Look at Fig 11.1 and 11.2.
11.1 Sometimes we find congruence between different groups and sometimes we don’t. Do remember the
article about MN biodiversity of vertebrates and ecosystem services we read-Polasky article! Was there
congruence between those two? And on p 204 they say “Turner et al. (2007), by contrast, showed considerable
congruence between biodiversity conservation priority and potential ecosystem service value, at least for the
terrestrial realm.”
Rarely do we have these data collected for marine systems but what was one thing they found? (that many
marine hotspots were off the coast of terrestrial hotspots!
What do they mean when they talk about trying to capture evolutionary history? This is getting at the idea that
we might want to prioritize species or lineages that are evolutionarily unique. Remember how we talked about
the tuatara in class?
11.2 Why is species level conservation considered the most important?
Glance at Fig 11.5-we looked at this earlier in the semester. We mentioned in class how our federal system is
quite different from the international IUCN Red List. They are quite systematic (these days) at assessing species
while to get on the Endangered Species list it is a little random.
P211-they talk about Landscape views…many species in smaller parks have been found to be declining simply
because they are not connected to other populations, so their long term persistence is threatened.
That is it!
Bottom of p220 What to protect? Species, subspecies, populations? (you might think of this in terms of wolves
Box 12.2 What are flagship species?
P225 Saw-Whet Owl example…widespread but one state might choose to list it if it has declined from historical
Other material on p225 is interesting too. Vertebrates can have Distinct Population Segments-like in wolves!
Used to use political boundaries but are trying to avoid.
Salmon runs-can be preserved as long as each population shows differences from other neighboring
12.1.2 Criteria Red List IUCN vs US ESA. We talked about this in class a little.
12.2.1 What forces have caused extinctions in the recent past? See also Fig 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3
Differences between US and China.
P229 Importance of private lands since so many endangered species live on them. (This connects to our
discussion of management in a human dominated landscape.)
Note ESA protects species on public lands and private lands (although on private lands you can go through a
process to get exemptions-probably a good thing because we found people hiding the fact that they had an
endangered species on their land because the laws are such a challenge to work with). The inclusion of private
lands was revolutionary at the time! Note that the laws on private lands do not apply to plants.
12.3 Recovery-Once you are on the list you are supposed to have a recovery plan written but these often don’t
get funded so don’t get written.
“One might assume that recovery plans play a pivotal role in endangered species management in the US but, in
fact, they rarely do. Part of the problem is that the plans are not legally binding documents”
p231 Highlights that many species will be difficult to recover…if they are threatened due to habitat loss that is
not going to go away suddenly, if they are threatened due to introduced species or lack of fire…those things are
not going to go away either.
“Scott et al. (2005) recommend that recovery be viewed as a continuum of states. At one extreme are the
species that can survive in the wild with essentially no active management once key threats have been
eliminated or enough habitat has been protected. At the other extreme are species that can persist in the wild,
but only if people actively manage their habitats or control their competitors, predators, etc. A simple
recovered/ not recovered dichotomy, as exists under the ESA, does not reflect the complexity of contemporary
12.4 talks about incentives or disincentives (carrots vs sticks)…You might apply this to private property owners
in our county…a tax break would be a carrot!
P233 Note the debate about fee hunting!
12.5 makes some good points-do read this section.
Anthropogenic biomes…what do you think? A traditional map of biomes is kind of silly since in the Midwest
all that prairie is mostly farmland. Fig 13.1
Bottom of p 236 Illusion of pristine wild areas.
Fig 13.2 peoples have always modified the land
P242 Point out that we are not going to be able to preserve species without including human modified
landscapes, so we need to improve our understanding of how these lands can benefit different species.
13.3-13.5 and especially 13.6 go through examples of “multiple use” strategies. We used these sections to think
about things we could encourage locally. Remember you have a ppt on this-I will put it in the WordPress site
for class.
Box 13.4 is a good example in India
13.7 Urban areas can be useful too.
13.8 Regenerating forests on poor quality land.
14.1 Review some of the key people involved in the conservation movement-many of you have probably heard
of them before
p266-the idea of pristine wilderness not being so pristine again.
Box 14.3 is a classic story of the elephants
p269-Have native peoples always walked softly on the earth?
Box 14.4 is good.
14.4.1 Cultural values
p272, 273 seems like has some good examples of “best practices” in terms of designing conservation plans.
What mistakes have we made in different places?
Fig 14.2 is good.
Simply browse the rest of the chapter…lots of good material here but few that we will connect to explicitly
since we are running out of time!