Wildlife Action Plan 2015 Revision Process White Paper
13. Population Size (survey, monitoring, and research priorities). Some populations are naturally dynamic because of life history strategies (r- versus k-selected species) while others may fuctuate on a generational, seasonal, or periodic basis depending on various environmental or biodiversity factors. Multiple strategies may be needed to understand the dynamics of a species’ population size so this metric will help prioritize the survey, mon- itoring, or research needs to understand a species’ population size. Scores are assigned based on the availability of data or knowledge about statewide population size.
What is the level of knowledge about the species’ population size in North Carolina?
(a) Population size is uncertain.
(b) Population size somewhat known but estimates are expected to have high variance.
(c) Population size somewhat known but estimates are expected to have low to moder- ate variance.
(d) Population size is well known.
14. Treats Assessment (research priorities). Tis metric is to independently prioritize each threat described in Metric 9 (see Conservation Concern category) for importance as a research topic for the species. Te maximum concern could be assigned to all threats but it would be unrealistic to expect adequate resources could be assigned or that it would be feasible to conduct research on all of the topics. A more reasonable approach is to consider how likely each threat category is to contribute to the extinction risk for a species over the next 10-year planning horizon. Tis time period correlates with the minimum requirement to reevaluate and revise the Wildlife Action Plan on a 10-year cycle. Each of the 11 threat categories will be ranked for priority as a research subject using a scale of 1–11 depending on the expected likelihood it will impact the species, with 1 rep- resenting the lowest priority and 11 representing the highest priority. For example, pollu- tion may be considered a high threat to a mussel species and be ranked 8 because some research is already available into the efects of pollution on mussel species. In comparison, biological resource use may be less likely to threaten a mussel species and be ranked 1 to indicate it is a low research priority. Te evaluation will result in a high (9–11), medium (5–8), or low (1–4) priority ranking based on the need for research. Te frequency of the scores will be reported for each threat as a means of evaluating and prioritizing research needs.
Metric 14 Threat Categories (see also Conservation Concern Metric 9) 1 Residential & commercial development 2 Agriculture & aquaculture
932
2015 NC Wildlife Action Plan
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online