DOCSLIB.ORG

Supplemental Wildlife Viability Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supplemental Wildlife Viability Report Supplemental Wildlife Viability Report Forest Plan Revision DEIS Prepared and Submitted by: /s/ Heather M. Green Heather M. Green Wildlife Biologist - Planning for: Coconino National Forest November 2013 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) 2 Preface The information in this specialist report reflects analysis that was completed prior to and in conjunction with the completion of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the revision of the 1987 Coconino National Forest Land Management Plan (the Plan). The primary purpose of specialist reports associated with the DEIS is to provide detailed information to assist in the preparation of the DEIS. As the DEIS was prepared, review-driven edits to the broader DEIS resulted in modifications to some of the information contained in some of the specialist reports. As a result, some reports no longer contain information and analysis that was updated through an interdisciplinary review process and is included in the DEIS in its entirety. This specialist report retains the additional information on the environmental consequences that was not included in the summarized information in the DEIS. However, analysis and information for this resource that is included in its entirety in the DEIS is not duplicated in this report. Efforts have been made to ensure that the retained information in the specialist reports is consistent with the DEIS. If inconsistencies exist between specialist reports and the DEIS, the DEIS should be regarded as the most current, accurate source of analysis. Supplemental Wildlife Viability Report Coconino National Forest Land Management Plan Revision Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy that Apply ............................................................... 1 Methodology and Analysis Process ......................................................................................... 2 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................ 3 Other Habitat Features and Considerations ............................................................................. 4 Federally Listed Species ........................................................................................................... 10 Chiricahua Leopard Frog and Proposed Critical Habitat (Table 1) ....................................... 10 California condor (Table 1) ................................................................................................... 12 Mexican spotted owl and Critical Habitat (Table 1) ............................................................. 12 Southwestern willow flycatcher and proposed critical habitat (Table 1) .............................. 15 Yuma clapper rail (Table 1) .................................................................................................. 16 Black-footed ferret (Table 1) ................................................................................................. 17 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species ...................................................................................... 19 Arizona toad (Table 2) ........................................................................................................... 19 Lowland leopard frog (Table 2) ............................................................................................ 20 Northern leopard frog (Table 2) ............................................................................................ 20 Abert’s towhee (Table 2) ....................................................................................................... 21 American peregrine falcon (Table 2) ..................................................................................... 21 Bald eagle (Table 2) .............................................................................................................. 22 Clark’s grebe (Table 2) .......................................................................................................... 23 Common black hawk (Table 2) ............................................................................................. 23 Ferruginous hawk (Table 2) .................................................................................................. 23 Northern goshawk (Table 2) .................................................................................................. 23 Western burrowing owl (Table 2) ......................................................................................... 24 Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Table 2) ............................................................................... 24 Four-spotted skipperling (Table 2) ........................................................................................ 25 Nitocris fritillary (Table 2) .................................................................................................... 26 Nokomis fritillary (Table 2) .................................................................................................. 26 Allen’s lappet-browed bat (Table 2) ...................................................................................... 26 Greater western mastiff bat (Table 2) .................................................................................... 27 Spotted bat (Table 2) ............................................................................................................. 27 Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat (Table 2) .............................................................................. 28 Western red bat (Table 2) ...................................................................................................... 28 Dwarf shrew (Table 2) ........................................................................................................... 29 Long-tailed vole (Table 2) ..................................................................................................... 29 Merriam’s shrew (Table 2) .................................................................................................... 30 Navajo Mogollon vole (Table 2) ........................................................................................... 30 Plains harvest mouse (Table 2) .............................................................................................. 31 Southwestern river otter (Table 2) ......................................................................................... 31 Wupatki Arizona pocket mouse (Table 2) ............................................................................. 32 Narrow-headed garter snake (Table 2) .................................................................................. 32 Northern Mexican gartersnake (Table 2)............................................................................... 33 Reticulate Gila monster (Table 2) ......................................................................................... 33 Other planning species .............................................................................................................. 34 Evening grosbeak (Table 3) ................................................................................................... 34 Golden Eagle (Table 3) ......................................................................................................... 35 Golden-crowned Kinglet (Table 3)........................................................................................ 36 MacGillivray’s Warbler (Table 3) ......................................................................................... 37 i Supplemental Wildlife Viability Report Coconino National Forest Land Management Plan Revision Pinyon jay (Table 3) .............................................................................................................. 38 Swainson’s thrush (Table 3) .................................................................................................. 38 Three-toed woodpecker (Table 3) ......................................................................................... 39 Alberta arctic (Table 3) ......................................................................................................... 40 Beaver (Table 3) .................................................................................................................... 40 Gunnison’s prairie dog (Table 3)........................................................................................... 41 Pronghorn (Table 3) .............................................................................................................. 43 Southwestern myotis (Table 3) .............................................................................................. 44 Miscellaneous...........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Barringer Meteorite Crater, Coconino County, Arizona
    BARRINGERI' METEORITE CRATER, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA Eugene Shoemaker CaliforniaInstitute of Technology David Roddy United States Geological Survey Carleton Moore Arizona State University Robert Dietz Arizona State University A one-day field trip will visit Barringer Meteorite Crater. Partici­ pants will depart from Tempe in the evening and spend the night in Flagstaff. The field trip will depart from Flagstaff to the Crater and will return to Flagstaff and Phoenix on the same day. At the Crater participants may choose from a number of guided or self-guided op­ tions to visit this interesting geologic feature. In addition to the road guide included here participants will be provided with a ''Guidebook to the Geology of Meteor Crater, Arizona" prepared for the 37th Annual Meeting of the Meteoritical Society. It has been reprinted and is available from the Center forMeteorite Studies, Arizona State Uni­ versity, Tempe, Arizona 85281. Access to the Crater is by the courtesy of the Barringer Crater Company and Meteor Crater Enterprises, Inc. Visitors must receive permission to enter nonpublic areas of the Crater. SYNOPSIS OF THE The Supai Formation consists of interbedded red and GEOLOGY OF METEOR CRATER yellow fine-grained argillaceous sandstone and subordinate by Eugene M. Shoemaker siltstone. It is more than 300 meters (1,000 feet) thick in REGIONAL SETTING this region (Pierce, 1958, p. 84), but not more than 100 Meteor Crater lies in north-central Arizona in the Can­ meters or so (a few hundred feet) have been penetrated by yon Diablo region of the southern part of the Colorado drill holes at the crater.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona 'Highways
    Sc:~r1ic: VOL. XXXIII NO. 3 MARCH 1957 RAYMOND CARLSON, Editor U. S. Highway 89, Arizona's main artery of north­ GFORGE M. AV EY, Art Editor south trayel, is one of the most scenic of all 0~1r roads. Its JAJ\LCS E. STEVENS, Business Manager some 600 miles through the state offer a Yarietv of eleva­ LEGEND tion, terrain and scenic interest. Each mile unfoldi1we:, be- "89" ENT ERl'-'G HousEROCK VALLEY FRONT COVER fore the traveler is an interesting mile and different from ~ . R .,, y MANLEY'S PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS the one preceding. "89" brings :--·ou into the state at GLORIOUS NORTHERN ARIZONA VISTA. Fredonia. It leaves the state at Nogales. As eYen the most ARIZONA S CRAPBOOK . 2 S:-.:11PSHOTS OF SCEN IC INTEREST casual glance at a map ·will reveal, "89'' cuts right through ALO ~G "89," BORDER TO BORD ER . the heart of Arizona and covers a lot of interesting· coun­ PIPE SPRI NG NATIONAL MoNUJVIENT 4 try between Utah and J\1e.\'ico. The Strip, the cool J(aibab, \VF. PAY A VISIT TO HISTORIC the s,1 ·eeping panorama of Houserock Valley, Vermilion SHR INE GLORIFYING OUR PIONEERS. and Echo Cliffs, the lofty forested reg·ion ~f San Fran­ IO \VE TAKE A TRIP ON A HIGHWAY cisco Peaks, the high pla~eau countr:v ~bet\\·een vVillia1m OF INTE RNAT IONAL GRANDEUR. and Prescott, or by Alternate "89" Oak Creek and the OLD BrLL WrLLTAJVrs' FAVORITE MouNTAIN 34 Verde Va llev, the desert and then the historic Santa Cruz D ESC RIPTIO N OF A MOUNTAIN THAT Vallev- all of these and more, too, make up the travel JS LA NDM ARK IN NORTHERN ARIZONA.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant and Rodent Communities of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument
    Plant and rodent communities of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Warren, Peter Lynd Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 29/09/2021 16:51:51 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/566520 PLANT AND RODENT COMMUNITIES OF ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NATIONAL.MONUMENT by Peter Lynd Warren A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1 9 7 9 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of re­ quirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judg­ ment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholar­ ship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory of Mammals at Walnut Canyon, Wupatki, and Sunset Crater National Monuments
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Inventory of Mammals at Walnut Canyon, Wupatki, and Sunset Crater National Monuments Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SCPN/NRTR–2009/278 ON THE COVER: Top: Wupatki National Monument; bottom left: bobcat (Lynx rufus); bottom right: Wupatki pocket mouse (Perogna- thus amplus cineris) at Wupatki National Monument. Photos courtesy of U.S. Geological Survey/Charles Drost. Inventory of Mammals at Walnut Canyon, Wupatki, and Sunset Crater National Monuments Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SCPN/NRTR—2009/278 Author Charles Drost U.S. Geological Survey Southwest Biological Science Center 2255 N. Gemini Drive Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Editing and Design Jean Palumbo National Park Service, Southern Colorado Plateau Network Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, Arizona December 2009 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
    [Show full text]
  • CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG (Lithobates [Rana] Chiricahuensis)
    CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG (Lithobates [Rana] chiricahuensis) Chiricahua Leopard Frog from Sycamore Canyon, Coronado National Forest, Arizona Photograph by Jim Rorabaugh, USFWS CONSIDERATIONS FOR MAKING EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REDUCING AND AVOIDING ADVERSE EFFECTS Developed by the Southwest Endangered Species Act Team, an affiliate of the Southwest Strategy Funded by U.S. Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program December 2008 (Updated August 31, 2009) ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This document was developed by members of the Southwest Endangered Species Act (SWESA) Team comprised of representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BoR), Department of Defense (DoD), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Dr. Terry L. Myers gathered and synthesized much of the information for this document. The SWESA Team would especially like to thank Mr. Steve Sekscienski, U.S. Army Environmental Center, DoD, for obtaining the funds needed for this project, and Dr. Patricia Zenone, USFWS, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, for serving as the Contracting Officer’s Representative for this grant. Overall guidance, review, and editing of the document was provided by the CMED Subgroup of the SWESA Team, consisting of: Art Coykendall (BoR), John Nystedt (USFWS), Patricia Zenone (USFWS), Robert L. Palmer (DoD, U.S. Navy), Vicki Herren (BLM), Wade Eakle (USACE), and Ronnie Maes (USFS). The cooperation of many individuals facilitated this effort, including: USFWS: Jim Rorabaugh, Jennifer Graves, Debra Bills, Shaula Hedwall, Melissa Kreutzian, Marilyn Myers, Michelle Christman, Joel Lusk, Harold Namminga; USFS: Mike Rotonda, Susan Lee, Bryce Rickel, Linda WhiteTrifaro; USACE: Ron Fowler, Robert Dummer; BLM: Ted Cordery, Marikay Ramsey; BoR: Robert Clarkson; DoD, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Springs and Springs-Dependent Taxa of the Colorado River Basin, Southwestern North America: Geography, Ecology and Human Impacts
    water Article Springs and Springs-Dependent Taxa of the Colorado River Basin, Southwestern North America: Geography, Ecology and Human Impacts Lawrence E. Stevens * , Jeffrey Jenness and Jeri D. Ledbetter Springs Stewardship Institute, Museum of Northern Arizona, 3101 N. Ft. Valley Rd., Flagstaff, AZ 86001, USA; Jeff@SpringStewardship.org (J.J.); [email protected] (J.D.L.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 27 April 2020; Accepted: 12 May 2020; Published: 24 May 2020 Abstract: The Colorado River basin (CRB), the primary water source for southwestern North America, is divided into the 283,384 km2, water-exporting Upper CRB (UCRB) in the Colorado Plateau geologic province, and the 344,440 km2, water-receiving Lower CRB (LCRB) in the Basin and Range geologic province. Long-regarded as a snowmelt-fed river system, approximately half of the river’s baseflow is derived from groundwater, much of it through springs. CRB springs are important for biota, culture, and the economy, but are highly threatened by a wide array of anthropogenic factors. We used existing literature, available databases, and field data to synthesize information on the distribution, ecohydrology, biodiversity, status, and potential socio-economic impacts of 20,872 reported CRB springs in relation to permanent stream distribution, human population growth, and climate change. CRB springs are patchily distributed, with highest density in montane and cliff-dominated landscapes. Mapping data quality is highly variable and many springs remain undocumented. Most CRB springs-influenced habitats are small, with a highly variable mean area of 2200 m2, generating an estimated total springs habitat area of 45.4 km2 (0.007% of the total CRB land area).
    [Show full text]
  • <I>Geomyces Destructans</I> Sp. Nov. Associated with Bat White-Nose
    MYCOTAXON Volume 108, pp. 147–154 April–June 2009 Geomyces destructans sp. nov. associated with bat white-nose syndrome A. Gargas1, M.T. Trest2, M. Christensen3 T.J. Volk4 & D.S. Blehert5* [email protected] Symbiology LLC Middleton, WI 53562 USA [email protected] Department of Botany, University of Wisconsin — Madison Birge Hall, 430 Lincoln Drive, Madison, WI 53706 USA [email protected] 1713 Frisch Road, Madison, WI 53711 USA [email protected] Department of Biology, University of Wisconsin — La Crosse 3024 Crowley Hall, La Crosse, WI 54601 USA [email protected] U.S. Geological Survey — National Wildlife Health Center 6006 Schroeder Road, Madison, WI 53711 USA Abstract — We describe and illustrate the new species Geomyces destructans. Bats infected with this fungus present with powdery conidia and hyphae on their muzzles, wing membranes, and/or pinnae, leading to description of the accompanying disease as white-nose syndrome, a cause of widespread mortality among hibernating bats in the northeastern US. Based on rRNA gene sequence (ITS and SSU) characters the fungus is placed in the genus Geomyces, yet its distinctive asymmetrically curved conidia are unlike those of any described Geomyces species. Key words — Ascomycota, Helotiales, Pseudogymnoascus, psychrophilic, systematics Introduction Bat white-nose syndrome (WNS) was first documented in a photograph taken at Howes Cave, 52 km west of Albany, NY USA during winter, 2006 (Blehert et al. 2009). As of March 2009, WNS has been confirmed by gross and histologic examination of bats at caves and mines in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, West Virginia, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
    [Show full text]
  • Management Recommendations for Native Insect Pollinators in Texas
    Management Recommendations for Native Insect Pollinators in Texas Texas Parks and Wildlife Department • 4200 Smith School Road • Austin, Texas 78744 • (512) 389-4800 Management Recommendations for Native Insect Pollinators in Texas Developed by Michael Warriner and Ben Hutchins Nongame and Rare Species Program Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Acknowledgements Critical content review was provided by Mace Vaughn, Anne Stine, and Jennifer Hopwood, The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and Shalene Jha Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin. Texas Master Naturalists, Carol Clark and Jessica Womack, provided the early impetus for development of management protocols geared towards native pollinators. Cover photos: Left top to bottom: Ben Hutchins, Cullen Hanks, Eric Isley, Right: Eric Isley Design and layout by Elishea Smith © 2016 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department PWD BK W7000-1813 (04/16) In accordance with Texas State Depository Law, this publication is available at the Texas State Publications Clearinghouse and/or Texas Depository Libraries. TPWD receives federal assistance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other federal agencies and is subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and state anti-discrimination laws which prohibit discrimination the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex or disability. If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any TPWD program, activity or facility, or need more information, please contact Office of Diversity and Inclusive Workforce Management, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 25 Chrysosporium
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Universidade do Minho: RepositoriUM 25 Chrysosporium Dongyou Liu and R.R.M. Paterson contents 25.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 197 25.1.1 Classification and Morphology ............................................................................................................................ 197 25.1.2 Clinical Features .................................................................................................................................................. 198 25.1.3 Diagnosis ............................................................................................................................................................. 199 25.2 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................................... 199 25.2.1 Sample Preparation .............................................................................................................................................. 199 25.2.2 Detection Procedures ........................................................................................................................................... 199 25.3 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................................200
    [Show full text]
  • Out of the Orient: Post-Tethyan Transoceanic and Trans-Arabian Routes
    Systematic Entomology Page 2 of 55 1 1 Out of the Orient: Post-Tethyan transoceanic and trans-Arabian routes 2 fostered the spread of Baorini skippers in the Afrotropics 3 4 Running title: Historical biogeography of Baorini skippers 5 6 Authors: Emmanuel F.A. Toussaint1,2*, Roger Vila3, Masaya Yago4, Hideyuki Chiba5, Andrew 7 D. Warren2, Kwaku Aduse-Poku6,7, Caroline Storer2, Kelly M. Dexter2, Kiyoshi Maruyama8, 8 David J. Lohman6,9,10, Akito Y. Kawahara2 9 10 Affiliations: 11 1 Natural History Museum of Geneva, CP 6434, CH 1211 Geneva 6, Switzerland 12 2 Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32611, U.S.A. 13 3 Institut de Biologia Evolutiva (CSIC-UPF), Passeig Marítim de la Barceloneta, 37, 08003 14 Barcelona, Spain 15 4 The University Museum, The University of Tokyo, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan 16 5 B. P. Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawaii, 96817-0916 U.S.A. 17 6 Biology Department, City College of New York, City University of New York, 160 Convent 18 Avenue, NY 10031, U.S.A. 19 7 Biology Department, University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia, 23173, USA 20 8 9-7-106 Minami-Ôsawa 5 chome, Hachiôji-shi, Tokyo 192-0364, Japan 21 9 Ph.D. Program in Biology, Graduate Center, City University of New York, 365 Fifth Ave., New 22 York, NY 10016, U.S.A. 23 10 Entomology Section, National Museum of the Philippines, Manila 1000, Philippines 24 25 *To whom correspondence should be addressed: E-mail: [email protected] Page 3 of 55 Systematic Entomology 2 26 27 ABSTRACT 28 The origin of taxa presenting a disjunct distribution between Africa and Asia has puzzled 29 biogeographers for centuries.
    [Show full text]
  • Biosafety Measures for Working with Pseudogymnoascus Destructans in the Laboratory and Use Or Storage of Potentially Contaminated Materials
    Biosafety Measures for Working with Pseudogymnoascus destructans in the Laboratory and Use or Storage of Potentially Contaminated Materials The emergent disease of bats, white-nose syndrome (WNS), has caused one of the most precipitous declines documented among North American wildlife. This disease is caused by the recently described fungal pathogen Pseudogymnoascus (formerly Geomyces) destructans. Because of the grave threat this fungus presents to populations of hibernating bats, precautions must be taken when working with P. destructans in the laboratory to prevent accidental release of the fungus into the environment. The following guidelines apply to all members of the WNS Diagnostic Laboratory Network. Other laboratories that work with P. destructans or that maintain specimens that may harbor viable fungus may use these guidelines to develop appropriate institutional standards for preventing accidental release of a Biosafety Level-2 (BSL-2) fungal pathogen of animals. Based upon biological risk assessment, work in the laboratory with viable P. destructans should be restricted to BSL-2 or higher. Adherence to this guidance will ensure that in accordance with the manual Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL) 5th Edition, appropriate procedures, mechanical controls, and containment equipment are in place to facilitate biosecure work with the fungus and to prevent accidental release. Use of a biosafety cabinet. Fungi such as P. destructans readily produce aerosolizeable, environmentally resistant, and long-lived spores (reproductive structures). Therefore, all manipulations of potentially viable P. destructans (fungal cultures, carcasses, unfixed tissue samples, wing swabs, environmental samples, fungal tape lifts) in the laboratory should be restricted to a certified Class I or Class II biosafety cabinet.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxonkill Biolcons2009.Pdf
    This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright Author's personal copy Biological Conservation 142 (2009) 3201–3206 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Short communication The impact of taxonomic change on conservation: Does it kill, can it save, or is it just irrelevant? W.R. Morrison III a,1, J.L. Lohr a,1, P. Duchen a,1, R. Wilches a,1, D. Trujillo a,1, M. Mair a,1, S.S. Renner b,* a Department of Biology, University of Munich, Großhaderner Str. 2, D-82152 Planegg-Martinsried, Germany b Department of Biology, University of Munich, Menzinger Str. 67, D-80638 Munich, Germany article info abstract Article history: The important question of taxonomy and its impact on conservation efforts was brought to general atten- Received 10 April 2009 tion by Robert May in 1990 with a News and Views article in Nature entitled ‘‘Taxonomy as destiny.” Received in revised form 18 July 2009 Taxonomy, however, has built-in instabilities that result in name changes, raising the question of Accepted 23 July 2009 whether name changes have a consistent impact on conservation efforts.
    [Show full text]