Abstract

AbstractThis study considered whether different population viability analyses give similar estimates of extinction risk across management contexts. We compared the performance of population viability analyses developed by numerous scientific teams to estimate extinction risk of anadromous Pacific salmonids listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act and challenged each analysis with data from 34 populations. We found variation in estimated extinction risk among analytical techniques, which was driven by varying model assumptions and the inherent uncertainty of risk forecasts. This result indicates that the scientific teams developed techniques that perform differently. We recommend that managers minimize uncertainty in risk estimates by using multiple models tailored to the local ecology. Assessment of relative extinction risk was less sensitive to model assumptions than was assessment of absolute extinction risk. Thus, the former method is better for comparing population status and raises caution about conclusions regarding absolute extinction risk.Received October 18, 2012; accepted July 3, 2013

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.