Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36100759›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental management2022

Separating Proactive Conservation from Species Listing Decisions.

Adrienne I Kovach, Amanda E Cheeseman, Jonathan B Cohen, Chadwick D Rittenhouse, Christopher M Whipps

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Adrienne I KovachDepartment of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA. akovach@unh.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-6791-0610
Amanda E CheesemanSouth Dakota State University, Natural Resource Management, Brookings, SD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3744-0945
Jonathan B CohenDepartment of Environmental Biology, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7075-077X
Chadwick D RittenhouseDepartment of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Connecticut, Wildlife and Fisheries Conservation Center, Storrs, CT, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5897-0590
Christopher M WhippsDepartment of Environmental Biology, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6139-0426

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Proactive Conservation is a paradigm of natural resource management in the United States that encourages voluntary, collaborative efforts to restore species before they need to be protected through government regulations. This paradigm is widely used to conserve at-risk species today, and when used in conjunction with the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts (PECE), it allows for successful conservation actions to preclude listing of species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Despite the popularity of this paradigm, and recent flagship examples of its use (e.g., greater sage grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus), critical assessments of the outcomes of Proactive Conservation are lacking from the standpoint of species status and recovery metrics. Here, we provide such an evaluation, using the New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis), heralded as a success of Proactive Conservation efforts in the northeastern United States, as a case study. We review the history and current status of the species, based on the state of the science, in the context of the Conservation Initiative, and the 2015 PECE decision not to the list the species under the ESA. In addition to the impacts of the PECE decision on the New England cottontail conservation specifically, our review also evaluates the benefits and limits of the Proactive Conservation paradigm more broadly, and we make recommendations for its role in relation to ESA implementation for the future of at-risk species management. We find that the status and assurances for recovery under the PECE policy, presented at the time of the New England cottontail listing decision, were overly optimistic, and the status of the species has worsened in subsequent years. We suggest that use of PECE to avoid listing may occur because of the perception of the ESA as a punitive law and a misconception that it is a failure, although very few listed species have gone extinct. Redefining recovery to decouple it from delisting and instead link it to probability of persistence under recommended conservation measures would remove some of the stigma of listing, and it would strengthen the role of Species Status Assessments in endangered species conservation.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesEndangered SpeciesAnimalsNew EnglandProbabilityUnited StatesCooperative conservationEndangered Species Act (ESA)New England cottontailPECE policyProactive ConservationSpecies status assessment

Identifiers

PMID36100759
PMCPMC9470069

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.