Abstract
Use of the subspecies as the basic unit in the conservation of endangered caribou (Rangifer tarandus) would produce a “melting pot” end-product that would mask important genotypic, phenotypic, ecological, and behavioral variations found below the level of the subspecies. Therefore, we examined options for establishing the basic conservation unit for an endangered caribou population: use of subspecies based on taxonomy, subspecies based solely on mtDNA, Evolutionarily Significant Units, and the geographic population. We reject the first three and conclude that the only feasible basic unit for biologically and ecologically sound conservation of endangered caribou in North America is the geographic population. Conservation of endangered caribou at the level of the geographic population is necessary to identify and maintain current biodiversity. As deliberations about endangered caribou conservation often involve consideration of population augmentation, we also discuss the appropriate augmentation protocol for conserving biodiversity. Management of a critically endangered caribou population by augmentation should only be initiated after adequate study and evaluation of the genotype, phenotype, ecology, and behavior for both the endangered caribou and the potential‘donor’ caribou to prevent the possible ‘contamination’ of the endangered caribou. Translocation of caribou into an endangered population will have failed, even if the restocking efforts succeed, if the donor animals functionally alter the population’s gene pool or phenotype, or alter the ecological and behavioral adaptations of individuals in the endangered population. Most importantly, a seriously flawed restocking would risk irreversibly altering those functional characteristics of caribou in an endangered population that make them distinct and possibly unique. It might even result in the loss of the endangered population, thus eliminating a uniquely evolved line from among the caribou species.
Highlights
There is considerable public relations value in the perception of doing something for conservation by capturing large animals and moving them to different locations to increase or reestablish populations
We first consider four possibilities for a basic unit of conservation for endangered caribou; we present our views on selecting the basic unit of conservation that recognizes the most appropriate division for applying conservation measures to caribou; and we develop our associated reasoning and the procedure that we believe is necessary for a biologically and ecologically sound augmentation protocol for endangered populations of North American caribou
We examine four possibilities for establishing a Basic conservation unit (BCU) for an endangered caribou population: subspecies based on taxonomy, subspecies based solely on mitochondrial DNA, the use of Evolutionarily Significant Units, and the geographic population
Summary
There is considerable public relations value in the perception of doing something for conservation by capturing large animals and moving them to different locations to increase or reestablish populations. If conservation measures are based solely on mtDNA genetics, the Canadian and Alaskan forms of barren-ground caribou, all caribou on the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, and many of the caribou in populations currently recognized as woodland caribou, would not be considered as separate.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
