Search USGS⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70023002

Examining differences between recovered and declining endangered species

Robbyn J.F. Abbitt·J. Michael Scott
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Between 1973 and 1999, 43 species in the United States were reclassified from endangered to threatened or removed entirely from the Endangered Species List. Of these, 23 were identified as recovered. In 1999 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) published a list of 33 additional species for possible reclassification and/or delisting. We initiated this study to examine why some endangered species recover but others continue to decline and to identify differences in management activities between these two groups. We defined recovered/recovering species as previously recovered species and the additional recovered/recovering species listed by the USFWS. We defined declining species as those identified as declining in the most recent USFWS Report to Congress. Information on recovered/recovering and declining species was gathered from relevant literature, recovery plans, U.S. Federal Register documents, and individuals responsible for the recovery management of each species. We used this information to examine (1) the percentage of current and historic range covered by management activities; (2) threats affecting the species; (3) population sizes at the time of listing; (4) current versus historic range size; and (5) percentage of recovery management objectives completed. Although few statistical analyses provided significant results, those that did suggest the following differences between recovered/recovering and declining species: (1) recovered/recovering species face threats that are easier to address; (2) recovered/recovering species occupy a greater percentage of their historic range; and (3) recovered/recovering species have a greater percentage of their recovery management objectives completed. Those species with threats easier to address and that occupy a greater percentage of their historic range are recovered/recovering. In contrast, declining species face threats more difficult to address and occupy significantly less of their historic range. If this remains true, future species recovery may require more time and resources.

Explore related subjects

Conservation BiologyArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Robbyn J.F. Abbitt, J. Michael Scott. 2008-07-07. Examining differences between recovered and declining endangered species. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2001.00430.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

The collective application of shorebird tracking data to conservation

Addressing urgent conservation issues, such as the drastic declines of North American migratory birds, requires creative, evidence-based, efficient, and collaborative approaches. The abundance of over 50% of monitored North American shorebird populations has declined by over 50% since 1980. To address these declines, we developed a partnership of scientists and practitioners called the Shorebird Science and Conservation Collective (hereafter the collective ). The collective was founded to translate the combined findings of shorebird tracking data into on-the-ground conservation action. With advice from an advisory group, the collective acts as an intermediary whereby dedicated staff collate and analyze data contributions from scientists to support knowledge requests from conservation practitioners. In its first three years, data contributions from 75 organizations include over 7.1 million shorebird observations forming movement paths of 3420 individuals representing 36 species tracked across the Americas and have informed 18 conservation projects spanning education, land and species management, land conservation, and policy requests. Others engaged in translational science from big data could consider similar knowledge-sharing models that prioritize usable data products, foster collaborative engagement between science experts and practitioners, build focused communities around topics or taxonomic groups, and employ a proof-of-concept phase to develop scalable solutions while making progress toward long-term funding to sustain impact. As the volume of scientific data continues to grow, intermediaries, such as the collective, can be vital liaisons to rapidly integrate and interpret research to support conservation action. Dedicated to the memory of Shiloh Schulte and his conservation achievements for shorebirds.

Conservation Biology↗
USGS2026

Scenarios and strategies for future-proofing ecosystem management under climatic novelty

Climate change is driving unprecedented declines in dominant, habitat-forming foundation species across marine and terrestrial ecosystems globally. As climatic novelty becomes the norm, ecosystem reassembly will become increasingly common. Predicting and understanding these transitions, and their implications for future ecosystem functioning, is essential for designing effective forward-looking management strategies. We explored 3 scenarios that describe a range of ecosystem reassembly trajectories following declines in previously dominant habitat-forming taxa: compensation, in which functionally similar subdominant or immigrating taxa maintain ecosystem structure and function; decline, in which no compensation occurs leading to loss of ecosystem structure and function; and transformation, in which the ecosystem present historically can no longer persist and shifts into a fundamentally different ecosystem type with distinct structure and function. This range of potential outcomes highlights the urgent need to assess the ecological feasibility and functional implications of potential management actions. Scientists and managers can work together to quantify local-scale climatic novelty and ecosystem resilience to better predict the most likely reassembly trajectories and identify management interventions that will optimize ecosystem function. This approach would allow for more proactive planning to support persistence of ecosystem structure and function, helping to future-proof ecosystem management in a rapidly changing world.

Conservation Biology↗
USGS2026

Constructed value of information with iterative scoring and parametric uncertainty to identify management-relevant research priorities for a declining raptor species

Constructed value of information (CVoI) is an expert elicitation decision-analytic tool used to prioritize sources of uncertainty based on their potential to improve decision outcomes if resolved. Despite increased application of CVoI, the robustness of CVoI prioritization of sources of uncertainty relative to differences in expert elicitation and scoring methods has not been evaluated. We engaged a group of species experts in a decision-analytic process to elicit uncertainties, framed as alternative hypotheses, about current population declines of the American kestrel ( Falco sparverius ) in the United States. Participants scored 13 hypotheses across 3 CVoI criteria, which are defined as constructed scales. Rather than experts selecting a single score per criterion, we used a likelihood point method to incorporate parametric uncertainty in the scoring process, in which experts were given 100 points to distribute across possible score categories within the criterion-specific constructed scale. Experts provided scores over 2 scoring rounds, with an opportunity to review and discuss initial scores between rounds. We used a Shannon entropy calculation to quantify how evenly participants allotted their points. We used simulation to evaluate the robustness of our prioritization results relative to a scoring method in which participants selected a single score category for each criterion. Participants often spread their points across 2 adjacent scores, reflecting parametric uncertainty. For one third of the hypothesis-scoring round combinations, the prioritization results differed in approximately 50% of simulations. The highest scoring hypotheses related to how the use of artificial versus natural nest cavities affects fecundity or survival, whether winter roosting sites are a limiting factor for population growth, and whether gamebird habitat management may benefit kestrel populations. Our CVoI prioritization framework can be used to develop collaborative research that is directly relevant to a management decision and is an advance in eliciting more representative expert beliefs.

Conservation Biology↗