[PCA] FWS and surrogate species

Wed Sep 10 06:31:55 CDT 2014

Jim,

Thank you for forwarding this correspondence.  A lot of my work for the
natural heritage programs and gov't agencies has been using Floristic
Quality Assessments (FQA - in Colorado, where their botanists have ranked
the conservation index for every vascular plant species! ), Vegetative
Indices of Biotic Integrity (VIBI), and in general, Ecological Integrity
Assessments (EIAs), all of which rely on the implicit or explicit
assumption that some measurement of one taxa of plants or animals will
inform management of other taxa and the ecosystem as a whole.

Unfortunately, the literature that has actually tested this assumption has,
to my knowledge, not found that taxa or group of taxa ever really correlate
well with other taxa .... what is good for butterflies may not necessarily
be good for moths
<http://weltanschuuang.blogspot.com/2013/02/do-endemic-taxa-correlate.html>,
etc.

I just read a recent metareview of tropical deforestation
<http://news.mongabay.com/2014/0731-impact-of-selective-logging-on-rainforests.html>
that
is being widely cited because ---surprise!-- it found differential effects
between different types of species.

But a lot more research needs to be done, and I would love to keep up with
these discussions.

Thanks Jim!

Conor Flynn
conorpro at gmail.com
520-300-1800

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Jim McGrath <sedges at swcp.com> wrote:

> Here's some correspondence from the Plant Conservation Alliance regarding
> surrogate species. You may wish to look at all the responses. Surrogate
> species is a new management concept from the Fish and Wildlife Service.
> Before you read the e-mail thread, check out this link:
> http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/science/surrogate_species.cfm.
>
> Jim
> .
>
> -------- Original Message --------Subject:Re: [PCA] FWS and surrogate
> speciesDate:Wed, 27 Aug 2014 20:27:45 -0700From:Stephen Rae
> <stephen.rae at gmail.com> <stephen.rae at gmail.com>To:Muir, Rachel
> <rmuir at usgs.gov> <rmuir at usgs.gov>CC:native-plants
> <native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org>
> <native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org>
>
> 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/20140910/056f4919/attachment.html>