Reed J Michael, Mills L Scott, Dunning John B, Menges Eric S, McKelvey Kevin S, Frye Robert, Beissinger Steven R, Anstett Marie-Charlotte, Miller Philip
Department of Biology, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155, U.S.A., email
Wildlife Biology Program, School of Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, U.S.A.
Conserv Biol. 2002 Feb;16(1):7-19. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.99419.x.
Population viability analysis ( PVA) has become a commonly used tool in endangered species management. There is no single process that constitutes PVA, but all approaches have in common an assessment of a population's risk of extinction (or quasi extinction) or its projected population growth either under current conditions or expected from proposed management. As model sophistication increases, and software programs that facilitate PVA without the need for modeling expertise become more available, there is greater potential for the misuse of models and increased confusion over interpreting their results. Consequently, we discuss the practical use and limitations of PVA in conservation planning, and we discuss some emerging issues of PVA. We review extant issues that have become prominent in PVA, including spatially explicit modeling, sensitivity analysis, incorporating genetics into PVA, PVA in plants, and PVA software packages, but our coverage of emerging issues is not comprehensive. We conclude that PVA is a powerful tool in conservation biology for comparing alternative research plans and relative extinction risks among species, but we suggest caution in its use: (1) because PVA is a model, its validity depends on the appropriateness of the model's structure and data quality; (2) results should be presented with appropriate assessment of confidence; (3) model construction and results should be subject to external review, and (4) model structure, input, and results should be treated as hypotheses to be tested. We also suggest (5) restricting the definition of PVA to development of a formal quantitative model, (6) focusing more research on determining how pervasive density-dependence feedback is across species, and (7) not using PVA to determine minimum population size or (8) the specific probability of reaching extinction. The most appropriate use of PVA may be for comparing the relative effects of potential management actions on population growth or persistence.
种群生存力分析（PVA）已成为濒危物种管理中常用的工具。构成PVA并没有单一的过程，但所有方法的共同之处在于评估种群在当前条件下或预期的拟议管理措施下的灭绝风险（或准灭绝风险）或其预计的种群增长。随着模型复杂度的提高，以及无需建模专业知识就能方便进行PVA的软件程序越来越多，模型被误用的可能性更大，对其结果的解释也会更加混乱。因此，我们讨论了PVA在保护规划中的实际应用和局限性，并探讨了一些PVA的新出现问题。我们回顾了在PVA中已变得突出的现存问题，包括空间明确建模、敏感性分析、将遗传学纳入PVA、植物中的PVA以及PVA软件包，但我们对新出现问题的涵盖并不全面。我们得出结论，PVA是保护生物学中用于比较不同研究计划和物种间相对灭绝风险的有力工具，但我们建议在使用时要谨慎：（1）因为PVA是一个模型，其有效性取决于模型结构的适当性和数据质量；（2）结果应以适当的置信度评估来呈现；（3）模型构建和结果应接受外部审查，并且（4）模型结构、输入和结果应被视为有待检验的假设。我们还建议（5）将PVA的定义限制为正式定量模型的开发，（6）更多地开展研究以确定密度依赖反馈在物种间的普遍程度，并且（7）不使用PVA来确定最小种群规模或（8）达到灭绝的具体概率。PVA最恰当的用途可能是比较潜在管理行动对种群增长或持续性的相对影响。
