Advertisement

Projecting the Success of Plant Population Restoration with Viability Analysis

  • T. J. Bell
  • M. L. Bowles
  • A. K. McEachern
Part of the Ecological Studies book series (ECOLSTUD, volume 165)

Abstract

Conserving viable populations of plant species requires that they have high probabilities of long-term persistence within natural habitats, such as a chance of extinction in 100 years of less than 5 % (Menges 1991,1998; Brown 1994; Pavlik 1994; Chap. 1, this Vol.). For endangered and threatened species that have been severely reduced in range and whose habitats have been fragmented, important species conservation strategies may include augmenting existing populations or restoring new viable populations (Bowles and Whelan 1994; Chap. 2, this Vol.). Restoration objectives may include increasing population numbers to reduce extinction probability, deterministic manipulations to develop a staged cohort structure, or more complex restoration of a desired genetic structure to allow outcrossing or increase effective population size (DeMauro 1993,1994; Bowles et al. 1993,1998; Pavlik 1994; Knapp and Dyer 1998; Chap. 2, this Vol.). These efforts may require translocation of propagules from existing (in situ) populations, or from ex situ botanic gardens or seed storage facilities (Falk et al. 1996; Guerrant and Pavlik 1998; Chap. 2, this Vol.).

Keywords

Matrix Model Plant Population Palmer Drought Severity Index Extinction Probability Endangered Plant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barrett SCH, Kohn JR (1991) Genetic and evolutionary consequences of small population size in plants: implications for conservation. In: Falk DA, Holsinger KE (eds) Genetics and conservation of rare plants. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 3–30Google Scholar
  2. Beissinger SR, Westphal MI (1998) On the use of demographic models of population viability in endangered species management. J Wildl Manage 62:821–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Betz RF (1989) Ecology of Mead’s milkweed (Asclepias meadii Torrey). In: Bragg TB, Stubbendieck J (eds) Proceedings of the eleventh North American Prairie Conference. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, pp 187–191Google Scholar
  4. Betz RF, Struven RD, Wall JE, Heitier FB (1994) Insect pollinators of 12 milkweed (Asclepias) species. In: Wickett RG, Lewis PD, Woodliffe A, Pratt P (eds) Proceedings of the thirteenth North American Prairie Conference. Department of Parks and Recreation, Windsor, Ontario, Canada, pp 45–60Google Scholar
  5. Bowles ML, Bell TJ (1999) Establishing recovery targets for Illinois plants. Report to the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board. The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowles ML, McBride JL (1996) Status and structure of a Pitcher’s thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) population reintroduced to Illinois Beach Nature Preserve. In: Falk D, Olwell P, Millar C (eds) Restoring diversity: ecological restoration and endangered plants. Island Press, New York, pp 194–218Google Scholar
  7. Bowles ML, Whelan CJ (eds) (1994) Restoration of endangered species: conceptual issues, planning, and implementation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowles ML, Flakne R, McEachern K, Pavlovic N (1993) Recovery planning and reintroduction of the federally threatened Pitcher’s thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) in Illinois. Nat Area J 13:164–176Google Scholar
  9. Bowles ML, McBride JL, Betz RF (1998) Management and restoration ecology of the federal threatened Mead’s milkweed, Asclepias meadii Torrey (Asclepiadaceae). Ann Mo Bot Gar 85:110–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowles ML, McBride JL, Bell TJ (2001) Restoration of the federally threatened Mead’s milkweed (Asclepias meadii). Ecol Restor 19:235–241Google Scholar
  11. Brown JS (1994) Restoration ecology: living with the prime directive. In: Bowles ML, Whelan CJ (eds) Restoration of endangered species: conceptual issues, planning, and implementation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 355–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brumback WE, Fyler CW (1996) Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) transplant project. In: Falk D, Olwell P, Millar C (eds) Restoring diversity: ecological restoration and endangered plants. Island Press, New York, pp 445–451Google Scholar
  13. Caswell H (2001) Matrix population models: construction, analysis and interpretation. 2nd edn. Sinauer, Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen H, Maun MA (1998) Population ecology of Cirsium pitcheri on Lake Huron sand dunes: III. Mechanisms of seed dormancy. Can J Bot 76:575–586Google Scholar
  15. Coulson T, Mace GM, Hudson E, Possingham H (2001) The use and abuse of population viability analysis. Trends Ecol Evol 16:219–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crouse DT, Crowder LB, Caswell H (1987) A stage-based population model for loggerhead sea turtles and implications for conservation. Ecology 68:1412–1423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crowder LB, Couse DT, Heppel SS, Martin TH (1994) Predicting the impact of turtle excluder devices on loggerhead sea turtle populations. Ecol Appl 4:437–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cully A (1996) Knowlton’s cactus (Pediocactus knowltonii) reintroduction. In: Falk D, Olwell P, Millar C (eds) Restoring diversity: ecological restoration and endangered plants. Island Press, New York, pp 403–410Google Scholar
  19. DeMauro MM (1993) Relationship of breeding system to rarity in the Lakeside daisy (Hymenoxys acaulis var. glabra). Conserv Biol 7:542–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. DeMauro MM (1994) Development and implementation of a recovery program for the federal threatened Lakeside daisy (Hymenoxys acaulis var. glabra). In: Bowles ML, Whelan CJ (eds) Restoration of endangered species: conceptual issues, planning, and implementation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 298–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Doak D, Kareiva P, Klepteka B (1994) Modeling population viability for the desert tortoise in the western Mohave Desert. Ecol Appl 4:446–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Falk DA, Millar CI, Olwell M (eds) (1996) Restoring diversity: strategies for reintroduction of endangered plants. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Fenster CB, Galloway LF (2000) Inbreeding and outbreeding depression in natural populations of Chamaecristata fasciculate (Fabaceae). Conserv Biol 14:1406–1412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ferson S (1994) RAMAS/Stage: Generalized stage-based modeling for population dynamics. Applied Biomathematics, Seatuket, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Fiedler PL (1987) Life history and population dynamics of rare and common mariposa lilies. J Ecol 75:977–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fiedler PL, Knapp FE, Fredricks N (1998) Rare plant demography: lessons from the mariposa lilies (Calochortus: Liliaceae). In: Fiedler PL, Kareiva PM (eds) Conservation biology for the coming decade, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 28–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frankel OH, Soulé ME (1981) Conservation and evolution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Franklin IA (1980) Evolutionary change in small populations. In: Soulé ME, Wilcox BA (eds) Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological perspective. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, pp 135–149Google Scholar
  29. Gilpin ME, Soulé ME (1986) Minimum viable populations: processes of species extinction. In: Soulé ME (ed) Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, pp 19–34Google Scholar
  30. Goodman D (1987) The demography of chance extinction. In: Soulé ME (ed) Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 2–34Google Scholar
  31. Gordon DR (1996) Apalachicola rosemary (Conradina glabra) reintroduction. In: Falk D, Olwell P, Millar C (eds) Restoring diversity: ecological restoration and endangered plants. Island Press, New York, pp 417–422Google Scholar
  32. Guerrant EO Jr (1996) Designing populations: demographic, genetic, and horticultural dimensions. In: Falk D, Olwell P, Millar C (eds) Restoring diversity: ecological restoration and endangered plants. Island Press, New York, pp 171–207Google Scholar
  33. Guerrant EO Jr, Fiedler PL (2003) Attrition during ex situ storage and reintroduction. In: Guerrant EO Jr, Havens K, Maunder M (eds) Saving the pieces: the role, value and limit of ex situ plant conservation. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. Guerrant EO Jr, Pavlik BM (1998) Reintroduction of rare plants: genetics, demography, and the role of ex situ conservation methods. In: Fiedler PL, Kareiva PM (eds) Conservation biology for the coming decade, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 80–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hamrick JL, Godt MJW, Murawski DA, Loveless MD (1991) Correlations between species traits and allozyme diversity: implications for conservation biology. In: Falk DA, Holsinger KE (eds) Genetics and conservation of rare plants. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 75–86Google Scholar
  36. Harrison WF (1988) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for Asclepias meadii (Mead’s milkweed). Fed Regis 53:33982–33994Google Scholar
  37. Hayworth D, Bowles ML, Schaal B, Williamson K (2002) Clonal population structure of the federal threatened Mead’s Milkweed, as determined by RAPD analysis, and its conservation implications. In: Bernstein N, Ostrander LJ (eds) Proceedings of the Seventeenth North American Prairie Conference: seeds for the future; roots of the past. North Iowa Area Community College, Mason City, IowaGoogle Scholar
  38. Heppell SS, Walters JR, Crowder LB (1994) Evaluating management alternatives for red-cockaded wood-peckers: a modeling approach. J Wildl Manage 58:479–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Huenneke LF (1991) Ecological implications of genetic variation in plant populations. In: Falk DA, Holsinger KE (eds) Genetics and conservation of rare plants. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 31–44Google Scholar
  40. Karl TR, Knight RW (1985) Atlas of monthly Palmer drought severity index (1931–1983) for the contiguous United States. National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC; see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/onlineprod/drought/main.html aiso Google Scholar
  41. Kaye TN, Pendergrass KL, Finley K, Kauffman JB (2001) The effect of fire on the population viability of an endangered prairie plant. Ecol Appl 11:1366–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Keddy CJ, Keddy PA (1984) Reproductive biology and habitat of Cirsium pitched. Mich Bot 23:57–67Google Scholar
  43. Kettle WD, Alexander HM, Pittman GL (2000) An 11 year ecological study of a rare perennial (Aslcepias meadii): implications for monitoring and management. Am Midl Nat 144:66–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Knapp RE, Dyer AR (1998) When do genetic considerations require special approaches to ecological restoration? In: Fiedler PL, Kareiva PM (eds) Conservation biology for the coming decade, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 345–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lande R (1988) Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science 241:1455–1460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lande R (1993) Risks of population extinction from demographic and environmental stochasticity and random catastrophes. Am Nat 142:911–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ledig FT (1996) Pinus torreyana at Torrey Pines State Reserve, California. In: Falk D, Olwell P, Millar C (eds) Restoring diversity: ecological restoration and endangered plants. Island Press, New York, pp 265–271Google Scholar
  48. Louda SM (1994) Experimental evidence for insect impact on populations of short-lived, perennial plants, and it’s application in restoration ecology. In: Bowles ML, Whelan CJ (eds) Restoration of endangered species: conceptual issues, planning, and implementation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 118–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Loveless MD (1984) Population biology and genetic organization in Cirsium pitcheri, an endemic thistle. PhD Diss, University of Kansas, LawrenceGoogle Scholar
  50. Mangel M, Tier C (1994) Four facts every conservation biologist should know about persistence. Ecology 75:607–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McEachern K (1992) Disturbance dynamics of pitcher’s thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) in Great Lake sand dune landscapes. PhD Diss, University of Wisconsin, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  52. McEachern K, Bowles ML, Pavlovic N (1994) A metapopulation approach to recovery of the federally threatened Pitcher’s thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) in southern Lake Michigan dunes. In: Bowles ML, Whelan CJ (eds) Restoration of endangered species: conceptual issues, planning, and implementation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 194–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Menges ES (1990) Population viability analysis for an endangered plant. Conserv Biol 4:52–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Menges ES (1991) The application of minimum viable population theory to plants. In: Falk DA, Holsinger KE (eds) Genetics and conservation of rare plants. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 45–61Google Scholar
  55. Menges ES (1998) Evaluating extinction risks in plant populations. In: Fiedler PL, Kareiva PM (eds) Conservation biology for the coming decade, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 49–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Menges ES (2000) Population viability analyses in plants: challenges and opportunities. Trends Ecol Evol 15:51–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Morris W, Doak D, Groom M, Kareiva P, Fieberg J, Gerber L, Murphy P, Thomson D (1999) A practical handbook for population viability analysis. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VAGoogle Scholar
  58. Olwell P, Cully A, Knight P (1990) The establishment of a new population of Pediocactus knowltonii: third year assessment. In: Mitchell RS, Sheviak CJ, Leopold DJ (eds) Ecosystem management: rare species and significant habitats. NY State Mus Bull 471:189–193Google Scholar
  59. Pavlik BM (1994) Demographic monitoring and the recovery of endangered plants. In: Bowles ML, Whelan CJ (eds) Restoration of endangered species: conceptual issues, planning, and implementation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 322–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pavlik BM (1996) Defining and measuring success in rare plant reintroductions. In: Falk D, Olwell P, Millar C (eds) Restoring diversity: ecological restoration and endangered plants. Island Press, New York, pp 127–155Google Scholar
  61. Pavlik BM, Nickrent DL, Howald AM (1993) The recovery of an endangered plant. I. Creating a new population of Amsinckia grandiflora. Conserv Biol 7:510–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pavlovic NB, Bowles ML, Crispin S, Gibson T, Kavetsky R, McEachern KA, Penskar M (2003) Pitchers’s thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) recovery plan. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  63. Rowland J, Maun MA (2001) Restoration ecology of an endangered plant species: establishment of new populations of Cirsium pitcheri. Restor Ecol 9:60–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sarrazin F, Legendre S (2000) Demographic approach to releasing adults versus young in reintroductions. Conserv Biol 14:488–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shaffer ML (1981) Minimum population size for species conservation. Bio Science 3:131–134Google Scholar
  66. Shaffer ML (1987) Minimum viable populations: coping with uncertainty. In: Soulé ME (ed) Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 69–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Silvertown J, Franco M, McConway K (1992) A demographic interpretation of Grimes’s triangle. Funct Ecol 6:130–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Silvertown J, Franco M, Menges E (1996) Interpretation of elasticity matrices as an aid to the management of plant populations for conservation. Conserv Biol 10:591–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Steinberg EK, Jordon CE (1998) Using molecular genetics to learn about the ecology of threatened species: the allure and illusion of measuring genetic structure in natural populations. In: Fiedler PL, Kareiva PM (eds) Conservation biology for the coming decade, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 440–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tecic D, McBride JL, Bowles ML, Nickrent DL (1998) Genetic variability in the federal threatened Mead’s milkweed, Asclepias meadii Torrey (Asclepiadaceae) as determined by allozyme electrophoresis. Ann Mo Bot Gar 85:97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Weller SG (1994) The relationship of rarity to plant reproductive biology. In: Bowles ML, Whelan CJ (eds) Restoration of endangered species: conceptual issues, planning, and implementation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 90–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wyatt R, Broyles SB (1994) Ecology and evolution of reproduction in milkweeds. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 25:423–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. J. Bell
  • M. L. Bowles
  • A. K. McEachern

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations