Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
D. Goodman (1987)
Viable Populations for Conservation: The demography of chance extinction
H. Andrewartha, C. Birch (1984)
The Ecological Web: More on the Distribution and Abundance of Animals
W. Johnson, C. Adkisson (1985)
Dispersal of beech nuts by blue jays in fragmented landscapes.American Midland Naturalist, 113
J. Wiens (1989)
The Ecology of Bird Communities: Acknowledgments
J. Scott, S. Mountainspring, Douglas Pratt, Jean Thompson, F. Pitelka, Dennis Power, J. Sincock (1989)
Forest Bird Communities of the Hawaiian Islands: Their Dynamics, Ecology, and ConservationStudies in avian biology
R. Noss (1987)
Corridors in Real Landscapes: A Reply to Simberloff and CoxConservation Biology, 1
G. Williams (1981)
Aspects of Avian Island Biogeography in New ZealandJournal of Biogeography, 8
B. Wilcox, D. Murphy (1985)
Conservation Strategy: The Effects of Fragmentation on ExtinctionThe American Naturalist, 125
James Brown, A. Kodric‐Brown (1977)
Turnover Rates in Insular Biogeography: Effect of Immigration on ExtinctionEcology, 58
J. Diamond, E. Mayr (1976)
Species-area relation for birds of the Solomon Archipelago.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 73 1
M. Henderson, G. Merriam, J. Wegner (1985)
Patchy environments and species survival: Chipmunks in an agricultural mosaicBiological Conservation, 31
R. Noss, L. Harris (1986)
Nodes, networks, and MUMs: Preserving diversity at all scalesEnvironmental Management, 10
L. Fahrig, G. Merriam (1985)
Habitat Patch Connectivity and Population SurvivalEcology, 66
T. Burkey (1989)
Extinction in nature reserves: the effect of fragmentation and the importance of migration between reserve fragmentsOikos, 55
R. Macarthur, E. Wilson (1969)
The Theory of Island Biogeography
B. Ambuel, S. Temple (1983)
Area-Dependent Changes in the Bird Communities and Vegetation of Southern Wisconsin ForestsEcology, 64
D. Simberloff, J. Cox (1987)
Consequences and Costs of Conservation CorridorsConservation Biology, 1
S. Pimm, H. Jones, J. Diamond (1988)
On the Risk of ExtinctionThe American Naturalist, 132
Environmental protection strategies often rely on environmental impact assessments. As part of the assessment process biologists are routinely asked to evaluate the effects of management actions on plants and animals. This evaluation often requires that biologists make judgments about the viability of affected populations. However, population viability analyses that are analytically comprehensive require extensive ecological data. Such data are usually unavailable and impossible for wildlife managers to collect given limitations of time and money. In this paper we present a conceptual framework to help managers assess population viability given the reality of limited information and resources. Our framework includes a series of steps that facilitate assessment of management impacts on population viability while stressing the importance of reconciling disparities between the geographic scale of management actions and the scale of ecological responses. We argue that a gross mismatch of scale between local management actions (e.g., timber sales) and geographically extensive ecological responses (e.g., species viability) reduces the reliability of environmental analyses. Our framework stresses “biological populations” as the most appropriate level of ecological organization for conducting impact analyses. We argue that in most cases environmental analyses of local management actions should assess the ecological responses of populations rather than the responses of entire species, as is now commonly the case. We also present ecological concepts that have been used effectively by biologists in making judgments about management effects and in developing conservation plans. Although not completely generalizable we believe these concepts, summarized from the conservation biology literature, can aid in evaluating population viability: (1) connected habitats are better than disjointed habitats; (2) suitable habitats in close proximity to one another are better than widely separated habitats; (3) late stages of forest development are often better than younger stages; (4) larger habitat areas are better than smaller areas; (5) populations with higher reproductive rates are more secure than those with lower reproductive rates; and (6) environmental conditions that reduce carrying capacity or increase variance in the growth rates of populations decrease persistence probabilities.
Conservation Biology – Wiley
Published: Jun 1, 1994
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.