PMID- 23354872
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20130730
LR  - 20211021
IS  - 1432-1009 (Electronic)
IS  - 0364-152X (Linking)
VI  - 51
IP  - 3
DP  - 2013 Mar
TI  - Identifying preservation and restoration priority areas for desert fishes in an 
      increasingly invaded world.
PG  - 631-41
LID - 10.1007/s00267-012-0013-5 [doi]
AB  - A commonly overlooked aspect of conservation planning assessments is that 
      wildlife managers are increasingly focused on habitats that contain non-native 
      species. We examine this management challenge in the Gila River basin 
      (150,730 km(2)), and present a new planning strategy for fish conservation. By 
      applying a hierarchical prioritization algorithm to >850,000 fish records in 
      27,181 sub-watersheds we first identified high priority areas (PAs) termed 
      "preservation PAs" with high native fish richness and low non-native richness; 
      these represent traditional conservation targets. Second, we identified 
      "restoration PAs" with high native fish richness that also contained high numbers 
      of non-native species; these represent less traditional conservation targets. The 
      top 10 % of preservation and restoration PAs contained common native species 
      (e.g., Catostomus clarkii, desert sucker; Catostomus insignis, Sonora sucker) in 
      addition to native species with limited distributions (i.e., Xyrauchen texanus, 
      razorback sucker; Oncorhynchus gilae apache, Apache trout). The top preservation 
      and restoration PAs overlapped by 42 %, indicating areas with high native fish 
      richness range from minimally to highly invaded. Areas exclusively identified as 
      restoration PAs also encompassed a greater percentage of native species ranges 
      than would be expected by the random addition of an equivalent basin area. 
      Restoration PAs identified an additional 19.0 and 26.6 % of the total ranges of 
      two federally endangered species-Meda fulgida (spikedace) and Gila intermedia 
      (Gila chub), respectively, compared to top preservation PAs alone-despite adding 
      only 5.8 % of basin area. We contend that in addition to preservation PAs, 
      restoration PAs are well suited for complementary management activities 
      benefiting native fishes.
FAU - Pool, Thomas K
AU  - Pool TK
AD  - School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 
      98195, USA. thomaspool@univ-tlse3.fr
FAU - Strecker, Angela L
AU  - Strecker AL
FAU - Olden, Julian D
AU  - Olden JD
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
DEP - 20130126
PL  - United States
TA  - Environ Manage
JT  - Environmental management
JID - 7703893
SB  - IM
MH  - Animals
MH  - *Biodiversity
MH  - Computer Simulation
MH  - Conservation of Natural Resources/*methods
MH  - Desert Climate
MH  - *Fishes
MH  - Introduced Species
MH  - *Models, Theoretical
MH  - Monte Carlo Method
MH  - Southwestern United States
MH  - Water Supply
EDAT- 2013/01/29 06:00
MHDA- 2013/07/31 06:00
CRDT- 2013/01/29 06:00
PHST- 2012/06/01 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2012/12/26 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2013/01/29 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2013/01/29 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2013/07/31 06:00 [medline]
AID - 10.1007/s00267-012-0013-5 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Environ Manage. 2013 Mar;51(3):631-41. doi: 10.1007/s00267-012-0013-5. Epub 2013 
      Jan 26.