Legal and biotic boundaries of western North American national parks: A problem of congruence

Abstract The boundaries of a national park may be defined in terms of its legal and biotic boundaries. The legal boundaries are the boundaries established by the highest legislative authority of a country. The biotic boundaries are hypothetical boundaries which would be necessary to maintain existing ecological processes and a given assemblage of species within a national park. Practically, the biotic boundaries are defined as those hypothetical boundaries encompassing the entire watershed of a park and an area of sufficient size to maintain a minimum viable population (MVP) for the terrestrial non-volant species with the largest home range found within the current legal boundaries. The legal and biotic boundaries for eight of the largest continental national parks and park assemblages in western North America were examined for congruence. The legal boundaries for seven of the eight parks/park assemblages were found to be larger than the biotic boundaries by a factor of 1·2–9·6 for a MVP=50 and 6·0–96·0 for a MVP=500. One to seven percent of all the mammals, excluding chiropterans, found currently in seven of the eight national parks/park assemblages have an area requirement (MVP=50 × home range) exceeding the legal boundaries. It is urgent while an opportunity exists that an active effort be made to enhance the congruence of the legal and biotic boundaries of these parks and park assemblages through the cooperative management of adjacent public and private lands so as to minimize the potential loss of wildlife.

[1]  M. Soulé,et al.  Benign neglect: A model of faunal collapse in the game reserves of East Africa , 1979 .

[2]  J. Kushlan.  Design and management of continental wildlife reserves: Lessons from the everglades , 1979 .

[3]  E. Odum.  Fundamentals of ecology , 1972 .

[4]  E. Willis.  Populations and Local Extinctions of Birds on Barro Colorado Island, Panama , 1974 .

[5]  John Wegner,et al.  Movements by Birds and Small Mammals Between a Wood and Adjoining Farmland Habitats , 1979 .

[6]  Unesco. Programme on Man.  Task force on : criteria and guidelines for the choice and establishment of biosphere reserves , 1974 .

[7]  D. I. Rasmussen.  Fauna of the National Parks of the United States , 1934 .

[8]  Jared M. Diamond,et al.  THE ISLAND DILEMMA: LESSONS OF MODERN BIOGEOGRAPHIC STUDIES FOR THE DESIGN OF NATURAL RESERVES , 1975 .

[9]  V. Shelford,et al.  National Parks , 1921, Nature.

[10]  J. Mcneely,et al.  IUCN, National Parks, and Protected Areas: Priorities for Action , 1983, Environmental Conservation.

[11]  D. Houston.  Ecosystems of National Parks , 1971, Science.

[12]  M. Hornocker,et al.  Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana , 1981 .

[13]  O. H. Frankel,et al.  Conservation and Evolution , 1983 .

[14]  Protected Areas.  United Nations List of National Parks and Equivalent Reserves. , 1971 .

[15]  M. Fenton,et al.  The Effects of Roads on Populations of Small Mammals , 1974 .

[16]  G. Cameron,et al.  Species Removal Studies. I. Dispersal Strategies of Sympatric Sigmodon hispidus and Reithrodontomys fulvescens Populations , 1975 .

[17]  M. Shaffer.  Minimum Population Sizes for Species Conservation , 1981 .

[18]  Gábor Vida,et al.  Genetic Diversity and Environmental Future , 1978, Environmental Conservation.

[19]  H. G. Baker,et al.  Differentiation of populations. , 1969, Science.

[20]  J. Diamond.  Distributional Ecology of New Guinea Birds , 1973, Science.

[21]  J. Terborgh.  Faunal Equilibria and the Design of Wildlife Preserves , 1975 .

[22]  L. Harris,et al.  Isolation and extirpations in wildlife reserves , 1977 .