Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:43:22.767Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rarity as a criterion for endangerment in Florida's fauna

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2009

Russell L. Burke  and
Stephen R. Humphrey
Russell L. Burke
Affiliation:
Department of Wildlife and Range Sciences, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Stephen R. Humphrey
Affiliation:
Florida State Museum, Universtiy of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

It has been argued that the initial rarity of an animal species may be a good indicator of subsequent vulnerability. The usefulness of this argument in the conservation of endangered species has been investigated by the authors, who have compared the apparent vulnerability of certain rare animals with their actual status. The two approaches agreed substantially, but some striking differences occurred. Some rare species seem more prone to extinction than is officially recognized, and their status should be reviewed. Other species are not particularly rare, but are threatened for other biological and economic reasons. Knowledge of rarity is a good starting point, but this sould be followed by a detailed examination of other relevant factors to discern genuine risk.

Type
Research Article
Information
Oryx , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , April 1987 , pp. 97 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © Fauna and Flora International 1987

References

R., Conant 1975. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America, 2nd edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.Google Scholar
J., Fisher 1952. Bird numbers: a discussion of the breeding population of inland birds of England and Wales. South Eastern Naturalist, 57, 1–10.Google Scholar
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 1985. Official Lists of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Fauna and Flora in Florida. Tallahassee, Florida.Google Scholar
E.R., Hall 1981. The Mammals of North America, 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
S.R., Humphrey and D.B., Barbour 1981. Status and habitat of three subspecies of Peromyscus polionotus in Florida. J. Mammal. 60, 840–844.Google Scholar
F.W., Preston 1948. The commonness, and rarity, of animals. Ecology, 29, 620–624.Google Scholar
R.D., Sparrowe and H.M., Wight 1975. Setting priorities for the Endangered Species Program. Transactions of the 40th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, pp. 142–156.Google Scholar
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of vertebrate wildlife; notice of review. Federal Register, 50, 37, 958–37, 967.Google Scholar
J., Terborgh 1974. Preservation of natural diversity: the problem of extinction prone species. Bioscience, 24, 715–722.Google Scholar
J., Terborgh and B., Winter 1980. Some causes of extinction. In Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective (Eds Soule, M. E. and Wilcox, B. A.), pp. 119–133. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
C.B., Williams 1953. The relative abundance of different species in a wild animal population. J. Animal Ecol. 22, 14–31.Google Scholar