By Scott Norris
July-September 2006 (Vol. 7, No. 3)
- What are the potential benefits to conservation planning of explicitly considering the short-term evolutionary potential of a species? What are the potential pitfalls?
- The author, citing Stockwell et al. (2003), suggests that conservationists should view endangerment as a function of both environmental change and a lack of adaptive response by a species. What are the philosophical implications of such a view that places some of the cause of endangerment on the endangered species?
- What is the scientific rationale for preferentially protecting a species in habitat where it is most stressed rather than where it is currently the most secure?
- Selective gene flow facilitated by conservationists would require the expenditure of money that would then not be available for other conservation programs. What are your reactions to how this trade-off should be addressed?
Websites for Further Information
- The Consortium for Conservation Medicine: www.conservationmedicine.org/
- The Australian Museum (about the ecological effects of the cane toad): www.amonline.net.au/factsheets/canetoad.htm
- Freeman, A.S., and J.E. Byers. 2006. “Divergent induced responses to an invasive predator in marine mussel populations,” Science 313: 831-833.
- Stockwell, C.A., A.P. Hendry, and M.T. Kinnison. 2003. “Contemporary evolution meets conservation biology,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(2):94-100.
- Kilpatrick, A.M. 2006. “Facilitating the evolution of resistance to avian malaria in Hawaiian birds,” Biological Conservation 128(4):475-485.
- Schlaepfer, M.A., P. W. Sherman, B. Blossey, and M.C. Runge. 2005. “Introduced species as evolutionary traps,” Ecology Letters 8(3):241-246.
- Artificial selection
- Facilitated evolution
- Microevolutionary management
- Gene flow