[PCA] FWS and surrogate species

[Stephen Rae]

Agree. Plant species and assemblages are usually easier to identify and monitor in the field than are animals. However, too many biologists are enthralled with bright plumage, brown eyes or cute offspring!  I guess plants just aren't sexy.....!  They must be looking only at apomictic species!

Stephen P. Rae

> On Aug 25, 2014, at 10:37, "Muir, Rachel" <rmuir at usgs.gov> wrote:
> 
> Tony -- the literature you cited regarding surrogate species is correct in that the surrogate species concept has not been supported by the literature.  The discussion is somewhat confused by other similar concepts, such as "umbrella species".  In the case of the umbrella species a species which is wide-ranging, with a large home range and uses multiple habitats, (for example, black bear), can result in the protection of many species.  This is because of the extent of their habitat requirements, not necessarily because they have overlapping habitat requirements with many species. For example, protecting the Louisiana subspecies of black bears may provide protection for a threatened species like southern pine snake, but not because they occupy the same niche. 
> 
> What I find problematic is the fact that I don't think many plant species make the surrogate species list.  Certainly suites of plant species or plant communities are one of the best way to identify critical habitats for many species.  Once again, plants are getting overlooked. 
> 
> Best wishes -- Rachel Muir  
> 
> Rachel Muir 
> Science Advisor, Northeast Region
> U.S. Geological Survey
> 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 953
> Reston, VA 20192
> phone: 703-648-5114
> email: rmuir at usgs.gov
> 
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Stephen Rae <stephen.rae at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This reminds me of the key species concept.  Compromises regarding a single species may result in significant issues pertinent to their associates.
>> 
>> S
>> 
>> Stephen P. Rae, Plant Ecologist-One Who Works on Mosses
>> Napa Valley
>> "Slow down!  It's the journey, not the destination."
>> 
>> > On Aug 21, 2014, at 4:29 PM, Addsum-Tony Frates <afrates at addsuminc.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I've read some of the FWS literature on this topic, but am wondering why it won't just focus on doing its job and administer the ESA (which includes listing species and not trying to subvert or delay its own listing proposals).
>> >
>> > We simply need to protect the ecosystems of threatened and endangered species.
>> >
>> > What is being proposed does not sound like modernization to me, but more like avoidance and/or becoming significantly side-tracked.
>> >
>> > No doubt the identification of a surrogate species could be useful under certain circumstances, but I suspect very often not it would not even be applicable.
>> >
>> >
>> > Further, from 2011:
>> >
>> > http://calwatercenter.org/images/11_01_14_A_Critical_Assessment_of_the_Use_of_Surrogate_Species_in_Conservation_Planning_paper.pdf
>> >
>> > See the end of the abstract:
>> >
>> > " . . . conservation biologists demonstrated that the surrogate concept is generally unsupported by ecological theory and empirical evidence. Recently developed validation procedures may allow for the productive use of surrogates in conservation planning, but, used without validation, the surrogate species concept is not a reliable planning tool."
>> >
>> >
>> > As with some of the other more recent FWS policies/rules/regulations including PECE analysis and the "significant range" policy fiasco, we do not seem to be going in the right direction.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Tony Frates
>> > Salt Lake City, Utah
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > native-plants mailing list
>> > native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
>> > http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org
>> >
>> > Disclaimer
>> > Posts on this list reflect only the opinion of the individual who is posting the message; they are not official opinions or positions of the Plant Conservation Alliance.
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to native-plants-request at lists.plantconservation.org with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> native-plants mailing list
>> native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
>> http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org
>> 
>> Disclaimer
>> Posts on this list reflect only the opinion of the individual who is posting the message; they are not official opinions or positions of the Plant Conservation Alliance.
>> 
>> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to native-plants-request at lists.plantconservation.org with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20140827/fea45378/attachment.html>