Legislative Response to Endangerment

1
Legislative Response to Endangerment

• Lacey Act (1900 amended 1981)
• Game birds and other birds, possession of
  protected species
• Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966
• Habitat acquisition
• Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969
• Inverts, trade,
• Started process that led to CITES
• Endangered Species Act of 1973
• amended 1978, 1982, 1988

2
CITES

• Convention on International Trade in Endangered
  Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
• Signed 3 March 1973, Implemented 1975, Amended
  1979
• Requires permit for import or export of species
  listed
• includes body parts like ivory, leather, shrunken
  heads, etc

3
ESA of 1973

• Basic Intent and Purpose
• to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon
  which endangered species and threatened species
  depend may be conserved, to provide a program for
  the conservation of such endangered species and
  threatened species, and to take such steps as may
  be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the
  treaties and conventions set forth in subsection
  (a) of this section
• a law that plays in when local planning and
  zoning, state fish and wildlife efforts, the
  Clean Water Act, and Clean Air Act havent
  worked. It is the emergency room of conservation
  policy (M. Beattie 1995)

4
Classifying Endangerment

• Listing species is first step toward conservation
  
• During listing they are classified as
  Endangered or Threatened
• endangered- any species which is in danger of
  extinction throughout all or a significant
  portion of its range
• threatened- any species which is likely to
  become an endangered species within the
  foreseeable future throughout all or a
  significant portion of its range

5
What are TE Functionally?

• Wilcove et al. (1993) reviewed characteristics of
  listed species
• Endangered animals (median values)
• 515 individuals, 1-5 populations
• Endangered plants (medians)
• 99 individuals, 3 populations
• Threatened animals
• 4161 individuals, 1-5 populations
• Threatened plants
• 2499 individuals, 9 populations

6
IUCN Categories

• Much more biologically based (Mace and Lande 1991
  and updates)
• Extinct
• Extinct in the wild
• Threatened
• Critically Endangered
• Endangered
• Vulnerable
• Lower Risk
• Near Threatened
• Least Concern

7
Flow Chart of Categories
(Gärdenfors 2001)
8
Threatened IUCN Categories

• Critically Endangered extreme risk of extinction
  in the wild in the immediate future
• Endangered high risk of extinction in the wild
  in the near future
• Vulnerable high risk of extinction in the wild
  in the medium-term future

9
(Gärdenfors 2001)
10
Applying IUCN at the Regional Scale
(Gärdenfors 2001)
11
ESA vs IUCN categories

• Wilcove et al.s analysis suggests that listed
  species in US under ESA are in two most critical
  classes of IUCN categorization
• low number of indivduals (lt5000) and few (lt9)
  populations
• emphasizes that the ESA is REACTIVE not proactive
  and shows why many species do not recover after
  listing--theyre too far gone already

12
But, What Do We Mean by Species?

• ESA and CITES define species as any subspecies
  of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct
  population segment of any species of vertebrate
  fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature
• plant populations do not get special
  consideration
• NMFS often lists fish stocks (local
  non-interbreeding populations)
• concept of Evolutionary Significant Unit
  (requires reproductive isolation)

13
What is Actually Listed?

• Wilcove et al.s Analysis suggested that most
  listed species were full species
• only 20 of listed species were subspecies or
  populations, but this varied by taxonomic group
• birds---80 of listed species were subspecies
  or populations
• mammals--70 of listed species were subspecies
  or populations
• Mollusks--5of listed species were subspecies
  or populations
• Plants--14 of listed species were subspecies
  or populations

14
Proactive or Reactive?

• Seems the ESA is proactive for birds and mammals,
  but reactive for plants and inverts based on the
  type of unit that is listed.

15
Biological vs. Evolutionary Species Concepts

• ESA uses a biological species concept because it
  emphasizes that groups to be listed are
  reproductively isolated from other such groups
• But, if the goal is to preserve biodiversity,
  then what we really want to preserve is unique
  genetic material, thus the evolutionary species
  concept may be more appropriate

16
Biological vs. Evolutionary Species Concepts

• Evolutionary species are those lineages that
  maintain their own evolutionary tendencies and
  historical fates (Wiley 1981)
• The National Research Council (NRC) review of the
  ESA discusses the EU and suggests it may be an
  especially valuable way to view species for
  listing
• Evolutionary Unit-- group of organisms that
  represents a segment of biological diversity that
  shares evolutionary lineage and contains the
  potential for a unique evolutionary future

17
Defining EUs

• The NRC suggests that EUs are segments of
  biodiversity that contain a potential for a
  unique evolutionary future
• Define by distinctiveness from other units
• morphology, genetics, reproductive isolation,
  ecological distinctiveness, behavior, and
  physiology
• Hybrids can be included as EUs if they are not
  genetically dependent on parental species

18
Evolutionary Significant Units

• Others have defines EUs, or more generally, ESUs
• Reviewed in Crandall et al. 2000
• Ryder 1986 populations that actually represent
  significant adaptive variation based on
  concordance between sets of data derived by
  different techniques
• Waples 1991 populations that are reproductively
  separate from other populations and have unique
  or different adaptations
• Moritz 1994 populations that are reciprocally
  monophyletic for mtDNA alleles and show
  significant divergence of allele frequences at
  nuclear loci

19
Ecological and Genetic Exchangeability
(Crandall et al. 2000)

• Ecological exchangeability the factors that
  define the fundamental niche and the limits of
  spread of new genetic variants through genetic
  drift and natural selection
• rejected with evidence for population
  differentiation owing to genetic drift or natural
  selection
• Differences in life histories, morphology,
  habitat, allozymes under selection (preferably
  heritable ones)
• Genetic exchangeability the factors that define
  the limits and spread of new genetic variants
  through gene flow
• Rejected when there is evidence of restricted
  gene flow between populations
• Differences in microsatellites, nucleotide
  sequences, (mtDNA, cpDNA, nDNA) and allozymes

20
Assessing Ecological and Genetic Exchangeability
(Crandall et al. 2000)
21
References

• Crandall, KA, Bininda-Emonds, ORP, Mace, GM, and
  RK Wayne. 2000. Considering evolutionary
  processes in conservation biology. Trends in
  Ecology and Evolution. 15290-295.
• Gardenfors, U. 2001. Classifying threatened
  species at national versus global levels. Trends
  in Ecology and Evolution. 16511-516.
• National Research Council. 1995. Science and the
  endangered species act. National Academy Press.
  Washington, DC.
• Moritz, C. 1994. Defining evolutionary
  significant units for conservation. Trends in
  Ecology and Evolution. 9373-375.
• Ryder, OA. 1986. Species conservation and
  systmatics the dilemma of subspecies. Trends in
  Ecology and Evolution. 19-10.
• Waples, RA. 1991. Pacific salmon, Oncorhynchus
  spp., and the definition of species under the
  endangered species act. Marine Fisheries Review.
  5311-22.
• Wiley, E. 1981. Phylogenetics the theory and
  practice of phylogenetic systematics. New York.
  John Wiley Sons
• Wilcove, D.S, M. McMillan, and K. C. Winston.
  1993. What exactly is an endangered species? An
  analysis of the U.S. Endangered Species List
  1985-1991. Conservation Biology 787-93.