The conservation genetics of Ash Meadows pupfish populations. I. The Warm Springs pupfish Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis

Meta-analysis reveals less sensitivity of non-native animals than natives to extreme weather worldwide

Extreme weather events (EWEs; for example, heatwaves, cold spells, storms, floods and droughts) and non-native species invasions are two major threats to global biodiversity and are increasing in both frequency and consequences. Here we synthesize 443 studies and apply multilevel mixed-effects metaregression analyses to compare the responses of 187 non-native and 1,852 native animal species across terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems to different types of EWE. Our results show that marine animals, regardless of whether they are non-native or native, are overall insensitive to EWEs, except for negative effects of heatwaves on native mollusks, corals and anemone. By contrast, terrestrial and freshwater non-native animals are only adversely affected by heatwaves and storms, respectively, whereas native animals negatively respond to heatwaves, cold spells and droughts in terrestrial ecosystems and are vulnerable to most EWEs except cold spells in freshwater ecosystems. On average, non-native animals displayed low abundance in terrestrial ecosystems, and decreased body condition and life history traits in freshwater ecosystems, whereas native animals displayed declines in body condition, life history traits, abundance, distribution and recovery in terrestrial ecosystems, and community structure in freshwater ecosystems. By identifying areas with high overlap between EWEs and EWE-tolerant non-native species, we also provide locations where native biodiversity might be adversely affected by their joint effects and where EWEs might facilitate the establishment and/or spread of non-native species under continuing global change.

The taxonomic basis of subspecies listed as threatened and endangered under the endangered species act

More than 170 subspecies are listed as threatened or endangered under the US Endangered Species Act. Most of these subspecies were described decades ago on the basis of geographical variation in morphology using relatively primitive taxonomic methods. The US Fish and Wildlife Service defaults to subspecies descriptions by taxonomists working with specific groups of organisms, but there is no single definition of subspecies across plants and animals. Valid tests today usually entail molecular analyses of variation within and among populations, although there is no reason that behavioral, ecological or molecular characters could not be used, and include tests for significant differences between samples of the putative endangered subspecies and its nearest geographic relatives. We evaluated data gathered since subspecies listed under the ESA were described finding about one-third are valid (distinct evolutionary taxa), one-third are not, and one-third have not been tested. Therefore, it should not be assumed that because a subspecies occurs in a checklist, it is taxonomically valid. If the US Fish and Wildlife Service intends to continue listing subspecies, we suggest that they convene taxonomic experts representing various groups of organisms to provide a minimal set of criteria for a subspecies to be listed under the ESA.