Page 5
The Yellowbill
May 2008
Endangered Avian Species: Specific versus Sub-specific Research
Howard O. Clark, Jr., and Darren P. Newman, H. T. Harvey & Associates, 423 West Fallbrook Avenue, Suite 202, Fresno, CA, 93711
The Endangered Species Act has been touted as successful when high profile charismatic species are reported as “delisted” or “recovered” (Gibbons 1992). Sound peer-reviewed research is paramount for the recovery of endangered species, and on-going research is necessary for the continued maintenance of the recovered population. For example, the American Bald Eagle went from 400 nesting pairs rangewide in the 1960s to several thousand pairs today (Gibbons 1992, USFWS 2007a), however, while more than 85 bird species are still listed (USFWS 2007b), of these, 6 have gone extinct while on the list (Restani and Marzluff 2001). Budget constraints require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to prioritize what species on the endangered species list obtain research funding (Restani and Marzluff 2001). In order to recover species, research is required to address data gaps, which will hopefully lead to the recovery and removal of the species from the list, or at least downgrade the species from “endangered” status to “threatened.” Before research can be conducted, permits to study endangered species must be secured. However, obtaining these permits is time consuming, convoluted, and overall very difficult to get (Ralls and Brownell 1989). The permit applications are reviewed by the appropriate resource agency, and not all applications are accepted. In the meantime, research is
not being conducted. Any information discovered during basic research is important for the recovery of the species, no matter how insignificant it may appear at the time (Ralls and Brownell 1989). Herein we discuss if whether or not recovered or delisted species were substantially researched, and how much research was conducted on these delisted species compared to other endangered species still on the list. Taking inventory of peer-reviewed papers is a reliable way to quantify endangered species research on particular organisms; these papers represent agency-permitted research projects and the researchers’ success in answering a particular question or set of questions. We queried 3 popular and comprehensive scientific literature databases (BioAbstracts, JSTOR, and Science Direct) to determine the number of papers published for a sample of delisted avian species and compare them to a sample of avian species currently listed. In 1967, the Aleutian Canada Goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia) was listed as endangered, and delisted in 2001 (USFWS 2007b). When querying the database BioAbstracts, published research papers on the subspecies (B. c. leucopareia) differed markedly from the species (B. canadensis; BioAbstracts 2007; figure 1). For example, between 1967 and 2007, BioAbstracts only reports 13 published papers on the subspecies, with the JSTOR (2007) database citing 41 papers, and Science Direct (2007) listing a total of 6. However, the species (B. canadensis) yielded 618 papers in BioAbstracts, 1,550 in JSTOR, and 274 in Science Direct. These results seem to indicate that the recovery of the goose was primarily based on research of the species, rather than the subspecies that was distinctively listed as en-
dangered. In 1970, the American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum – Pagel et al. 1996) and the Arctic Peregrine Falcon (F. p. tundrius – USFWS 1999) were listed as endangered along with the Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis). Figure 2 presents the relationship between the falcon species and subspecies and the number of published research papers. The figure tends to show that the 2 Peregrine Falcon subspecies were not nearly as well researched as their species. For species not recovered, subspecific research versus specific research appears to follow a similar trend. See figure 3 for comparison of the Wood Stork (Mycteria Americana), Least tern (Sterna antillarum), and the California Least Tern (S. a. browni). Additionally, figure 4 presents Clapper Rail
continued on page 6...
Board of Directors 2007 - 2008
President Brandon Hill ............... 978-2369 ...... bhill968@scccd.org President Elect...............................................open Past President Kevin Enns-Rempel 313-4546 . kennsrem@fresno.edu Secretary Marian Orvis ............ 226-0145 ... mforvet@earthlink.net Treasurer Margaret Beatie.....787-2104 .... mgb20@csufresno.edu Program Chair ......................................................... open SJR Trail Committee Representative...............open Membership Chair Pete Fahey......292-7432 ....... peterfahey@comcast.net Conservation Chair .............................. Lindsey Hubert Publicity Chair Jane Manning ........... 276-7962 ..... cjane138@msn.com Education Chair Beth Richardson...435-0618 .. bethbarnett@comcast.net Hospitality Chair Diane DuBois...............................bhill968@scccd.org Field Trips Chair Frank Gibson ............ 299-8452 .. frankg@csufresno.edu Wednesday Walks Coordinators Darby & Vicki Smith 787-2969 .. vicdarb@inreach.com Betty & Ken Cornelisen 439-2267 kcornelisen@comcast.net Director H.L. Shivaprasad .............. hlshivaprasad@ucdavis.edu Yellowbill Editors Howard Clark and Sue Hagen .....................449-1423 hclark@harveyecology.com
Page 6
The Yellowbill
May 2008
Figure 1. The Canada Goose subspecies, B. c. leucopareia , appears to not be as well researched as the Canada Goose, B. canadensis , however this is not necessarily true. The Brown Pelican is added for comparison. Figure 2. The two listed subspecies of Peregrine Falcon appear to not be nearly as well researched as the Peregrine Falcon species, but again, like with the goose, this is not necessarily true. Figure 3. The Bald Eagle has more than 1500 peer-reviewed papers published, and has been removed from the endangered species list. The Wood Stork and the Least Tern are still listed as endangered. Figure 4. Clapper Rail research compared to research specifically conducted on the 3 endangered subspecies. However, Rail research was actually conducted on the subspecies; the journal just didn’t emphasize the subspecies.
Endangered Avian Species...
species research compared to research specifically conducted on 3 endangered subspecies of Clapper Rail. Although there is some overlap in journal titles within the databases, these data provide a research pulse on endangered species. JSTOR has nearly 730 journal titles, whereas BioAbstracts has more than 5,500. Science Direct monitors over 600 journal titles. Not all biological and ecological journals are represented, but an adequate sampling of what is available to researchers is accessible in these 3 databases. We showed our findings to Jeff Davis, a local avian expert. He said that with birds, listing the sub-specific name in a peer-reviewed paper is not necessary, since the reader can ascertain which region is being studied and in turn, determine which sub-species is being researched. Unlike mammals, subspecific avian names are not as critical in scientific papers. Therefore, research on endangered avian species is already implied on the subspecific level. A considerable amount of research is being conducted on endangered species, and the amassed information available to resource agencies and species recovery managers is encouraging. As Congress wrote in 1973, endangered and threatened species of wildlife and plants “are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people” (7 USC § 136, 16 USC § 1531 et seq. of 1973). Species not as charismatic as the bald eagle (USFWSa 2007) should continue to be researched, and be given an equal research opportunity to facilitate recovery.
Jeff Davis provided an exceptional peer review of the manuscript. Henry Madden Library at CSU Fresno, assisted with the database searches. S. I. Hagen provided helpful comments on the manuscript.
Literature Cited
BioAbstracts. 2007. Thomson. www.biosis.org. Gibbons, A. 1992. Mission impossible: saving all endangered species. Science 256:1386. JSTOR. 2007. Journal Storage. www.jstor.com. Pagel, J. E., D. A. Bell, B. E. Norton. 1996. De-Listing the American Peregrine Falcon: Is It Premature? Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:429-435. Ralls, K., and R. L. Brownell. 1989. Protected species permits and the value of basic research. BioScience 39:394-396.
Restani, M., and J. M. Marzluff. 2001. Avian conservation under the Endangered Species Act: expenditures versus recovery priorities. Conservation Biology 15:12921299. ScienceDirect. 2007 Elsevier B. V. www.sciencedirect.com. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Federal Register 64:46542-46558. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. Federal Register 72:37346-37372 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. Species Information Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants. www.fws.gov/ endangered/wildlife.html.