Wildlife is Not Crying Wolf: How Fish & Wildlife Service can Utilize the Endangered Species Act to Mitigate Hybridization Threats to Listed Species
Vol: 26, Issue: 2, Page: 255
2020
- 525Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage525
- Downloads381
- Abstract Views144
Article Description
As humans modify Earth’s landscapes and climate change fundamentally alters ecosystems, separately evolving wildlife populations may once again meet and interbreed with one another. This hybridization process may ultimately drive the less prolific of the two populations into extinction. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (“FWS”) has failed to fully utilize the tools within the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) to adequately address the unique problems of species hybridization. Although FWS has resisted attempts to delist species undergoing hybridization, their recovery plans and critical habitat designations fall short of maximizing the potential for species recovery. This paper first explores the current regulatory framework governing hybridized species under the ESA. Next, it demonstrates the shortcomings of FWS’s management decisions on hybridized species conservation using red wolves as the prime example. Finally, it concludes with recommendations to issue guidance on FWS’s approach to recovery plans and critical habitat designations for hybridizing species in the future.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know