4.4 Article

Incorporating uncertainty in spatial structure for viability predictions:: a case study of California sea lions (Zalophus californianus californianus)

期刊

ANIMAL CONSERVATION
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 219-227

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2006.00022.x

关键词

California sea lions; PVA; spatial structure; movement

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years, population viability analysis has become a popular tool to assess the relative risk of extinction among populations. Viability estimates for spatially structured populations require movement data that are often unavailable. In this paper, a diffusion approximation model was used to explore the effects of different spatial scenarios resulting from assumptions about movement rates. Census data for 13 breeding islands occupied by California sea lions Zalophus californianus californianus in the Gulf of California were used to explore three potential scenarios: unlimited movement between sites (panmictic population), limited movement (several clusters of populations) and no movement between islands (isolated islands). Predicted viability estimates were different for each scenario, but contrary to expectations, the mean extinction risk estimates were generally lowest when movement was unlimited (panmictic scenario). However, despite an extensive dataset, the confidence of the viability predictions for each scenario was low. In some cases, uncertainty in predictions within a scenario was greater than differences between scenarios. Therefore, it is recommended that in situations where movement rates and spatial structure are unknown, extinction risk estimates should reflect both the confidence intervals for each risk estimate and the uncertainty resulting from different spatial scenarios. This study also provides the first estimate of population viability (considering spatial structure) for California sea lions in the Gulf of California and an evaluation of population status based on the IUCN criteria for species listing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据