从加拿大濒危物种的上市到管理,分类学上的偏见一直存在

IF 1.3 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ECOLOGY
Maria J. A. Creighton, J. Bennett
{"title":"从加拿大濒危物种的上市到管理,分类学上的偏见一直存在","authors":"Maria J. A. Creighton, J. Bennett","doi":"10.1080/11956860.2019.1613752","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Management planning for Canadian species at risk of extinction begins with recommendation for legal protection under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), and ends with Action Plans that guide management implementation. Roughly five years after the enactment of SARA in 2002, multiple studies identified taxonomic biases associated with the SARA listing process. Here, we provide a comprehensive test of whether taxonomic biases remain over a decade later. We also test whether biases in listing are propagated through to management implementation. We find that birds, reptiles and plants are more likely to be legally protected than other species. Arthropods and fishes are less likely to be protected, with unlisted fish species being twice as likely to be threatened by resource use than other unlisted species. We also find that arthropods and amphibians are less likely to have Action Plans than other species. In addition, we find no evidence that biases in listing or management have improved over time. Canadian species at risk recovery programs appear to be biased both in legal protection and management, disfavouring arthropods, amphibians and harvested fishes. If SARA is to fulfil its stated purpose, such biases must be directly addressed, through a transparent and formalised prioritisation system.","PeriodicalId":51030,"journal":{"name":"Ecoscience","volume":"26 1","pages":"315 - 321"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/11956860.2019.1613752","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Taxonomic Biases Persist from Listing to Management for Canadian Species at Risk\",\"authors\":\"Maria J. A. Creighton, J. Bennett\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/11956860.2019.1613752\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Management planning for Canadian species at risk of extinction begins with recommendation for legal protection under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), and ends with Action Plans that guide management implementation. Roughly five years after the enactment of SARA in 2002, multiple studies identified taxonomic biases associated with the SARA listing process. Here, we provide a comprehensive test of whether taxonomic biases remain over a decade later. We also test whether biases in listing are propagated through to management implementation. We find that birds, reptiles and plants are more likely to be legally protected than other species. Arthropods and fishes are less likely to be protected, with unlisted fish species being twice as likely to be threatened by resource use than other unlisted species. We also find that arthropods and amphibians are less likely to have Action Plans than other species. In addition, we find no evidence that biases in listing or management have improved over time. Canadian species at risk recovery programs appear to be biased both in legal protection and management, disfavouring arthropods, amphibians and harvested fishes. If SARA is to fulfil its stated purpose, such biases must be directly addressed, through a transparent and formalised prioritisation system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51030,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecoscience\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"315 - 321\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/11956860.2019.1613752\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecoscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/11956860.2019.1613752\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecoscience","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11956860.2019.1613752","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

摘要加拿大濒危物种的管理规划从《濒危物种法》(SARA)下的法律保护建议开始,到指导管理实施的行动计划结束。2002年《严重急性呼吸系统综合征法案》颁布大约五年后,多项研究确定了与《严重急性急性呼吸系统综合症法案》上市过程相关的分类学偏见。在这里,我们提供了一个全面的测试,以检验十年后分类偏见是否仍然存在。我们还测试了上市中的偏见是否会传播到管理层的实施中。我们发现,鸟类、爬行动物和植物比其他物种更有可能受到法律保护。节肢动物和鱼类不太可能受到保护,未列入名单的鱼类受到资源使用威胁的可能性是其他未列入名单物种的两倍。我们还发现,节肢动物和两栖动物比其他物种更有可能制定行动计划。此外,我们没有发现任何证据表明上市或管理方面的偏见随着时间的推移有所改善。加拿大濒危物种恢复计划在法律保护和管理方面似乎存在偏见,不利于节肢动物、两栖动物和捕捞鱼类。如果SARA要实现其既定目的,必须通过透明和正式的优先顺序系统直接解决此类偏见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Taxonomic Biases Persist from Listing to Management for Canadian Species at Risk
ABSTRACT Management planning for Canadian species at risk of extinction begins with recommendation for legal protection under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), and ends with Action Plans that guide management implementation. Roughly five years after the enactment of SARA in 2002, multiple studies identified taxonomic biases associated with the SARA listing process. Here, we provide a comprehensive test of whether taxonomic biases remain over a decade later. We also test whether biases in listing are propagated through to management implementation. We find that birds, reptiles and plants are more likely to be legally protected than other species. Arthropods and fishes are less likely to be protected, with unlisted fish species being twice as likely to be threatened by resource use than other unlisted species. We also find that arthropods and amphibians are less likely to have Action Plans than other species. In addition, we find no evidence that biases in listing or management have improved over time. Canadian species at risk recovery programs appear to be biased both in legal protection and management, disfavouring arthropods, amphibians and harvested fishes. If SARA is to fulfil its stated purpose, such biases must be directly addressed, through a transparent and formalised prioritisation system.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ecoscience
Ecoscience 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: Écoscience, is a multidisciplinary journal that covers all aspects of ecology. The journal welcomes submissions in English or French and publishes original work focusing on patterns and processes at various temporal and spatial scales across different levels of biological organization. Articles include original research, brief communications and reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信