RECOVERY PLANS AND THE ENDANGERED-SPECIES-ACT - ARE CRITICISMS SUPPORTED BY DATA
RECOVERY PLANS AND THE ENDANGERED-SPECIES-ACT - ARE CRITICISMS SUPPORTED BY DATA
复制标题
DOI：
10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.09010182.x
复制
发表时间：
1995-02-01
影响因子：
6.3
通讯作者：
GRIFFITH, B
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
TEAR, TH;SCOTT, JM;GRIFFITH, B
为了解决最近对美国《濒危物种法》恢复过程的批评，并寻求改进恢复工作的方法，我们评估了截至1991年8月由美国鱼类和野生动物管理局和国家海洋渔业局批准的所有恢复计划。正如对稀有物种的预期，我们发现在恢复计划中总体上缺乏详细的生物信息。物种分布的信息是最常见的，在88%的原始恢复计划中被提及，而物种丰度、种群人口统计和动态（按降序排列）的信息则少得多。生物信息在分类类群中呈现稀疏分布的趋势。研究发现，受威胁物种和濒危物种面临灭绝的危险，但受威胁物种和濒危物种在野外的状况和恢复目标之间的差异并不明显。根据Mace和Lande（1998）制定的标准（并取决于最低标准的选择），恢复计划中设定的以种群为基础的恢复目标，即使实现，也不会改善60-73%脊椎动物物种的濒危程度。除了少数例外，在恢复过程中发现了一种分类学上的偏见，即动物比植物更受欢迎，脊椎动物比无脊椎动物更受欢迎，鸟类和哺乳动物比鱼类和爬行动物更受欢迎。然而，从上市到最初的恢复计划批准之间的平均时间，植物（4.1年）明显短于动物（11.3年），无脊椎动物（6.3年）明显短于脊椎动物（9.4年）。恢复计划流程的每一步（从上市到恢复计划批准和随后的修订）平均至少需要五年时间。在恢复计划中，只有3.5%的物种被确定为关键物种，最近很少有人强调涵盖多种物种的恢复计划。最后，尽管在恢复计划中经常建议进行公众教育（92%），但公众态度评估几乎被忽视(
To address recent criticisms of the recovery process of the U.S. Endangered Species Act and to search for ways to improve recovery efforts we evaluated all recovery plans approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service as of August 1991. As expected with rare species, we found an overall lack of detailed biological information presented in recovery plans. Information on species' distributions was most common, being mentioned in 88% of the original recovery plans, while information on species' abundance, population demographics and dynamics (in descending order) was much less available. Biological information tended to be sparsely distributed among taxonomic groups. We found that threatened and endangered species were at risk of extinction, yet differentiation between threatened and endangered species' status in the wild and their recovery goals was not evident. Based on criteria developed by Mace and Lande (1998) (and depending on choice of minimum criteria), population-based recovery goals set in recovery plans, if achieved would not improve the level of endangerment for 60-73% of vertebrate species. With few exceptions a taxonomic bias was detected in the recovery process that favored animals over plants, vertebrates over invertebrates, and birds and mammals over fish and herpetofauna. The average time in years between listing and original recovery plan approval however, was significantly shorter for plants (4.1) than animals (11.3), and for invertebrates (6.3) than vertebrates (9.4). It took an average of at least five years between each step in the recovery plan process (from listing to recovery plan approval and subsequent revision). Only 3.5% of the species in recovery plans were identified as keystones, and little recent emphasis has been placed on recovery plans covering multiple species. Finally though public education was recommended frequently (92%) in recovery plans, public attitude assessment tons virtually ignored (