This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ Preprints) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
Managers of large, complex wildlife conservation programs need information on the conservation status of each of many species to help strategically allocate limited resources. Oversimplifying status data, however, runs the risk of missing information essential to strategic allocation. Conservation status consists of two components, the status of threats a species faces and the species’ demographic status. Neither component alone is sufficient to characterize conservation status. Here we present a simple key for scoring threat and demographic changes for species using detailed information provided in free-form textual descriptions of conservation status. This key is easy to use (simple), captures the two components of conservation status without the cost of more detailed measures (sufficient), and can be applied by different personnel to any taxon (consistent). To evaluate the key’s utility, we performed two analyses. First, we scored the threat and demographic status of 37 species recently recommended for reclassification under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 15 control species, then compared our scores to two metrics used for decision-making and reports to Congress. Second, we scored the threat and demographic status of all non-plant ESA-listed species from Florida (54 spp.), and evaluated scoring repeatability for a subset of those. While the metrics reported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are often consistent with our scores in the first analysis, the results highlight two problems with the oversimplified metrics. First, we show that both metrics can mask underlying demographic declines or threat increases; for example, ~40% of species not recommended for reclassification had changes in threats or demography. Second, we show that neither metric is consistent with either threats or demography alone, but conflates the two. The second analysis illustrates how the scoring key can be applied to a substantial set of species to understand overall patterns of ESA implementation. The scoring repeatability analysis shows promise, but indicates thorough training will be needed to ensure consistency. We propose that large conservation programs adopt our simple scoring system for threats and demography. By doing so, program administrators will have better information to monitor program effectiveness and guide their decisions.
This is a revision that has been re-submitted to PeerJ for review. We addressed reviewers' concerns with text changes and by adding a second analysis, which focused on applying the scoring key to 54 ESA-listed species in Florida. The review history will be published with the paper, if/once accepted at PeerJ.
Article S1. The regulatory framework of listing, reclassification, and recovery
"Following" is like subscribing to any updates related to a preprint.
These updates will appear in your home dashboard each time you visit PeerJ.
You can also choose to receive updates via daily or weekly email digests.
If you are following multiple preprints then we will send you
no more than one email per day or week based on your preferences.
Note: You are now also subscribed to the subject areas of this preprint
and will receive updates in the daily or weekly email digests if turned on.
You can add specific subject areas through your profile settings.