Elemental Conservation Units: Communicating Extinction Risk without Dictating Targets for Protection

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.

[1]  K. Crandall,et al.  Considering evolutionary processes in conservation biology. , 2000, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[2]  B. Norton Searching for Sustainability: Biological Resources and Endangered Species: History, Values, and Policy , 2002 .

[3]  G. Chambers,et al.  Genetic variation in island populations of tuatara (Sphenodon spp) inferred from microsatellite markers , 2007, Conservation Genetics.

[4]  R. Mayden,et al.  Systematics, species concepts, and the evolutionarily significant unit in biodiversity and conservation biology , 1995 .

[5]  E. Borer,et al.  Asymmetry in community regulation: effects of predators and productivity. , 2006, Ecology.

[6]  R. Waples Evolutionarily Significant Units, Distinct Population Segments, and the Endangered Species Act: Reply to Pennock and Dimmick , 1998 .

[7]  A. Mooers,et al.  Biases in Legal Listing under Canadian Endangered Species Legislation , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[8]  P. Ehrlich,et al.  Mammal Population Losses and the Extinction Crisis , 2002, Science.

[9]  Patricia E. Dimond,et al.  EVALUATION OF SELECTED STRAINS OF ATLANTIC SALMON AS POTENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR THE RESTORATION OF LAKE ONTARIO , 2005 .

[10]  O. Gaggiotti,et al.  INVITED REVIEW: What is a population? An empirical evaluation of some genetic methods for identifying the number of gene pools and their degree of connectivity , 2006, Molecular ecology.

[11]  T. Erwin An evolutionary basis for conservation strategies. , 1991, Science.

[12]  C. Wood,et al.  EVIDENCE FOR SYMPATRIC GENETIC DIVERGENCE OF ANADROMOUS AND NONANADROMOUS MORPHS OF SOCKEYE SALMON (ONCORHYNCHUS NERKA) , 1996, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[13]  Craig Moritz,et al.  Strategies to protect biological diversity and the evolutionary processes that sustain it. , 2002, Systematic biology.

[14]  R. Waples Pacific Salmon, Oncorhynchus spp., and the Definition of "Species" Under the Endangered Species Act , 1991 .

[15]  S. Stearns,et al.  Evolution Illuminated: Salmon and Their Relatives , 2003 .

[16]  David S. Pennock,et al.  Critique of the Evolutionarily Significant Unit as a Definition for “Distinct Population Segments” under the U.S. Endangered Species Act , 1997 .

[17]  G. Daily,et al.  Population diversity: its extent and extinction. , 1997, Science.

[18]  F. Allendorf,et al.  Prioritizing Pacific Salmon Stocks for Conservation , 1997 .

[19]  Alan Hastings,et al.  Complex interactions between dispersal and dynamics: Lessons from coupled logistic equations , 1993 .

[20]  Michael K. Phillips,et al.  The Normative Dimension and Legal Meaning of Endangered and Recovery in the U.S. Endangered Species Act , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[21]  Daniel P. Faith,et al.  Quantifying Biodiversity: a Phylogenetic Perspective , 2002, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[22]  R. Naiman,et al.  Keystone Interactions: Salmon and Bear in Riparian Forests of Alaska , 2006, Ecosystems.

[23]  Gary K. Meffe,et al.  Principles of Conservation Biology , 1995 .

[24]  S. Vermeulen,et al.  Integrating global and local values: a review of biodiversity assessment. , 2002 .

[25]  J. B. Callicott,et al.  In defense of the land ethic , 1989 .

[26]  S. Díaz,et al.  Biodiversity Loss Threatens Human Well-Being , 2006, PLoS biology.

[27]  J. Hey Genes, categories, and species : the evolutionary and cognitive causes of the species problem , 2001 .

[28]  J. Bergh,et al.  Extending Weitzman's economic ranking of biodiversity protection: combining ecological and genetic considerations , 2005 .

[29]  D. Pauly,et al.  A method for identifying keystone species in food web models , 2006 .

[30]  R. Cowling,et al.  Fusion or Failure? The Future of Conservation Biology , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[31]  M. Ford,et al.  Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units , 2000 .

[32]  Georgina M. Mace,et al.  Assessing Extinction Threats: Toward a Reevaluation of IUCN Threatened Species Categories , 1991 .

[33]  Bryan G. Norton,et al.  Searching for Sustainability: Integration or Reduction: Two Approaches to Environmental Values , 2002 .

[34]  D. M. Green,et al.  Designatable Units for Status Assessment of Endangered Species , 2005 .

[35]  David A. Keith,et al.  Sensitivity analyses of decision rules in World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List criteria using Australian plants , 2000 .

[36]  D. Ainley,et al.  Trophic interactions within the Ross Sea continental shelf ecosystem , 2007, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[37]  Julian H. Franklin,et al.  Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy , 2004 .

[38]  D. Parfit Reasons and Persons , 1986 .