Rapid decline of California’s native inland fishes: A status assessment
► We developed a new protocol to determine conservation status of freshwater fishes. ► 83% of California’s inland fishes are extinct or declining, a 21% increase since 1989. ► Only 51% of 33 species rated as endangered were listed under state and federal endangered species acts. ► The rapid decline...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Biological conservation 2011-10, Vol.144 (10), p.2414-2423 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 2423 |
---|---|
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | 2414 |
container_title | Biological conservation |
container_volume | 144 |
creator | Moyle, Peter B. Katz, Jacob V.E. Quiñones, Rebecca M. |
description | ► We developed a new protocol to determine conservation status of freshwater fishes. ► 83% of California’s inland fishes are extinct or declining, a 21% increase since 1989. ► Only 51% of 33 species rated as endangered were listed under state and federal endangered species acts. ► The rapid decline of California’s fishes is consistent with declines in other regions that are less well documented.
A quantitative protocol was developed to determine conservation status of all 129 freshwater fishes native to California. Seven (5%) were extinct; 33 (26%) were found to be in danger of extinction in the near future (endangered); 33 (26%) were rated as sufficiently threatened to be on a trajectory towards extinction if present trends continue (vulnerable); 34 (26%) were rated as declining species but not in immediate danger of extinction. Only 22 (17%) species were found to be of least concern. Of 31 species officially listed under federal and state endangered species acts (ESAs), 17 (55%) were rated as endangered by our criteria, while 12 (39%) were rated vulnerable. Conversely, of the 33 species that received our endangered rating, only 17 (51%) were officially listed under the ESAs. Among the seven metrics used to assess extinction threat, climate change, area occupied and anthropogenic threats had the largest negative impacts on status. Of 15 categories of causes of decline, those most likely to diminish status were alien species, agriculture, and dams. Overall, 83% of California’s freshwater fishes are extinct or at risk of becoming so, a 16% increase since 1995 and a 21% increase since 1989. The rapid decline of California’s inland fishes is probably typical of declines in other regions that are less well documented, indicating a strong need for improved conservation of freshwater ecosystems
. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.06.002 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_907175683</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0006320711002291</els_id><sourcerecordid>907175683</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c392t-f9fcd3cd759de9c53933d60873bccd2e6d24f38b4dff030c79aa084a0bcf08013</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM-KFDEQh4MoOO76BoK5iKduK51Md8eDsAz-WVgQXPccMklFM_QkY6pnYW_7Gvt6PokZe_HoqSj46lc_PsZeCWgFiP7drt3G7HJqOxCihb4F6J6wlRgH2XRaDE_ZCgD6RnYwPGcviHZ1HWS_XrHLb_YQPffoppiQ58A3doohlxTt7_sH4snO8RZ5TJNNnodIP5He8wtOs52PxC0REu0xzefsWbAT4cvHecZuPn38vvnSXH39fLm5uGqc1N3cBB2cl84Pa-1Ru7XUUvoeatWtc77D3ncqyHGrfAggwQ3aWhiVha0LMIKQZ-ztknso-dcRaTb7SA6n2g_zkYyGQQzrfpSVVAvpSiYqGMyhxL0td0aAOYkzO7OIMydxBnpTxdWzN48PLDk7hWKTi_TvtlNqlEqd4l8vXLDZ2B-lMjfXNUgBCA3ib9UPC4HVx23EYshFTA59LOhm43P8f5U_rmKPyg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>907175683</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Rapid decline of California’s native inland fishes: A status assessment</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Moyle, Peter B. ; Katz, Jacob V.E. ; Quiñones, Rebecca M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Moyle, Peter B. ; Katz, Jacob V.E. ; Quiñones, Rebecca M.</creatorcontrib><description>► We developed a new protocol to determine conservation status of freshwater fishes. ► 83% of California’s inland fishes are extinct or declining, a 21% increase since 1989. ► Only 51% of 33 species rated as endangered were listed under state and federal endangered species acts. ► The rapid decline of California’s fishes is consistent with declines in other regions that are less well documented.
A quantitative protocol was developed to determine conservation status of all 129 freshwater fishes native to California. Seven (5%) were extinct; 33 (26%) were found to be in danger of extinction in the near future (endangered); 33 (26%) were rated as sufficiently threatened to be on a trajectory towards extinction if present trends continue (vulnerable); 34 (26%) were rated as declining species but not in immediate danger of extinction. Only 22 (17%) species were found to be of least concern. Of 31 species officially listed under federal and state endangered species acts (ESAs), 17 (55%) were rated as endangered by our criteria, while 12 (39%) were rated vulnerable. Conversely, of the 33 species that received our endangered rating, only 17 (51%) were officially listed under the ESAs. Among the seven metrics used to assess extinction threat, climate change, area occupied and anthropogenic threats had the largest negative impacts on status. Of 15 categories of causes of decline, those most likely to diminish status were alien species, agriculture, and dams. Overall, 83% of California’s freshwater fishes are extinct or at risk of becoming so, a 16% increase since 1995 and a 21% increase since 1989. The rapid decline of California’s inland fishes is probably typical of declines in other regions that are less well documented, indicating a strong need for improved conservation of freshwater ecosystems
.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0006-3207</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-2917</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.06.002</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BICOBK</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Agnatha. Pisces ; Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Applied ecology ; Aquatic conservation ; Assessments ; Biodiversity ; Biological and medical sciences ; Categories ; Climate change ; Conservation ; Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife ; ecosystems ; Endangered ; Extinction ; Fish ; Freshwater ; freshwater fish ; Freshwater fishes ; Freshwaters ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Imperiled ; indigenous species ; introduced species ; Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking ; population dynamics ; Risk ; Vertebrates: general zoology, morphology, phylogeny, systematics, cytogenetics, geographical distribution</subject><ispartof>Biological conservation, 2011-10, Vol.144 (10), p.2414-2423</ispartof><rights>2011 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c392t-f9fcd3cd759de9c53933d60873bccd2e6d24f38b4dff030c79aa084a0bcf08013</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c392t-f9fcd3cd759de9c53933d60873bccd2e6d24f38b4dff030c79aa084a0bcf08013</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320711002291$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65534</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=24483443$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Moyle, Peter B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Katz, Jacob V.E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quiñones, Rebecca M.</creatorcontrib><title>Rapid decline of California’s native inland fishes: A status assessment</title><title>Biological conservation</title><description>► We developed a new protocol to determine conservation status of freshwater fishes. ► 83% of California’s inland fishes are extinct or declining, a 21% increase since 1989. ► Only 51% of 33 species rated as endangered were listed under state and federal endangered species acts. ► The rapid decline of California’s fishes is consistent with declines in other regions that are less well documented.
A quantitative protocol was developed to determine conservation status of all 129 freshwater fishes native to California. Seven (5%) were extinct; 33 (26%) were found to be in danger of extinction in the near future (endangered); 33 (26%) were rated as sufficiently threatened to be on a trajectory towards extinction if present trends continue (vulnerable); 34 (26%) were rated as declining species but not in immediate danger of extinction. Only 22 (17%) species were found to be of least concern. Of 31 species officially listed under federal and state endangered species acts (ESAs), 17 (55%) were rated as endangered by our criteria, while 12 (39%) were rated vulnerable. Conversely, of the 33 species that received our endangered rating, only 17 (51%) were officially listed under the ESAs. Among the seven metrics used to assess extinction threat, climate change, area occupied and anthropogenic threats had the largest negative impacts on status. Of 15 categories of causes of decline, those most likely to diminish status were alien species, agriculture, and dams. Overall, 83% of California’s freshwater fishes are extinct or at risk of becoming so, a 16% increase since 1995 and a 21% increase since 1989. The rapid decline of California’s inland fishes is probably typical of declines in other regions that are less well documented, indicating a strong need for improved conservation of freshwater ecosystems
.</description><subject>Agnatha. Pisces</subject><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Applied ecology</subject><subject>Aquatic conservation</subject><subject>Assessments</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Categories</subject><subject>Climate change</subject><subject>Conservation</subject><subject>Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife</subject><subject>ecosystems</subject><subject>Endangered</subject><subject>Extinction</subject><subject>Fish</subject><subject>Freshwater</subject><subject>freshwater fish</subject><subject>Freshwater fishes</subject><subject>Freshwaters</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Imperiled</subject><subject>indigenous species</subject><subject>introduced species</subject><subject>Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking</subject><subject>population dynamics</subject><subject>Risk</subject><subject>Vertebrates: general zoology, morphology, phylogeny, systematics, cytogenetics, geographical distribution</subject><issn>0006-3207</issn><issn>1873-2917</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kM-KFDEQh4MoOO76BoK5iKduK51Md8eDsAz-WVgQXPccMklFM_QkY6pnYW_7Gvt6PokZe_HoqSj46lc_PsZeCWgFiP7drt3G7HJqOxCihb4F6J6wlRgH2XRaDE_ZCgD6RnYwPGcviHZ1HWS_XrHLb_YQPffoppiQ58A3doohlxTt7_sH4snO8RZ5TJNNnodIP5He8wtOs52PxC0REu0xzefsWbAT4cvHecZuPn38vvnSXH39fLm5uGqc1N3cBB2cl84Pa-1Ru7XUUvoeatWtc77D3ncqyHGrfAggwQ3aWhiVha0LMIKQZ-ztknso-dcRaTb7SA6n2g_zkYyGQQzrfpSVVAvpSiYqGMyhxL0td0aAOYkzO7OIMydxBnpTxdWzN48PLDk7hWKTi_TvtlNqlEqd4l8vXLDZ2B-lMjfXNUgBCA3ib9UPC4HVx23EYshFTA59LOhm43P8f5U_rmKPyg</recordid><startdate>20111001</startdate><enddate>20111001</enddate><creator>Moyle, Peter B.</creator><creator>Katz, Jacob V.E.</creator><creator>Quiñones, Rebecca M.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20111001</creationdate><title>Rapid decline of California’s native inland fishes: A status assessment</title><author>Moyle, Peter B. ; Katz, Jacob V.E. ; Quiñones, Rebecca M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c392t-f9fcd3cd759de9c53933d60873bccd2e6d24f38b4dff030c79aa084a0bcf08013</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Agnatha. Pisces</topic><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Applied ecology</topic><topic>Aquatic conservation</topic><topic>Assessments</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Categories</topic><topic>Climate change</topic><topic>Conservation</topic><topic>Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife</topic><topic>ecosystems</topic><topic>Endangered</topic><topic>Extinction</topic><topic>Fish</topic><topic>Freshwater</topic><topic>freshwater fish</topic><topic>Freshwater fishes</topic><topic>Freshwaters</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Imperiled</topic><topic>indigenous species</topic><topic>introduced species</topic><topic>Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking</topic><topic>population dynamics</topic><topic>Risk</topic><topic>Vertebrates: general zoology, morphology, phylogeny, systematics, cytogenetics, geographical distribution</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Moyle, Peter B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Katz, Jacob V.E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quiñones, Rebecca M.</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Biological conservation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Moyle, Peter B.</au><au>Katz, Jacob V.E.</au><au>Quiñones, Rebecca M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Rapid decline of California’s native inland fishes: A status assessment</atitle><jtitle>Biological conservation</jtitle><date>2011-10-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>144</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>2414</spage><epage>2423</epage><pages>2414-2423</pages><issn>0006-3207</issn><eissn>1873-2917</eissn><coden>BICOBK</coden><abstract>► We developed a new protocol to determine conservation status of freshwater fishes. ► 83% of California’s inland fishes are extinct or declining, a 21% increase since 1989. ► Only 51% of 33 species rated as endangered were listed under state and federal endangered species acts. ► The rapid decline of California’s fishes is consistent with declines in other regions that are less well documented.
A quantitative protocol was developed to determine conservation status of all 129 freshwater fishes native to California. Seven (5%) were extinct; 33 (26%) were found to be in danger of extinction in the near future (endangered); 33 (26%) were rated as sufficiently threatened to be on a trajectory towards extinction if present trends continue (vulnerable); 34 (26%) were rated as declining species but not in immediate danger of extinction. Only 22 (17%) species were found to be of least concern. Of 31 species officially listed under federal and state endangered species acts (ESAs), 17 (55%) were rated as endangered by our criteria, while 12 (39%) were rated vulnerable. Conversely, of the 33 species that received our endangered rating, only 17 (51%) were officially listed under the ESAs. Among the seven metrics used to assess extinction threat, climate change, area occupied and anthropogenic threats had the largest negative impacts on status. Of 15 categories of causes of decline, those most likely to diminish status were alien species, agriculture, and dams. Overall, 83% of California’s freshwater fishes are extinct or at risk of becoming so, a 16% increase since 1995 and a 21% increase since 1989. The rapid decline of California’s inland fishes is probably typical of declines in other regions that are less well documented, indicating a strong need for improved conservation of freshwater ecosystems
.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.biocon.2011.06.002</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0006-3207 |
ispartof | Biological conservation, 2011-10, Vol.144 (10), p.2414-2423 |
issn | 0006-3207 1873-2917 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_907175683 |
source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
subjects | Agnatha. Pisces Animal, plant and microbial ecology Applied ecology Aquatic conservation Assessments Biodiversity Biological and medical sciences Categories Climate change Conservation Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife ecosystems Endangered Extinction Fish Freshwater freshwater fish Freshwater fishes Freshwaters Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Imperiled indigenous species introduced species Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking population dynamics Risk Vertebrates: general zoology, morphology, phylogeny, systematics, cytogenetics, geographical distribution |
title | Rapid decline of California’s native inland fishes: A status assessment |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T20%3A46%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Rapid%20decline%20of%20California%E2%80%99s%20native%20inland%20fishes:%20A%20status%20assessment&rft.jtitle=Biological%20conservation&rft.au=Moyle,%20Peter%20B.&rft.date=2011-10-01&rft.volume=144&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=2414&rft.epage=2423&rft.pages=2414-2423&rft.issn=0006-3207&rft.eissn=1873-2917&rft.coden=BICOBK&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.06.002&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E907175683%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=907175683&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0006320711002291&rfr_iscdi=true |