Estimates of minimum viable population sizes for vertebrates and factors influencing those estimates

By D. H. Reed, J. O'Grady, Barry W. Brook, J. Ballou, R. Frankham. 2003

476 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/494f5dd5a6f9e813def6c0a5afd3bc720f832d59

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecological Modeling

In Ecology

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Genetics and extinction (2005, background): “This has been verified in laboratory populations of Drosophila, houseflies and mice (Frankham, 1995b; Bijlsma et al., 1999, 2000; Reed and Bryant, 2000; Reed et al., 2002, 2003).”
By the Numbers: How is Recovery Defined by the US Endangered Species Act? (2012, background): “…recovery objectives for the number of individuals were above or below the following thresholds recommended for viable populations: 7360 individuals (Reed et al. 2003); 5244 individuals for vertebrates, 15,992 for plants (Traill et al. 2007); and an effective population size of 10,000 (Lynch and…”
The relationship between population size and temporal variability in population size (2004, background): “However, Reed et al. (2003b) present evidence contrary to this hypothesis, suggesting that catastrophes are simply the extreme end of a continuous distribution of environmental disturbances with their frequency scaling to the generation length of the organism.”
Information needs for assessing critical habitat of freshwater fish (2006, methodology): “Although early research in PVA suggested that MVPs should vary over a wide range depending on the biology of a species (Lande 1988; Simberloff 1988), recent evidence suggests that there is less variation in MVPs among different taxa than previously thought (e.g., Reed et al. 2003).”
The frequency and severity of catastrophic die‐offs in vertebrates (2003, background): “We suggest that this distribution is consistent with population fluctuations being determined by environmental factors that are positively autocorrelated through time, producing red or pink (1/f) noise fluctuations (Pimm & Redfearn, 1988; Inchausti & Halley, 2001; Reed et al., 2003).”
Habitat use of the endangered butterfly Euphydryas maturna and forestry in Central Europe (2006, background): “A permanent supply of 17 ha is necessary to obtain 500 adults a year, and 170 ha to obtain 5000 adults a year (minimum viable populations resilient to demographic and environmental stochasticity, respectively; Reed et al., 2003).”
Pragmatic population viability targets in a rapidly changing world (2010, unknown): “Although our contention that conservationists often manage below a biologically reasonable extinction threshold is not new (see Tear et al., 1993; Reed et al., 2003), debate persists.”
Sampling Hubbell's neutral theory of biodiversity (2004, unknown): “Like Hubbell’s h, estimates of m are difficult, and it is not obvious that it shows clear geographical variation (Reed et al. 2003).”
What are the best correlates of predicted extinction risk (2004, background): “We have shown that catastrophes scale better to generations than years (Reed et al., 2003b), and genetic effects are known to scale to generations (Frankham et al., 2002).”
Extinction risk in fragmented habitats (2004, background): “Ultimately, conservation efforts should aim at developing contiguous blocks of habitat capable of supporting at least 2000 adult animals (Thomas, 1990; Reed et al., 2003a; Reed & Hobbs, 2003).”
How Many Animals Do We Want to Save? The Many Ways of Setting Population Target Levels for Conservation (2006, background): “Another review argued that as a rule of thumb, conservation efforts should aim to protect habitat for at least 7000 adults to ensure demographic sustainability (Reed et al. 2003).”
Relationship between Population Size and Fitness (2005, background): “Using demographic data from 102 natural populations of vertebrates, Reed et al. (2003b) found that decreasing the replacement rate (R0) by 50% increases the probability of extinction by approximately 250% on average over the course of 40 generations.”