Raising the bar: Recovery ambition for species at risk in Canada and the US

English version

Autoři: Kylee A. Pawluk ^aff001; Caroline H. Fox ^aff002; Christina N. Service ^aff001; Eva H. Stredulinsky ^aff001; Heather M. Bryan ^aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada ^aff001; Department of Oceanography, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada ^aff002; Raincoast Conservation Foundation, Sidney, British Columbia, Canada ^aff003; Hakai Institute, Heriot Bay, British Columbia, Canada ^aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224021

Souhrn

Routinely crossing international borders and/or persisting in populations across multiple countries, species are commonly subject to a patchwork of endangered species legislation. Canada and the United States share numerous endangered species; their respective acts, the Species at Risk Act (SARA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), require documents that outline requirements for species recovery. Although there are many priorities for improving endangered species legislation effectiveness, species recovery goals are a crucial component. We compared recovery goal quality, as measured by goal quantitativeness and ambition, for species listed under SARA and ESA. By comparing across ESA and SARA, the intent of the study was to identify differences and similarities that could support the development of stronger species’ recovery goals under both legislations. Our results indicated that: (1) overall, only 38% of recovery goals were quantitative, 41% had high ambition, and 26% were both quantitative and with high ambition; (2) recovery goals had higher quantitativeness and ambition under ESA than SARA; (3) recovery goals for endangered species had higher ambition than threatened species under ESA and SARA, and; (4) no recovery goal aimed to restore populations to historic levels. Combined, these findings provide guidance to strengthen recovery goals and improve subsequent conservation outcomes. In particular, species at risk planners should seek to attain higher recovery goal ambition, particularly for SARA-listed species, and include quantitative recovery goals wherever possible.

Klíčová slova:

Conservation science – United States – Invasive species – Species delimitation – Canada – Endangered species – Legislation – Owls

Zdroje

1. Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR. Mammal population losses and the extinction crisis. Science 2002;296:904–7. doi: 10.1126/science.1069349 11988573

2. Newbold T, Hudson LN, Arnell AP, Contu S, Palma AD, Ferrier S, et al. Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment. Science 2016;353:288–91. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf2201 27418509

3. Darimont CT, Fox CH, Bryan HM, Reimchen TE. The unique ecology of human predators. Science 2015;349:858–60. doi: 10.1126/science.aac4249 26293961

4. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 2000;10:689–710.

5. Barnosky AD. Heatstroke: nature in an age of global warming. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2010.

6. Government of Canada E and CC. COSEWIC terms of reference. Comm Status Endanger Wildl Can COSEWIC—Terms Ref 2015. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/committee-status-endangered-wildlife/terms-reference.html (accessed April 27, 2017).

7. Government of Canada. SARA (Species at Risk Act) An Act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. 2002.

8. United States. Endangered Species Act as Amended by Public Law 97–304 (the Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1982). Washington: U.S. G.P.O., 1983. 1973.

9. Waples RS, Nammack M, Cochrane JF, Hutchings JA. A tale of two acts: endangered species listing practices in Canada and the United States. BioScience 2013;63:723–34. doi: 10.1525/bio.2013.63.9.8

10. Greenwald DN, Suckling KF, Taylor MFJ. The Listing Record. In: Goble DD, Scott JM, Davis FW, editors. Endanger. Species Act Thirty, Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005, p. 392.

11. Olive A. The road to recovery: comparing Canada and US recovery strategies for shared endangered species. Can Geogr 2014;58:263–75. doi: 10.1111/cag.12090

12. Olive A. Land, stewardship, and legitimacy: endangered species policy in Canada and the United States. University of Toronto Press; 2014.

13. Favaro B, Claar DC, Fox CH, Freshwater C, Holden JJ, Roberts A, et al. Trends in extinction risk for imperiled species in Canada. PLOS ONE 2014;9:e113118. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113118 25401772

14. Bird SC, Hodges KE. Critical habitat designation for Canadian listed species: slow, biased, and incomplete. Environ Sci Policy 2017;71:1–8.

15. Taylor MFJ, Suckling KF, Rachlinski JJ. The effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act: a quantitative analysis. BioScience 2005;55:360–7. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0360:TEOTES]2.0.CO;2

16. Mooers AØ, Prugh LR, Festa-Bianchet M, Hutchings JA. Biases in legal listing under Canadian endangered species legislation. Conserv Biol 2007;21:572–5. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00689.x 17531035

17. Taylor EB, Pinkus S. The effects of lead agency, nongovernmental organizations, and recovery team membership on the identification of critical habitat for species at risk: insights from the Canadian experience. Environ Rev 2013;21:93–102. doi: 10.1139/er-2013-0002

18. McCune JL, Harrower WL, Avery-Gomm S, Brogan JM, Csergo A-M, Davidson LNK, et al. Threats to Canadian species at risk: an analysis of finalized recovery strategies. Biol Conserv 2013;166:254–65. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.006

19. Tear TH, Scott JM, Hayward PH, Griffith B. Status and prospects for success of the Endangered Species Act: a look at recovery plans. Science 1993;262:976–7. doi: 10.1126/science.262.5136.976 17782035

20. Troyer CM, Gerber LR. Assessing the impact of the US Endangered Species Act recovery planning guidelines on managing threats for listed species. Conserv Biol 2015;29:1423–33. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12552 26108948

21. Puckett EE, Kesler DC, Greenwald DN. Taxa, petitioning agency, and lawsuits affect time spent awaiting listing under the US Endangered Species Act. Biol Conserv 2016;201:220–9. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.07.005

22. Doak DF, Himes Boor GK, Bakker VJ, Morris WF, Louthan A, Morrison SA, et al. Recommendations for improving recovery criteria under the US Endangered Species Act. BioScience 2015;65:189–99. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biu215

23. National Marine Fisheries Service. Recovery plan for the southern resident killer whales (Orcinus orca). 2008.

24. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Recovery strategy for the northern and southern resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) in Canada. Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada; 2011.

25. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Revised recovery plan for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). Portland, Oregon: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 2011.

26. Chutter RHB, Blackburn I, Bonin D, Buchanan J, Costanzo B, Cunnington D, et al. Recovery strategy for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) in British Columbia. Victoria, BC: Prepared for the BC Ministry of Environment; 2004.

27. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. Portland, Oregon: 1997.

28. Environment Canada. Recovery strategy for the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Canada. Ottawa: Environment Canada; 2014.

29. Gerber LR, Hatch LT. Are we recovering? An evaluation of recovery criteria under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Ecol Appl 2002;12:668–73. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0668:AWRAEO]2.0.CO;2

30. Findlay CS, Elgie S, Giles B, Burr L. Species listing under Canada’s Species at Risk Act. Conserv Biol 2009;23:1609–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01255.x 19500120

31. Mooers AØ, Doak DF, Scott Findlay C, Green DM, Grouios C, Manne LL, et al. Science, policy, and species at risk in Canada. BioScience 2010;60:843–9. doi: 10.1525/bio.2010.60.10.11

32. Environment Canada. Recovery strategy for the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), prairie population, in Canada. Ottawa: Environment Canada; 2009.

33. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Recovery Strategy for the dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) in Canada. Ottawa: Department of Fisheries and Oceans; 2007.

34. Tuckwell J, Everest T. Recovery strategy for the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) in Canada. Ottawa: Parks Canada Agency; 2009.

35. Environment and Climate Change Canada. Recovery strategy for the karner blue (Lycaeides melissa samuelis), frosted elfin (Callophrys irus), and eastern persius duskywing (Erynnis persius persius) in Canada. Ottawa: Environment and Climate Change Canada; 2019.

36. Parks Canada Agency. Recovery strategy for the dwarf lake iris (Iris lacustris) in Canada. Ottawa: Parks Canada Agency; 2011.

37. National Marine Fisheries Service. Final recovery plan for the sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis). Silver Spring, MD: National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources; 2011.

38. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery plan for the white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus): Kootenai river population. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 1999.

39. Gregr EJ, Calambokidis J, Convey L, Ford JKB, Perry RI, Spaven L, et al. Recovery strategy for blue, fin, and sei whales (Balaenoptera musculus, B. physalus, and B. borealis) in Pacific Canadian waters. Vancouver: Fisheries and Oceans Canada; 2006.

40. R Core Team. R; A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: 2017.

41. Harvey E, Hoekstra JM, O’Connor RJ, Fagan WF. Recovery plan revisions: progress or due process? Ecol Appl 2002;12:682–9. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0682:RPRPOD]2.0.CO;2

42. Dee Boersma P, Kareiva P, Fagan WF, Alan Clark J, Hoekstra JM. How good are endangered species recovery plans? The effectiveness of recovery plans for endangered species can be improved through incorporation of dynamic, explicit science in the recovery process, such as strongly linking species’ biology to recovery criteria. BioScience 2001;51:643–9. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0643:HGAESR]2.0.CO;2

43. Himes Boor GK. A framework for developing objective and measurable recovery criteria for threatened and endangered species. Conserv Biol 2014;28:33–43. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12155 24112040

44. Carwardine J, Klein CJ, Wilson KA, Pressey RL, Possingham HP. Hitting the target and missing the point: target-based conservation planning in context. Conserv Lett 2009;2:4–11. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00042.x

45. Schultz CB, Hammond PC. Using population viability analysis to develop recovery criteria for endangered insects: case study of the fender’s blue butterfly. Conserv Biol 2003;17:1372–85. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02141.x

46. Tear TH, Kareiva P, Angermeier PL, Comer P, Czech B, Kautz R, et al. How much is enough? The recurrent problem of setting measurable objectives in conservation. BioScience 2005;55:835–49. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0835:HMIETR]2.0.CO;2

47. Haines AM, Zak M, Hammond K, Scott JM, Goble DD, Rachlow JL. Uncertainty in population estimates for endangered animals and improving the recovery process. Animals 2013;3:745–53. doi: 10.3390/ani3030745 26479531

48. Hoekstra JM, Clark JA, Fagan WF, Boersma PD. A comprehensive review of Endangered Species Act recovery plans. Ecol Appl 2002;12:630–40. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0630:ACROES]2.0.CO;2

49. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal and State endangered and threatened species expenditures: fiscal year 2007. 2007.

50. Government of Canada. Species at Risk Act annual report for 2006 and 2007. 2008.

51. Miller JK, Scott JM, Miller CR, Waits LP. The Endangered Species Act: dollars and sense? Bioscience 2002;52:163–8. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0163:TESADA]2.0.CO;2

52. Parks Canada Agency. Recovery strategy for the lakeside daisy (Hymenoxys herbacea) in Canada. Ottawa: Parks Canada Agency; 2011.

53. Male TD, Bean MJ. Measuring progress in US endangered species conservation. Ecol Lett 2005;8:986–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00806.x

54. Neel MC, Leidner AK, Haines A, Goble DD, Scott JM. By the numbers: how is recovery defined by the US Endangered Species Act? BioScience 2012;62:646–57. doi: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.7.7

55. Wilson HB, Joseph LN, Moore AL, Possingham HP. When should we save the most endangered species? Ecol Lett 2011;14:886–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01652.x 21749599

Raising the bar: Recovery ambition for species at risk in Canada and the US

Souhrn

Klíčová slova:

Zdroje

PLOS One

Aktuální možnosti diagnostiky a léčby litiáz