The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) allows listing of subspecies and other groupings below the rank of species. This provides the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service with a means to target the most critical unit in need of conservation. While roughly one-quarter of listed taxa are subspecies, these management agencies are hindered by uncertainties about taxonomic standards during listing or delisting activities. In a review of taxonomic publications and societies, we found few subspecies lists and none that stated standardized criteria for determining subspecific taxa. Lack of criteria is attributed to a centuries-old debate over species and subspecies concepts. However, the critical need to resolve this debate for ESA listings lead us to propose that minimal biological criteria to define disjunct subspecies (legally or taxonomically) should include the discreteness and significance criteria of Distinct Population Segments (as defined under the ESA). Our subspecies criteria are in stark contrast to that proposed by supporters of the Phylogenetic Species Concept and provide a clear distinction between species and subspecies. Efforts to eliminate or reduce ambiguity associated with subspecies-level classifications will assist with ESA listing decisions. Thus, we urge professional taxonomic societies to publish and periodically update peer-reviewed species and subspecies lists. This effort must be paralleled throughout the world for efficient taxonomic conservation to take place.

A comprehensive field and modeling study indicates vulnerability of tidal wetlands to sea-level rise on the U.S. Pacific coast.

No abstract

Waterfowl habitat conservation strategies in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) and several other wintering areas assume carrying capacity is limited by available food, and increasing food resources is an effective conservation goal. Because existing research on winter food abundance and depletion is insufficient to test this hypothesis, we used harvested rice fields as model foraging habitats to determine if waste rice seed is depleted before spring migration. We sampled rice fields (n = 39 [winter 2000–2001], n = 69 [2001–2002]) to estimate seed mass when waterfowl arrived in late autumn and departed in late winter. We also placed exclosures in subsets of fields in autumn (n = 8 [2000–2001], n = 20 [2001–2002]) and compared seed mass inside and outside exclosures in late winter to estimate rice depletion attributable to waterfowl and other processes. Finally, we used an experiment to determine if the extent of rice depletion differed among fields of varying initial abundance and if the seed mass at which waterfowl ceased foraging or abandoned fields differed from a hypothesized giving‐up value of 50 kg/ha. Mean seed mass was greater in late autumn 2000 than 2001 (127.0 vs. 83.9 kg/ha; P = 0.018) but decreased more during winter 2000–2001 than 2001–2002 (91.3 vs. 55.7 kg/ha) and did not differ at the end of winter (35.8 vs. 28.3 kg/ha; P = 0.651). Assuming equal loss to deterioration inside and outside exclosures, we estimated waterfowl consumed 61.3 kg/ha (48.3%) of rice present in late autumn 2000 and 21.1 kg/ha (25.1%) in 2001. When we manipulated late‐autumn rice abundance, mean giving‐up mass of rice seed was similar among treatments (48.7 kg/ha; P = 0.205) and did not differ from 50 kg/ha (P = 0.726). We integrated results by constructing scenarios in which waterfowl consumed rice at different times in winter, consumption and deterioration were competing risks, and consumption occurred only above 50 kg/ha. Results indicated waterfowl likely consumed available rice soon after fields were flooded and the amount consumed exceeded our empirical estimates but was ≤48% (winters pooled) of rice initially present. We suggest 1) using 50 kg/ha as a threshold below which profitability limits waterfowl feeding in MAV rice fields; 2) reducing the current estimate (130 kg/ha) of rice consumed in harvested fields to 47.1 kg/ha; and 3) increasing available rice by increasing total area of fields managed, altering management practices (e.g., staggered flooding), and exploring the potential for producing second or ratoon rice crops for waterfowl.

Airborne light detection and ranging (lidar) is a valuable tool for collecting large amounts of elevation data across large areas; however, the limited ability to penetrate dense vegetation with lidar hinders its usefulness for measuring tidal marsh platforms. Methods to correct lidar elevation data are available, but a reliable method that requires limited field work and maintains spatial resolution is lacking. We present a novel method, the Lidar Elevation Adjustment with NDVI (LEAN), to correct lidar digital elevation models (DEMs) with vegetation indices from freely available multispectral airborne imagery (NAIP) and RTK-GPS surveys. Using 17 study sites along the Pacific coast of the U.S., we achieved an average root mean squared error