Klamath Center for Conservation Research, Orleans, CA 95556, USA.
Conserv Biol. 2010 Apr;24(2):395-403. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01435.x. Epub 2010 Feb 11.
The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) defines an endangered species as one "at risk of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." The prevailing interpretation of this phrase, which focuses exclusively on the overall viability of listed species without regard to their geographic distribution, has led to development of listing and recovery criteria with fundamental conceptual, legal, and practical shortcomings. The ESA's concept of endangerment is broader than the biological concept of extinction risk in that the "esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific" values provided by species are not necessarily furthered by a species mere existence, but rather by a species presence across much of its former range. The concept of "significant portion of range" thus implies an additional geographic component to recovery that may enhance viability, but also offers independent benefits that Congress intended the act to achieve. Although the ESA differs from other major endangered-species protection laws because it acknowledges the distinct contribution of geography to recovery, it resembles the "representation, resiliency, and redundancy" conservation-planning framework commonly referenced in recovery plans. To address representation, listing and recovery standards should consider not only what proportion of its former range a species inhabits, but the types of habitats a species occupies and the ecological role it plays there. Recovery planning for formerly widely distributed species (e.g., the gray wolf [Canis lupus]) exemplifies how the geographic component implicit in the ESA's definition of endangerment should be considered in determining recovery goals through identification of ecologically significant types or niche variation within the extent of listed species, subspecies, or "distinct population segments." By linking listing and recovery standards to niche and ecosystem concepts, the concept of ecologically significant type offers a scientific framework that promotes more coherent dialogue concerning the societal decisions surrounding recovery of endangered species.
美国濒危物种法案 (ESA) 将濒危物种定义为“在其整个分布范围或分布范围的重要部分处于灭绝危险之中的物种”。这种对这一短语的普遍解释只关注列出的物种的整体生存能力,而不考虑它们的地理分布,这导致了列出和恢复标准的制定存在根本的概念、法律和实际缺陷。ESA 的濒危概念比生物灭绝风险的概念更广泛,因为物种提供的“美学、生态、教育、历史、娱乐和科学”价值不一定通过物种的存在来进一步发展,而是通过物种在其大部分原分布范围内的存在来进一步发展。因此,“分布范围的重要部分”的概念意味着恢复过程中增加了一个地理组成部分,这可能会提高生存能力,但也提供了国会希望该法案实现的独立利益。尽管 ESA 与其他主要的濒危物种保护法不同,因为它承认地理对恢复的独特贡献,但它类似于恢复计划中常见的“代表性、弹性和冗余”保护规划框架。为了解决代表性问题,列出和恢复标准不仅应考虑物种栖息的前分布范围的比例,还应考虑物种占据的栖息地类型以及它在那里所扮演的生态角色。对于以前分布广泛的物种(如灰狼 [Canis lupus])的恢复规划就是一个很好的例子,说明了 ESA 对濒危定义中隐含的地理组成部分应如何通过识别生态重要类型或在列出的物种、亚种或“特有种群片段”范围内的生态位变化来确定恢复目标。通过将列入清单和恢复标准与生态位和生态系统概念联系起来,生态重要类型的概念提供了一个科学框架,促进了围绕濒危物种恢复的社会决策更具一致性的对话。