How well do phylogenetic studies inform the conservation of Australian plants?

2000 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen D. Hopper

Conservation of Australian plants depends on a spectrum of activities from descriptive and experimental biological studies to active management and restoration of wild ecosystems by local communities who value their native biota. On the basis of the premise that available resources for conservation will not allow for all threatened biodiversity to be saved, some systematists and conservation geneticists argue that phylogenetic relationships should be used to set conservation priorities. The principle advocated is that characters, not species number, should become the currency of conservation, that cladistic analysis of phylogenetic pattern provides a predictive means of modelling the underlying distribution of characters among taxa, and that priority should be given to that subset of taxa with the greatest number of character states. This approach has been applied for some time in the conservation of genetic resources within species (e.g. Eucalyptus caesia), and has been an extra impetus for action with taxonomically isolated endangered species such as the recently discovered araucarian Wollemi pine (Wollemia nobilis). However, most plant conservation activity in Australia has paid little heed to phylogenetic relationships. Degree of threat has been a driving motivation, with endangered species receiving legislative and management attention irrespective of their systematic relationships. Moreover, the current revolution in understanding plant phylogeny associated with DNA sequence studies highlights the need for caution in accepting results of morphologically based analyses. A series of studies on the kangaroo paw and bloodroot family Haemodoraceae highlights this cautionary tale. The derivation of phylogenetic principles relevant to ecosystem and landscape processes is a new field of some promise to conservation managers. An understanding of the Gondwanan origins and landscape evolution of the south-west Australian flora provides a useful case study. Scaling up phylogenetic knowledge of genetic resources within species, and of the evolutionary relationships of taxa to an integrated overview of best management practices for all taxa at the local landscape level, is perhaps the most effective contribution phylogeneticists might make to help conserve Australian plants.

2000 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen D. Hopper ◽  
Bryan A. Barlow

Conservation of Australian plants depends on a spectrum of activities from descriptive and experimental biological studies to active management and restoration of wild ecosystems by local communities who value their native biota. On the basis of the premise that available resources for conservation will not allow for all threatened biodiversity to be saved, some systematists and conservation geneticists argue that phylogenetic relationships should be used to set conservation priorities. The principle advocated is that characters, not species number, should become the currency of conservation, that cladistic analysis of phylogenetic pattern provides a predictive means of modelling the underlying distribution of characters among taxa, and that priority should be given to that subset of taxa with the greatest number of character states. This approach has been applied for some time in the conservation of genetic resources within species (e.g. Eucalyptus caesia), and has been an extra impetus for action with taxonomically isolated endangered species such as the recently discovered araucarian Wollemi pine (Wollemia nobilis). However, most plant conservation activity in Australia has paid little heed to phylogenetic relationships. Degree of threat has been a driving motivation, with endangered species receiving legislative and management attention irrespective of their systematic relationships. Moreover, the current revolution in understanding plant phylogeny associated with DNA sequence studies highlights the need for caution in accepting results of morphologically based analyses. A series of studies on the kangaroo paw and bloodroot family Haemodoraceae highlights this cautionary tale. The derivation of phylogenetic principles relevant to ecosystem and landscape processes is a new field of some promise to conservation managers. An understanding of the Gondwanan origins and landscape evolution of the south-west Australian flora provides a useful case study. Scaling up phylogenetic knowledge of genetic resources within species, and of the evolutionary relationships of taxa to an integrated overview of best management practices for all taxa at the local landscape level, is perhaps the most effective contribution phylogeneticists might make to help conserve Australian plants.


2000 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. I ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Coates ◽  
Stephen D. Hopper

Conservation of Australian plants depends on a spectrum of activities from descriptive and experimental biological studies to active management and restoration of wild ecosystems by local communities who value their native biota. On the basis of the premise that available resources for conservation will not allow for all threatened biodiversity to be saved, some systematists and conservation geneticists argue that phylogenetic relationships should be used to set conservation priorities. The principle advocated is that characters, not species number, should become the currency of conservation, that cladistic analysis of phylogenetic pattern provides a predictive means of modelling the underlying distribution of characters among taxa, and that priority should be given to that subset of taxa with the greatest number of character states. This approach has been applied for some time in the conservation of genetic resources within species (e.g. Eucalyptus caesia), and has been an extra impetus for action with taxonomically isolated endangered species such as the recently discovered araucarian Wollemi pine (Wollemia nobilis). However, most plant conservation activity in Australia has paid little heed to phylogenetic relationships. Degree of threat has been a driving motivation, with endangered species receiving legislative and management attention irrespective of their systematic relationships. Moreover, the current revolution in understanding plant phylogeny associated with DNA sequence studies highlights the need for caution in accepting results of morphologically based analyses. A series of studies on the kangaroo paw and bloodroot family Haemodoraceae highlights this cautionary tale. The derivation of phylogenetic principles relevant to ecosystem and landscape processes is a new field of some promise to conservation managers. An understanding of the Gondwanan origins and landscape evolution of the south-west Australian flora provides a useful case study. Scaling up phylogenetic knowledge of genetic resources within species, and of the evolutionary relationships of taxa to an integrated overview of best management practices for all taxa at the local landscape level, is perhaps the most effective contribution phylogeneticists might make to help conserve Australian plants.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 300294
Author(s):  
Travis Coley ◽  
Jessica Odell ◽  
Doug Anderson

Although species expertise, professional judgment, and scientific literature pave the way for making determinations of effects, the vastness of the Deepwater Horizon Incident response inspired a systematic approach. The United States Coast Guard (USCG) Endangered Species Act Biological Assessment (BA) for this response began with the development of ecological models for each of the listed species potentially affected by the response. These models are tabular and connect individual strands of logic, referred to as effects pathways, which relate a potential cleanup activity to the anticipated species response. Effects pathways cannot be used alone, as they are inherently isolated and independent of any response action data. To bring the effects pathways into the context of the actual cleanup effort, a forensic geographically aware action record was generated. This record was primarily built using prescriptions for cleanup, known as Shoreline Cleanup Recommendations (STRs), Incident Command System (ICS) Forms, and Best Management Practices (BMP) Checklists. The combination of effects pathways and the action record was completed using table joining techniques. The anticipated species responses to actions were then used to create a series of heat maps. These show the accumulation of species responses along the landscape based on temporal components of activities, such as frequency and intensity. These maps provide a visual means of consuming the vast occurrences of the response to facilitate the effects analysis of the BA.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 1004-1010
Author(s):  
Jessica Odell ◽  
Travis Coley

ABSTRACT In an oil spill emergency situation, how do you simultaneously protect listed species, track important events, and plan for a post-emergency Endangered Species Act Biological Assessment? This was the daunting question faced by hundreds of environmental regulators, field biologists, and technology developers during the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) Incident Response. With the help of mobile technology, legacy expertise, and a dedicated field presence, they answered with a system of Best Management Practices (BMPs). During the response, factors such as urgency, expansive geography, response duration, and technical experience disparity threatened to compromise the integrity of the BMP datasets. Because of these factors, over one hundred separate BMP lists were issued, and highly accurate field data collection was often sacrificed for after-hours web entry or paper records. For the purposes of the Endangered Species Act Biological Assessment, the Universal BMP (UBMP) Index was created to retroactively track the implementation of these various lists and properly credit responders with conservation efforts. The development of this index yielded lessons from practical BMP implementation and documentation in a response environment to constructing sophisticated database architecture needed for consumption. Here we present the evolution of UBMPs, their role in the Effects Analysis of the Deepwater Horizon Biological Assessment, and a plan for a better way.


2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 2017424
Author(s):  
John A. Tarpley ◽  
Stacey Crecy ◽  
William Marhoffer ◽  
Elizabeth Petras ◽  
Damian Higgins ◽  
...  

The framework for cooperation and participation regarding Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance at every stage of oil spill planning and response activities is contained in an Interagency Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed in 2001; and although the agreement is still valid, the guidance for implementation was in need of updating. The MOA was established between the USCG, EPA, Department of the Interior through the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Department of Commerce – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) through National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the National Ocean Service. These procedures are designed to help fulfill requirements under ESA Section 7(a)(2) as well as those mandated in the National Contingency Plan. It is a holistic approach to protection and conservation of the ecosystem upon which listed species depend that also facilitates interagency cooperation, reduces paperwork, makes the best use of limited financial and personnel agency resources, and develops a quality response plan. After more than a decade of no consultations on ESA, there was an overall lack of awareness and understanding about environmental compliance on the part of the “action” agencies (USCG & EPA), and about response actions and oil spills on the part of Service agency personnel (NMFS & FWS). Through the National Response Team - National Environmental Compliance (NEC) Subcommittee; guidelines to conduct an ESA Consultation and write a Biological Assessment (BA) were completely re-written for clarity and practicality to meet today's resource-challenged agencies. These guidelines will provide Sectors and Regional Response Teams with numerous suggestions on how to include Best Management Practices to protect species and habitats while developing protection and oil recovery strategies in their Area Contingency Plans (ACP). The guidelines reaffirm how the action agencies and service agencies must work together to best understand the others expertise and needs. The guidelines will identify economies of scale with consultations such that time, effort and costs are reduced for all agencies involved. Knowing the environmental risks in advance will allow planners and response practitioners to develop the most effective strategies while minimizing environmental harm. Smartly built ACPs and new-found economies to writing BAs will greatly advance the ability to be ESA compliant; avoid lawsuits; and support decisions for the most appropriate cleanup methods for specific habitats, in order to maximize oil recover and minimize any impacts to species or habitat.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document