Literature DB >> 18254851

Elemental conservation units: communicating extinction risk without dictating targets for protection.

Chris C Wood1, Mart R Gross.   

Abstract

Conservation biologists mostly agree on the need to identify and protect biodiversity below the species level but have not yet resolved the best approach. We addressed 2 issues relevant to this debate. First, we distinguished between the abstract goal of preserving the maximum amount of unique biodiversity and the pragmatic goal of minimizing the loss of ecological goods and services given that further loss of biodiversity seems inevitable. Second, we distinguished between the scientific task of assessing extinction risk and the normative task of choosing targets for protection. We propose that scientific advice on extinction risk be given at the smallest meaningful scale: the elemental conservation unit (ECU). An ECU is a demographically isolated population whose probability of extinction over the time scale of interest (say 100 years) is not substantially affected by natural immigration from other populations. Within this time frame, the loss of an ECU would be irreversible without human intervention. Society's decision to protect an ECU ought to reflect human values that have social, economic, and political dimensions. Scientists can best inform this decision by providing advice about the probability that an ECU will be lost and the ecological and evolutionary consequences of that loss in a form that can be integrated into landscape planning. The ECU approach provides maximum flexibility to decision makers and ensures that the scientific task of assessing extinction risk informs, but remains distinct from, the normative social challenge of setting conservation targets.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18254851     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00856.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  6 in total

1.  How well can captive breeding programs conserve biodiversity? A review of salmonids.

Authors:  Dylan J Fraser
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2008-06-02       Impact factor: 5.183

2.  Recurrent evolution of life history ecotypes in sockeye salmon: implications for conservation and future evolution.

Authors:  Chris C Wood; John W Bickham; R John Nelson; Chris J Foote; John C Patton
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 5.183

3.  Conservation prioritization in widespread species: the use of genetic and morphological data to assess population distinctiveness in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) from British Columbia, Canada.

Authors:  Eric B Taylor; Patrick Tamkee; Ernest R Keeley; Eric A Parkinson
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2010-06-07       Impact factor: 5.183

4.  Global assessment of extinction risk to populations of Sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka.

Authors:  Peter S Rand; Matthew Goslin; Mart R Gross; James R Irvine; Xanthippe Augerot; Peter A McHugh; Victor F Bugaev
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-04-12       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Combining genetic and demographic information to prioritize conservation efforts for anadromous alewife and blueback herring.

Authors:  Eric P Palkovacs; Daniel J Hasselman; Emily E Argo; Stephen R Gephard; Karin E Limburg; David M Post; Thomas F Schultz; Theodore V Willis
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2013-10-02       Impact factor: 5.183

6.  Applying novel connectivity networks to wood turtle populations to provide comprehensive conservation management strategies for species at risk.

Authors:  Cindy Bouchard; Étienne Lord; Nathalie Tessier; François-Joseph Lapointe
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-08-12       Impact factor: 3.752

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.