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.     

Living at the Edge: Local versus Positional Factors in the Long‐Term Population Dynamics of an Endangered Orchid

Abstract: Populations at the margin of geographic ranges of distribution have been considered more vulnerable than central ones, but recent reviews have caste doubt on this generalization. We examined the reproductive and demographic performance of a rare Euroasiatic orchid (Cypripedium calceolus) at its southwesterly range limit and compared our findings with those of previous studies of nine central populations at the center of the orchid's range. We sought to test the central‐marginal model and to evaluate factors involved in long‐term performance of forest Eurosiberian species with peripheral populations in southern European mountains. We characterized (structure, temporal fluctuations, herbivory, reproductive success, and recruitment at different habitats) four Pyrenean populations of C. calceolus of different sizes (5–3500 ramets) and monitored three of them for up to 13 years. Two quantitative stochastic models (count data and matrix models) were used to assess population trends and viability and the effect of herbivory. Contrary to expectations, and despite the negative effect of sporadic events of herbivory, the peripheral populations we studied (except the smallest one) performed similarly or better than populations occurring in central part of the species’ range in terms of reproductive success and population growth rates. Landscape changes over the last 50 years suggest that natural reforestation could be involved in the success of this plant at its southern limit. Forest expansion in the mountain regions of southern Europe may provide new opportunities for plants with geographic distributions centered mainly at higher latitudes and give some hope for their recovery in future scenarios dominated by biodiversity loss.     

Costs of Integrating Economics and Conservation Planning

Abstract: Recent literature on systematic conservation planning has focused strongly on economics. It is a necessary component of efficient conservation planning because the question is about effective resource allocation. Nevertheless, there is an increasing tendency toward economic factors overriding biological considerations. Focusing too narrowly on economic cost may lead us back toward solutions resembling those obtained by opportunistic choice of areas, the avoidance of which was the motivation for development of systematic approaches. Moreover, there are many overlooked difficulties in incorporating economic considerations reliably into conservation planning because available economic data and the free market are complex. For instance, economies based on free markets tend to be shortsighted, whereas biodiversity conservation aims far into the future. Although economic data are necessary, they should not be relied on too heavily or considered separately from other sociopolitical factors. We suggest focusing on development of more‐comprehensive ecological‐economic modeling, while not forgetting the importance of purely biological analyses that are needed as a point of reference for evaluating conservation outcomes.     

Six Common Mistakes in Conservation Priority Setting

A vast number of prioritization schemes have been developed to help conservation navigate tough decisions about the allocation of finite resources. However, the application of quantitative approaches to setting priorities in conservation frequently includes mistakes that can undermine their authors’ intention to be more rigorous and scientific in the way priorities are established and resources allocated. Drawing on well‐established principles of decision science, we highlight 6 mistakes commonly associated with setting priorities for conservation: not acknowledging conservation plans are prioritizations; trying to solve an ill‐defined problem; not prioritizing actions; arbitrariness; hidden value judgments; and not acknowledging risk of failure. We explain these mistakes and offer a path to help conservation planners avoid making the same mistakes in future prioritizations. Seis Errores Comunes en la Definición de Prioridades de Conservación