Viability Analysis in Biological Evaluations: Concepts of Population Viability Analysis, Biological Population, and Ecological Scale

Viability Analysis in Biological Evaluations: Concepts of Population Viability Analysis,... 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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Conservation Biology Wiley

Viability Analysis in Biological Evaluations: Concepts of Population Viability Analysis, Biological Population, and Ecological Scale

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/viability-analysis-in-biological-evaluations-concepts-of-population-5MapNgFDYE
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0888-8892
eISSN
1523-1739
D.O.I.
10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08020364.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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.

Journal

Conservation BiologyWiley

Published: Jun 1, 1994

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off