Protecting and promoting recovery of species at risk of extinction is a critical component of biodiversity conservation. In Canada, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) determines whether species are at risk of extinction or extirpation, and has conducted these assessments since 1977. We examined trends in COSEWIC assessments to identify whether at-risk species that have been assessed more than once tended to improve, remain constant, or deteriorate in status, as a way of assessing the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation in Canada. Of 369 species that met our criteria for examination, 115 deteriorated, 202 remained unchanged, and 52 improved in status. Only 20 species (5.4%) improved to the point where they were ‘not at risk’, and five of those were due to increased sampling efforts rather than an increase in population size. Species outcomes were also dependent on the severity of their initial assessment; for example, 47% of species that were initially listed as special concern deteriorated between assessments. After receiving an at-risk assessment by COSEWIC, a species is considered for listing under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA), which is the primary national tool that mandates protection for at-risk species. We examined whether SARA-listing was associated with improved COSEWIC assessment outcomes relative to unlisted species. Of 305 species that had multiple assessments and were SARA-listed, 221 were listed at a level that required identification and protection of critical habitat; however, critical habitat was fully identified for only 56 of these species. We suggest that the Canadian government should formally identify and protect critical habitat, as is required by existing legislation. In addition, our finding that at-risk species in Canada rarely recover leads us to recommend that every effort be made to actively prevent species from becoming at-risk in the first place.
The Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, provides important feeding and rearing habitat for forage fish, such as Pacific Herring Clupea pallasii and Eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus as well as all species of North American Pacific salmon Oncorhynchus spp. during their juvenile out‐migration. In recent decades, this region has undergone large‐scale physical and biological changes. Pacific Herring and Pacific salmon populations have experienced dramatic population fluctuations, while Eulachon have failed to recover from precipitous declines in the 1990s. Archival records of stomach content data from the 1960s, collected primarily from juvenile Pacific salmon, Pacific Herring, and Eulachon, allowed us to investigate diet variability in these species 60 years ago. Consistent with contemporary reports, we found that all species except Eulachon had generalist diets. In contrast to recent studies finding that Pacific Herring are the most important fish prey, Eulachon were the most frequently consumed fish, occurring in 28% of all piscivorous fish stomachs. This suggests that Pacific Herring are an important component of some Pacific salmon diets now, but only because lipid‐rich Eulachon are no longer available. Chinook Salmon O. tshawytscha and Coho Salmon O. kisutch had the most similar diets, in part because of their greater piscivory. Species, length, and month and year of capture showed some explanatory power in differentiating the diets of the fish, although they explained less than 10% of total diet variation. Historical data, such as those presented here, offer a unique opportunity to investigate temporal differences in foraging ecology, informing management on how changes in the Strait of Georgia ecosystem may impact the trophic interactions between species.
Received September 30, 2015; accepted July 5, 2016
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.