A landscape conservation perspective of state Species of Greatest Conservation Need
Rattachement africain : us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Abstract State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs), including lists of Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN), outline state strategies for protecting species and habitats in the United States. In developing the current, second revision SWAPs, states are increasingly pursuing coordinated landscape conservation approaches. Analyzing SGCN lists in the first revision SWAPs, we found evidence that they already support multistate conservation. Most states address a common set of vertebrate and invertebrate groups, include most of the imperiled species from these groups, do not prioritize endemics over non‐endemics, and often include most imperiled species that are shared with neighboring states. Also, a regional SGCN coordination effort was successful. Although 65% of animals on each SGCN list were assessed as at elevated risk of extirpation by state authorities, only 43% of the combined national list were at elevated risk of global extinction. Over 40% of the combined animal SGCNs are considered globally apparently secure. Plants, snails, freshwater shrimps, and freshwater insects were poorly represented in SGCN lists. For the current SWAP revisions, we recommend improving foundational data on taxonomy, range‐wide distribution, and conservation status; expanded taxonomic coverage in SGCN lists; supporting existing and establishing new interstate initiatives; and diversifying funding mechanisms that target regional cooperation.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- A landscape conservation perspective of state Species of Greatest Conservation Need
- Date Crossref
- 17/09/2024
- Éditeur
- Wiley
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.