12/27/2023 0 Comments Dave mazaika constructionUsing an unbalanced design with a greater number of control leks (n = 16) permitted inference from even fewer treatment leks (n = 4), however, we found no scenarios where use of more control leks permitted detection of smaller treatment effects or allowed shorter duration studies. We found that when treatments produced a 5% increase in annual population growth, and leks were monitored for at least 10 years, lek counts produced unbiased and detectable estimates of treatment effects with as few as seven treatment and seven control leks. We further assessed assumptions associated with male detection, and compared analyses that both did (N-mixture models) and did not (Poisson regression) account for detection probability. We used Greater Sage-Grouse lek count data from Oregon, USA, combined with simulation, to evaluate the sample sizes (number of leks, years of monitoring) required to detect a positive outcome of habitat management on population growth. Although substantial work has assessed the utility of lek count data for large-scale population monitoring, there has been comparably little effort focused on the use of lek counts to evaluate local-scale management. Sage-Grouse are often surveyed using counts of males displaying on breeding leks, and these lek counts offer a practical method for monitoring Sage-Grouse population trends. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) has been the recipient of substantial recent conservation efforts in North America. Monitoring population response to conservation actions, such as habitat management, is critical to evaluate conservation outcomes. Disapproval of conservation reliance poses new confronts to restoration politics and its diversity of strands, which must be woven into new ways of thinking about the ethical and political aspects of carnivore policy and management. Hence, a conservation reliance designation may actually erode the value of some species they intend to preserve. Findings suggest that respondents living in the red wolf recovery zone generally oppose a conservation reliance designation, a critical means to red wolf recovery. This paper fills this gap with an analysis of responses from 639 landowners to explore the influence of a conservation reliance designation on intention to coexist with wild red wolves (Canis rufus) in northeast North Carolina. Yet, the nascent literature on conservation reliance has yet to address the influence of conservation reliance on landowner or hunter support for carnivore conservation. As a policy tool, a conservation reliance designation may be used in conjunction with other popular instruments such as financial incentives or co‐governance to promote coexistence between carnivores and key cohorts such as landowners and hunters, who are often vocal dissidents of carnivore recovery, especially wolf recovery projects. A conservation reliance designation has important implications for recovery of large carnivores, particularly where private lands encompass historical ranges. These species are labeled conservation‐reliant, which affords them unique resources to propagate them. The number of species reliant on consistent human intervention is rising. The use of such formalized agreements will facilitate shared management responsibilities between federal wildlife agencies and other federal agencies, and with state, local, and tribal governments, as well as with private entities that have demonstrated the capability to meet the needs of conservation-reliant species. We propose the development of “recovery management agreements”, with legally and biologically defensible contracts that would provide for continuing conservation management following delisting. With ongoing loss of habitat, disruption of natural disturbance regimes, and the increasing impacts of non-native invasive species, it is probable that the number of conservation-reliant species will increase. We characterize such species as “conservation-reliant”, and suggest that viewing “recovery” as a continuum of states rather than as a simple “recovered/not recovered” dichotomy may enhance our ability to manage such species within the framework of the Endangered Species Act. Preventing delisted species from again being at risk of extinction may require continuing, species-specific management actions. However, the magnitude and pace of human impacts on the environment make it unlikely that substantial progress will be made in delisting many species unless the definition of “recovery” includes some form of active management. The recovery (delisting) of a threatened or endangered species is often accompanied by the expectation that conservation management of the species will no longer be necessary.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |