DOCSLIB.ORG

Molecular Taxonomy and the Conservation of the Red Wolf and Other Endangered Carnivores Author(S): C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Society for Conservation Biology Molecular Taxonomy and the Conservation of the Red Wolf and Other Endangered Carnivores Author(s): C. Alexander Brownlow Source: Conservation Biology, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Apr., 1996), pp. 390-396 Published by: Wiley for Society for Conservation Biology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2386855 . Accessed: 24/06/2013 16:30 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Wiley and Society for Conservation Biology are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Conservation Biology. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:30:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MolecularTaxonomy and the Conservation ofthe RedWolf and Other Endangered Carnivores C. ALEXANDER BROWNLOW" Yale School of Forestryand EnvironmentalStudies, 205 ProspectStreet, New Haven,CT 06511, U.S.A. Abstract: Recentpublicationshave reaffirmedthat the red wolf(Canis rufus)isa hybridcof thecoyote and the gray wolf Besides the implicationsthese results uill likelyhave forfuture conservation /fJortsanld allotment of resourcesthrough the Endangered SpeciesAct for recoveryof the red wolf;it is likelythat broader conse- quences will be felt throughoutthe conservationcom;nu;iity as species come under the scrutinsyof el mor-e powerfulmeans of taxonomic identification.As molecuilartechnology is refinedin its abilityto resolvetaxo- nomic historiesand uncertainties,it is likelythat hybridization event(s) will be recognizedin more species. Thismay be ofparticular importancefor large carnivores,whose smallpopulationisizes mnakethemn suscepti- ble to bybridizationepisodes withclosely related, symnpatric species. Because of negativeperceptions, powerful antipredatoradvocates, conservationand resource constraints,anid an enigmatichybrid policy withinthe EndangeredSpecies Act, how red-wolftaxonomy is decided by the US. Fish and WildlifeService mnay affect the futureof large carnivoresin general. Taxonomiamolecular y la conservaci6ndel lobo coloradoy otrasespecies de carnivorosen peligro Resumen: Publicaciones recienteshan reafirmado el estado taxon6mico del lobo colorado (Canis rufuss), identificandolocomo tin hibrido entrecoyote y lobo gris.Adem7is de las consecuencias qite estos resultados tendreinsobre los esfuerzosde conservaci6nfuturos y sobre la alocaci6n de recursos,a travis del Acta de Es- pecies en Peligro,para la recuperaci6ndel lobo colorado, es probable que se establescan consecuencias mas amplias a lo largo y ancho de la comnunidadconservacionista a medida que ncdsespecies caigan bajo el es- crutiniode metodospoderosos de identificaci6ntaxon6rmica. Es probable que, a mnedidaque la tecnologia molecular es refinadaen su habilidadpara resolverhistoriasy dudas taxon6micas,se reconozccanevenitos de hibridaci6n en mcisespecies. Esto puede ser particular7nenteimportante para los grandes carni'voros,cuyos tamafnospoblacionales pequefnoslos hacen susceptiblesa episodios de hibridaci6n coniespecies simpditricas estrechamenterelacionadas. Debido a percepcionesnegativas, a los poderosospartidarios anti de pred.adores, a las limitacionesde la conservaci6ny los recursosy Cl unanenigmcitica e hibridapolitica dentrodcel Acta de Especies en Peligro,laforma en que el Servici6nde Pesca y ViclaSilvestre resuielva la Taxonomniadel lobo col- orado podria afectarelfuturo de los grandes carnivoroseni genieral. Introduction fus), addingfuel to the continuingdebate over its taxo- nomic positionwithin the Canidae. The resultsof these Two recentlypublished articles (Wayne & Jenks1991; studies,all molecular-geneticin form,indicate unambig- Roy et al. 1994a, 1994b) have provided data further uouslythe hybridnature of thissouthern canid, empha- questioningthe species statusof the red wolf(Canis ru- sizingits genetic similaritiesto an ever-expandingcoy- ote (Canis latrans) population. They also have the potentialof placing a strainon a reintroductionprogram thathas been referredto by the U.S. governmentas one *Currentaddress for correspondence:2634 SE Kelly,Portland, OR of the "most significantsuccess stories"of the Endan- 97202. Act Fish and Service Paper submittedJanutary 23, 1995; revised inaniuscriptaccepted gered Species (ESA) (U.S. Wildlife April20, 1995. 1994) because an obscure "hybridpolicy" (O'Brien & 390 Conservation Biology, Pages 390-396 Volume 10, No. 2, April 1996 This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:30:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Brownlow MolecularTaxonomy and Endangered Species 391 Mayr 1991; Littell1992:21) will now likelybe called TheRed Wolf: Conservation and Controversy upon in an effortto delist the red wolf (Gittleman& Pimm 1991; Rennie 1991). The consequences of this Recognized as Canis niger as early as 1791 and first case maybe greaterthan currently understood because, identifiedscientifically in 1851 (Nowak 1979; Cohn as populationsget smallerdue to naturalor anthropic 1987), the red wolf (Canis rufus) historicallyranged factors,not only does the likelihood of hybridization throughoutthe southeasternUnited States into Texas amongcertain groups of animalsincrease, but the bene- and southernIllinois (Nowak 1979; Peek et al. 1991; fitsof hybridizationalso increase,often adding outside Phillips1991b) and was consideredabundant through- alleles to an alreadydepauperate genetic base. Giventhe out the westernpart of its rangethrough the firsthalf of ESA's historyof last-minutelistings and science's often this century(Peek et al. 1991). Perhaps numberingin last-minute,crisis-oriented conservation efforts (Soule the hundredsof thousands(Parker 1984), the red wolf, 1985), more populationsmay come to the point where likethe closelyrelated gray wolf (Canis lupus), was sub- hybridizationis a viable option for populationsurvival ject to the persecutionand loss of habitatthat accompa- (Cohn 1987; Parker1990; Lehmanet al. 1991). Further- nied the movementof European settlerswest, untilby more, to combat the demographicand genetic effects the 1930s it had been extirpatedeast of the Mississippi that small population size and subsequent inbreeding (Nowak 1979; Cohn 1987; Peek et al. 1991). The small can produce (O'Brien et al. 1985; Fergus1991; Packeret populationthat remained in the 1960s in the coastal ar- al. 1991), the deliberateintroduction of outsidegenetic eas of southerneasternTexas and southwesternLouisi- materialof closelyrelated species or subspecies maybe ana was subjectedto furtherstress in the formsof heavy utilizedby conservationofficials as a last-ditcheffort to parasiteloads and hybridizationwith an expandingcoy- preventspecies extinction(Avise 1989; Avise & Nelson ote (Canis latrans) population,a closely relatedcanid 1989). more adaptable to human landscape alterations.De- As molecular-genetictechnology becomes more so- claredan endangeredspecies in 1967 underthe ESA,the phisticated,allowing researchers to furtherresolve the red wolf numberedfewer than 100 by the time it re- taxonomicidentities of species of uncertainorigins, it is ceived priorityconservation measures under the 1973 likelythat many species and populationswill displayge- ESA (U.S. Fish and WildlifeService 1994). In the mid- netic materialindicating hybridization at some point in 1970s all remainingred wolves were capturedfor cap- the recent or distantpast. Many of these animalswill tivebreeding purposes before the species was lostto hy- have been historicallyconsidered conservationfocal bridization.By 1980 the red wolfwas consideredextinct points and standardbearers (O'Brien et al. 1990; Leh- in the wild (Cohn 1987; Meese 1989). man et al. 1991), and in our subsequentefforts to appro- Only 40 out of 400 wolves trappedwere considered priate efficientlyand effectivelythe limitedfunds pro- "pure" enough forbreeding purposes (Cauley in Cohn vided by the ESA,these historicallypopular species may 1987; Jenks& Wayne 1992), and the remaininganimals then be ignored.Carnivores, with historicallylow num- were destroyedbecause of infiltrationof coyotegenetic bers-made even smallerby yearsof directand indirect material.Of the 40 only 14 individualseventually made persecutionby humans-due to theirtop trophicposi- up the foundingpopulation (Cohn 1987; U.S. Fish and tion, potentiallyhave an increased likelihoodto inter- WildlifeService 1994). By 1984 the captive population breed cross-specificallyduring times of demographic numberedno more than 50 animals (Parker 1984). In stress. These factors,combined with likely calls for July1986 the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (USFWS) delistmentby those who perceivepredators as a threat, proposed reintroductionof the red wolf into the re- have the potentialto change significantlyhow we ap- centlyobtained Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge proach carnivoreconservation. Using the red wolfas an (ARNWR)in coastal NorthCarolina (U.S. Fish and Wild- example, I discuss the potentialconsequences thatthe lifeService 1986a), and in Novemberof thatsame year combinedeffects of carnivorenatural history, public at- fourpairs were flownand releasedinto the refugeunder titudestoward
Recommended publications
  • Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Ammodramus Maritimus Mirabilis

    Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Ammodramus Maritimus Mirabilis

    Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis ape Sable seaside sparrows (Ammodramus Federal Status: Endangered (March 11, 1967) maritimus mirabilis) are medium-sized sparrows Critical Habitat: Designated (August 11, 1977) Crestricted to the Florida peninsula. They are non- Florida Status: Endangered migratory residents of freshwater to brackish marshes. The Cape Sable seaside sparrow has the distinction of being the Recovery Plan Status: Revision (May 18, 1999) last new bird species described in the continental United Geographic Coverage: Rangewide States prior to its reclassification to subspecies status. The restricted range of the Cape Sable seaside sparrow led to its initial listing in 1969. Changes in habitat that have Figure 1. County distribution of the Cape Sable seaside sparrrow. occurred as a result of changes in the distribution, timing, and quantity of water flows in South Florida, continue to threaten the subspecies with extinction. This account represents a revision of the existing recovery plan for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow (FWS 1983). Description The Cape Sable seaside sparrow is a medium-sized sparrow, 13 to 14 cm in length (Werner 1975). Of all the seaside sparrows, it is the lightest in color (Curnutt 1996). The dorsal surface is dark olive-grey and the tail and wings are olive- brown (Werner 1975). Adult birds are light grey to white ventrally, with dark olive grey streaks on the breast and sides. The throat is white with a dark olive-grey or black whisker on each side. Above the whisker is a white line along the lower jaw. A grey ear patch outlined by a dark line sits behind each eye.
  • Emergency Management Action Plan for the Endangered Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Ammodramus Maritimus Mirabilis

    Emergency Management Action Plan for the Endangered Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Ammodramus Maritimus Mirabilis

    Emergency Management Action Plan for the endangered Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis Federal Status Endangered (March 11, 1967) Florida Status Endangered Range Endemic to Florida Everglades Population Estimate ~ 2,000 to 3,500 birds Current Population Trend Stable Habitat Marl prairie Major Threats Habitat loss and degradation, altered hydrology and fire regimes Recovery Plan Objective Down listing from ‘Endangered’ to ‘Threatened’ Develop a decision framework to help rapidly guide sparrow EMAP Goal emergency management actions Identify the situations or events that would trigger an emergency EMAP Objective management action and provide the details for each action. Gary L. Slater1,2 Rebecca L. Boulton1,3 Clinton N. Jenkins4 Julie L. Lockwood3 Stuart L. Pimm4 A report to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service South Florida Ecological Services Office Vero Beach, FL 32960 1 Authors contributed equally to report 2 Ecostudies Institute, Mount Vernon, WA 98273; Corresponding author ([email protected]) 3 Department of Ecology, Evolution, & Natural Resources, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 4 Environmental Sciences & Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708 Ecostudies Institute committed to ecological research and conservation AUTHORS GARY SLATER; is the founder and research director of Ecostudies Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to conducting sound science and conservation. Gary's qualifications and experience span two important areas in conservation science: administrative/program management and independent research. Since 1993, he has conducted research on the avifauna of the south Florida pine rocklands, including the last 10 years planning, implementing, and monitoring the reintroduction of the Brown-headed Nuthatch (Sitta pusilla) and Eastern Bluebird (Sialia sialis) to Everglades National Park.

  • Endangered Species

    Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in Article Talk Read Edit View history Endangered species From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Main page Contents For other uses, see Endangered species (disambiguation). Featured content "Endangered" redirects here. For other uses, see Endangered (disambiguation). Current events An endangered species is a species which has been categorized as likely to become Random article Conservation status extinct . Endangered (EN), as categorized by the International Union for Conservation of Donate to Wikipedia by IUCN Red List category Wikipedia store Nature (IUCN) Red List, is the second most severe conservation status for wild populations in the IUCN's schema after Critically Endangered (CR). Interaction In 2012, the IUCN Red List featured 3079 animal and 2655 plant species as endangered (EN) Help worldwide.[1] The figures for 1998 were, respectively, 1102 and 1197. About Wikipedia Community portal Many nations have laws that protect conservation-reliant species: for example, forbidding Recent changes hunting , restricting land development or creating preserves. Population numbers, trends and Contact page species' conservation status can be found in the lists of organisms by population. Tools Extinct Contents [hide] What links here Extinct (EX) (list) 1 Conservation status Related changes Extinct in the Wild (EW) (list) 2 IUCN Red List Upload file [7] Threatened Special pages 2.1 Criteria for 'Endangered (EN)' Critically Endangered (CR) (list) Permanent link 3 Endangered species in the United
  • Scott's Seaside Sparrow Biological Status Review Report

    Scott's Seaside Sparrow Biological Status Review Report

    Scott’s Seaside Sparrow Biological Status Review Report March 31, 2011 FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Biological Status Review Report for the Scott’s Seaside Sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus peninsulae) March 31, 2011 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) directed staff to evaluate all species listed as Threatened or Species of Special Concern as of November 8, 2010 that had not undergone a status review in the past decade. Public information on the status of the Scott’s seaside sparrow was sought from September 17 to November 1, 2010. The three-member Biological Review Group (BRG) met on November 3 - 4, 2010. Group members were Michael F. Delany (FWC lead), Katy NeSmith (Florida Natural Areas Inventory), and Bill Pranty (Avian Ecologist Contractor) (Appendix 1). In accordance with rule 68A-27.0012, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), the BRG was charged with evaluating the biological status of the Scott’s seaside sparrow using criteria included in definitions in 68A-27.001, F.A.C., and following the protocols in the Guidelines for Application of the IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels (Version 3.0) and Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (Version 8.1). Please visit http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/imperiled/listing-action- petitions/ to view the listing process rule and the criteria found in the definitions. In late 2010, staff developed the initial draft of this report which included BRG findings and a preliminary listing recommendation from staff. The draft was sent out for peer review and the reviewers’ input has been incorporated to create this final report.
  • Ecological and Genetic Diversity in the Seaside Sparrow

    Ecological and Genetic Diversity in the Seaside Sparrow

    BIOLOGY OF THE EMBERIZIDAE Ecological and Genetic Diversity in the Seaside Sparrow he Seaside Sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus), a sparrow that is almost T always found in salt and brackish marshes, occurs along the Atlantic Coast of the United States from New Hampshire to central Florida (where it is now extirpated as a breeder), and along the Gulf Coast from central Florida to central Texas. As a species that can be common in maritime wetlands, the Seaside Sparrow has the potential to be a good “indicator species” of the health of salt- marshes: Where the marshes are in good condition, the birds are abundant; where the marshes are degraded, they are less common or absent. Degradation of habi- tat—walling, diking, draining, and pollution—are the principal threats to this species, having resulted in the extirpation of multiple populations, including sev- eral named taxa. Along the Atlantic coast, where the species has been closely studied (Woolfenden 1956; Norris 1968; Post 1970, 1981; Post et James D. Rising al. 1983; DeRagon 1988 in Post and Greenlaw 1994), densities, measured Department of Zoology as males per hectare, range from 0.6–1.0 in degraded habitats to 0.3–20.0 in undrained and unaltered marshes. University of Toronto First described and named by Alexander Wilson, the “Father of Ameri- Toronto ON M53 3G5 can Ornithology”, in 1811, on the basis of specimens from southern New Jersey (Great Egg Harbor), the Seaside Sparrow is a polytypic species (i.e., [email protected] a species showing geographic variation, with more than one named sub- species) with a complex taxonomic history (Austin 1983).
  • Taxonkill Biolcons2009.Pdf

    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.
  • Describing Species

    Describing Species

    DESCRIBING SPECIES Practical Taxonomic Procedure for Biologists Judith E. Winston COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS NEW YORK Columbia University Press Publishers Since 1893 New York Chichester, West Sussex Copyright © 1999 Columbia University Press All rights reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data © Winston, Judith E. Describing species : practical taxonomic procedure for biologists / Judith E. Winston, p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-231-06824-7 (alk. paper)—0-231-06825-5 (pbk.: alk. paper) 1. Biology—Classification. 2. Species. I. Title. QH83.W57 1999 570'.1'2—dc21 99-14019 Casebound editions of Columbia University Press books are printed on permanent and durable acid-free paper. Printed in the United States of America c 10 98765432 p 10 98765432 The Far Side by Gary Larson "I'm one of those species they describe as 'awkward on land." Gary Larson cartoon celebrates species description, an important and still unfinished aspect of taxonomy. THE FAR SIDE © 1988 FARWORKS, INC. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Universal Press Syndicate DESCRIBING SPECIES For my daughter, Eliza, who has grown up (andput up) with this book Contents List of Illustrations xiii List of Tables xvii Preface xix Part One: Introduction 1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 3 Describing the Living World 3 Why Is Species Description Necessary? 4 How New Species Are Described 8 Scope and Organization of This Book 12 The Pleasures of Systematics 14 Sources CHAPTER 2. BIOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 19 Humans as Taxonomists 19 Biological Nomenclature 21 Folk Taxonomy 23 Binomial Nomenclature 25 Development of Codes of Nomenclature 26 The Current Codes of Nomenclature 50 Future of the Codes 36 Sources 39 Part Two: Recognizing Species 41 CHAPTER 3.
  • DNA Barcoding Reveal Patterns of Species Diversity Among

    DNA Barcoding Reveal Patterns of Species Diversity Among

    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN DNA barcoding reveal patterns of species diversity among northwestern Pacific molluscs Received: 04 April 2016 Shao’e Sun, Qi Li, Lingfeng Kong, Hong Yu, Xiaodong Zheng, Ruihai Yu, Lina Dai, Yan Sun, Accepted: 25 August 2016 Jun Chen, Jun Liu, Lehai Ni, Yanwei Feng, Zhenzhen Yu, Shanmei Zou & Jiping Lin Published: 19 September 2016 This study represents the first comprehensive molecular assessment of northwestern Pacific molluscs. In total, 2801 DNA barcodes belonging to 569 species from China, Japan and Korea were analyzed. An overlap between intra- and interspecific genetic distances was present in 71 species. We tested the efficacy of this library by simulating a sequence-based specimen identification scenario using Best Match (BM), Best Close Match (BCM) and All Species Barcode (ASB) criteria with three threshold values. BM approach returned 89.15% true identifications (95.27% when excluding singletons). The highest success rate of congruent identifications was obtained with BCM at 0.053 threshold. The analysis of our barcode library together with public data resulted in 582 Barcode Index Numbers (BINs), 72.2% of which was found to be concordantly with morphology-based identifications. The discrepancies were divided in two groups: sequences from different species clustered in a single BIN and conspecific sequences divided in one more BINs. In Neighbour-Joining phenogram, 2,320 (83.0%) queries fromed 355 (62.4%) species-specific barcode clusters allowing their successful identification. 33 species showed paraphyletic and haplotype sharing. 62 cases are represented by deeply diverged lineages. This study suggest an increased species diversity in this region, highlighting taxonomic revision and conservation strategy for the cryptic complexes.
  • Conservation Genetics

    Conservation Genetics

    9 Conservation Genetics Modern biology has produced a genuinely new way of looking at the world . to the degree that we come to understand other organisms, we will place a greater value on them, and on ourselves. E.O. Wilson, 1984 In the final analysis, concerns about the conservation of biodiversity represent concerns about the conservation of genetic diversity. As we have seen, this genetic diversity is arranged hierarchically, from the family units, extended kinships, and geographic population structures within species, to a graded scale of genetic differences among reproductively isolated taxa that have been sepa­ rated phylogenetically for various lengths of evolutionary time. As we have also seen, the visible external phenotypes of organisms are not an infallible guide to how this genetic diversity is partitioned. Ironically, even as we gain the molec­ ular tools to assess genetic heterogeneity in new and exciting ways, the marvel­ ous biodiversity that has carpeted our planet is being lost at a pace that is nearly unprecedented in the history of life, due to direct and indirect effects of explosive human population growth (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1991). One goal of conservation biology is to preserve genetic diversity. Another goal should be to preserve evolutionary processes. Hybridization, introgression, and speciation are examples of natural and dynamic evolutionary processes that exert great influence on how genetic diversity is organized, yet these forces are some­ times viewed with considerable naivety in conservation legislation (such as that designed to protect "endangered species"). Not only must societies find ways to 361 J. C. Avise, Molecular Markers, Natural History and Evolution © Chapman & Hall 1994 362 Conservation Genetics preserve existing genetic diversity, but they also must seek sustainable environ­ ments for life in which the evolutionary processes fostering biotic diversity are maintained.
  • Seaside Sparrow

    Seaside Sparrow

    Species Status Assessment Class: Birds Family: Emberizidae Scientific Name: Ammodramus maritimus maritima Common Name: Seaside sparrow Species synopsis: Seven subspecies of seaside sparrow breed along the Atlantic Coast from Maine to the Gulf Coast. The most northerly subspecies, A. m. maritimus, breeds from southern Maine to Virginia where salt marshes occur. In New York, seaside sparrow occurs in estuarine and salt marsh habitat primarily on the south shore of Long Island, though populations also persist on Long Island Sound (Westchester County) and the east end of Long Island. Though some birds remain in New York during the winter, most move to coastal areas in the southern United States. Long-term losses documented in New York since the late 1800s (Schneider 1998, Greenlaw 2008) have been attributed to habitat alteration (mosquito ditching and filling) and to predation, especially by Norway rats. A 25% decline in occupancy is documented by the second Breeding Bird Atlas for the period 1980-85 to 2000-05. I. Status a. Current and Legal Protected Status i. Federal _____Not Listed________________________ Candidate? __No____ ii. New York _____Special Concern_____________________________________________ b. Natural Heritage Program Rank i. Global ____G4_____________________________________________________________ ii. New York ____S2S3B____________________ Tracked by NYNHP? __Yes___ Other Rank: Partners in Flight – Tier I USFWS – Nongame bird of management concern IUCN – Least Concern 1 Status Discussion: Seaside sparrow was formerly a locally common breeder in the Coastal Lowlands but has declined in the last 100 years due to loss of coastal marshes. It does not occur outside of the coastal areas. Birds are regular though uncommon during the winter. II. Abundance and Distribution Trends a.
  • DNA Barcoding: Potential Users. Genomics, Society and Policy 3(2)

    DNA Barcoding: Potential Users. Genomics, Society and Policy 3(2)

    Genomics, Society and Policy 2007, Vol.3, No.2, pp.44-47 Commissioned response to Filipe O. Costa & Gary R. Carvalho, ‘The Barcode of Life Initiative: Synopsis and Prospective Societal Impacts of DNA Barcoding of Fish’ DNA barcoding: potential users PETER M. HOLLINGSWORTH1 The current popularity of DNA barcoding relates to its potential power coupled with its intuitively pleasing simplicity. It is based on the premise of using a standard short region of DNA as a universal tool for identifying organisms.2 The aim is to establish a large-scale reference sequence database against which unknown samples can be queried for identification. Where sequences are found that are divergent from others in the database, the corresponding specimens are flagged up as potential new species warranting further investigation. Costa and Carvalho3 describe some of the potential societal benefits of DNA barcoding in the context of fish identification and also summarise some of the potential benefits to the discipline of taxonomy itself. Who will benefit most from DNA based identification? Table I lists some examples of people who identify organisms and some of the approaches they may use. Much of the debate around DNA barcoding has focused on its implications for taxonomists and taxonomy. However, if DNA barcoding can be made accessible and cheap, arguably the greatest beneficiaries will be the many professionals whose work involves biological identifications, but whose job is not to carry out taxonomy per se. For this category of people, DNA identification can potentially offer a direct route to the knowledge generated by taxonomists, and avoid them having to spend their time learning how to identify organisms.
  • Seaside Sparrow [Macgillivray's]

    Seaside Sparrow [Macgillivray's]

    Supplemental Volume: Species of Conservation Concern SC SWAP 2015 Seaside Sparrow (MacGillivray’s) Ammodramus maritimus macgillivraii Contributors (2005): John E. Cely (SCDNR) and Dennis M. Forsythe (The Citadel) Reviewed and Edited (2012): Chris Hill (Coastal Carolina Univ.) DESCRIPTION Taxonomy and Basic Description The Seaside Sparrow is a geographically variable species within the order Passeriformes (perching birds), family Emberizidae (AOU 1998). The subspecies that breeds in South Carolina is A. m. macgillivrai (Craig Watson, pers. comm.). The Seaside Sparrow is olive-gray to olive-brown, has a relatively long bill and a short, sharp tail. The back and breast are streaked, but not always conspicuously so. The facial pattern is distinctive with the supraloral spot and supercillium yellow from above the eye to the bill and a pale sub-moustachial stripe. The malar stripe is dark and the throat pale. These birds are about 12.5 to 15 cm (5 to 6 in.) in length and weigh about 24.2 g (0.85 oz.). Males are slightly larger with sexes similar in coloration (Rising 1996). Status The Seaside Sparrow is designated as a high priority landbird by South Carolina Partners in Flight (PIF) and South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative (SAMBI). The USFWS has been petitioned to list the MacGillivray’s subspecies (A. m. macgillivrai), SC’s subspecies. A Florida subspecies, the Dusky Seaside Sparrow, A. m. nigrescens, is now extinct, while the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow (A. m. mirabilis) is critically endangered. In SC, A. m. macgillivraii is listed within the SWAP as a ‘moderate’ priority species. POPULATION SIZE AND DISTRIBUTION This species occupies a very narrow strip of salt and brackish marsh along the Outer Coastal Plain “tidewater region.” Post and Gauthreaux (1989) gives its status as resident; fairly common in summer and common in winter.