Pragmatic population viability targets in a rapidly changing world

• Published in: Biological conservation 2010, Vol.143 (1), p.28-34
• Main Authors: Traill, Lochran W., Brook, Barry W., Frankham, Richard R., Bradshaw, Corey J.A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animal, plant and microbial ecology; Applied ecology; Biological and medical sciences; Census N; Climatology. Bioclimatology. Climate change; Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife; Earth, ocean, space; Ecological triage; Effective population size; Exact sciences and technology; External geophysics; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Global change; Meteorology; Minimum viable population; Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking; Threatened species
• ISSN: 0006-3207; 1873-2917
• DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.09.001

To ensure both long-term persistence and evolutionary potential, the required number of individuals in a population often greatly exceeds the targets proposed by conservation management. We critically review minimum population size requirements for species based on empirical and theoretical estimates made over the past few decades. This literature collectively shows that thousands (not hundreds) of individuals are required for a population to have an acceptable probability of riding-out environmental fluctuation and catastrophic events, and ensuring the continuation of evolutionary processes. The evidence is clear, yet conservation policy does not appear to reflect these findings, with pragmatic concerns on feasibility over-riding biological risk assessment. As such, we argue that conservation biology faces a dilemma akin to those working on the physical basis of climate change, where scientific recommendations on carbon emission reductions are compromised by policy makers. There is no obvious resolution other than a more explicit acceptance of the trade-offs implied when population viability requirements are ignored. We recommend that conservation planners include demographic and genetic thresholds in their assessments, and recognise implicit triage where these are not met.