scholarly journals First records of two freshwater mussel Species at Risk, Mapleleaf (Quadrula quadrula) and Lilliput (Toxolasma parvum), in the Canard River, Ontario, with implications for freshwater mussel recovery in the Detroit River

2020 ◽  
Vol 134 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-188
Author(s):  
Todd J. Morris ◽  
Margaret N. Sheldon ◽  
Kelly A. McNichols-O'Rourke
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Freshwater Mussel ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Great Lakes Basin ◽  
Detroit River ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Status ◽  
Special Concern ◽  
Riverine Habitats ◽  
Search Approach

Freshwater mussels of the family Unionidae are among the world’s most imperilled animals. A third of Canadian species have been assessed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada as Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern, with losses attributed to natural system modifications such as damming, pollution, exploitation for buttons and pearls, urbanization, and the introduction and subsequent effects of aquatic invasive species. In the Great Lakes basin, the introduction of dreissenid mussels in the 1980s caused catastrophic declines, with remnant populations restricted to lotic riverine habitats. In southwestern Ontario, the Canard River is the largest remaining direct tributary of the Detroit River that could provide a source of mussels to aid natural recovery. In 2019, nine sites in the Canard River were sampled using a timed-search approach (4.5 person-hours/site) with a combination of tactile searching by hand and mussel scoops (7-mm mesh) or underwater viewers. The search yielded 362 individuals of eight species, including two Species at Risk, Mapleleaf (Quadrula quadrula) and Lilliput (Toxolasma parvum), which had never been previously recorded in the Canard River.

Canadian species at risk (2006–2008), with particular emphasis on fishes

2009 ◽  
Vol 17 (NA) ◽  
pp. 53-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey A. Hutchings ◽  
Marco Festa-Bianchet
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Marine Fish ◽  
Spatiotemporal Analysis ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Wildlife Species ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Status ◽  
Special Concern ◽  
Species At Risk Act ◽  
Diadromous Species

In accordance with the Species at Risk Act (SARA), the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) is nationally responsible for assessing wildlife species considered to be at risk of extinction. A parliamentary review of SARA provides impetus for an up-to-date summary of recent assessments (2006–2008) and a spatiotemporal analysis of the status of Canada's largest vertebrate group of species at risk, fishes. From April 1978 through December 2008, COSEWIC had assessed 13 wildlife species as extinct and 564 at some level of risk (extirpated, endangered, threatened, special concern). Among these 577 assessments, 112 are for fishes (76% freshwater and diadromous; 24% marine). Slightly more than one-quarter (27%) of Canada's 205 freshwater and diadromous species of fishes, many of which are in southwestern Ontario and southeastern Quebec, have been assessed as being at risk throughout all or parts of their ranges. The percentage of Canadian freshwater and diadromous fish species assessed by COSEWIC as endangered or threatened (16%) is similar to the percentage of freshwater and diadromous fishes in the US that have been listed under the Endangered Species Act (12%). The proportion of wholly freshwater fishes assessed by COSEWIC that have been added to SARA's legal schedule is somewhat lower than that of other taxa. However, whereas the US listed its first marine fish in 2005, the Canadian government has to date not accepted COSEWIC's advice to list an endangered or threatened marine fish since the proclamation of SARA in 2003.

Biology, Management, and Conservation of Lampreys in North America

2009 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Conservation Status ◽  
Sea Lamprey ◽  
Great Lakes Basin ◽  
Brook Lamprey ◽  
The Status ◽  
Lethenteron Camtschaticum ◽  
Special Concern ◽  
Data Deficient ◽  
Lamprey Species

<em>Abstract</em>.—There are 11 lamprey species in Canada: Vancouver lamprey <em>Entosphenus macrostomus</em> (formerly <em>Lampetra macrostoma</em>), Pacific lamprey <em>Entosphenus tridentatus</em> (formerly <em>Lampetra tridentata</em>), chestnut lamprey <em>Ichthyomyzon castaneus</em>, northern brook lamprey <em>Ichthyomyzon fossor</em>, silver lamprey <em>Ichthtyomyzon unicuspis</em>, river lamprey <em>Lampetra ayresii</em>, western brook lamprey <em>Lampetra richardsoni</em>, Alaskan brook lamprey <em>Lethenteron alaskense</em>, American brook lamprey <em>Lethenteron appendix</em> (formerly <em>Lampetra appendix</em>), Arctic lamprey <em>Lethenteron camtschaticum</em> (formerly <em>Lampetra camtschatica</em>), and sea lamprey <em>Petromyzon marinus</em>. <em>Entosphenus</em> and <em>Lethenteron</em> were previously synonymized with <em>Lampetra</em>, but Nelson (2006) recognized these as three distinct genera. Conservation status has been assessed in only five species and in two of these (western brook lamprey and chestnut lamprey), only for portions of their Canadian population. The 2007 Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada list indicates that the enigmatic population of western brook lamprey in Morrison Creek, British Columbia, is endangered; the Vancouver lamprey in British Columbia is threatened; the chestnut lamprey in Saskatchewan and Manitoba is special concern; the northern brook lamprey in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec is of special concern in the latter two provinces and data deficient in the former; and the Alaskan brook lamprey in the Northwest Territories is data deficient. The threats to the four species at risk were collectively related to habitat degradation and loss, sensitivity to a catastrophic event, and sensitivity to lampricide used to control the invasive sea lamprey in the Great Lakes basin. Despite much lamprey work being conducted in the past decade, there still remain a number of knowledge gaps. These gaps include unequivocal evidence as to whether parasitic and nonparasitic members of a paired species should be considered distinct species and information on the distribution and population sizes and trends of the native lamprey species.

scholarly journals Less specific recovery strategy targets for threatened and non-charismatic species at risk in Canada

Oryx ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 430-435
Author(s):  
Elysabeth Théberge ◽  
Joseph J. Nocera
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Threatened Species ◽  
Population Estimates ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Recovery Strategy ◽  
Recovery Strategies ◽  
Taxonomic Grouping ◽  
Special Concern ◽  
Lexical Density

AbstractRecovery strategies for species at risk have been criticized for a lack of specificity (i.e. measurable and quantifiable criteria) as well as for taxonomic biases, both of which may ultimately affect species’ recovery. However, it is unknown whether the clarity and specificity of written statements within recovery strategies can also influence recovery efforts for certain species at risk. To assess this we examined the variation in semantic uncertainty in the target statements of recovery strategies for Canadian species at risk at the federal and provincial levels. We quantified the lexical density and readability of recovery target statements and examined them for differences according to taxonomic grouping, jurisdiction and degree of endangerment. Recovery statements for the category threatened species had greater semantic uncertainty than those for higher (endangered) and lower (special concern) categories, which is likely to be a function of the fact that threatened species are less abundant than special concern species but are subject to greater errors in population estimates than endangered species. We also found that recovery statements for non-charismatic species (e.g. plants and invertebrates) had greater semantic uncertainty than those for other taxa, which may be related to the resources available for studying and conserving them. Our results suggest a need for greater specificity in recovery targets for threatened and non-charismatic species, and that more focused data collection on these species’ populations is warranted.

scholarly journals Conservation status of caribou in the western mountains of Canada: Protections under the species at risk act, 2002-2014

Rangifer ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justina C. Ray ◽  
Deborah B. Cichowski ◽  
Martin-Hugues St-Laurent ◽  
Chris J. Johnson ◽  
Stephen D. Petersen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
First Nations ◽  
Captive Breeding ◽  
Conservation Status ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Predator Control ◽  
Conservation Units ◽  
Preventative Measures ◽  
The Status ◽  
Species At Risk Act

In April 2014, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) reviewed the status of caribou in the western mountains of Canada, in keeping with the ten-year reassessment mandate under the Species at Risk Act. Assessed as two ‘nationally significant’ populations in 2002, COSEWIC revised the conservation units for all caribou in Canada, recognising eleven extant Designatable Units (DUs), three of which -- Northern Mountain, Central Mountain, and Southern Mountain -- are found only in western Canada. The 2014 assessment concluded that the condition of many subpopulations in all three DUs had deteriorated. As a result of small and declining population sizes, the Central Mountain and Southern Mountain DUs are now recognised as endangered. Recent declines in a number of Northern Mountain DU subpopulations did not meet thresholds for endangered or threatened, and were assessed as of special concern. Since the passage of the federal Species at Risk Act in 2002, considerable areas of habitat were managed or conserved for caribou, although disturbance from cumulative human development activities has increased during the same period. Government agencies and local First Nations are attempting to arrest the steep decline of some subpopulations by using predator control, maternal penning, population augmentation, and captive breeding. Based on declines, future developments and current recovery effects, we offer the following recommendations: 1) where recovery actions are necessary, commit to simultaneously reducing human intrusion into caribou ranges, restoring habitat over the long term, and conducting short-term predator control, 2) carefully consider COSEWIC’s new DU structure for management and recovery actions, especially regarding translocations, 3) carry out regular surveys to monitor the condition of Northern Mountain caribou subpopulations and immediately implement preventative measures where necessary, and 4) undertake a proactive, planned approach coordinated across jurisdictions to conserve landscape processes important to caribou conservation.

Consistency of COSEWIC species at risk designations: freshwater fishes as a case study

2009 ◽  
Vol 66 (6) ◽  
pp. 959-971 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Lukey ◽  
Stephen S. Crawford
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Freshwater Fishes ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
International Union ◽  
Assessment Protocol ◽  
The Status ◽  
Canadian Wildlife

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) is responsible for the assessment of Canadian wildlife at risk. The COSEWIC assessment process is primarily based on five quantitative criteria developed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, but allows for further modification of designations under certain conditions. This study investigated the consistency of designations predicted using the quantitative COSEWIC criteria compared with observed designations reported by COSEWIC. A total of 49 COSEWIC designations for freshwater fishes from 2000 to 2007 were compared for consistency in decision-making. Overall, there was a 57.1% agreement between predicted and observed designations. A substantial number (35.1%) of COSEWIC designations were downlisted from “Endangered” or “Threatened” without sufficient explanation to justify the modifications. For the cases of uplisting, these differences were associated with qualitative criteria not effectively represented in our algorithm. Recommendations are offered to improve the transparency and accountability of COSEWIC decision-making, including enhancements to reporting and the explicit incorporation of uncertainty in the COSEWIC risk assessment protocol.

scholarly journals Biodiversity and Stage of the Art of Three Pollinators Taxa in Mexico: An Overview

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (16) ◽  
pp. 9051
Author(s):  
David Urbán-Duarte ◽  
José Fernando De La Torre-Sánchez ◽  
Yooichi Kainoh ◽  
Kazuo Watanabe
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Species Conservation ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Conservation Action ◽  
Pollinator Species ◽  
The Status ◽  
Abundance And Diversity ◽  
Policies And Programs ◽  
The Impact

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) confirmed that pollinators have declined in abundance and diversity; additionally, there is insufficient data for Latin America. Thus, we performed a review on scientific studies and databases to determine the state of the art of the diversity of three pollinator animals (bees, hummingbirds, and bats) in Mexico as well as an analysis of relevant public policies to conserve these species. We found 2063 bee species reported to be present in Mexico. The biodiversity of hummingbirds (58 species) and pollinator bats (12 species) is well known. We identified 57 scientific studies published in the last 20 years related to the biodiversity of bees (30 studies), hummingbirds (16 studies), and pollinator bats (11 studies). Relatively few, or no current studies on hummingbirds and pollinators bats at risk as well as for more than 1000 bee species is available. Great efforts have been made about policies and programs to improve the knowledge and conservation of pollinators in Mexico the last years such as the Species at Risk Conservation Program (PROCER), the Species Conservation Action Program (PACE), and the Natural Protected Ares System (CONANP). However, information of the status of many species and regions is still scarce. Thus, more studies about biodiversity, density, and trends as well as studies of the impact of policies and programs on pollinator species in Mexico are needed.

scholarly journals Odonata of Canada

ZooKeys ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 819 ◽  
pp. 227-241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert A. Cannings
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Conservation Status ◽  
Molecular Barcoding ◽  
Sound Classification ◽  
The Status ◽  
Special Concern ◽  
Morphological Species ◽  
Species At Risk Act ◽  
Almost All

Since Corbet’s thorough 1979 overview of Canadian Odonata, hundreds of regional works on taxonomy, faunistics, distribution, life history, ecology and behaviour have been written. Canada records 214 species of Odonata, an increase of 20 since the 1979 assessment. Estimates of unrecorded species are small; this reflects the well-known nature of the fauna. A major impetus for surveys and analyses of the status of species is the work of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada which provides a scientifically sound classification of wildlife species potentially at risk. As of 2017, six species have been designated “Endangered” and two “Special Concern” (only five of which are officially listed under the Federal Species at Risk Act (SARA)). The Order provides a good example of molecular barcoding effort in insects, as many well-accepted morphological species in Canada have been barcoded to some degree. However, more barcoding of accurately identified specimens of many species is still required, especially in most of the larger families, which have less than 70% of their species barcoded. Corbet noted that the larvae of 15 Canadian species were unknown, but almost all larvae are now well, or cursorily, described. Extensive surveys have greatly improved our understanding of species’ geographical distributions, habitat requirements and conservation status but more research is required to better define occurrence, abundance and biological details for almost all species.

scholarly journals Are we accurately estimating the potential role of pollution in the decline of species at risk in Canada?

FACETS ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 598-614
Author(s):  
Jenny L. McCune ◽  
Sheila R. Colla ◽  
Laura E. Coristine ◽  
Christina M. Davy ◽  
D.T. Tyler Flockhart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Quantitative Method ◽  
Pollution Source ◽  
Pollution Sources ◽  
Freshwater Species ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
The Status ◽  
Species Population ◽  
Species Occurrences

Pollution is a pervasive, albeit often invisible, threat to biodiversity in Canada. Currently, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) relies on expert opinion to assess the scope (i.e., the proportion of a species’ population that may be affected) of pollution to species at risk. Here, we describe a spatially explicit, quantitative method for assessing the scope of pollution as a threat to species at risk in Canada. Using this method, we quantified the geographic co-occurrence of 488 terrestrial and freshwater species and pollution sources and determined that, on average, 57% of the mapped occurrences of each species at risk co-occurred with at least one pollution source. Furthermore, we found a weak correlation between the scope of the threat of pollution as assessed by COSEWIC expert panels and the geographic overlap of species occurrences and pollution sources that we determined with our quantitative method. Experts frequently identified scope of pollution as absent or negligible even for species with extensive co-occurrence with pollution sources, especially vascular plants. Clearly, a quantitative approach is needed to make accurate estimates of the scope of pollution as a threat to species at risk in Canada.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document