criteria are in stark contrast to that proposed by supporters of the phylogenetic species concept and provide a clear distinction between species and subspecies. Efforts to eliminate or reduce ambiguity associated with subspecies-level classifications will assist with ESA listing decisions. Thus, we urge professional taxonomic societies to publish and periodically update peer-reviewed species and subspecies lists. This effort must be paralleled throughout the world for efficient taxonomic conservation to take place.     

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     

A Successful Predictive Model of Species Richness Based on Indicator Species

Abstract:  Because complete species inventories are expensive and time-consuming, scientists and land managers seek techniques to alleviate logistic constraints on measuring species richness, especially over large spatial scales. We developed a method to identify indicators of species richness that is applicable to any taxonomic group or ecosystem. In an initial case study, we found that a model based on the occurrence of five indicator species explained 88% of the deviance of species richness of 56 butterflies in a mountain range in western North America. We validated model predictions and spatial transferability of the model using independent, newly collected data from another, nearby mountain range. Predicted and observed values of butterfly species richness were highly correlated with 93% of the observed values falling within the 95% credible intervals of the predictions. We used a Bayesian approach to update the initial model with both the model-building and model-validation data sets. In the updated model, the effectiveness of three of the five indicator species was similar, whereas the effectiveness of two species was reduced. The latter species had more erratic distributions in the validation data set than in the original model-building data set. This objective method for identifying indicators of species richness could substantially enhance our ability to conduct large-scale ecological assessments of any group of animals or plants in any geographic region and to make effective conservation decisions.