research on endangered species

Endangered Species

An endangered species is a type of organism that is threatened by extinction. Species become endangered for two main reasons: loss of habitat and loss of genetic variation.

Biology, Ecology, Geography, Conservation

Loading ...

An endangered species is a type of organism that is threatened by extinction . Species become endangered for two main reasons: loss of habitat and loss of genetic variation . Loss of Habitat A loss of habitat can happen naturally. Nonavian dinosaurs , for instance, lost their habitat about 65 million years ago. The hot, dry climate of the Cretaceous period changed very quickly, most likely because of an asteroid striking Earth. The impact of the asteroid forced debris into the atmosphere , reducing the amount of heat and light that reached Earth’s surface. The dinosaurs were unable to adapt to this new, cooler habitat. Nonavian dinosaurs became endangered, then extinct . Human activity can also contribute to a loss of habitat. Development for housing, industry , and agriculture reduces the habitat of native organisms. This can happen in a number of different ways. Development can eliminate habitat and native species directly. In the Amazon rainforest of South America, developers have cleared hundreds of thousands of acres. To “clear” a piece of land is to remove all trees and vegetation from it. The Amazon rainforest is cleared for cattle ranches , logging , and ur ban use. Development can also endanger species indirectly. Some species, such as fig trees of the rainforest, may provide habitat for other species. As trees are destroyed, species that depend on that tree habitat may also become endangered. Tree crowns provide habitat in the canopy , or top layer, of a rainforest . Plants such as vines, fungi such as mushrooms, and insects such as butterflies live in the rainforest canopy. So do hundreds of species of tropical birds and mammals such as monkeys. As trees are cut down, this habitat is lost. Species have less room to live and reproduce . Loss of habitat may happen as development takes place in a species range . Many animals have a range of hundreds of square kilometers. The mountain lion ( Puma concolor ) of North America, for instance, has a range of up to 1,000 square kilometers (386 square miles). To successfully live and reproduce, a single mountain lion patrols this much territory. Urban areas , such as Los Angeles, California, U.S.A., and Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, grew rapidly during the 20th century. As these areas expanded into the wilderness, the mountain lion’s habitat became smaller. That means the habitat can support fewer mountain lions. Because enormous parts of the Sierra Nevada, Rocky, and Cascade mountain ranges remain undeveloped, however, mountain lions are not endangered. Loss of habitat can also lead to increased encounters between wild species and people. As development brings people deeper into a species range, they may have more exposure to wild species. Poisonous plants and fungi may grow closer to homes and schools. Wild animals are also spotted more frequently . These animals are simply patrolling their range, but interaction with people can be deadly. Polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ), mountain lions, and alligators are all predators brought into close contact with people as they lose their habitat to homes, farms , and businesses. As people kill these wild animals, through pesticides , accidents such as collisions with cars, or hunting, native species may become endangered.

Loss of Genetic Variation Genetic variation is the diversity found within a species. It’s why human beings may have blond, red, brown, or black hair. Genetic variation allows species to adapt to changes in the environment. Usually, the greater the population of a species, the greater its genetic variation. Inbreeding is reproduction with close family members. Groups of species that have a tendency to inbreed usually have little genetic variation, because no new genetic information is introduced to the group. Disease is much more common, and much more deadly, among inbred groups. Inbred species do not have the genetic variation to develop resistance to the disease. For this reason, fewer offspring of inbred groups survive to maturity. Loss of genetic variation can occur naturally. Cheetahs ( Acinonyx jubatus ) are a threatened species native to Africa and Asia. These big cats have very little genetic variation. Biologists say that during the last Ice Age , cheetahs went through a long period of inbreeding. As a result, there are very few genetic differences between cheetahs. They cannot adapt to changes in the environment as quickly as other animals, and fewer cheetahs survive to maturity. Cheetahs are also much more difficult to breed in captivity than other big cats, such as lions ( Panthera leo ). Human activity can also lead to a loss of genetic variation. Overhunting and overfishing have reduced the populations of many animals. Reduced population means there are fewer breeding pairs . A breeding pair is made up of two mature members of the species that are not closely related and can produce healthy offspring. With fewer breeding pairs, genetic variation shrinks. Monoculture , the agricultural method of growing a single crop , can also reduce genetic variation. Modern agribusiness relies on monocultures. Almost all potatoes cultivated , sold, and consumed, for instance, are from a single species, the Russet Burbank ( Solanum tuberosum ). Potatoes, native to the Andes Mountains of South America, have dozens of natural varieties. The genetic variation of wild potatoes allows them to adapt to climate change and disease. For Russet Burbanks, however, farmers must use fertilizers and pesticides to ensure healthy crops because the plant has almost no genetic variation. Plant breeders often go back to wild varieties to collect genes that will help cultivated plants resist pests and drought, and adapt to climate change. However, climate change is also threatening wild varieties. That means domesticated plants may lose an important source of traits that help them overcome new threats. The Red List The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) keeps a “Red List of Threatened Species.” The Red List de fines the severity and specific causes of a species’ threat of extinction. The Red List has seven levels of conservation: least concern , near threatened , vulnerable, endangered, critically endangered , extinct in the wild , and extinct. Each category represents a different threat level. Species that are not threatened by extinction are placed within the first two categories—least concern and near-threatened. Those that are most threatened are placed within the next three categories, known as the threatened categories —vulnerable, endangered, and critically endangered. Those species that are extinct in some form are placed within the last two categories—extinct in the wild and extinct. Classifying a species as endangered has to do with its range and habitat, as well as its actual population. For this reason, a species can be of least concern in one area and endangered in another. The gray whale ( Eschrichtius robustus ), for instance, has a healthy population in the eastern Pacific Ocean, along the coast of North and South America. The population in the western Pacific, however, is critically endangered.

Least Concern Least concern is the lowest level of conservation . A species of least concern is one that has a widespread and abundant population. Human beings are a species of least concern, along with most domestic animals , such as dogs ( Canis familiaris ) and cats ( Felis catus ). Many wild animals, such as pigeons and houseflies ( Musca domestica ), are also classified as least concern. Near Threatened A near threatened species is one that is likely to qualify for a threatened category in the near future. Many species of violets , native to tropical jungles in South America and Africa, are near threatened, for instance. They have healthy populations, but their rainforest habitat is disappearing at a fast pace. People are cutting down huge areas of rainforest for development and timber . Many violet species are likely to become threatened. Vulnerable Species The definitions of the three threatened categories (vulnerable, endangered, and critically endangered) are based on five criteria: population reduction rate , geographic range, population size, population restrictions , and probability of extinction . Threatened categories have different thresholds for these criteria. As the population and range of the species decreases, the species becomes more threatened. 1) Population reduction rate A species is classified as vulnerable if its population has declined between 30 and 50 percent. This decline is measured over 10 years or three generations of the species, whichever is longer. A generation is the period of time between the birth of an animal and the time it is able to reproduce. Mice are able to reproduce when they are about one month old. Mouse populations are mostly tracked over 10-year periods. An elephant's generation lasts about 15 years. So, elephant populations are measured over 45-year periods. A species is vulnerable if its population has declined at least 50 percent and the cause of the decline is known. Habitat loss is the leading known cause of population decline. A species is also classified as vulnerable if its population has declined at least 30 percent and the cause of the decline is not known. A new, unknown virus , for example, could kill hundreds or even thousands of individuals before being identified. 2) Geographic range A species is vulnerable if its “ extent of occurrence ” is estimated to be less than 20,000 square kilometers (7,722 square miles). An extent of occurrence is the smallest area that could contain all sites of a species’ population. If all members of a species could survive in a single area, the size of that area is the species’ extent of occurrence. A species is also classified as vulnerable if its “ area of occupancy ” is estimated to be less than 2,000 square kilometers (772 square miles). An area of occupancy is where a specific population of that species resides. This area is often a breeding or nesting site in a species range. 3) Population size Species with fewer than 10,000 mature individuals are vulnerable. The species is also vulnerable if that population declines by at least 10 percent within 10 years or three generations, whichever is longer. 4) Population restrictions Population restriction is a combination of population and area of occupancy. A species is vulnerable if it is restricted to less than 1,000 mature individuals or an area of occupancy of less than 20 square kilometers (8 square miles). 5) Probability of extinction in the wild is at least 10 percent within 100 years. Biologists, anthropologists, meteorologists , and other scientists have developed complex ways to determine a species’ probability of extinction. These formulas calculate the chances a species can survive, without human protection, in the wild. Vulnerable Species: Ethiopian Banana Frog The Ethiopian banana frog ( Afrixalus enseticola ) is a small frog native to high- altitude areas of southern Ethiopia. It is a vulnerable species because its area of occupancy is less than 2,000 square kilometers (772 square miles). The extent and quality of its forest habitat are in decline. Threats to this habitat include forest clearance, mostly for housing and agriculture. Vulnerable Species: Snaggletooth Shark The snaggletooth shark ( Hemipristis elongatus ) is found in the tropical, coastal waters of the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Its area of occupancy is enormous, from Southeast Africa to the Philippines, and from China to Australia. However, the snaggletooth shark is a vulnerable species because of a severe population reduction rate. Its population has fallen more than 10 percent over 10 years. The number of these sharks is declining due to fisheries, especially in the Java Sea and Gulf of Thailand. The snaggletooth shark’s flesh, fins, and liver are considered high-quality foods. They are sold in commercial fish markets, as well as restaurants. Vulnerable Species: Galapagos Kelp Galapagos kelp ( Eisenia galapagensis ) is a type of seaweed only found near the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific Ocean. Galapagos kelp is classified as vulnerable because its population has declined more than 10 percent over 10 years. Climate change is the leading cause of decline among Galapagos kelp. El Niño, the natural weather pattern that brings unusually warm water to the Galapagos, is the leading agent of climate change in this area. Galapagos kelp is a cold-water species and does not adapt quickly to changes in water temperature.

Endangered Species 1) Population reduction rate A species is classified as endangered when its population has declined between 50 and 70 percent. This decline is measured over 10 years or three generations of the species, whichever is longer. A species is classified as endangered when its population has declined at least 70 percent and the cause of the decline is known. A species is also classified as endangered when its population has declined at least 50 percent and the cause of the decline is not known. 2) Geographic range An endangered species’ extent of occurrence is less than 5,000 square kilometers (1,930 square miles). An endangered species’ area of occupancy is less than 500 square kilometers (193 square miles). 3) Population size A species is classified as endangered when there are fewer than 2,500 mature individuals. When a species population declines by at least 20 percent within five years or two generations, it is also classified as endangered. 4) Population restrictions A species is classified as endangered when its population is restricted to less than 250 mature individuals. When a species’ population is this low, its area of occupancy is not considered. 5) Probability of extinction in the wild is at least 20 percent within 20 years or five generations, whichever is longer.

Endangered Species: Scimitar -horned Oryx The scimitar-horned oryx ( Oryx dammah ) is a species of antelope with long horns. Its range extends across northern Africa. Previously, the scimitar-horned oryx was listed as extinct in the wild because the last confirmed sighting of one was in 1988. However, the first group of scimitar-horned oryx was released back into the wild in Chad, in August 2016, and the population is growing. Overhunting and habitat loss, including competition with domestic livestock , are the main reasons for the decline of the oryx’s wild population. Captive herds are now kept in protected areas of Tunisia, Senegal, and Morocco. Scimitar-horned oryxes are also found in many zoos . Critically Endangered Species 1) Population reduction rate A critically endangered species’ population has declined between 80 and 90 percent. This decline is measured over 10 years or three generations of the species, whichever is longer. A species is classified as critically endangered when its population has declined at least 90 percent and the cause of the decline is known. A species is also classified as endangered when its population has declined at least 80 percent and the cause of the decline is not known. 2) Geographic range A critically endangered species’ extent of occurrence is less than 100 square kilometers (39 square miles). A critically endangered species’ area of occupancy is estimated to be less than 10 square kilometers (4 square miles). 3) Population size A species is classified as critically endangered when there are fewer than 250 mature individuals. A species is also classified as critically endangered when the number of mature individuals declines by at least 25 percent within three years or one generation, whichever is longer. 4) Population restrictions A species is classified as critically endangered when its population is restricted to less than 50 mature individuals. When a species’ population is this low, its area of occupancy is not considered. 5) Probability of extinction in the wild is at least 50 percent within 10 years or three generations, whichever is longer. Critically Endangered Species: Bolivian Chinchilla Rat The Bolivian chinchilla rat ( Abrocoma boliviensis ) is a rodent found in a small section of the Santa Cruz region of Bolivia. It is critically endangered because its extent of occurrence is less than 100 square kilometers (39 square miles). The major threat to this species is loss of its cloud forest habitat. People are clearing forests to create cattle pastures .

Critically Endangered Species: Transcaucasian Racerunner The Transcaucasian racerunner ( Eremias pleskei ) is a lizard found on the Armenian Plateau , located in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, and Turkey. The Transcaucasian racerunner is a critically endangered species because of a huge population decline, estimated at more than 80 percent during the past 10 years. Threats to this species include the salination , or increased saltiness, of soil . Fertilizers used for agricultural development seep into the soil, increasing its saltiness. Racerunners live in and among the rocks and soil, and cannot adapt to the increased salt in their food and shelter. The racerunner is also losing habitat as people create trash dumps on their area of occupancy. Critically Endangered Species: White Ferula Mushroom The white ferula mushroom ( Pleurotus nebrodensis ) is a critically endangered species of fungus. The mushroom is critically endangered because its extent of occurrence is less than 100 square kilometers (39 square miles). It is only found in the northern part of the Italian island of Sicily, in the Mediterranean Sea. The leading threats to white ferula mushrooms are loss of habitat and overharvesting. White ferula mushrooms are a gourmet food item. Farmers and amateur mushroom hunters harvest the fungus for food and profit. The mushrooms can be sold for up to $100 per kilogram (2.2 pounds). Extinct in the Wild A species is extinct in the wild when it only survives in cultivation (plants), in captivity (animals), or as a population well outside its established range. A species may be listed as extinct in the wild only after years of surveys have failed to record an individual in its native or expected habitat.

Extinct in the Wild: Monut Kaala Cyanea The Mount Kaala cyanea ( Cyanea superba ) is a large, flowering tree native to the island of Oahu, in the U.S. state of Hawai‘i. The Mount Kaala cyanea has large, broad leaves and fleshy fruit. The tree is extinct in the wild largely because of invasive species. Non-native plants crowded the cyanea out of its habitat, and non-native animals such as pigs, rats, and slugs ate its fruit more quickly than it could reproduce. Mount Kaala cyanea trees survive in tropical nurseries and botanical gardens . Many botanists and conservationists look forward to establishing a new population in the wild. Extinct A species is extinct when there is no reasonable doubt that the last remaining individual of that species has died. Extinct: Cuban Macaw The Cuban macaw ( Ara tricolor ) was a tropical parrot native to Cuba and a small Cuban island, Isla de la Juventud. Hunting and collecting the birds for pets led to the bird’s extinction. The last specimen of the Cuban macaw was collected in 1864. Extinct: Ridley’s Stick Insect Ridley’s stick insect ( Pseudobactricia ridleyi ) was native to the tropical jungle of the island of Singapore. This insect, whose long, segmented body resembled a tree limb, is only known through a single specimen, collected more than 100 years ago. During the 20th century, Singapore experienced rapid development. Almost the entire jungle was cleared, depriving the insect of its habitat.

Endangered Species and People When a species is classified as endangered, governments and international organizations can work to protect it. Laws may limit hunting and destruction of the species’ habitat. Individuals and organizations that break these laws may face huge fines. Because of such actions, many species have recovered from their endangered status. The brown pelican ( Pelecanus occidentalis ) was taken off the endangered species list in 2009, for instance. This seabird is native to the coasts of North America and South America, as well as the islands of the Caribbean Sea. It is the state bird of the U.S. state of Louisiana. In 1970, the number of brown pelicans in the wild was estimated at 10,000. The bird was classified as vulnerable. During the 1970s and 1980s, governments and conservation groups worked to help the brown pelican recover. Young chicks were reared in hatching sites, then released into the wild. Human access to nesting sites was severely restricted. The pesticide DDT , which damaged the eggs of the brown pelican, was banned. During the 1980s, the number of brown pelicans soared. In 1988, the IUCN “delisted” the brown pelican. The bird, whose population is now in the hundreds of thousands, is now in the category of least concern.

Convention on Biological Diversity The Convention on Biological Diversity is an international treaty to sustain and protect the diversity of life on Earth. This includes conservation, sustainability, and sharing the benefits of genetic research and resources. The Convention on Biological Diversity has adopted the IUCN Red List of endangered species in order to monitor and research species' population and habitats. Three nations have not ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity: Andorra, the Holy See (Vatican), and the United States.

Lonesome George Lonesome George was the only living member of the Pinta Island tortoise ( Chelonoidis abingdoni ) known to exist. The Pinta Island tortoise was only found on Pinta, one of the Galapagos Islands. The Charles Darwin Research Station, a scientific facility in the Galapagos, offered a $10,000 reward to any zoo or individual for locating a single Pinta Island tortoise female. On June 25, 2012, Lonesome George died, leaving one more extinct species in the world.

Audio & Video

Articles & profiles, media credits.

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Illustrators

Educator reviewer, last updated.

August 20, 2024

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

Endangered Species

Great Nicobar Island Is a Paradise in Danger

A container port the Indian government plans for this remote island threatens unique Indigenous cultures and biodiversity

Madhusree Mukerjee

How a Cloned Ferret Inspired a DNA Bank for Endangered Species

The birth of a cloned black-footed ferret named Elizabeth Ann, and her two new sisters, has sparked a new pilot program to preserve the tissues of hundreds of endangered species “just in case”

Deepwater Sharks Are Threatened by Demand for Liver Oil

One in seven species of deepwater sharks and rays is threatened with extinction because of the liver oil and meat trade and emerging fishing technologies that make it possible to catch deep-sea fishes

David Shiffman

Antarctica’s Penguins Could Be Devastated by Avian Influenza

Scientists are watching closely to see whether avian influenza will reach Antarctica before this year’s penguin chicks disperse for the season

Meghan Bartels

Which Lost Species May be Found Again? Huge Study Reveals Clues

There are 856 mammal, bird, amphibian and reptile species currently missing—but researchers continue to search

Daniel Shailer

Cats Kill a Staggering Number of Species across the World

Domestic cats are cherished human companions, but a new study shows the enormous breadth of species the felines prey on when they are left to roam freely

Jack Tamisiea

Golden Mole That Swims through Sand Rediscovered after 86 Years

The iridescent, blind De Winton’s golden mole was last seen in 1937 and later declared officially lost. But scientists have since rediscovered it by tracking its environmental DNA

Samantha Mynhardt, The Conversation US

Restoring the Planet Will Need More than a Climate Price Tag

We can’t put a price on a healthy biosphere. We must instead reorient our economy into one that values the living world

Chirag Dhara, Vandana Singh

Protecting Plants and Animals at Risk Must Start before They Need the Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act is an emergency measure turning 50 this year. Focusing on ecosystem preservation can keep us from ever needing it

The Editors

How AI Can Help Save Endangered Species

Scientists are using artificial intelligence to fight biodiversity loss by analysing vast amounts of data, monitoring ecosystems and spotting trends over time

Tosin Thompson, Nature magazine

Millions of Mosquitoes Will Rain Down on Hawaii to Save an Iconic Bird

Hawaii’s brightly colored honeycreepers are at imminent risk of extinction, and bacteria could be the key to saving them

Wind Energy Could Get Safer for Bats with New Research

Wind turbines threaten several bat species, but the Biden administration is funding research to reduce casualties

Minho Kim, E&E News

More than 45,300 species are threatened with extinction

That is still 28% of all assessed species.

Sharks & Rays

Reef corals

Selected Crustaceans

Help us make The IUCN Red List a more complete barometer of life.

News from IUCN

Bornean Elephant Endangered - IUCN Red List

The latest IUCN Red List (2024-1) reveals the Bornean Elephant is Endangered due to human activities, invasive snakes are driving endemic reptiles on the Canary Islands and Ibiza to extinction, while illegal trade and climate change threaten cacti in Chile.

Iberian Lynx rebounding thanks to conservation action

The Iberian Lynx has improved from Endangered to Vulnerable on The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ [new assessment to be published on the Red List on 27 June], continuing its dramatic recovery from near extinction thanks to sustained conservation efforts.

Partnership continues in efforts to safeguard global coral reefs amid fourth global bleaching event

Against the backdrop of the ongoing fourth global coral bleaching event, IUCN, Arizona State University, Cordio East Africa, and the MSC Foundation are intensifying their collaborative efforts to address the escalating threat facing coral reefs worldwide.

What is The IUCN Red List?

Established in 1964, The International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List of Threatened Species has evolved to become the world’s most comprehensive information source on the global conservation status of animal, fungi and plant species.

The IUCN Red List is a critical indicator of the health of the world’s biodiversity. Far more than a list of species and their status, it is a powerful tool to inform and catalyze action for biodiversity conservation and policy change, critical to protecting the natural resources we need to survive. It provides information about range, population size, habitat and ecology, use and/or trade, threats, and conservation actions that will help inform necessary conservation decisions.

The IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria

The IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria are intended to be an easily and widely understood system for classifying species at high risk of global extinction. It divides species into nine categories: Not Evaluated , Data Deficient , Least Concern , Near Threatened , Vulnerable , Endangered , Critically Endangered , Extinct in the Wild and Extinct .

Data Deficient (DD)

A taxon is Data Deficient (DD) when there is inadequate information to make a direct, or indirect, assessment of its risk of extinction based on its distribution and/or population status. A taxon in this category may be well studied, and its biology well known, but appropriate data on abundance and/or distribution are lacking.

Species categorized as Data Deficient (DD)

Least Concern (LC)

A taxon is Least Concern (LC) when it has been evaluated against the Red List criteria and does not qualify for Critically Endangered , Endangered , Vulnerable or Near Threatened .

Near Threatened (NT)

A taxon is Near Threatened (NT) when it has been evaluated against the criteria but does not qualify for Critically Endangered , Endangered or Vulnerable now, but is close to qualifying for or is likely to qualify for a threatened category in the near future.

Species categorized as Near Threatened (NT)

Vulnerable (VU)

A taxon is Vulnerable (VU) when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for Vulnerable, and it is therefore considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild.

Species categorized as Vulnerable (VU)

Endangered (EN)

A taxon is Endangered (EN) when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for Endangered, and it is therefore considered to be facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild.

Species categorized as Endangered (EN)

Critically Endangered (CR)

A taxon is Critically Endangered (CR) when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for Critically Endangered, and it is therefore considered to be facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild.

Species categorized as Critically Endangered (CR)

Extinct in the Wild (EW)

A taxon is Extinct in the Wild (EW) when it is known only to survive in cultivation, in captivity or as a naturalized population (or populations) well outside the past range. A taxon is presumed Extinct in the Wild when exhaustive surveys in known and/or expected habitat, at appropriate times (diurnal, seasonal, annual), throughout its historic range have failed to record an individual. Surveys should be over a time frame appropriate to the taxon's life cycle and life form.

Species categorized as Extinct in the Wild (EW)

Extinct (EX)

A taxon is Extinct (EX) when there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died. A taxon is presumed Extinct when exhaustive surveys in known and/or expected habitat, at appropriate times (diurnal, seasonal, annual), throughout its historic range have failed to record an individual. Surveys should be over a time frame appropriate to the taxon's life cycle and life form.

Species categorized as Extinct (EX)

Not Evaluated (NE)

A taxon is Not Evaluated (NE) when it has not yet been evaluated against the criteria.

Not Evaluated (NE) species are not published on the IUCN Red List

To date, more than 163,000 species have been assessed for The IUCN Red List.

This is an incredible achievement. However, our work is nowhere near complete. We need to substantially increase the number of wild species assessed, particularly plants, invertebrates and fungi.

Our current goals, based on the IUCN Red List Strategic Plan (2021-2030), are to have 260,000 species assessed and to reassess 142,000 of those species to ensure the information on their status is up-to-date so that we can monitor trends in change of status. Meeting these goals will provide the most up-to-date indication of the health of the world’s biodiversity to guide critical conservation action. This is only achievable with support from people like you.

You must log in to access advanced IUCN Red List functionality. Please enter your e-mail address and password below.

To save searches and access a historical view of information you have downloaded you are required to register for an account.

• Subscription Information
• Terms of Use
• Excellence in Ecology Books
• Marine Ecology Books
• Diseases of Marine Animals Books
• Author Guidelines
• Authorship Policy
• Conflict of Interest Policy
• Open Access
• Rights & Permissions
• Transformative Journals
• For Librarians
• Ecology Institute
• Otto Kinne Foundation
• Job Openings
• Contact the journal
• Mailing List
• Latest Volume
• About the Journal

Endangered Species Research (ESR) was founded in 2004 by leading ecologist Professor Otto Kinne as a major stage for publications on the ecology of endangered life, its requirements for survival, and its protection.

ESR has grown dynamically and is recognised as a central journal in this vital field. With its Editorial Board of acknowledged experts from around the world, it attracts papers on a wide range of subjects and species. It publishes Research Articles, Reviews, and Notes, as well as Comments/Reply Comments, Theme Sections and Opinion Pieces. (For more details see the Guidelines for Authors .)

Like all Inter-Research journals, ESR maintains the highest scientific standards in both manuscript review and production. All articles are published online with author-funded Open Access. Fees (Article Processing Charges - APCs) are very reasonable and special support can be applied for by authors from poorer countries (see ‘Open Access’ tab for details). The Impact Factor for 2023 (Journal Citation Reports 2024 Release) is 2.6 from 3111 total cites (5-year IF = 2.8), Immediacy Index = 0.5, Eigenfactor = 0.00221, JCI = 0.75, and Scimago ranks ESR in the first quartile in the categories 'Ecology' and 'Nature and Landscape Conservation'. ESR's strong presence in the Social Media is demonstrated by unusually high Altmetric scores — Altmetric reports that '…research outputs from this source typically receive a lot more attention than average'.

ESR aims at providing knowledge needed for practising human stewardship of the vast array of the earth’s species, many of which have become threatened, not least by human activities. Such stewardship has become vital for the future of the planet and is of primary importance for the long-term survival of Homo sapiens . While acknowledging that conservation has to occur at a landscape and ecosystem scale, there will always be a need to focus on certain species whose existence is in particular danger. ESR seeks to publish the best of such research that informs conservation or management.

ESR is international and interdisciplinary. It covers all endangered forms of life on Earth, the threats faced by species and their habitats and the necessary steps that must be undertaken to ensure their conservation. ESR publishes high quality contributions reporting research on all species (and habitats) of conservation concern, whether they be classified as Near Threatened or Threatened (Endangered or Vulnerable) by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) or highlighted as part of national or regional conservation strategies. Submissions on all aspects of conservation science are welcome.

We especially invite contributions that synthesise key areas. Suggestions for Theme Sections on emerging topics of importance are invited. All submitted manuscripts will be subject to a thorough review process involving at least three reviewers. Current acceptance rates are about 50%.

Please submit manuscripts through the online management system or via e-mail to the Editor-in-Chief via the ESR Managing Editor (for details consult GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS ).

Criticism and advice are invited (address to the Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Brendan J. Godley B.J.Godley(at)exeter.ac.uk ).

Production schedule

ESR volumes are built online, with articles appearing as soon as editorial modifications are approved by the authors. Production time (final acceptance to online publication) is 4-6 weeks. 

ESR encourages and facilitates the incorporation of essential supplementary material –– such as movies or oversize tables, figures or mathematics –– to assist authors in more effectively transmitting their research results.

High quality color illustrations are welcome and will be published without extra charge.

Article Processing Charges

ESR is published entirely Open Access (see the IR Open Access policy for details) under the Creative Commons by Attribution (CC-BY) Licence . Please refer to the ‘Open Access’ tab on the present page for pricing details as well as options for discounts and waivers for authors from certain countries. ESR does not charge authors for color figures or any additional page charges.

Authors, Reviewers and Editors must disclose relationships (e.g. financial, economic, institutional) that may affect the integrity of the scientific process. Please refer to our Conflict of Interest Policy for details.

Inter-Research journals are following the Committee of Publication Ethics advice on neutrality for editorial decisions. In brief, editorial decisions in Inter-Research journals shall not be affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race or religion of the authors. Decisions to review, edit and publish shall not be determined by the policies of governments or other agencies, but just by the journals themselves, and are purely based on scientific merit of the submitted work and the work’s fit within each journal’s scope.

ESR is published entirely Open Access under the Creative Commons by Attribution (CC-BY) Licence .

The APC is based on article type and date of article submission, so the final APC price is already fixed for APC funding applications necessary prior to article submission.

The Article Processing Charges (APCs) are:

Articles submitted on or after 1 November 2022

• €2500 for Research or Review articles
• €1250 for Notes
• € 650 for Opinion Pieces or Comments

Articles submitted on or after 1 June 2021 and before 1 November 2022

• €2000 for Research or Review articles
• €1000 for Notes
• € 500 for Opinion Pieces or Comments

No additional page charges apply.

Tax information

For purchases in the European Union, the VAT number of the paying institution must be provided, otherwise VAT will be added at the standard rate for the country of the purchaser. For Germany, VAT at 7% will always be added.

Fee discounts or waivers

Authors of studies originating from countries where limited funds are available for APCs can request to have the APC reduced or waived. Applications will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and will require the provision to Inter-Research of specific funding and other resourcing information related to the study. In general a study must have been funded to at least 50% by a country eligible for the Research4Life program or classified by the World Bank as low or lower-middle income. Please apply to Feewaiver before submitting your manuscript.

Creative Commons labelling

Only articles clearly marked with "CC BY" in the top right corner of the front page are published with the Creative Commons by Attribution Licence. The CC-BY option was not available for Inter-Research journals before 1 April 2013. Articles marked "Open Access" or "Free Access" but not marked "CC BY" are made freely accessible to all users at the time of publication but are subject to standard copyright law regarding reproduction and distribution.

ESR is fully Open Access (author-pays model). 

All ESR articles are available online and are freely accessible to all users. As from Volume 29 (2015/16), the print version has been discontinued. Thus subscriptions are no longer available.

Back print issues are available for substantially reduced prices; for details write to the publisher.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Extinction and the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Noah greenwald.

1 Center for Biological Diversity, Portland, OR, USA

Kieran F. Suckling

2 Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, AZ, USA

Brett Hartl

3 Center for Biological Diversity, Washington, DC, USA

Loyal A. Mehrhoff

4 Center for Biological Diversity, Honolulu, HI, USA

Associated Data

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The raw data are available in a Supplementary File and include a complete list of the species we identified as extinct or possibly extinct along with all supporting information.

The U.S. Endangered Species Act is one of the strongest laws of any nation for preventing species extinction, but quantifying the Act’s effectiveness has proven difficult. To provide one measure of effectiveness, we identified listed species that have gone extinct and used previously developed methods to update an estimate of the number of species extinctions prevented by the Act. To date, only four species have been confirmed extinct with another 22 possibly extinct following protection. Another 71 listed species are extinct or possibly extinct, but were last seen before protections were enacted, meaning the Act’s protections never had the opportunity to save these species. In contrast, a total of 39 species have been fully recovered, including 23 in the last 10 years. We estimate the Endangered Species Act has prevented the extinction of roughly 291 species since passage in 1973, and has to date saved more than 99% of species under its protection.

Introduction

Passed in 1973, the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) includes strong protections for listed threatened and endangered species and has helped stabilize and recover hundreds of listed species, such as the bald eagle and gray whale ( Taylor, Suckling & Rachlinski, 2005 ; Schwartz, 2008 ; Suckling et al., 2016 ). In part because of its strong protections, the ESA has engendered substantial opposition from industry lobby groups, who perceive the law as threatening their profits and have been effective in generating opposition to species protections among members of the U.S. Congress. One common refrain from opponents of the ESA in Congress and elsewhere is that the law is a failure because only 2% of listed species have been fully recovered and delisted ( Bishop, 2013 ).

The number of delistings, however, is a poor measure of the success of the ESA because most species have not been protected for sufficient time such that they would be expected to have recovered. Suckling et al. (2016) , for example, found that on average listed birds had been protected just 36 years, but their federal recovery plans estimated an average of 63 years for recovery. Short of recovery, a number of studies have found the ESA is effectively stabilizing or improving the status of species, using both biennial status assessments produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Congress and abundance trends ( Male & Bean, 2005 ; Taylor, Suckling & Rachlinski, 2005 ; Gibbs & Currie, 2012 ; Suckling et al., 2016 ).

In addition to recovering species, one of the primary purposes of the ESA is to prevent species extinction. Previous studies indicate the ESA has been successful in this regard ( McMillan & Wilcove, 1994 ; Scott et al., 2006 ). As of 2008, the ESA was estimated to have prevented the extinction of at least 227 species and the number of species delisted due to recovery outnumbered the number of species delisted for extinction by 14–7 ( Scott et al., 2006 ). In this study, we identified all ESA listed species that are extinct or possibly extinct to quantify the number of species for which ESA protections have failed and use these figures to update the estimated number of species extinctions prevented. This is the first study in over 20 years to compile data on extinction of ESA listed species, providing an important measure of one of the world’s strongest conservation laws ( McMillan & Wilcove, 1994 ).

To identify extinct or possibly extinct ESA listed species, we examined the status of all 1,747 (species, subspecies and distinct population segments) U.S. listed or formerly listed species, excluding species delisted based on a change in taxonomy or new information showing the original listing to have been erroneous. We determined species to be extinct or possibly extinct based on not being observed for at least 10 years, the occurrence of adequate surveys of their habitat, and presence of threats, such as destruction of habitat of the last known location or presence of invasive species known to eliminate the species.

To differentiate extinct and possibly extinct species we relied on determinations by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, IUCN, species experts and other sources. In most cases, these determinations were qualitative rather quantitative. Species were considered extinct if surveys since the last observation were considered sufficient to conclude the species is highly likely to no longer exist, and possibly extinct if surveys were conducted after the last observation, but were not considered sufficient to conclude that extinction is highly likely ( Butchart, Stattersfield & Brooks, 2006 ; Scott et al., 2008 ).

Source information included 5-year reviews, listing rules and critical habitat designations by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (for aquatic and terrestrial species) or NOAA Fisheries (for marine species), published and gray literature, personal communication with species experts and classifications and accounts by NatureServe, IUCN and the Hawaiian Plant Extinction Prevention program. For each species, we identified year of listing, year last seen, NatureServe and IUCN ranking, taxonomic group, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service region. For species last seen after listing, we also searched for abundance estimates at time of listing in order to give a sense of likelihood of survival regardless of ESA protection.

Following previously developed methods, we estimated the number of species extinctions prevented by the ESA by assuming that listed threatened and endangered species have a comparable extinction risk to IUCN endangered species, which was estimated as an average of 67% over 100 years ( Mace, 1995 ; Schwartz, 1999 ; Scott et al., 2006 ). We believe this estimate of extinction risk is conservative based on similarity of IUCN criteria to factors considered in ESA listings, observed low numbers for species at time of ESA listing and observed correspondence between ESA listed species and species classified as endangered or critically endangered by the IUCN ( Wilcove, McMillan & Winston, 1993 ; Wilcove & Master, 2005 ; Harris et al., 2012 ). Presumed extinction risk was then multiplied by the number of extant listed species and the proportion of a century in which species were protected by the ESA. Previous studies used the length of time the ESA has been in existence (1973-present) for the proportion of a century species have been protected ( Schwartz, 1999 ; Scott et al., 2006 ), but because many species have not been protected the entire 45 years the law has existed, we instead used the more conservative average length species were protected (25 years). This corresponds to the following formula:

We identified a total of 97 ESA listed species that are extinct (23) or possibly extinct (74). Of these, we found 71 extinct (19) or possibly extinct (52) species were last observed before they were listed under the ESA and thus are not relevant to determining the Act’s success in preventing extinction ( Table S1 ). These species were last seen an average of 24 years before protection was granted with a range of one to more than 80 years prior.

A total of 26 species were last seen after listing, of which four are confirmed extinct and 22 are possibly extinct ( Table S2 ). On average, these species were last seen 13 years after listing with a range of 2–23 years. We were able to find an abundance estimate at the time of listing for 19 of these species, ranging from one individual to more than 2,000 with an average of 272. In several cases, these estimates were based on extrapolations from very few sightings.

The distribution of extinct and possibly extinct species was non-random with 64 of the 97 species from Hawaii and other Pacific Islands, followed by 18 from the southeast ( Fig. 1 ). This was also the case for taxonomy. A total of 40 of the 97 species were mollusks dominated by Hawaiian tree snails and southeast mussels, followed by birds (18) and plants (17) ( Fig. 2 ).

Extinct or possibly extinct listed species by taxonomic group.

Extinct or possibly extinct listed species by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region.

We identified several other species that have been missing for more than 10 years, but for which there has not been any effective surveys and thus classifying them as possibly extinct did not seem appropriate, including two Hawaiian yellow-faced bees ( Hylaeus facilis and Hylaeus hilaris ) (K. Magnacca, 2018, personal communication) and Fosberg’s love grass ( Eragrostis fosbergii ) ( U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011 ). If indeed extinct, all three were lost prior to protection under the ESA.

Including updated figures for number of listed species, time of protection and species extinctions, we estimate the ESA has prevented the extinction of roughly 291 species in its 45 year history. Based on the number of confirmed extinctions following listing, we further estimate that the ESA has to date prevented the extinction of more than 99% of species under its protection. To date, a total of 39 species have been delisted for recovery compared to four species that are extinct and 22 that are potentially extinct.

The few number of listed species that have gone extinct following protection combined with an estimated 291 species for which extinction was prevented demonstrate the ESA has achieved one of its core purposes—halting the loss of species. We will not attempt to catalog them here, but numerous individual examples provide further support for this conclusion. Well known species like the California condor ( Gymnogyps californianus ), black-footed ferret ( Mustela nigripes ) and Hawaiian monk seal ( Neomonachus schauinslandi ), as well as lesser known species like the yellowfin madtom ( Noturus flavipinnis ), are but a few of the species that likely would have been lost were it not for the ESA.

The madtom is a case in point. Wrongly presumed extinct when described in 1969, individual madtom were found in the Powell River in Tennessee and Copper Creek in Virginia and the species was protected under the ESA in 1977 ( U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1977 ). Following protection, federal and state officials worked with a non-governmental organization, Conservation Fisheries Inc., to discover additional populations and repatriate the species to rivers and streams in its historic range and there are now populations of the yellowfin madtom in three different watersheds ( U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012a ). The history of the ESA is replete with similar such stories.

The distribution of extinct or possibly extinct listed species largely tracks those regions with the highest rates of species endangerment, including Hawaii and the Northern Mariana Islands with 64 of the 97 extinctions or possible extinctions, and the Southeast with 18 of the extinctions or possible extinctions, mostly freshwater species. The fragility of Hawaii’s endemic fauna to introduced species and habitat destruction and high degree of species imperilment is well recognized ( Duffy & Kraus, 2006 ). Similarly, the extinction and endangerment of freshwater fauna in the southeast is well documented ( Benz & Collins, 1997 ). To avoid further extinctions, these areas should be priorities for increased funding and effort.

Protection under the ESA came too late for the 71 species last seen prior to listing. It’s possible that some of these species survived undetected following listing, but we find this unlikely for most if not all of the species. It is very difficult to document extinction, but all of the species were the subject of survey both before and after listing, which is described in the listing rules and subsequent status surveys. In addition, the 71 species were last seen an average of 24 years prior to listing, providing a long window for detection prior to listing. If some of these species did survive after listing it was likely at very low numbers, such that recovery would have been difficult at best.

That these 71 species were lost before protections were applied clearly highlights the need to move quickly to protect species. Indeed, Suckling, Slack & Nowicki (2004) identified 42 species that went extinct while under consideration for protection. Since that analysis was completed, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined five additional species did not qualify for protection because they were extinct, including the Tacoma pocket gopher ( Thomomys mazama tacomensis ), Tatum Cave beetle ( Pseudanophthalmus parvus ), Stephan’s riffle beetle ( Heterelmis stephani), beaverpond marstonia ( Marstonia castor ) and Ozark pyrg ( Marstonia ozarkensis ), meaning there are now 47 species that have gone extinct waiting for protection ( U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012b , 2016 , 2017 , 2018a ).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently faces a backlog of more than 500 species that have been determined to potentially warrant protection, but which await a decision ( U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2018b ). Under the ESA, decisions about protection for species are supposed to take 2 years, but on average it has taken the Fish and Wildlife Service 12 years ( Puckett, Kesler & Greenwald, 2016 ). Such lengthy wait times are certain to result in loss of further species and run counter to the purpose of the statute. This problem can be addressed by streamlining the Service’s process for listing species, which has become increasingly cumbersome, and by increasing funding for the listing program. For every species listed, the Service’s process includes review by upward of 20 people, including numerous individuals who have no specific knowledge of the species and in a number of cases are political appointees. We instead recommend that the Service adopt a process similar to scientific peer review, involving review by two to three qualified individuals.

The loss of 26 species after they were protected is indicative of conservation failure. This failure, however, in most cases cannot be wholly attributed to the ESA because most of these species were reduced to very low numbers by the time they were protected, making recovery difficult to impossible. Of the 19 species we could find an abundance estimate for at the time of listing, 13 had an estimated population fewer than 100 with eight having fewer than 10 individuals. Of the six other species, two Hawaiian birds, Oahu creeper ( Paroreomyza maculate ) and ‘O’u ( Psittirostra psittacea ) had estimated populations in the hundreds, but this was based on sightings of single individuals. Given the lack of further sightings and the presence of disease carrying mosquitoes throughout their habitat, these estimates were likely optimistic. The other four species, the dusky seaside sparrow ( Ammodramus maritimus nigrescens ), Morro Bay kangaroo rat ( Dipodomys heermanni morroensis ), pamakani ( Tetramolopium capillare ) and Curtis’ pearlymussel ( Epioblasma florentina curtisii ), had populations at the time of listing ranging from 100 to 3,000 individuals, but sufficient action was not taken to save them, making them true conservation failures.

At some level, all of the 97 ESA listed species that we identified as possibly extinct or extinct are conservation failures. For 42 of these species, the law itself was too late because they were last seen before the ESA was passed in 1973. But for others, there may have been time and we did not act quickly enough or dedicate sufficient resources to saving them. There are many examples of species both in the U.S. and internationally that have been successfully recovered even after dropping to very small numbers, but this can only occur with fast, effective action, resources and in many cases luck. The Mauritius kestrel ( Falco punctatus) , for example, was brought back from just two pairs ( Cade & Jones, 1993 ) and the Hawaiian plant extinction prevention program, which focuses on saving plants with fewer than 50 individuals, has rediscovered many species believed extinct, brought 177 species into cultivation, constructed fences to protect species from non-native predators and reintroduced many species into the wild ( Wood, 2012 , http://www.pepphi.org/ ).

The failure to provide sufficient resources for conservation of listed species, however, continues to the present. As many as 27 species of Oahu tree snail ( achatinella spp. ) are extinct or possibly extinct, yet expenditures for the species that still survive are inadequate to support minimal survey and captive propagation efforts. Likewise, the Hawaiian plant extinction prevention program, which has been so effective in saving species on the brink of extinction, is facing a budget cut of roughly 70% in 2019 ( http://www.pepphi.org/ ), which very likely could mean the extinction of dozens of plants that otherwise could be saved. Overall, Greenwald et al. (2016) estimate current recovery funding is roughly 3% of estimated recovery costs from federal recovery plans. We can save species from extinction, but it must be more of a priority for federal spending. Nevertheless, despite funding shortfalls and the tragedy of these species having gone extinct, the ESA has succeeded in preventing the extinction of the vast majority of listed species and in this regard is a success.

Management implications

Of the 97 species we identified as extinct or potentially extinct, only 11 have been delisted for extinction. Another 11 have been recommended for delisting due to extinction. The San Marcos gambusia ( Gambusia georgei ) could also be delisted since there is very little hope it survives. For the other 74 possibly extinct species, we recommend retaining protections in the hope that some will be rediscovered and because there is little cost in retaining listing.

Supplemental Information

Supplemental information 1.

Extinct or possibly extinct species broken out by whether last seen before or after protection was enacted, including relevant source data and literature cited.

Funding Statement

The authors received no funding for this work.

Additional Information and Declarations

All authors are employed by the Center for Biological Diversity which works to protect endangered species and their habitats.

Noah Greenwald conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Kieran F. Suckling conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Brett Hartl conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Loyal A. Mehrhoff conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

•   Facebook
•   Twitter
•   Linkedin
•   Digg
•   Reddit
•   Pinterest
•   Email

Latest Earthquakes |    Chat Share Social Media  

Threatened and Endangered Species

Walrus Research

Polar Bear Research

Nearshore Marine Ecosystem Research

Loon Research

Advancing the Environmental DNA Toolkit for Ecosystem Monitoring and Management

Pacific Island Bird Survey Design and Data Analysis

Population Monitoring of the Federally Threatened Okaloosa Darter at Eglin Air Force Base

Fish Passage Design and Analysis at the S.O. Conte Research Laboratory

Sturgeon Occurrence and Behavior in the Outer Continental Shelf

Northeast Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative

Conservation Genetics of the Hawaiian Hoary Bat

Use and History of the North Pacific Pelagic Seabird Database (NPPSD)

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

• Endangered species
• Conservation biology
• Get an email alert for Endangered species
• Get the RSS feed for Endangered species

Showing 1 - 13 of 216

View by: Cover Page List Articles

Sort by: Recent Popular

Quantifying global redundant fisheries trade to streamline seafood supply chains

Caitlin D. Kuempel, Emma Arnett, Carissa J. Klein

Automated echolocation classifiers vary in accuracy for northeastern U.S. bat species

Donald I. Solick, Bradley H. Hopp, John Chenger, Christian M. Newman

Status and trends in the international wildlife trade in Chameleons with a focus on Tanzania

Maxim Conrad Isaac, Neil D. Burgess,  [ ... ], Claire Ract

Climate change increases threat to plant diversity in tropical forests of Central America and southern Mexico

Miguel A. Ortega, Luis Cayuela,  [ ... ], Jesús Muñoz

Thamnaconus multilineatus (Tetraodontiformes: Monacanthidae)">Morphological and genetic analysis for the diversity conservation of rare species, Thamnaconus multilineatus (Tetraodontiformes: Monacanthidae)

Tae-Sik Yu, Kiyun Park, Kyeong-Ho Han, Ihn-Sil Kwak

Integrating fish swimming abilities into rapid road crossing barrier assessment: Case studies in the southeastern United States

Ridge Sliger, Jessica Graham,  [ ... ], Brandon K. Peoples

Ceratozamia ">Past, present and future in the geographical distribution of Mexican Tepezmaite cycads: Genus Ceratozamia

Jorge Antonio Gómez-Díaz, César Isidro Carvajal-Hernández, Wesley Dáttilo

A multi-taxon analysis of European Red Lists reveals major threats to biodiversity

Axel Hochkirch, Melanie Bilz,  [ ... ], Thomas Zuna-Kratky

Using a substitute species to inform translocation of an endangered territorial mammal

Marina Morandini, John L. Koprowski

Covariation of taxonomic and functional facets of β-diversity in Chilean freshwater fish assemblages: Implications for current and future processes of biotic homogenization

Sergio A. Castro, Pablo Rojas, Irma Vila, Fabian M. Jaksic

Ursus americanus Pallas 1780 (black bear) from Northeastern Mexico">Free amino acid and acylcarnitine values in Ursus americanus Pallas 1780 (black bear) from Northeastern Mexico

Andres Abellan-Borja, Iram P. Rodriguez-Sanchez,  [ ... ], Antonio Guzman-Velasco

Diurnal raptors at rescue centres in the Czech Republic: Reasons for admission, outcomes, and length of stay

Gabriela Kadlecova, Eva Voslarova, Vladimir Vecerek

Establishing the relationship between non-human primates and mangrove forests at the global, national, and local scales

Stuart E. Hamilton, Andrea Presotto, Arthur J. Lembo Jr.

Connect with Us

• PLOS ONE on Twitter
• PLOS on Facebook

Endangered Species

Our Services

To make recovery efforts for listed and candidate species more efficient and effective, we work with others to find ways to invigorate and modernize the implementation of the ESA, using our current conservation tools and developing new ones at every opportunity. Among the tools that play a major part in achieving our conservation and recovery goals are: interagency consultations; incentives for landowners and managers to engage in voluntary conservation partnerships; grants to states and territories, private landowners, and conservation groups to fund conservation projects; and permits that authorize scientific research to learn more about listed species, or activities that enhance the propagation or survival of listed species .

Our Projects and Initiatives

Our work to conserve and recover endangered and threatened species includes listing species under the ESA and designating critical habitat, developing protective regulations for threatened species, developing and implementing recovery plans for listed species, monitoring and evaluating the status of listed species, and, cooperating with non-federal partners to develop conservation plans. 

Our Laws and Regulations

Throughout its history, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has proven to be incredibly effective in stabilizing populations of species at risk, preventing the extinction of many others, and conserving the habitats upon which they depend. All Americans can take pride in the fact that, under the protection of the ESA, the California condor, grizzly bear, Okaloosa darter, whooping crane, and black-footed ferret have all been brought back from the brink of extinction. We can also celebrate that many other species no longer need ESA protection and have been removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, including the bald eagle—the very symbol of our nation's strength.

Latest Stories and Topics

Our Library

Whether you are looking for a specific document pertaining to species listing, sections of the Endangered Species Act, or anything else related to Endangered Species policy, you can find it right here in the ESA document library.

Our Species

The number of endangered and threatened species changes as we add or remove species from the list.

Summary of listed species

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

JavaScript appears to be disabled on this computer. Please click here to see any active alerts .

Learn more about Threatened and Endangered Species

What are endangered and threatened species .

A century ago, a bird called the passenger pigeon lived in North America. There were so many passenger pigeons that people often saw great flocks of them flying overhead containing thousands, even millions, of birds. Today, there is not a single one left. What happened?

The passenger pigeon became extinct. All living passenger pigeons disappeared from the earth entirely. The passenger pigeon became extinct for two reasons. First, the forests where it lived were cut down to make way for farms and cities. Second, many pigeons were shot for sport and because they were good to eat. At that time, there were no hunting laws to protect endangered species like there are now.

There are over 1,300 endangered or threatened species in the United States today. Endangered species are those plants and animals that have become so rare they are in danger of becoming extinct. Threatened species are plants and animals that are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

How Does Extinction Happen?

Species disappear because of changes to the earth that are caused either by nature or by the actions of people. Sometimes a natural event, like a volcano erupting, can kill an entire species. Other times, extinction will happen slowly as nature changes our world. For example, after the Ice Ages, when the glaciers melted and the earth became warmer, many species died because they could not live in a warmer climate. Newer species that could survive in a warmer environment took their places.

People can also cause the extinction of plants and animals. The main reason that many species are endangered or threatened today is because people have

changed the homes or habitats upon which these species depend. A habitat includes not only the other plants and animals in an area, but all of the things needed for the species' survival -- from sunlight and wind to food and shelter. The United States has many habitats, from ocean beaches to mountain tops. Every species requires a certain habitat in order to live. A cactus, for example, needs the sunny, dry desert in order to grow. A polar bear, on the other hand, would not live in a desert, because it could not find enough food and water. 

Pollution can also affect wildlife and contribute to extinction. The Nashville crayfish  is endangered mainly because the creek where it lives has been polluted by people.

Pesticides and other chemicals can poison plants and animals if they are not used correctly. The bald eagle is one bird that was harmed by pesticides. In the past, a pesticide called DDT was used by many farmers. Rains washed the pesticide into the lakes and streams where it poisoned fish. After eating the poisoned fish, the eagles would lay eggs with very thin shells. These eggs were usually crushed before they could hatch. Today, people are not allowed to use DDT, and this has contributed to the bald eagle being removed from the endangered and threatened species lists needed for the species' survival -- from sunlight and wind to food and shelter.

The United States has many habitats, from ocean beaches to mountain tops. Every species requires a certain habitat in order to live. A cactus, for example, needs the sunny, dry desert in order to grow. A polar bear, on the other hand, would not live in a desert, because it could not find enough food and water. 

People can also endanger plants and animals by moving, or introducing, new species into areas where they do not naturally live. Some of these species do so well in their new habitat that they endanger those species already living there, called the native species. These introduced species are called invasive species. For example, when some fish are introduced into a lake or stream, they may prey upon, or eat the food of the native fish. The native species may then have to find a new source of food or a new home, or face becoming endangered or extinct.

Another way that people harm animals and plants is by taking them from the wild. Some people might catch an insect like the Mission blue butterfly for a butterfly collection. Others might capture a wild animal for a pet, or pick a flower because it's pretty. In addition, some people illegally hunt animals for food, skins, or fur. In the past, lots of American crocodiles were killed so that their skins could be made into shoes and other clothing. This crocodile is now an endangered species.

Why Protect Endangered and Threatened Species?

Can you imagine walking in the woods without hearing birds singing, or picture what a field would be like without wildflowers blooming? Our plants and wildlife

make the world a more interesting and beautiful place. More importantly, all living species, including people, depend on other species for survival. For example, if a fish such as the shortnose sturgeon  becomes extinct, all of the species that rely on it will also suffer and may become threatened or endangered.

We all depend upon plants and wildlife. From studying them, we have learned new ways of growing food, making clothing, and building houses. Scientists have discovered how to use certain plants and animals as medicine. If we fail to protect threatened or endangered species, we will never know how they might have improved our lives.

Endangered and threatened species need our help. Government agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of

Agriculture , the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service , NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service , and the National Park Service , along with state fish and wildlife agencies and private groups are making information available so people can better protect endangered and threatened species and their habitats. You can contact these agencies for information and join the challenge in helping to protect endangered and threatened species, and all wildlife, from extinction.

• Endangered Species Home
• About the Endangered Species Protection Program
• Assessing Pesticides Under the Endangered Species Act
• Endangered Species: Information For Pesticides Users
• Litigation on Endangered Species and Pesticides
• Bulletins Live!

We want to hear from you! Let us know what you think about our website.

interstitialRedirectModalTitle

interstitialRedirectModalMessage

• Show search

United States

Nature’s Comebacks—And What’s Still Possible

In its first 50 years, the U.S. Endangered Species Act has played a major role in conserving rare plants and animals in every state. Take a moment to celebrate its success where you live.

April 12, 2023 | Last updated August 16, 2024

Endangered, threatened and recovering U.S. species

Jump to the amazing species comebacks in your state or region.

It took millions of years for the spectacular variety of life to evolve on the North American landscape, influenced by everything from geography to soils to climate and the stewardship of Indigenous Peoples. The complex and interconnected web of life on Earth is dwindling fast, but there is still hope.

The U.S. Endangered Species Act has shown the power of conservation through policy. Now in its fifth decade, the act is one tremendous example of ways that sound and reasonable policies can provide a safety net for nature. And when nature is healthy, we’re healthy. 

Protect Conservation Funding

Please stand up for nature by urging Congress to preserve conservation funding

Facts About the Endangered Species Act

• The U.S. Endangered Species Act was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on December 28, 1973, with overwhelming bipartisan support.
• The act currently protects 1,662 U.S. species and 638 foreign species .
• The act has helped recovery efforts of the American bald eagle, American alligator, whooping crane and many other iconic species.
• 84% of Americans support the Endangered Species Act.

In the early 1970s, a growing number of people from all walks of life saw the threats to nature—but they also saw hope, and they spoke up. Along with their awareness and activism came a wave of policy actions aimed at safeguarding air, water and biodiversity. Among those actions was the  Endangered Species Act , which was signed into law on December 28, 1973.

The Endangered Species Act has proven to be one important tool to help rare species in the United States recover. The act has played a role in the comebacks of many species you see below. 

The act isn't perfect, and threats to biodiversity remain. Many actions are needed to deliver the right policies, funding, and science to address the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss in the U.S. and abroad. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act is one measure Congress can pass to help keep common species common and prevent others from becoming rare. The U.S. could work toward greater biodiversity protection both domestically and internationally. It could also continue with its America the Beautiful initiative to conserve and restore 30% of the country's lands and waters by 2030.

We know what success can look like. We know—from the Endangered Species Act and many other initiatives to restore habitat and wildlife—that species can make a comeback.  Here are just a few.

Endangered & Recovering Species in Eastern States

Select the photos to discover more about plants and animals in your state and across the country!

Connecticut

Peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus

The peregrine falcon is a crow-sized bird that can be found on every continent except Antarctica, making it one of the most widely distributed raptors in the world. It catches its prey—mainly small birds—in midair after diving from great heights. During these dives, a peregrine falcon may reach speeds of more than 200 mph, making it the fastest animal on the planet.

Range: Peregrine falcons can be found along shorelines, cliffsides, mountains, river valleys, and cities across the globe.

Where to see: In Connecticut, peregrine falcons can be found along the coast and in cities like Hartford, New London, and Bridgeport, where they nest on tall structures.

Conservation approach: Like many raptors, peregrine falcon populations suffered steep declines due to the use of the pesticide DDT, which caused thinning of their eggshells. The population collapse was successfully reversed through captive breeding programs across the country. Peregrines had disappeared from Connecticut until 1997, when birds bred as part of a reintroduction project in New York relocated across state lines.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Peregrine falcons prey on small to medium birds and insects. They are noteworthy for having adapted especially well to living in cities, where they prey on pigeon populations.

Learn more: Connecticut DEP peregrine falcons Connecticut Audubon peregrine falcons

Reviewed by Shelley Green, Director of Conservation Programs, The Nature Conservancy in Connecticut and Holly Drinkuth, Director of River and Estuary Conservation, The Nature Conservancy in Connecticut.

Photo Credit:  Janet Haas

Explore more

Hessel's Hairstreak Butterfly

The Hessel’s hairstreak butterfly, known for its iridescent green-speckled wings, is considered endangered in Delaware. In 2022, Dr. Kitt Heckscher of Delaware State University observed one of these rare beauties at a TNC preserve in southern Delaware, marking the first recorded sighting in over 27 years. 

Range: Atlantic Coast, southern Maine to Florida

Where to see: Southern Delaware

Conservation approach: The Hessel’s hairstreak primarily relies on Atlantic white cedar swamps, and these wetlands are increasingly threatened due to centuries of development, land conversion and sea level rise accelerated by climate change. In 2023, the state’s largest Atlantic white cedar tree was discovered at Ponders Tract within TNC’s Pemberton Forest preserve. TNC manages and protects Delaware’s lands and waters, using science as the foundation for ensuring the long-term health of the state’s unique and irreplaceable biodiversity.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: “In addition to Hessel’s hairstreak, many more rare and threatened plants and animal species can be found in Atlantic white cedar swamps. It’s essential that we continue to protect and restore these critical ecosystems,” said Natasha Whetzel, Delaware Stewardship Manager at TNC.

Reviewed by Natasha Whetzel, Delaware Stewardship Manager.

Photo Credit:  Garry Kessler

Alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus

Like all herring species, the alewife is an anadromous fish—it spawns in freshwater, migrates to the ocean for its adult life, and swims back upstream to reproduce in fresh water. Each spring, alewives migrate in huge numbers up rivers and streams to spawn, a life cycle that nourishes many other species and has provided Indigenous Peoples with food for thousands of years.

Range: Atlantic coastal rivers from Labrador to South Carolina. Alewives have has been introduced into a number of Great Lakes waters as non-native species.

Where to see: There are now a multitude of  places to see migrating alewives along the coast of Maine, for example the Damariscotta Mills Fish Ladder Restoration in Nobleboro and Newcastle, usually from mid-May through early June. Also, check out the Maine Alewife Trail Map .

Conservation approach: TNC, along with many partner organizations and state and federal agencies, have worked in recent decades to remove barriers to the migration of alewives and other native sea-run fish so that their populations can once again become self-sustaining. Alewives co-evolved with Atlantic salmon and have benefited from, and play an important role in efforts to restore federally endangered salmon in Maine. Removing dams and replacing under-sized culverts have allowed alewives to stage a spectacular comeback to rivers and streams throughout New England, especially in Maine. There are now rivers in Maine that support runs well over 5.5 million fish annually!

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Restoring river connectivity has not only helped alewives return to their native waters, it has helped other sea-run fish, such as blueback herring, Atlantic salmon, American shad and American eel. Their collective comebacks also benefit predators, such as river otters, bald eagles, osprey, and striped bass, among others. Healthy alewife numbers in Maine rivers have allowed a revitalization of a long tradition of spring harvests for food and lobster bait.

Reviewed by Molly Payne Wynne , Maine Freshwater Program Director.

Photo Credit:  Bridget Edmonds/TNC

Canby’s dropwort, Oxypolis canbyi

Canby’s dropwort is a perennial forb belonging to the mint family. The "quill-like" hollow leaves and the thick, corky wings that extend out from the margins of the fruit are the most distinctive features of the plant. It was listed as federally endangered in 1986 and has continued to decline as seasonal wetlands in its native range have been drained for commercial and agricultural development.

Range: The historical range included Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. Today, only 25 populations are known to exist within this historical range.

Where to see: This plant grows in Coastal Plain habitats, including pond cypress savannas, wet meadows, and depressional wetlands. The only known population of Canby’s dropwort in the state of Maryland is located on  TNC’s Crescent Preserve , located in Dorchester County, Maryland. Due to the fragility of this ecosystem, the exact location of the preserve is not advertised, and the preserve is closed to the public.

Conservation approach: TNC has documented the effects of reintroducing fire to the only population of Canby's dropwort in Maryland, found on TNC's Crescent Preserve, and monitored the resulting population increase. After cutting woody vegetation, 3.74 times more stems of dropwort per year were produced over the baseline of no intervention. Subsequently, after fire was reintroduced, 10.80 times more dropwort stems per year were produced in comparison to the time period after cutting woody vegetation. The prediction showed that in the absence of intervention with fire, dropwort stem production would likely have declined.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Canby’s dropwort is an indicator species for the diminishing presence of seasonal wetlands and the many species that call those ecosystems home. Tracking their population health can help scientists better understand the conservation strategies that are best suited to their unique habitat types.

Reviewed by  Deborah Landau , PhD, Director of Ecological Management, Maryland/DC chapter.

Photo Credit:  Gabriel Cahalan

Massachusetts

Moose, Alces alces

Historically, moose roamed the forests of Massachusetts, but by the mid-1800s, forest clearing and unregulated hunting led to their disappearance. Moose began to return to Massachusetts around the 1980s, expanding south from neighboring states. Thanks to the conservation of forested landscapes, there are now nearly 1,000 moose in western and central Massachusetts.

Range: Moose are found across North America from the maritime provinces in eastern Canada to the western edge of Alaska, and south into the northern United States. They reach the southern edge of their range in Massachusetts.

Where to see: TNC’s Coles Brook Preserve is an ideal location for moose, with a mosaic of forest and wetland habitat. Nearby October Mountain State Forest and the 100,000 acres of forest surrounding the Quabbin Reservoir , metro Boston’s water supply, have abundant moose.

Conservation approach: Conserving large and intact landscapes across Western and Central Massachusetts is critical to ensuring resilient moose populations in Massachusetts. These diverse landscapes allow moose to find suitable habitat as the climate changes. Addressing climate change is critical, as moose at the southern edge of their range suffer from warmer temperatures in both summer and winter. Supporting the ability of moose to safely cross roads will enhance their viability and public safety as well.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Because moose in Massachusetts are at the southern edge of their range, moose adapted to this climate may be best suited to cope with the impacts of climate change. Moose browsing of trees and shrubs keeps wetland and upland habitats open for grasses, wildflowers and species that depend on these habitats.

Learn more: Moose in Massachusetts

Reviewed by  Andy Finton , TNC’s senior conservation ecologist in Massachusetts.

Photo Credit:  Sally Naser

New Hampshire

Small whorled pogonia, Isotria medeoloid

This rare and delicate orchid is native to the Appalachian Mountains and the Great Lakes region. It has very specific habitat needs, living in very small populations (sometimes only a few dozen stems) in hardwood and conifer-hardwood forests.

Range: Southern Maine south to Georgia, west to southern Ontario, Michigan and Tennessee.

Where to see: Several TNC preserves in New Hampshire protect populations of small whorled pogonia and its habitat. As this species is an orchid and vulnerable to plant collectors, we do not cite its locations.

Conservation approach: Because some populations in New Hampshire are quite large, the state is key to conservation efforts. TNC has played an important role by supporting the US Fish and Wildlife Service and other conservation partners in identifying populations and protecting the plant’s habitats. Scientists have also studied forest dynamics that can benefit or harm small whorled pogonia populations. In 1994, its designation under the Endangered Species Act changed from endangered to threatened.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Among the main threats to this rare orchid are conversion of its forest habitat to development, forest canopy closure, and collectors who dig them up. Researchers are studying the relationships of small whorled pogonia with fungi and pollinators, an example of the many nuanced interconnectedness of species and ecosystems.

Reviewed by Jeff Lougee, TNC’s director of land management in New Hampshire.

Photo Credit:  Jeff Lougee/TNC

Osprey, Pandion haliaetus

Ospreys, or “fish hawks,” are large raptors that migrate to New Jersey’s coastal salt marshes to breed and raise young every summer. Dark brown on their backs and wings, and light beige on the rest of their bodies, these birds have reversible toes with sharp talons to catch their favorite meal—fish.

Range: Found on all continents except Antarctica. In North America, osprey range extends from Alaska to Baja California, and along the Atlantic coast from Labrador to Florida.

Where to see: TNC’s South Cape May Meadows Preserve in New Jersey is home to a nesting osprey pair with their own seasonal streaming camera.

Conservation approach: Banning DDT, adding the species to the New Jersey state endangered list and building nesting platforms to replace lost habitat allowed ospreys to rebound from a nadir of just 53 nesting pairs in the early 1970s to population numbers beyond historic levels—706 nesting pairs in the most recent (2021) census. TNC’s NJ team supports ospreys today through banding, monitoring, data collection, nesting platform maintenance and raising awareness through communications.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Ospreys maintain healthy fish populations and, because they are sensitive to contaminants, are environmental indicators for the condition of rivers, bays and estuaries relied upon by other wildlife and people.

Reviewed by Eric Olsen, TNC’s director of conservation in New Jersey.

Photo Credit:  TNC

Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus

Also known as pogy, mossbunker or bunker, the Atlantic menhaden is a tiny fish essential to the diets of much larger fishes including striped bass, bluefish and tuna, as well as marine mammals like whales and dolphins. Often called “the most important fish in the sea,” this keystone species is essential for people and wildlife—a healthy ocean and a strong coastal economy both depend on plentiful menhaden.

Range: Coastal waters from Canada to northern Florida.

Where to see: Years of hard work and collaboration by a diverse coalition of fishers, scientists and environmental advocates, including The Nature Conservancy, helped to set harvest limits on menhaden. Since then, the menhaden population has rebounded along the East Coast.

Conservation approach: The Atlantic menhaden fishery was basically unregulated until 2012, when harvest limits were first set in response to declines in the menhaden population. Since that regulation went into effect, the menhaden population has been rebounding and expanding back into their historic range. This was a huge step forward that came about after many years of collaboration and advocacy by many groups, including TNC staff in New York, Virginia, and other regions along the East Coast.

In New York, our team then worked to pass a state law in 2019, protecting menhaden and the animals, fisheries, and whale watching businesses that rely on menhaden being abundant, from purse seine fishing while they are in New York waters (all estuaries and out to 3 miles in the Atlantic).

Thanks to the combined efforts of marine biologists, recreational anglers, bird watchers, whale enthusiasts and commercial fishermen, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Menhaden Management Board unanimously voted to change how it manages the fishery in 2020. By adopting a holistic approach that takes the health of the surrounding ecosystem into account, these regulations have helped to grow a resurgence of menhaden over the last several years.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Menhaden eat by filtering tiny plants and particles from the water, a process Carl LoBue, TNC’s New York oceans and fisheries director, describes as “turning sunlight into whales.” Thanks to menhaden, whales have returned to New York Harbor, offering New Yorkers and tourists from around the world breathtaking sights and an inspiring connection to nature.

New York now has thriving whale watching businesses, and dolphins chasing menhaden along New York and New Jersey beaches has almost become expected. In Maine, where menhaden used to arrive in refrigerated trucks from the Mid-Atlantic to be used as bait for the highly valued lobster fishery, they now arrive swimmingly by their own accord.

With whales returning to the busy waters off New York, the need has shifted to how to address important questions concerning vessel traffic and their safety, a dialogue that TNC is currently engaged in.

Learn more: Video: Foraging the High Seas NOAA Species Directory: Atlantic Menhaden

Reviewed by Carl LoBue, Oceans and Fisheries Director, The Nature Conservancy in New York.

Photo Credit:  Artie Raslich

Pennsylvania

Bog turtle, Glyptemys muhlenbergii

The bog turtle is one of North America’s smallest turtles, measuring about 3 to 5 inches long with distinctive yellow-orange spots on each side of its head. Bog turtles thrive in isolated wetlands with acidic, wet soil, thick moss and deep layers of mud. Once ubiquitous in the eastern United States, the bog turtle is now federally threatened nationally and endangered in Pennsylvania due to widespread habitat degradation.

At TNC’s Acopian Preserve in southeastern Pennsylvania, spring-fed mountain streams form soft, muddy wet meadows that contain clumps of grassy tussock sedges and other low-lying vegetation. It’s combination of natural elements creates ideal habitat for bog turtles.

Range: Two distinct populations: the first in New York, Connecticut, western Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland; the second in parts of Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia.

Where to see: TNC’s Acopian Preserve in Pennsylvania. Note: the location of this preserve is not disclosed to the public due to fragile habitat and elevated risk of poaching turtles for the illegal pet trade.

Conservation approach: Over the years, TNC has implemented prescribed burns, cleared trees, returned grazing to the landscape with cattle and goats, and conducted annual surveys and a radio telemetry study that documented bog turtle locations, hibernation, travel patterns and habitat use within the preserve. A small group of turtles residing in the preserve have been tagged with small, computerized chips to help with tracking, monitoring and managing populations throughout their life cycle.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: The bog turtle has biological and cultural significance as one of the smallest turtles in the United States. The overall population also serves as a litmus test for the health of wetland areas generally, since the turtles are directly impacted by tall invasive plant species that block out adequate sunlight for basking. The turtles at the Acopian Preserve have been the subject of study since 1969. In the 2020 field season, two bog turtles were captured that were determined to be at least 62 years old. In the 2022 field season a 57-year-old bog turtle was captured. These are the oldest documented bog turtles anywhere in their range.

Learn more: Endangered Bog Turtle Monitoring with The Nature Conservancy

Reviewed by Keith Fisher, Director of Conservation, TNC Pennsylvania and Delaware.

Photo Credit:  Gates Rhodes

Rhode Island

American burying beetle

Nicrophorus americanus

Known as “nature’s undertaker,” the American burying beetle is the largest carrion beetle in North America, easily identified by its size and striking orange and black markings. Typically found in open fields and grasslands, they show a high degree of parental oversight while raising their young, much like honeybees.

Range: They were once common from Maine to Texas, but now the only naturally occurring population east of the Mississippi River is found on Block Island, Rhode Island. Scattered populations are found in South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas.

Where to see: Several TNC preserves on Block Island protect the American burying beetle and its habitat. As this species is a large, charismatic beetle and vulnerable to collectors, we do not cite specific locations.

Conservation approach: The beetles were thought extinct by the 1980s, but rediscovered on Block Island and put on the endangered species list in 1989. TNC has worked with state and federal partners since 1991 to conserve critical habitat on the island. The population is stable, but dependent on habitat management and direct human intervention (providing quail carcasses). The Block Island beetles provide a source population to recolonize other locations in the eastern U.S. In 2020, they were “downlisted” to threatened.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: A nocturnal insect, the American burying beetle is threatened by light pollution, pesticide use, habitat loss, and competition for carrion. Its sharp decline followed the disappearance of the passenger pigeon, whose chicks served as carrion. Scientists have found that 30% of all American burying beetle broods now rely on ring-necked pheasants, gamebirds that were introduced as the passenger pigeon was going extinct.

Learn more: American Burying Beetle Recovery Program—Roger Williams Park Zoo R.I. state insect moved off endangered species list, but not everyone sees it as a victory , Providence Journal, 9/3/20

Reviewed by Scott Comings , TNC’s associate state director in Rhode Island.

Photo Credit:  Clair Comings

Little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus

This aptly named bat weighs as much as six or seven standard-size paper clips. It generally spends winters hibernating in colonies in caves or mines, and disperses in spring and summer, roosting in barns, under shutters and other human structures or under peeling bark. At night, this bat is a voracious insect-eater.

Range: Throughout northern U.S. and into Canada. Not found in southern Great Plains.

Where to see: While little brown bats usually hibernate in caves, they are sensitive to human disturbance. Many state agencies and other owners of cave entrances have closed access to caves, in part to help thwart the spread of white-nose syndrome, the disease that has decimated bat populations.

Conservation approach: Like so many other North American bat species, populations of the little brown bat declined dramatically since the 2006 onset of white-nose syndrome. The fungal disease has wiped out as much as 90% of little brown bat populations in their caves, old mines and other places where they hibernate over winter (called hibernacula). In Vermont TNC has been working with Vermont Fish and Wildlife to help monitor bat populations. Though the bat's populations are still significantly down from pre-white-nose syndrome, there are signs that their numbers are stabilizing or increasing, possibly by gradually gaining genetic resistance to the disease.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: The bat's voracious night-time appetite provides a control for populations of beetles, flies, moths, ants and other insects.

Reviewed by Alyssa Schuett, Vermont Fish and Wildlife.

Endangered & Recovering Species in Western States

Sea otter, Enhydra lutris

The sea otter is a marine mammal that spends almost the entirety of its life at sea. Growing to 80 pounds or more, the sea otter is often seen floating on its back while crunching away on shellfish prey found in frequent dives to the seafloor. Sea otters have no blubber layer as other marine mammals do but no other mammal has such dense and insulating fur.

Range: Its original range runs along a Pacific coast arc reaching from present-day California, through regions of Alaska’s Alexander Archipelago and the Aleutian Islands, and eastward through the Kamchatka coast and south to Japan’s northernmost island of Hokkaido.

Where to see: Sea otters are common in many accessible coastal areas in Southeast Alaska, including Glacier Bay National Park, and in Southcentral Alaska, such as Kenai Fjords National Park.

Conservation approach: Sea otter populations were once decimated throughout their Bering Sea range due to a commercial fur trade that began in the 18th century. In Alaska, sea otters have rebounded and are now abundant in many coastal areas. Some efforts at transplanting sea otters in past decades appear to have helped reestablish local populations. These abundant sea otter populations are sometimes in competition with local Indigenous subsistence traditions which have long relied on shellfish such as clams, crabs and mussels.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Sea otters are a keystone species in their coastal ecosystems. By controlling the populations of green sea urchins, which graze on undersea kelp forests, sea otters help ensure healthy nursery habitats for fish and other species.

Learn more: Alaska Department of Fish and Game page on sea otters

Reviewed by Colin Shanley, Spatial Ecologist, TNC in Alaska.

Photo Credit:  Kiliii Yuyan

Bighorn sheep, Ovis canadensis

There are three subspecies of bighorn sheep: Desert bighorn sheep in Arizona’s Aravaipa Canyon, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in Colorado and Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep in California. Bighorn sheep have muscular, compact bodies covered in chocolate brown fur with a dash of white on the muzzle, rump and belly. While most weigh 160 to 250 pounds, males can weigh more than 350 pounds and stand around 40 inches at the shoulder. Arizona’s desert bighorn sheep are generally lighter in color, smaller bodied and can have longer horns. They have wide-set eyes that are situated well forward on the head, providing a wide arc of exceptional vision. Their concave hooves allow them to climb steep, rocky desert mountains quickly and easily. These agile animals are well adapted to the arid environment in the west, going several weeks without water while living mostly off grasses and, sometimes, cacti.

Range: Primarily Mojave and Sonoran deserts in Arizona and California. Approximately 1.5 million to 2 million bighorn sheep lived in North America at the beginning of the 19th century; however, only 4% of their historic range remains because of disease from livestock and habitat loss.

Where to see: TNC’s Aravaipa Canyon Preserve in southern Arizona Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado

Conservation approach: TNC in Arizona collaborates with public land managers to implement controlled burns to help keep their habitat open so they can see and escape from predators such as mountain lions, coyotes and bobcats.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Bighorn sheep live in steep mountainous habitat, with ledges sometimes only two inches wide provides cover from predators. Most populations undergo seasonal movements, generally using larger upland areas in the summer and concentrating in sheltered valleys during the winter.

Photo Credit:  Stefen Doucette/TNC

Island bedstraw, Galium buxifolium

Island bedstraw is a long-lived woody shrub with small flowers that lives on coastal bluffs and marine terraces, of Santa Cruz and San Miguel Islands. It is a clear example of “island woodiness,” when soft-tissued herbaceous species evolve on islands to form woody tissue.

Range: The only place on Earth where island bedstraw exists is on two of California’s Channel Islands.

Where to see: Visitors to TNC’s Santa Cruz Island can see island bedstraw. Please stay on established trails or observe from a boat to catch a glimpse of island bedstraw and protect its vulnerable populations.

Conservation approach: Once found on the marine terraces of Santa Cruz and San Miguel Islands, island bedstraw survived on steep cliff faces inaccessible to introduced mainland vertebrate that ate them into oblivion. After the threats were removed island bedstraw began to recolonize areas it had not been seen since the late 1800s. Island stewards and research botanists worked in concert to monitor and assess its status by applying a novel approach developed to survey for invasive plants.

“Recovery doesn’t happen overnight. It takes sound science, collaboration with many partners and, most importantly, commitment.” —John Knapp, Senior Island Scientist with TNC.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Compared to the mainland, islands have fewer species, so each species has the burden of playing multiple roles in the ecosystem. From providing food for pollinators to soil remediation and creating habitat for other species, native flora keep islands running. But the more plant species islands lose, the harder it is for their ecosystems to remain resilient and defend against threats like invasive species, increased wildfires, and climate change.

Reviewed by John Knapp, Senior Island Scientist with TNC.

Photo Credit:  Steve Junak/Courtesy of the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden

Preble's meadow jumping mouse

Zapus hudsonius preblei

Known for its remarkable leaps, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse is endemic to riparian ecosystems of Colorado and Wyoming—found nowhere else in the world.

Range: Front Range of Colorado and Southern Wyoming in riparian habitat.

Where to see: You can see the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse at the Phantom Canyon Preserve in the Laramie Foothills near Fort Collins, CO.

Conservation approach: The decline of their habitat due to human interference and development has led to rapid population decline, as they are now a federally threatened species. As part of the North Fork Cache la Poudre Watershed Site Conservation Team, TNC is working to protect habitat and promote species recovery for this critical species. This will be achieved by enhancing healthy riparian corridors that connect suitable habitat throughout the species range and promoting compatible land use.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Water-rich, riparian ecosystems support hundreds of species of flora and fauna, including many species of conservation concern. Riparian habitat throughout the semi-arid West is a limited resource and is at risk from land conversion. Altered stream flow, habitat loss, and drought threaten not only Preble’s recovery, but the success of other dependent species.

Reviewed by Chelsea Beebe, TNC Colorado Conservation Ecologist.

Photo Credit:  TNC

Lobeliads, Cyanea sp., Hāhā in Hawaiian

Cyanea sp . is a genus of flowering plants in the family Campanulaceae . The plant is called hāhā in the Hawaiian language. Hāhā grow in moist and wet forest habitat and are largely pollinated by native birds such as the Hawaiian honeycreepers. Unlike most endemic species in Hawai‘i which lost their defenses due to lack of predators, the hāhā evolved with large thorns on the lower part of its new growth. One theory suggests that the thorns are a defense against herbivory  by the moa-nalo, a group of tall flightless ducks that went extinct on the islands within the last 1600 years.

Cyanea fruits are a food source for many endemic insects, which are themselves important food sources for endangered birds such as the Kiwikiu (Maui parrotbill, Pseudonestor xanthophrys ). Cyanea , even with thorny protuberances, are home to many native invertebrates including Hawai‘i’s endemic snails.

Range: Hawaiian lobelioids are endemic to Hawai‘i and found nowhere else on earth. There are multiple endangered Cyanea species across Hawai‘i. Many of them co-evolved with bird species whose curved beaks perfectly match the curve of the Cyanea flowers.

Where to see: Within protected TNC preserves such as Waikamoi on Maui and Kona Hema on Hawai‘i island.

Conservation approach: Cyanea and other endangered plants and animals find a safe haven within TNC’s forest preserves that are free from invasive animals and managed for weeds. TNC maintains and manages forest preserves across Hawai‘i with a focus on passive restoration by removing threats and allowing native systems to recover. Thanks to this work, biologists have been able to plant hundreds of Cyanea in TNC forest preserves, in partnership with the Hawai‘i Plant Extinction Prevention Program.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Habitat loss is the key threat to many of Hawai‘i’s endemic species, along with invasive animals and weeds. The Hawaiian lobelioids (the six genera of: Brighamia, Clermontia, Cyanea, Delissea, Lobelia, and Trematolobelia ) represent one of the best examples of adaptive radiation with Cyanea being the most species rich (currently 79 species in the genus).

Learn about the safe haven provided by TNC’s Waikamoi Preserve on Maui and Kona Hema Preserve on Hawai‘i island. See more images of Cyanea species here , here , and here .

Reviewed by Keoki Kanakaokai, Natural Resource Manager, Maui forest program.

Pronghorn, Antilocapra americana

Pronghorn have roamed North America for millennia and are best known as the second-fastest land mammal on Earth. They are hoofed herbivores measuring 3 feet tall and weighing up to 150 pounds.

Range: Many western states, including Idaho, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah.

Where to see: You can spot this icon across the West, but we recommend TNC’s Flat Ranch Preserve near West Yellowstone in the summer.

Conservation approach: For millennia, pronghorn have migrated on the same paths in landscapes across Idaho. From the Pioneer Mountains summer range, pronghorn make a journey that is more than 80 miles each way and is among the longest mammal migrations in the lower 48 states. Using GPS collars, biologists tracked pronghorn to map their migratory paths. This information is used by wildlife managers to encourage community land-use planning and land stewardship, and to engage landowners in voluntary land conservation.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Pathway obstructions, like fences, pose a dangerous threat because pronghorn eyesight is adapted to seeing things far away, so they have trouble seeing and jumping over fences. Finding a route around these barriers wastes needed energy and calories. Keeping habitat and migration routes open is imperative for the long term success of this species.

Reviewed by Tess O’Sullivan, TNC’s Land Conservation Strategy Lead for Idaho.

Photo Credit:  Steve Dondero

Grizzly bear, Urus arctos

Grizzly bears once ranged across most of western North America, from Mexico to northern Alaska and Canada. Grizzlies are distinguished from black bears by the prominent hump on their shoulders, scooped-out snout profile and small, rounded ears. Grizzlies are omnivores whose diets consist of a wide variety of foods from grasses, berries and roots to fish, mammals and insects.

Range: Current range in the lower 48 states includes Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, Montana’s Crown of the Continent region, and the Selkirks and Cabinet-Yaak in northern Idaho and Montana. One of two subspecies of brown bears in North America, grizzlies have a far greater range in Western Canada and in Alaska, where they are commonly called brown bears. The other brown bear subspecies, the Kodiak bear, lives exclusively on Alaska’s Kodiak Archipelago.

Where to see: Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks (and surrounding lands).

Conservation approach: Given that a grizzly may have a home range of hundreds of square miles, protecting large, connected areas of intact habitat is critical. In Montana’s Crown of the Continent and parts of the Greater Yellowstone, TNC acquires and manages lands that provide vital habitat for a diversity of wildlife, including grizzlies. TNC also partners with willing landowners to develop land protection agreements that secure and connect wildlife habitat across public lands and private properties such as family ranches. We also work with wildlife managers and landowners to help avoid human-bear conflicts.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Historically, grizzlies ranged across much of Montana, but as western settlements grew, they remained only in more remote mountainous areas. As their numbers have begun to recover, grizzlies now once again inhabit a wider range of habitats, including grasslands, meadows, wetlands, streamside zones, forests and alpine areas. 

Learn more: Visit Montana Natural Heritage Programs Field Guide for more information.

Reviewed by Dave Hanna, Crown of the Continent Program Director.

Photo Credit:  Loren Merrill/TNC Photo Contest 2019

Amargosa toad, Anaxyrus nelsoni

The Amargosa toad is an incredibly rare species that lives in the Oasis Valley of the Amargosa River, a biologically diverse area at the transition of the Mojave and Great Basin deserts. This medium-sized, short-limbed toad is dependent on water from the river and its springs.

Range: The Amargosa toad is endemic to Nevada and found nowhere else on Earth other than its natural habitat along a 15-mile stretch of the Amargosa River from Beatty to TNC’s 7J Ranch Preserve.

Where to see: Amargosa toads can be found in small ponds and standing pools of water at TNC properties in the Oasis Valley, including Torrance Ranch Preserve , 7J Ranch Preserve and the Beatty Narrows.

Conservation approach: TNC has been working to protect the Amargosa River, home of the Amargosa toad, for almost 40 years, and we have protected more than 1,600 acres of its habitat through acquisition and easements. In 2010, we came together with partners and community members in Beatty to prevent the toad from being listed as an endangered species. The restoration approach we have developed at Torrance Ranch Preserve more than 20 years ago has been successful in attracting and supporting these native amphibians, as well as local and migratory birds, fish and thriving native plant communities. The work being done there has also become a model for how to create and sustain desert wetland habitats and build a coalition of partners dedicated to protecting the Amargosa toad.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: The species is incredibly rare and threatened by several factors, including habitat loss and degradation, water diversion and invasive species.

Learn more: Cool Green Science: Protecting the Amargosa: From Suspicion to Support for a Desert River

Reviewed by Michael Clifford, Conservation Scientist for TNC in Nevada.

Photo Credit:  Len Warren/The Nature Conservancy

Chiricahua leopard frog

Lithobates chiricahuensis

The Chiricahua leopard frog has a unique color pattern of small, raised cream-colored spots across the body including its thighs. What makes this species different from other leopard frogs is the call it makes to others, which sounds like a snore.

Range: Southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona.

Where to see: You can see the Chiricahua leopard frog at the TNC’s Mimbres River Preserve , near Silver City, NM.

Conservation approach: To protect some of the Chiricahua’s remaining habitat, TNC in New Mexico purchased the Mimbres River Preserve, which includes 600 acres and irreplaceable streamside habitat along 5 miles of river. Additionally, TNC, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have completed habitat restoration projects along the river and in adjacent wetlands. We see the Chiricahua leopard frogs and other critters swimming in open pools.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Water withdrawals, river channelization, parasites and pathogens and the introduction of non-native fish species have degraded the amphibian’s habitat. The Mimbres River Preserve provides a safe home for the critters with year-round water flows and an off-channel wetland spring habitat that that provides them a safe home.

Reviewed by  Martha Cooper , Freshwater Director for The Nature Conservancy in New Mexico.

Photo Credit:  Sue Sitko/The Nature Conservancy

Fender’s blue butterfly

Icaricia icarioides fenderi

Found only in the Willamette Valley, Fender’s blue butterfly depends on a threatened wildflower called Kincaid’s lupine.

Range: Willamette Valley.

Where to see: Willamette Valley at TNC’s Willow Creek Preserve in Eugene, OR.

Conservation approach: As of January 2023, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced the reclassification of Fender's blue butterfly from endangered to threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Fender’s blue butterfly was believed to be extinct in 1937 but was rediscovered in 1989.

For decades, TNC has worked to enhance and restore native prairie on Willow Creek Preserve in Eugene for these and other native prairie species. Working in partnership with other conservation agencies and organizations, TNC led conservation and restoration efforts of native prairie and oak savanna in the Willamette Valley for over three decades. TNC has been instrumental in securing permanent protections for numerous strategic conservation properties through direct acquisition or by securing conservation easements.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Native prairie and savanna habitats have become a conservation focus in North America due to recognition of their importance to native plants and wildlife and because of the dramatic loss of these habitats from conversion to agriculture and urban development (Apostol and Sinclair 2006). Further, remnant prairies and savannas are often small, fragmented, and ecologically degraded leading to further declines and loss of native plants and animals. This is particularly evident in the Willamette Valley in Oregon, where over 98% of native prairie and oak savanna habitat has been lost (Noss et al. 1995, Floberg et al. 2004). Without continued active management and restoration, invasive woody and non-native plants would quickly reduce the ecological value of prairie habitat at these sites and reverse conservation gains.

Fender’s blue butterfly only lives in the Willamette Valley and reproduces on only one kind of flower—the Kincaid’s blue lupine. This plant has disappeared in the valley due to a variety of causes from urbanization, agriculture, and non-native plant invasions to the suppression of wildfire.

Reviewed by Jeff Rosier, TNC Oregon Willamette Basin Steward.

Photo Credit:  Matthew Benotsch

Utah prairie dog, Cynomys parvidens

The body of a Utah prairie dog is like a squirrel with short limbs and mid-length tails (1-2.5 inches). Standing approximately 10-15 inches tall and weighing 1-2 pounds, they have light to dark brown fur. Like other species of prairie dogs, the Utah prairie dog is mainly an herbivore, but sometimes eats cicadas and other insects. They live in extended family colonies in networks of underground holes.

Range: They are found only in southwestern Utah, roughly between Bryce Canyon National Park and Cedar City.

Where to see: Bryce Canyon National Park is a great place to see Utah prairie dogs. When you’re there, ask a ranger at the visitor center for the best locations to see prairie dogs in their natural habitat.

Conservation approach: Due to development and disease, the Utah prairie dog was nearly wiped out and listed as endangered in 1973. Now, it’s part of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recovery program designed to ensure healthy populations. TNC in Utah—working alongside the USFWS, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and others—has helped protect 800 acres of prime prairie dog habitat near Bryce Canyon National Park and another 291 acres north of Cedar City. With TNC managing land and holding an easement on one of these parcels, Utah prairie dogs spotted in these areas can be part of the annual spring count which supports the recovery effort.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Utah prairie dogs provide many benefits to people and nature. Their engineered burrows help maintain meadows which support a variety of plants and animals and allow soil to better absorb water and nutrients. They serve as prey for animals including eagles and hawks. Additionally, their burrows are used by other critters.

Learn more: Can Prairie Dogs Talk ( NY Times ) Catch the Wave: Decoding the Prairie Dog ( Scientific American )

Reviewed by Elaine York, TNC's West Desert Regional Director.

Photo Credit:  Donald Hobern/Flickr CC BY 2.0

Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit

Brachylagus idahoensis

In the last two decades, hopeful state and federal wildlife biologists, pygmy rabbit fans, farmers and ranchers, conservation research zoos, and nonprofits have all come together to give the rabbits a fighting chance against seemingly insurmountable odds.

Range: Columbia Basin/Eastern Washington.

Where to see: Eastern Washington at TNC’s Moses-Coulee Preserve Complex (rabbits are only at Beezley Hills & McCartney Creek right now due to wildfire).

Conservation approach:  Starting in 2011, with volunteer help, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife fenced in four multi-acre coyote-proof enclosures on shrub-steppe habitat.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Since the 1700s, 80% of the sagebrush ecosystem in Washington has been lost to development and farming. And nearly 1 million more acres across the West are lost each year. In its place, cheatgrass—a fast-growing invasive weed—has quickly spread across portions of the region. An aggressive invader, it dries out early each year, making it highly flammable.

Reviewed by Daniel Misch, Arid Lands Manager/Moses Coulee Preserve Assistant Manager.

Photo Credit:  Morgan Heim

Wyoming toad, Bufo hemiophrys baxteri

Wyoming toads are somewhat smaller than other toads, ranging between 1.75 to 2.75 inches in length. They have bony ridges on the top of their heads that can distinguish them from other toad species. These are carnivorous critters, dining on an array of invertebrates such as beetles, ants, and spiders, and their diet can make them adorably chubby.

Range: Once thriving in wetlands and rivers across the Laramie Basin of southeastern Wyoming, the toad is now found only within the  Mortensen Lake National Wildlife Refuge  and the  Wyoming Toad Conservation Area  adjacent to Hutton Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

Where to see: Currently, Mortensen Lake National Wildlife Refuge and public land within the Wyoming Toad Conservation Areas is not open to the public, so it is still difficult to view the toad.

Conservation approach: Thought to be extinct in the mid-1980s due to Chytrid fungus, habitat loss, and possibly pesticides, a small population was found in a privately-owned lake. Those toads were gathered and bred in captivity to build back the population. TNC purchased the land and held onto it until it could be transferred to the public at which time the Mortensen Lake National Wildlife Refuge was established. The refuge is one of four sites where the toads have been reintroduced. In 2023, the Wyoming Toad Conservation Area was established as the US Fish and Wildlife Service acquired 1,078 acres of toad habitat on the Laramie Plains. The agency is working with willing landowners to develop land protection agreements that will protect additional habitat on private property within that conservation area.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: In the arid climate of southeastern Wyoming, the refuge provides a protected home for the reintroduced toads, which are breeding with success. TNC played an important role in protecting this lake until the refuge could be established.

Reviewed by Brett Lathrop, Wyoming Conservation Easements Monitor.

Photo Credit:  US Fish and Wildlife Service/Creative Commons

Learn More:  https://www.doi.gov/blog/meet-wyoming-toad

Endangered & Recovering Species in the Midwest

Regal fritillary, Speyeria idalia

This striking butterfly, often mistaken for a monarch due to its similar vibrant orange coloring and black markings, is native to tallgrass prairies. As a caterpillar, it has a very specific diet exclusively made up of tender young violet leaves.

Range: Tallgrass and mixed-grass prairies across the central and western U.S.

Where to see: The regal fritillary thrives in tallgrass prairies like our Indian Boundary Prairies and Nachusa Grasslands preserves.

Conservation approach: TNC, partners and supporters are working to bolster habitat and violet food sources across the Midwest, including at our Indian Boundary Prairies and Nachusa Grasslands preserves. At Nachusa, regal fritillaries are using prairie habitat restored as recently as five years ago. While the species remains in decline throughout its historic range, efforts like these prairie plantings that include five violet species and expand large, connected prairie landscapes are setting the stage for a comeback.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Like other pollinators, this butterfly’s population has been declining rapidly in the last few decades due to the significant loss of native prairie habitat and its limited larval diet made up only of violets. The regal fritillary has the essential role of a pollinator, bolstering healthy wildflowers that support many other species in the prairie ecosystem.

Learn more: Planting for Pollinators Plant a Pollinator Paradise .

Reviewed by  Elizabeth Bach , Ecosystem Restoration Scientist at TNC’s Nachusa Grasslands Preserve in Illinois.

Photo Credit:  Chris Helzer/TNC

River otter, Lontra canadensis

The river otter is an amphibious mammal known for its grace and playful nature. The otter’s strong swimming skills come in handy when playing in the water or while in pursuit of a meal—be it fish, mollusks or other small invertebrates.

Range: The river otter occurs in much of Canada and the United States, except for portions of the Southwest.

Where to see: Thanks to reintroduction efforts spearheaded by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the river otter was removed from Indiana’s endangered species list in 2005, and it can now be found in more than 80 Indiana counties, far surpassing reintroduction goals.

Conservation approach: In 1995, the DNR began to re-establish healthy otter populations in several watersheds of northern and southern Indiana, including the Blue River in Harrison County. TNC has been very active in the Blue River for more than 20 years, improving water quality for the otter and many other species.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: River otters were hunted and trapped extensively for their fur in the 19th and 20th centuries, and are still hunted in some places. Conservation and reintroduction efforts are helping populations to recover, and improvements in water quality have permitted river otters to regain portions of their range.

Reviewed by  Matt Williams , director of conservation programs in Indiana.

Photo Credit:  Flickr/USFWS midwest

Bobcat, Lynx rufus

As a medium-sized cat, the bobcat is an adaptable predator that lives in various habitats, including forests, aquatic corridors, and urban edges. The bobcat is a fierce predator that can run up to 30 miles per hour, leap as far as twelve feet, and is a skilled swimmer. It prefers rabbits as a primary food source but eats a variety of other prey species, such as various bird species, small rodents, and deer. The bobcat is identified by distinctive black bars on its forelegs and a black-tipped, stubby, or “bobbed” tail. Superb night vision and strong scent capabilities help them become excellent hunters in low-light environments.

Range: The bobcat is native to North America and found throughout the continent.

Where to see: There is now a multitude of places to have the opportunity to see bobcats, especially in the southern part of Iowa, like the Land of the Swamp White Oak , a high-quality floodplain project area in Muscatine County, or Grand River Grasslands , an important prairie ecosystem in south-central Iowa. Bobcats are common in the western part of the state and can be found at Broken Kettle Grasslands Preserve and throughout the Loess Hills.

Conservation approach: Bobcats were once common throughout Iowa but quickly diminished and were extirpated from most of the state in the early 1900s due to habitat degradation and unregulated hunting. By the late 1970s, bobcats became a protected species and were listed as endangered on Iowa’s threatened and endangered species list. State protection allowed bobcat populations to expand and grow slowly naturally, and by the early 2000s more sightings in Iowa began to occur, mainly in the southern portion of the state.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Bobcats are effective predators of any habitat and play an essential ecological role in helping control small herbivores such as rodents and rabbits. A highly versatile territorial cat species, bobcats prefer habitats with thick vegetation and ample space for independent home ranges. They require natural shelters, such as outcrops, fallen logs, or dense undergrowth. TNC in Iowa is working to restore contiguous wildlife corridors that protect large tracts of habitat, which will help expand bobcat ranges and grow bobcat populations throughout the state.

Reviewed by Scott Moats, Director of Lands & Fire Manager Iowa/Missouri.

Photo Credit:  Kent Mason

Least tern, Sternula antillarum

The least tern is a small seabird, similar to a gull, but with a straight beak. On the eastern and western coasts, least terns stick to sandy beaches, but in the interior United States, least terns use sandbars in rivers, salt flats and gravel islands to nest. The interior population was listed as an endangered species in 1985, but thanks to recovery efforts was delisted in 2021.

Range: Least terns hug the west and east coasts of the United States during breeding and migration and winter in Central America.

Where to see: Each summer, least terns can be observed along Kansas River , where sandbars provide critical nesting habitat and abundant fish feed adults and chicks alike.

Conservation approach: Key to recovery for the least tern was determining what the species required for habitat and then preserving and enhancing that habitat. Managing water levels, such as from dam releases, helps prevent the loss of chicks and nests on river sandbars. Restricting human and vehicular access and modifying construction activities within the river system were managed through U.S. Army Corps of Engineers programs. In 2021, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service removed the inland population of the least tern from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife because of its recovery.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Much like a canary in the coal mine, the decline of birds is often an early warning that something in our natural world needs attention. With least terns, it was clear that the way humans were managing rivers was impacting the bird’s populations—but least terns weren’t the only victim. Bringing back more natural conditions for these rivers saw the recovery of the species but it also benefits other wildlife and improves water quality.

Learn more:   U.S. Fish & Wildlife species profile

Reviewed by Heidi Mehl, director of water and agriculture programs in Kansas.

Photo Credit:  Don Sias

Cisco, Coregonus artedi

Cisco are “forage” fish that provides an important food source for larger fish like lake trout. Historically, they were the most harvested fish in the Great Lakes during the commercial fisheries boom of the late-1800s and early-1900s. Cisco require cold-deep water where they feed on zooplankton and sometimes small fish.

Range: Cisco can be found in the Great Lakes, in cold inland lakes in the Great Lakes Region and throughout much of Canada.

Where to see: Anglers catch cisco where they are abundant, including Lake Michigan near Elk Rapids and Charlevoix, Michigan, Lake Huron around the Les Cheneaux Islands and Drummond Island, and in the St. Mary’s River. You can catch cisco in some inland lakes, but those populations are highly threatened by pollution and climate change.

Conservation approach: TNC partnered with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians, Central Michigan University and the Sioux Tribe of Chippewa Indians to study the number of cisco in Lake Michigan beginning in the early 2000s, confirming their numbers and range have increased significantly. Today, partners are continuing to monitor cisco populations and looking for opportunities to restore spawning reef habitat to further help increase cisco populations in Michigan.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: From invasive species to overharvesting to environmental degradation, cisco went through it all and the impact it had on their population was devastating. As a forage fish, cisco are an important part of the Great Lakes food web. They are also historically an important food source in the Great Lakes, desired both recreationally and commercially.

Learn more: Elk Rapids Reef Restoration Wildlife Action Plan: Great Lakes Ciscoes Wildlife Action Plan: Inland Cisco Lakes Resurgence of Cisco in Lake Michigan

Reviewed by Matt Herbert , senior conservation scientist in Michigan.

Photo Credit:  Paul Vecsei

Bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus

The bald eagle could easily be a poster child for nature's comebacks in the U.S.

Mature bald eagles have the classic white head and tail, yellow and crooked beak, and black body. An adult can weigh more than 13 pounds and have a wingspan of 6 to 8 feet.

Often found around large waterbodies, the bald eagle's diet is mostly fish, but also has an opportunistic diet of mammals, birds and even reptiles.

Range: The bald eagle's range includes most of North America, including a large part of Canada and northern Mexico. The species can be found in every state in the continental U.S. and all Canadian provinces.

Where to see: Among many great places to see bald eagles in Minnesota are the Mary Macdonald Preserve at Horseshoe Harbor and St. Louis River .

Conservation approach: In Minnesota and Wisconsin, which boast the largest populations of nesting bald eagles in the Lower 48, they are especially a point of pride. Decades ago, this national symbol was at risk of extinction due to habitat loss, illegal hunting and widespread use of DDT, a once-popular chemical insecticide. When DDT was banned in the U.S. in 1972, the number of known active nests in Minnesota was just over 100. In the time surveys concluded in 2006, the number of active nests was estimated at more than 1,300 and by 2007 there were an estimated 2,300-plus pairs in Minnesota. In 2007, the bald eagle was officially removed from the U.S. Endangered Species List. Today, TNC proudly works with partners to protect important habitat that benefits bald eagles, including in the Northwoods, the Driftless Area and the Mississippi River’s headwaters area .

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: As a species that relies on healthy waters, intact and mature forests, and open country, the bald eagle’s success is tied to conservation of many habitats and the diversity of species found within them. Healthy rivers with strong fish migrations are just one example of many ways that sound habitats and biodiversity contribute to this iconic species’ success.

Learn more: Minnesota DNR: Bald Eagles in Winter Minnesota DNR: Bald Eagles in Summer

Photo Credit:  Marci Lanois/TNC Photo Contest 2022

Topeka shiner, Notropis topeka

A native of the Great Plains, the Topeka shiner is a small silvery-green minnow (less than 3 inches long) with a dark stripe, or lateral band, that runs the length of its body. It was placed on the federal endangered list nearly 25 years ago as its natural habitat deteriorated or was destroyed outright.

The Topeka shiner relies on small prairie streams with good water quality and cool temperatures to survive.

Range: Topeka shiners inhabit parts of six states (Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota) across the Great Plains. They migrate through oxbows and shallow pools of the freshwater streams winding through tallgrass prairies.

Where to see: The Topeka shiner can be found in the headwaters of Little Creek on TNC’s Dunn Ranch Prairie preserve in Hatfield, Missouri. A recently completed fish passage project on Little Creek , has reconnected the upstream and downstream sides of the creek, allowing the little minnow increased habitat to migrate freely.

Conservation approach: In announcing the shiner’s designation as an endangered species in 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service noted the minnow’s occupied range had declined by an estimated 80%, with half of that decline occurring during the past 25 years.

At the time, the Topeka shiner had dwindled to only two known streams in Missouri.

In 2013, in partnership with the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, TNC launched an effort to restore the Topeka shiner to the headwaters of Little Creek on Dunn Ranch Prairie in northern Missouri. Over 5,000 Topeka shiners from a nearby MDC hatchery were released into the Little Creek watershed.

In 2022, TNC completed a fish passage project on Little Creek  through the National Fish Habitat Program with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The project restored two creek passages and reconnected more than 5 miles of habitat for the shiner and other fish, continuing the commitment to help protect and restore the Topeka shiner to Missouri’s landscapes. Since completion, TNC has been working with the University of Missouri and the Missouri Department of Conservation to use both color banding and electronic tags to monitor and track Topeka shiners and other fish species. Monitoring data has shown Topeka shiners in both of the restored creek passages, confirming the success of the project.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: The Topeka shiner is an indicator species of environmental quality, meaning its decline is a clear signal of a similar decline in the water quality of our prairie ecosystems. Threats to the minnow include stream channelization, dams, sedimentation, oxbow removal, agricultural runoff, and urbanization and development.

Learn more: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species profile

Reviewed by  Rob Hunt , TNC’s director of resilient waters in Missouri.

Photo Credit:  Kimberly Emerson, USFWS

Sandhill cranes, Grus canadensis

The sandhill crane is a large migratory species of crane that can be found throughout North America. The common name of this bird refers to the habitat it prefers, much like that found along the Platte River in Central Nebraska.

Range: Wintering sandhill cranes can be found throughout the southwestern U.S. and migrate to their breeding grounds to nest in the northern U.S., Canada, and even Siberia. With several migratory populations of sandhill cranes, the mid-continent population that comes through Nebraska is the largest, with 80% of all sandhill cranes in the world in that population.

Where to see: A fascinating hourglass migration flight pattern brings cranes to Nebraska between February and April, with mid-March being the peak of the migration. Onlookers can marvel at the spectacular view of more than 1 million birds found along 70 miles of the Central Platte River, like at TNC’s Platte River Prairies , as the cranes rest and refuel for up to three weeks before they continue their northward migration.

Conservation approach: Among the threats to the survival of migratory sandhill cranes are the loss of wetland habitats and unregulated hunting, especially in the early 1900s. According to the North American Breeding Bird Survey , their populations have been increasing at an annual rate of 5% per year since the mid-1960s, due to wetland restoration and abundant food on agricultural lands.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Sandhill cranes rely on bare river sandbars for overnight roosting and both crop fields and prairies for daytime feeding. TNC in Nebraska works diligently with partners to maintain river water levels in the Platte River and prevent invasive plants from taking over sandbars. Through stewardship and land management, TNC is successfully protecting over 3,000 acres of land to support a healthy Platte River ecosystem essential for sandhill cranes for years to come.

Reviewed by Chris Helzer, Director of Science.

Photo Credit:  Jim Ridley/TNC Photo Contest 2009

North Dakota

Piping plover, Charadrius melodus

Barely the size of a sparrow, the piping plover is well-disguised among the sands of its habitats along North America's coastal shores and gravel beaches. As a ground-nester on the beach, piping plover eggs and chicks are vulnerable to predation by mammals and other birds. Competition with many human uses in nesting areas can also lead to nesting failure or chick mortality. Since 1985, Northern Great Plains and Atlantic Coast populations have been listed as threatened, and populations in the Great Lakes watershed listed as endangered.

Range: Piping plovers are found in the Great Plains, where they are federally designated as threatened, and in the Great Lakes and Atlantic coast, where they are endangered ( map ).

Where to see: In North Dakota, a good place to see piping plovers is the John E. Williams Preserve near Turtle Lake.

Conservation approach: Piping plovers have very specific requirements for their breeding grounds. TNC established John E. Williams Preserve near Turtle Lake, ND, to protect one of best sites for breeding piping plovers, as the preserve’s gravelly beaches along its alkali lakes provide ideal conditions. Here, TNC is working with experts to develop cost-effective methods to restore habitat and increase the number of nesting plovers at Williams Preserve, including the use of prescribed fire.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: At John E. Williams, the combination of salty deposits and fluctuating water levels creates large barren areas attractive to piping plovers. The preserve is also attractive to other species, including American avocet, marbled godwit and white-faced ibis.

Reviewed by Chris Gordon, Land Steward/ND Fire Manager.

Photo Credit:  Richard Hamilton Smith

Timber rattlesnake, Crotalus horridus

Timber rattlesnakes are stocky, venomous snakes that grow up to 3 to 5 feet long. Their patterned coloration can range from yellow to dark brown, and they have triangular heads with vertical pupils. They prefer deciduous forests with rocky terrain and canopy openings where they can bask in sunlight.

Range: South central New Hampshire west to southeastern Minnesota and south to eastern Texas and northern Florida.

Where to see: Staff from TNC and the Cincinnati Museum Center are working together with state and private research team members to research and protect populations of timber rattlesnakes at the Edge of Appalachia Preserve in Adams County, Ohio.

Conservation approach: Through field surveys and using telemetry, the team located and tracked a timber rattlesnake on protected land within the Edge of Appalachia Preserve System in 2019. The tracking confirmed timber rattlesnakes using overwintering dens alongside other reptile and amphibian species within the preserve. Long term camera monitoring of these den sites has revealed greater numbers of the species than was previously known. Protecting these dens and overwintering sites is critical to supporting the species.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Timber rattlesnakes were once revered and respected by Indigenous Peoples and early Europeans alike. The species was viewed as an important part of the natural system in which they occurred. Today, TNC is working to protect their habitat while helping to educate Ohioans about their importance to the forests of Ohio.

Reviewed by Rich McCarty, Edge of Appalachia Naturalist.

Photo Credit:  Jacob Ian Wall, CC BY-NC 2.0

South Dakota

Black-footed ferret, mustela nigripes

This member of the weasel family is about the same size as a mink, about 18 to 24 inches long and weighing less than 3 pounds. It is the only ferret native to the Americas, and once inhabitated a vast part of North America. They live only among prairie dog colonies and can't survive without the prairie dog.

While only an estimated 300 individual black-footed ferrets exist, this was a species that was thought to be extinct. Thanks to ambitious and persistent conservation efforts, there are signs of success and hope for the black-footed ferret.

Range: Historically the black-footed ferret’s range extended across the Great Plains as far north as Saskatchewan and as far south as Chihuahua. Today, small populations can be found in and near Badlands National Park in South Dakota, and other reintroduction sites in Wyoming and Montana.

Where to see: Conata Basin in the Badlands of South Dakota supports one of the largest self-sustaining populations of black-footed ferrets.

Conservation approach: A small population of black-footed ferrets was discovered in 1981 on a Wyoming rancher’s land. Collaborative efforts by governments, NGOs, local groups and landowners have resulted in successful efforts to reintroduce the animal in select regions, through captive breeding, habitat protection, including land protected by TNC within Conata Basin, and disease management.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Because black-footed ferrets depend on prairie dogs for both their food and habitat, grassland restoration has been a critical component in bringing them back. Conservation partners have also focused on disease management, as sylvatic plague and other diseases have taken a toll on black-footed ferret populations.

Reviewed by Julie Brazell, Conservation Coordinator.

Photo Credit:  Bill Allen

Hine’s emerald dragonfly

Somatochlora hineana

Thought to be extinct since the 1930s, an adult Hine’s emerald dragonfly was discovered at a TNC preserve in Door County, Wisconsin, in 1987. This rare dragonfly only lives for three to five years and spends most of its life as a larva, which lives in small streams fed by groundwater.

Range: Parts of Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin and Ontario, Canada.

Where to see: TNC’s Door County preserves— Mink River , Kangaroo Lake , Shivering Sands and North Bay-Mud Lake —are all home to Hine's emerald dragonflies. Door County hosts the greatest abundance of this endangered dragonfly in the world.

Conservation approach: This dragonfly is both state and federally endangered, so state and federal agencies are key to conservation efforts. TNC has played an important role by supporting years of research on the animal’s life cycle and habitat needs. We are using this information to protect groundwater recharge areas and larval habitat. This strategy is key to the species’ survival.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Among the major threats to the dragonfly are groundwater contamination and depletion, especially from nearby development. These same groundwater resources also provide well water for residents. Bringing attention to this species is a way to get people thinking about the larger systems that both dragonflies and people need to survive and inspiring action to protect them.

Learn more:   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species profile

Reviewed by Mike Grimm, TNC’s conservation ecologist in northeast Wisconsin.

Photo Credit:  Kathy Kirk

Endangered & Recovering Species in Southern States

Red Hills salamander

Phaeognathus hubrichti

The Red Hills salamander is listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is approximately 10 inches long, dark brown to dark gray, and is typically found on north-facing steep slopes of ravines and bluffs dominated by hardwood trees.

Range: The salamander’s entire global distribution is confined to six Alabama counties. It is the official state amphibian of Alabama.

Where to see: TNC has worked for many years to protect the Red Hills in Alabama , a part of the state’s Forever Wild Land Trust.

Conservation approach: TNC and our public and private partners are working to protect and restore enough Red Hills habitat to result in the removal of the Red Hills salamander from the federal Endangered Species List. Not coincidentally, such a plan would allow TNC to protect the best of the Red Hill’s unique habitats and many of its other rare or unique species.

TNC has a goal of preserving some 30,000 acres in the Tallahatta Bluffs region over the next decade, and is working with landowners on agreements to protect some 25,000 acres along Big Flat Creek, one of the largest and healthiest Red Hills streams.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: There are many Red Hills forest types, but one of the most unusual forests of the region combines Appalachian and tropical diversity in surprising ways. The forest along the slopes is often described as a “beech-magnolia” forest. These forests are unusually rich in oaks, hickories, and many other species, but it’s the unusual spectacle of giant beech trees (a symbol of Northern forests) growing happily side by side with towering evergreen Southern magnolias that gives this forest type its name.

The understory has a wide variety of flowering trees and shrubs that many people may associate with forests much farther north, such as mountain laurel, rhododendron, sourwood, mountain hydrangea and leatherwood ( Dirca ). But these plants grow beside some very unusual, virtually subtropical plants, such as the highly fragrant Florida anise (a member of one of the oldest families of flowering plants), titi ( Cyrilla ), and lily-like members of the amaryllis family ( Hymenocallis and Zephyranthes ).

Learn more:  Alabama Forever Wild: The Red Hills Tracts .

Photo Credit:  USFWS

Diana fritillary

Argynnis diana 

The state butterfly of Arkansas, Diana fritillary is a large, showy butterfly, once considered at high-risk for extinction in Arkansas. It is dimorphic, with males displaying black near the base of the wings and orange at the outer portions of the wings (on the upper side), and females black at the base with blue on outer parts of the hindwing.

Range: In Arkansas, Diana fritillary are found in the Ozark Mountains, Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas River Valley and Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain. It is also known from the Ozark Mountains in Missouri and eastern Oklahoma and the southern Appalachian Mountains of Virginia, West Virginia, Georgia and Alabama.

Where to see: Many TNC preserves now support populations of this species, including Presson-Oglesby Prairie Preserve in the Arkansas River Valley and Columbus Prairie Preserve in the Blackland Prairie Ecosystem in Southwest Arkansas. Look for males and females flying for about a month in late May and June. Females become active again in September and October when they lay eggs.

Conservation approach: Over the past 30 years, TNC and partners have focused heavily on reintroducing fire as a natural disturbance in the state’s ecosystems. This has restored hundreds of thousands of acres of open habitat, including prairie, glades, savanna and open woodlands. Thanks to this effort, populations of Diana fritillary have rebounded and there is no longer a need to list it as threatened or endangered.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Availability of good nectar sources throughout summer and into the fall is important for this species, especially for females which live longer than males. These nectar sources can be found in greater abundance in open, native habitats like tallgrass prairies and glades. Meanwhile, the Diana’s host plants are several species in the genus Viola (violets), many of which are found in wooded and forested areas. Therefore, effective conservation of this species stresses the importance of natural ecotones, landscape mosaics and reoccurring fire, which increase biodiversity and benefit natural communities and other species of conservation concern.

Learn more: For photos, general species information, and recent sightings, see the taxa page on iNaturalist  or the  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species profile .

Reviewed by Melanie Rudolf , Terrestrial Ecologist Manager who oversees the Monitoring, Measures and Adaptive Management Program for the Arkansas Chapter.

Photo Credit:  “Diana Fritillary” by Aaron Beam, iNaturalist, CC BY-NC 4.0

Florida panther, Puma concolor coryi

The Florida panther is a puma subspecies that is only found in southwest to south-central Florida and nowhere else on earth. With a population estimate of about 200 adults and subadults, it’s one of the most endangered mammals in the country.

Range: The panther’s range once spanned the entire southeastern U.S. but today they are confined to a small area in southwest to south-central Florida that is less than 5% of their historical range.

Where to see: This elusive and critically endangered species is mostly nocturnal and is rarely seen. They live in the forested habitats found in portions of a handful of counties in southwest and south-central Florida.

Conservation approach: Land conservation is a high priority for Florida panther protection and TNC has been working for over 30 years to protect lands critical for the Florida panther to thrive into the future. This includes securing protection through conservation easements along both sides of the Caloosahatchee River, which is a vital link for panthers to naturally migrate from lands south of the river into the ranching and natural lands north of the river. TNC and partners have been working to build protected corridors through the purchase of property and conservation easements to provide a connected landscape for panthers to safely roam and move northward to expand their range.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Florida panthers are Florida’s widest ranging land animal, and their large territories are shared with many other species, making them an umbrella species. When we protect land and wildlife corridors for Florida panthers, we are also providing protection benefits to a wide array of plant and animal species that call panther habitat home. Humans also gain from the protection of panther habitat through enhanced and properly functioning ecosystems.

Learn more: Florida Panthers: Crossing the Caloosahatchee Planning for the Prowl: Why it’s Rush Hour for the Florida Panther

Reviewed by Wendy Mathews , TNC Florida senior conservation projects manager.

Photo Credit:  Carlton Ward Jr.

Gopher tortoise, Gopherus polyphemus

The gopher tortoise is one of the planet’s oldest living species and the only native North American tortoise species east of the Mississippi River. Georgia’s gopher tortoise population is now near 40,000 individuals, or 61 viable populations, across the state on protected and actively managed lands.

Range: The gopher tortoise range is from southern South Carolina through the southern half of Georgia, into Florida, and west into southern Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.

Where to see: The gopher tortoise can be found at several TNC preserves and project sites, including: • Broxton Rocks Preserve • Charles Harrold Preserve • Chattahoochee Fall Line • Moody Forest Natural Area

Conservation approach: The revitalization of gopher tortoise habitats and populations has been a demonstration in what is possible when environmental partners across the non-profit, governmental, and private sectors work in close partnership. TNC in Georgia is a leader of the Gopher Tortoise Conservation Initiative which includes collaborators such as the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, the Georgia Forestry Commission, Georgia Chamber of Commerce, and dozens of others. Our work has kept the gopher tortoise off of the endangered species list.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Gopher tortoises have large, elephantine hind limbs and flattened, shovel-like forelimbs that are uniquely designed to dig burrows up to 40 feet long and 10 feet wide. At least 300 other species also use their burrows, including rare species such as the Eastern indigo snake, gopher frog, Florida mouse, and hundreds of rodents and invertebrates.

Learn more: Gopher Tortoise Conservation Initiative

Reviewed by Dan Ryan, Director of Conservation for The Nature Conservancy in Georgia.

Photo Credit:  Karine Aigner

Rocky Mountain elk

Cervus canadensis nelsoni

The Rocky Mountain elk is a subspecies of North American elk. The Eastern elk ( Cervus elaphus canadensis ) once ranged all over the state of Kentucky, but this subspecies was extirpated by the mid-1800s. When elk were reintroduced to Kentucky by the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation , beginning in 1997, the subspecies brought over from the western U.S. was the Rocky Mountain elk. These subspecies of elk are genetically similar. Kentucky now has the largest herd of elk east of the Mississippi River.

The Nature Conservancy acquired the Cumberland Forest Project in 2019, including 55,000 acres of prime Kentucky elk habitat where people can once again enjoy elk through wildlife watching, hunting, and the scientific study of this species.

Range: Rocky Mountains and adjacent ranges of the western U.S., with some relocation areas in the eastern U.S.

Where to see: Cumberland Forest Project , Jenny Wiley State Resort Park

Conservation approach: Elk were absent from the Kentucky landscape for more than a century due to unregulated hunting and habitat loss. TNC’s partners reintroduced elk on reclaimed surface mines, which provide the open habitat surrounded by forestland on which elk thrive. The presence of elk on these mine lands has spurred ongoing habitat work by our partners, while TNC’s reforestation efforts on mine lands also benefit the herds. Elk reintroduction has also brought economic benefits to communities in eastern Kentucky.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Many species have benefited from the reintroduction of elk and accompanying habitat improvements. White-tailed deer, wild turkey, ruffed grouse and even songbirds benefit from good elk habitat. The Nature Conservancy’s habitat improvement work on the Cumberland Forest Project includes planting hundreds of thousands of trees and hundreds of acres of forbs, grasses, and wildflowers on former mine lands, creating food and cover not only for elk but many other wildlife species.

Learn more: Elk Tours

Reviewed by Danna Baxley , director of conservation for TNC’s Kentucky program.

Photo Credit:  Dave Baker/Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources

American chaffseed, Schwalbea americana

American chaffseed is a modest-sized herbaceous plant that occurs in moist longleaf pine habitat on naturally occurring low mounds (“pimple mounds”) and is highly dependent on frequent fire. It was listed as a federally endangered species in 1992, and while it continues to decline, there is hope for its comeback through land protection, careful management of its fire-dependent habitat and other measures.

Range: American chaffseed occurs in seven states along the Atlantic coast: New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida and Louisiana.

Where to see: CC Road Savanna Preserve , Louisiana

Conservation approach: Several state and federal agencies, organizations, and private landowners are working to protect and manage habitat for American chaffseed.

TNC is working to restore native longleaf pine savanna habitat at CC Road Savanna Preserve through removal of off-site pines and hardwoods, replanting longleaf pine, prescribed burning and control of invasive species. On a broader scale, TNC has been partnering with conservation-minded landowners in the near vicinity, who collectively own several thousand acres being restored to native habitats. Our key conservation strategy calls for protection of at least 10,000 acres in this landscape to ensure long-term viability of the savanna habitat and the many species it supports.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: American chaffseed is one of many plant species that rely on fire dependent ecosystems—in this case longleaf pine flatwoods. Wildlife species, too, need well-managed longleaf pine forests, such as gopher tortoise and red-cockaded woodpecker. Ensuring the viability of this type of longleaf pine also helps safeguard habitat for those species.

Photo Credit:  Peter Pattavina/US Fish & Wildlife Service

Mississippi

Mississippi sandhill crane

Grus canadensis pulla

About 4 feet tall with a red cap on their heads, Mississippi sandhill cranes are graceful, long-legged birds found exclusively among the wet pine savannas along Mississippi’s Gulf Coast. Unlike their close relatives in the north, this subspecies of sandhill crane does not migrate, but instead stays year-round in the state.

Range: The cranes are found in wet pine savannas of southeastern Mississippi, east of the Pascagoula River to slightly west of the Jackson County line.

Where to see: Staff from TNC and the US Fish and Wildlife Service are working together to research and protect populations of Mississippi sandhill cranes at the Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge in Jackson County.

Conservation approach: By the 1970s, the population of Mississippi sandhill cranes had plummeted to only 30-35 birds in the wild, largely due to the loss of their preferred wet pine savanna habitats in southeast Mississippi. To save this species and its home, the Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge was created under the authority of the Endangered Species Act in 1975. Since that time, conservationists have been using captive rearing, reintroduction, tracking and monitoring of cranes to help protect and increase their populations numbers. Additionally, because these cranes are homebodies and do not stray far from their wet pine savanna habitat, TNC and other conservation partners are working together to restore and protect the wet pine savannas, primarily through prescribed fire. The paired approach of direct wildlife conservation and habitat protection and restoration has helped the Pascagoula sandhill crane’s population to come back. Today, around 160 Mississippi sandhill cranes live in the wild and their numbers continue to grow.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Much like the Mississippi sandhill cranes, the wet pine savannas  that they call home are endangered. As one of the most diverse habitats in the United States, the wet pine savanna is also home to many wildlife and plant species that are native to the Gulf Coast region.

Learn more: TNC: Stories in Mississippi

Reviewed by Becky Stowe, Director of Forest Programs for TNC in Mississippi.

Photo Credit:  Steve Hillebrand/US Fish & Wildlife Service

North Carolina

Red-cockaded woodpecker

Leuconotopicus borealis

Red-cockaded woodpeckers live in mature longleaf pine, which was once the dominant coastal-plain tree from southeast Virginia to eastern Texas. As longleaf forest declined, Red-cockaded woodpeckers became the first bird to be placed on the endangered species list. Today its numbers have grown to the point where it may soon be removed from the list.

Range: Coastal Plain of nine states from Southeast Virginia to East Texas.

Where to see: Disney Wilderness Preserve Calloway Forest Preserve Moody Forest Preserve Peachtree Rock Heritage Preserve Piney Grove Preserve

Conservation approach: Restoring longleaf pine forests, which once covered 90 million acres but shrunk to a historic low of 3.2 million acres, was key to bringing back the red-cockaded woodpecker. TNC is the only organization working across the range to restore longleaf pines, which now span 5.2 million acres, with plantings and controlled burning. Some of the best red-cockaded woodpecker stands remain on military bases. TNC in North Carolina pioneered working with the military to protect, restore, and manage longleaf pine adjacent to Fort Bragg in North Carolina. This approach was also used successfully by TNC in other states to restore red-cockaded woodpecker habitat.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Except for tropical rainforests, longleaf pine is unparalleled for its biodiversity. Protecting and managing longleaf forest has benefited not only the red-cockaded woodpecker, but also a host of other species including gopher tortoises and Venus flytraps.

Learn more: Nature Magazine: Pine Country

Reviewed by Chuck Peoples, Conservation Director, North Carolina chapter.

Photo Credit:  Brady Beck

American bison, Bison bison

Also known as American buffalo, the bison were historically found on the rich grasslands from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico, east to nearly the Atlantic tidewater and from Georgia to New York. The American bison is an herbivore, grazing on sedges and grasses on the prairies, and can weigh 700 to 2,500 pounds.

Range: Historically, bison were found throughout North America, and are now an icon of the Great Plains. Today, most bison live semi-wildly on TNC preserves, in national or state parks or forests, tribal lands and in commercial livestock herds.

Where to see: The Joseph H. Williams Tallgrass Prairie Preserve in Osage County, Oklahoma, is home to TNC’s largest bison herd. Starting with just 300 animals in 1993, the herd has grown to approximately 2,000 head.

Conservation approach: Although never listed as an endangered species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the resurgence of American bison across the Great Plains and beyond is a wildlife restoration success story.

Once roaming from modern day Mexico to Canada, bison thrived. Over-hunting by European colonizers, massive plowing of the prairies and non-native diseases forced bison to the brink of extinction. After the deliberate actions of passionate ranchers, American Bison Society and conservationists, the species has rebounded to over 350,000 animals. TNC manages about 5,500 of these animals.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Grazing and fire are two of the primary ecological forces in the Great Plains, and their interaction is what creates landscape or habitat diversity. The lush green regrowth following a fire is very attractive to grazing bison, resulting in a fire-induced rotational effect. This “pyric-herbivory,” the interaction of fire and grazing, maintained a dynamic mosaic of landscape patches, thus supporting the rich diversity of prairie plants and animals. Bison also add habitat diversity to the prairie by their wallowing behavior which creates shallow basins that serve as temporary wetlands for other wildlife and water-loving plants. Even their thick patches of hair shed during spring is highly sought after by nesting grassland birds and small mammals.

Reviewed by Bob Hamilton, Tallgrass Initiative Director for TNC in Oklahoma.

Photo Credit:  Morgan Heim

South Carolina

American alligator

Alligator mississippiensis

The American alligator is the official state reptile of Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi, but it’s found across the entire coastal Southeast United States. Decades ago, the American alligator population was threatened both by extensive hunting for their hides (to be made into belts, shoes and purses) and the drainage and clearing of wetlands for competing land uses, such as building homes or growing agricultural products. They were one of the first animals protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Range: From coastal North Carolina south to Florida, wrapping around the Florida peninsula and up through the Gulf Coast of Texas.

Where to see: Alligators thrive in coastal wetlands and can be found wherever there is fresh water along the South Carolina coast. One of the best places to spot them—especially sunning themselves on a warm day—is a conservation region known as the ACE Basin . This combined basin of the Ashepoo, Combahee and Edisto rivers is located between Hilton Head Island and Charleston.

Conservation approach: American alligator populations have fully rebounded since the 1970s, and—after being removed from the endangered species list in 1987—they are now listed as a species of “least concern” for extinction. This comeback has come thanks to limits placed on alligator products and hunting, as well as robust protection and restoration of the alligator’s natural wetland habitat. In South Carolina’s ACE Basin, The Nature Conservancy has directly protected more than 83,000 acres, contributing to a combined 310,000 acres privately and publicly protected in the region.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Like beavers, American alligators help reshape the wetland habitat in which they live. Instead of building dams, though, alligators dig large holes for dens. These holes then become habitat for other plants and wildlife when the alligator leaves.

Reviewed by Eric Krueger, Director of Science and Stewardship for TNC in South Carolina.

Photo Credit:  Michael Fuhr/TNC

Gray bat, Myotis grisescens

The gray bat is a medium-sized insectivorous bat with an overall length of about 3.5 inches and a wingspan of 10 to 11 inches. The gray bat occurs in limestone karst areas, meaning a landscape marked by caves, sinkholes, springs and other features, of the southeastern and midwestern United States. The gray bat was added to the U.S. list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants in 1976.

Gray bats are known to live in caves, but recent data shows us that they will roost in culverts, dams, bridges, etc. There is at least one colony in a mine in MO.

Range: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia

Where to see: Nickajack Cave Wildlife Refuge—Maple View Public Use Area

Conservation approach: TNC’s conservation efforts have involved: • Purchasing restoring, and protecting caves that harbor federally endangered gray bats; • Limiting human access to caves by installing bat-friendly gates to prevent trespassing; and • Conducting research to help scientists understand the entire gray bat life history and behavior to inform conservation strategies.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: During their pregnancy and nursing periods, gray bats consume nearly their own weight nightly in insects. Gray bats deposit some of that energy in the form of guano inside their cave homes, creating a rich environment for life to grow in a habitat with no sunlight or plants.

Learn more: Popular Science: Inside the World’s First Manmade Batcave Built For Wild Bats U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Gray Bat Species Profile Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency: Gray Bat Page

Reviewed by Cory Holliday, TNC’s Cave and Karst Program Director in Tennessee.

Attwater’s prairie chicken

Tympanuchus cupido attwateri

This small grouse is a highly endangered subspecies of the greater prairie chicken, native to Texas’ coastal prairies. Males have large orange air sacs on the sides of their necks, which they inflate during mating season to make a loud "booming” sound.

Range: Historically, the coastal prairies of Texas and Louisiana. Today, only two wild populations exist, both in Texas along the mid and upper Gulf Coast.

Where to see: Wild populations can be found at TNC’s Refugio-Goliad Prairie Project in Goliad County, Texas and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge in Colorado County, Texas.

Conservation approach: By 1996, habitat loss and development put wild populations of the Attwater’s prairie chicken at fewer than 50 birds. Through collaboration with local landowners, conservation organizations and federal and state agencies, TNC and partners are using sustainable land management and stewardship practices to revitalize and protect prairie chicken habitat. Tools such as rotational grazing, prescribed burns and the removal of invasive species have helped restore the native landscape, creating healthy and resilient grasslands to support these birds. TNC has also facilitated the release of over 1,000 captive-reared Attwater’s prairie chickens on private lands in Goliad County. In 2023, wild populations reached their highest numbers in the past twenty years, demonstrating that captive-reared birds can successfully reproduce in the wild—a key strategy in reestablishing this critically endangered species.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: The iconic Attwater’s prairie chicken is an indicator species for Texas’ coastal prairies and marshes; when these prairie chickens can’t make a living on the land, we know that the broader prairie habitat isn’t functioning properly. Ultimately, the diminished health of our grasslands impacts all of the other systems that depend on these lands to thrive—our bays and waterways, our heritage farming and livestock industries and all of the people, plants and wildlife they sustain.

Learn more: Song of the Prairie: Restoring a Home on the Range for the Attwater’s Prairie Chicken U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species profile

Reviewed by Kirk Feuerbacher, TNC’s Working Lands Program Director for the Texas Chapter.

Photo Credit:  GaryKramer.net

Eelgrass, Zostera marina

Rising from shallow bay bottoms, ribbon-like eelgrass leaves may grow to 4 feet, often long enough to float on the surface. Forming vast underwater meadows, eelgrass provides food for waterfowl and green sea turtles; shelter for marine animals such as bay scallops, molting blue crabs, and juvenile fishes; and hunting grounds for gamefish such as striped bass.

Range: Atlantic coast from North Carolina to Labrador, Canada; Pacific coast from Baja California, Mexico, to Alaska; Mediterranean and Black seas.

Where to see: Eelgrass grows in shallow waters of the Chesapeake Bay and coastal bays along the seaside of Virginia’s Eastern Shore, where TNC’s Volgenau Virginia Coast Reserve hosts opportunities for volunteers to help restore this foundational marine habitat.

Conservation approach: Eelgrass virtually disappeared from Virginia’s coastal bays in the 1930s because of disease and a hurricane. But following the discovery of a small patch in a seaside bay off the Eastern Shore, TNC and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science used that seed source to launch restoration efforts. Since 2008, volunteers have helped collect millions of seeds, and eelgrass has regenerated across some 10,000 acres in four bays—the largest seagrass restoration project in the world.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: Every 30 minutes, the world loses a football-field-sized area of seagrass meadows. From bay scallops to blue crabs and from seahorses to striped bass, myriad marine animals and waterfowl rely on these habitats for food and shelter. Moreover, research shows that seagrass habitats can play a vital role in bolstering coastal resilience and mitigating climate change.

Learn more: How You Can Help: Volunteer to Help Restore Eelgrass Photo Essay: Restoring Eelgrass on Virginia’s Eastern Shore Seagrass Stories: Barrier Islands Gose Brewed with Eelgrass

Reviewed by Bo Lusk , Coastal Scientist, TNC’s Volgenau Virginia Coast Reserve.

Photo Credit:  Jay Fleming

West Virginia

West Virginia northern flying squirrel

Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus

This small flying squirrel weighs a mere 4-6.5 ounces (about as much as a baseball) and is usually less than 1 foot long. Its large eyes aid its nocturnal nature. Mainly nesting in tree cavities, this flying squirrel usually has one litter of two to four young between March and May. Its preferred habitat includes forests with red spruce and old-growth characteristics.

Range: The range is from the Allegheny Mountains from Grant County, WV, southwest to Greenbrier County, WV, and Highland County, VA. Occurs at elevations above 3,300 feet. The Monongahela National Forest contains more than 90% of the known habitat within its range. A small amount of habitat is in Virginia’s Allegheny Mountain on the George Washington/Jefferson National Forest. The rest of the squirrel’s habitat is located on non-Federal lands.

Where to see: Mount Porte Crayon Preserve , Slaty Mountain Preserve , Monongahela National Forest, Blackwater Falls State Park, Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Canaan Valley State Park, Kumbrabow State Forest.

Conservation approach: Through collaboration of partners in the Central Appalachian Spruce Restoration Initiative (CASRI), the habitat for West Virginia northern flying squirrels have improved, which eventually led to the animal being removed from the U.S. endangered species list. Aiding the flying squirrel’s habitat the initiative has planted nearly 2 million spruce and other species, along with forestry activities to encourage spruce in appropriate areas, and the designation of spruce restoration in the 2004 Monongahela National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Additionally, TNC has acquired strategic tracts of land and conservation easements that connect, expand, and enhance the habitat required by flying squirrels.

TNC has identified and focused conservation efforts on several major landscapes and red spruce forests, including the Cheat Mountain Conservation Area, the Canaan Valley/Dolly Sods, Spruce Knob, and the Cranberry Conservation Areas. In addition, TNC has placed restoration and conservation measures by purchasing 57,000 acres of mineral rights on Cheat Mountain and more than 4,000 acres of surface rights in high elevation red spruce/northern hardwood forests transferred to the Monongahela National Forest.

Significance for habitat/biodiversity: West Virginia northern flying squirrel are an indicator species of high-quality red spruce and red spruce northern habitats along the high Alleghenies in West Virginia and a small portion of Virginia. The squirrel has a symbiotic relationship with truffles that grow underground in that they are the only known animal that disperses their spores. The red spruce forests of West Virginia contain approximately 240 species that the WV Division of Natural Resources tracks as rare, threatened, or endangered. These forests contain headwater streams that flow across the continental divide into both the Chesapeake Bay and Gulf of Mexico while providing flood attenuation and clean drinking water for millions downstream.

Reviewed by Mike Powell, West Virginia Director of Lands.

Photo Credit:  Patrick Cavan Brown

Questions About U.S. Conservation

Wildlife face many threats in the U.S. Many of these threats are the same facing wildlife in other parts of the world.

Here are some of the biggest threats facing biodiversity right now:

Climate change : Humans are feeling the impacts of climate change, and so is wildlife. Many species try to adapt by shifting their ranges: moving north and to higher elevation. But habitat fragmentation from human development makes movement more difficult. Some species can’t move because they’ve evolved within specific ecosystems, and they’re replaced with generalist species or driven to extinction. And some species, like ticks, are expanding their ranges and spreading diseases to new areas.

Climate change affects marine species as well as terrestrial species. Rising ocean temperatures threaten marine ecosystems like coral reefs, causing a loss of marine biodiversity and fisheries losses.

Habitat loss : There are many different types of habitat loss, each of which threaten wildlife. Some examples of habitat loss are deforestation, agriculture, mining and urbanization.

Habitat loss also includes degradation, such as from pollution, and fragmentation, such as roads through habitat or dams in streams.

Invasive species : Invasive species outcompete local and indigenous species for resources, causing declines in native biodiversity. Invasive species can also spread diseases that native species haven’t evolved to withstand and fuel devastating wildfires that destroy important wildlife habitat.

Pollution : Human activities cause a wide range of pollution in our environment, all of which threaten wildlife on land and in freshwater and marine ecosystems.

Here are just a few examples of pollution sources in the U.S.:

• Air pollution : We know that air pollution causes health problems in people, and it’s also damaging for wildlife. Burning fossil fuels is a main cause of air pollution in the U.S.
• Land pollution : Nitrogen pollution (often in the form of nutrient runoff from agriculture) has downstream effects on freshwater and marine wildlife, including dead zones and toxic algae. Pollution also comes in the form of plastic, industrial and household waste.
• Water pollution : Pollution often starts on land and ends up in water systems, harming freshwater and marine wildlife. Plastic and discarded fishing gear are two examples. Other pollution goes right into our waterways, such as waste from our modern sewage systems and stormwater pollution.

There are a variety of ways you can help wildlife near you and around the country! Here are just a few:

• Support conservation laws in your state and contact your elected officials
• Plant native plants : Turn your yard into a wildlife haven (and reduce your use of pesticides)
• Reduce your single-use plastic consumption : Plastic is a major pollutant of our oceans and risk to marine species
• Visit local preserves : Be sure to obey leash laws, stay on designated trails, and practice leave no trace
• Reduce the spread of invasive species : Clean your shoes and tires (and boats!) before and after traveling, buy local firewood, and ensure the plants you buy are not invasive
• Volunteer and attend events with The Nature Conservancy or other local conservation groups

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a U.S. law that creates protections for fish, wildlife and plants that are endangered or threatened with extinction. The ESA created guidelines for adding species to the list, removing species from the list, creating recovery plans, and funding conservation efforts. Its goal is to prevent extinction for species and their habitats.

The Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973 after many iconic species suffered declines. Since then, it has played a role in the comebacks of many iconic species.

The Endangered Species Act isn’t perfect, and threats to biodiversity remain enormously challenging. Many actions are needed to deliver the right policies, funding, and science, along with solutions for the tandem crisis of climate change.

The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (RAWA) is a bipartisan bill that would help recover wildlife listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act or state law, as well as preventing species from becoming endangered. RAWA will invest $1.397 billion per year in financial and technical assistance to state and Tribal efforts to help wildlife and local communities.

More than a third of America’s fish and wildlife species are at risk of extinction. States and Tribes have a long track record of success in helping recover species before they require the far more costly “emergency room” intervention of the Endangered Species Act. This conservation work also has multiple benefits for local communities, including job growth, cleaner water, and more outdoor recreation opportunities.

RAWA will fund on-the-ground conservation efforts of these species such as conserving and restoring habitats, fighting invasive species, reintroducing native species and tackling emerging diseases. Some of the funding will come from revenues from fees and fines for environmental requirement violations.

Nature Needs Your Support

Receive monthly conservation updates and opportunities in your state or country.

Please provide a valid email address

You’ve already signed up with this email address. To review your email preferences, please visit nature.org/emailpreferences

We may have detected a typo. Please enter a valid email address (formatted as [email protected]). Did you mean to type ?

We are sorry, but there was a problem processing the reCAPTCHA response. Please contact us at [email protected] or try again later.

Environmental Policy News

The U.S. Foundation for International Conservation Act would Protect Wildlife, Lands and Waters Around the World

The proposed legislation would establish a fund that would use U.S. government, private sector and philanthropic funding to support conservation, wildlife and Indigenous Peoples around the world.

Biodiversity Action Guide

There’s no shortage of strategies available to create a nature-positive planet now—our downloadable guide shows how to translate ambition into action.

We Must Restore Nature This Decade—Here's How

It will take the restoration of hearts and minds across sectors to save ecosystems, and the communities that depend on them.

Sign up to get the latest WWF news delivered straight to your inbox

10 of the world's most endangered animals

Currently, more than 41,000 species have been assessed to be under threat of extinction according to the IUCN.

As our modern society gets more resource-intensive, natural spaces are shrinking and wildlife numbers are declining. Our 2022 Living Planet Report shows global wildlife populations have plummeted by 69% on average since 1970. While there have been amazing and inspirational wildlife successes and stories in the past, many animals are still endangered mostly due to unsustainable human-led activities. Currently, on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list, more than 41,000 species have been assessed to be under threat of extinction . And below we’ve listed 10 of the world’s most endangered animals in the wild:

1. Javan Rhinos

Once found throughout south-east Asia, Javan rhinos have suffered a staggering decline in their numbers due to hunting and habitat loss. The lone wild population of Javan rhinos is one of the rarest of the rhino species—around 75 individuals—which can only be found on the island of Java, Indonesia. 

The Ujung Kulon National Park, a World Heritage Site, is the last remaining refuge of Javan rhinos. But the area also suffers from the invading Arenga palm, leaving the rhinos with less food to eat and less habitat to roam. Besides, the small Javan rhino population is also extremely vulnerable to extinction due to natural catastrophes, disease, poaching and potential inbreeding.

2. Amur Leopard

The Amur leopard is one of the rarest big cats in the world, with only around 100 individuals left in the wild. Although their wild population seems to be stable and increasing, these leopard subspecies are still critically endangered since 1996. And there is a good reason that: Amur leopards can only be found in a relatively small region of the far east of Russia and north-eastern China at present. 

The remaining Amur leopards face multiple threats to their survival, including habitat loss and fragmentation, prey scarcity and transportation infrastructure such as roads. However, there is hope for this rare big cat. Around 75% of their home range lies in protected areas in Russia and China, and they are also moving into suitable habitats outside of these protected areas.

3. Sunda Island Tiger

The Sunda Island tiger, or the Sumatran tiger, is the smallest tiger subspecies in the world, weighing up to 140kg. For reference, the tigers that live in the Amur region are the biggest of all the big cats where males can weigh up to twice as much as Sunda Island tigers. They are also very rare -  there are estimated to be around 600 in the wild, and are only found on the Indonesian island of Sumatra. 

Since the 1980s, the human population of south-east Asia has nearly doubled from 357 million to around 668 million in 2020. And this has had an impact on tiger numbers, which have been shrinking along with their habitats.

As human settlements expand in the region, Sunda Island tigers are increasingly likely to encounter people, which could lead to a further rise in human-tiger conflict. Tiger poaching and illegal trading of tiger parts and products are also of serious concern to their survival.

4. Mountain Gorillas

The Mountain gorilla is a subspecies of the eastern gorilla, which lives in two isolated populations in the high-altitude forests up in the volcanic, mountainous regions of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda and Uganda, and in the Bwindi Impenetrable National Park of Uganda. 

The Virunga Landscape has a history of political instability along with high levels of poverty in the region. This poses a substantial threat to mountain gorilla numbers as people have moved into areas closer to these great apes for food, shelter and space—over 500,000 people live near mountain gorilla habitat at present.  Despite this, mountain gorillas are making a promising recovery with conservation efforts and interventions from local and international partners and the WWF through the International Gorilla Conservation Programme.

At present, mountain gorillas are currently listed as endangered species, with just over 1,000 individuals in the wild. However, multiple threats remain that can hinder recovery progress for this species.

5. Tapanuli Orangutan

The Tapanuli orangutan is the newly described species of orangutan, listed as a distinct species in 2017. Only a single, isolated population of Tapanuli orangutans exist in the wild, which is restricted to the tropical forests of the Batang Toru ecosystem on the island of Sumatra, Indonesia. 

Today, these tree-dwelling primates are critically endangered with fewer than 800 individuals in the wild, making them the most endangered great ape species in the world. The loss of habitat is one of the main threats to its survival as tropical forests are being replaced by agriculture, mining, and hydroelectric and geothermal development. Between 1985 and 2007, over 40% of the forests in the province of North Sumatra, where the Tapanali orangutan is found, were lost.

6. Yangtze Finless Porpoise

The Yangtze Finless Porpoise is the odd one out of its family as it is the only living freshwater porpoise found in the world. This aquatic mammal currently resides in the Yangtze River in China and is listed as a critically endangered species. 

While the Yangtze river plays a crucial role in healthy ecosystem functioning, years of environmental degradation, overfishing and water pollution in the region are having detrimental impacts on many animal species who call it their home.

Once upon a time, Yangtze river dolphins used to live alongside finless porpoises, but there haven't been any freshwater dolphin sightings for the past two decades. Sadly, this could be yet another stark reminder of what soon may follow for many endangered species, including the Yangtze finless porpoise.

To protect this species, China has upgraded finless porpoises to ‘first level protected species’ in 2021—the highest level of protection available in the country. In 2018, their numbers were still around 1,000 individuals and stabilising in the wild.

7. Black Rhinos

Between 1960 and 1995, black rhino populations suffered dramatic losses in their numbers due to large-scale poaching. Around 2% survived the severe onslaught of the past. As rhino conservation took hold, their numbers have more than doubled across Africa since the 1990s. But, black rhinos are still listed as critically endangered by the IUCN, with around 5,630 individuals in the wild. 

Three subspecies of black rhino now survive, with the western black rhino declared extinct in 2011. Today, 95% of black rhinos are found in just four countries: Kenya, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe. The biggest threat to the remaining population is still poaching for their horn—in the last 10 years, almost 10,000 African rhinos have been killed to supply the illegal rhino horn trade.

8. African Forest Elephant

Deep in the dense, humid forests of West and Central Africa, you can find the elusive forest elephant, one of the two members of the African elephant species. The actual number of wild African forest elephants remains uncertain due to their shy nature, but we do know that they are critically endangered species and have declined by an estimated 86% over 31 years.

The main reason behind the decline is due to poaching, which is frequent, widespread and intensive, especially in Central Africa. As well as elephant poaching, habitat loss and land-use change for agriculture and other land uses have resulted in fragmented habitats and increasing human-elephant conflict leading to losses on both sides.

Today, African forest elephants occupy around 25% of their historic range, scattered among 20 different African nations, mostly in Gabon and the Republic of Congo.

9. Sumatran Orangutan

The Sumatran orangutan is found exclusively on the island of Sumatra, Indonesia. They are listed as critically endangered by the IUCN at present, with less than 14,000 individuals in the wild.

Sumatran orangutans face similar threats  to their Bornean and Tapanuli counterparts. From logging, agricultural plantations, and expanding infrastructure development to the illicit pet trade.

Orangutans need vast tracts of connecting forest to live in but between 1985 and 2007 these great apes lost 60% of their forest habitat. Today the majority of these orangutans are found in the northernmost tip of Sumatra in the Leuser Ecosystem, a landscape that includes tropical lowland rainforests and steamy peatland swamps.

10. Hawksbill Turtles

The Hawksbill turtle is one of the seven species of marine turtles and is found in nearshore tropical and subtropical waters of the Atlantic, the Indian, and the Pacific Ocean. Their numbers are believed to be between 20,000 and 23,000 nesting turtles, although it is difficult to assess their true population numbers since marine turtles are the true ocean wanderers. 

In the last 30 years, the worldwide populations of hawksbill turtles have reduced by at least 80% as a consequence of accidental capture in fishing gears, nesting habitat degradation, coral reef damage and the illegal trade of hawksbill shells and products.

Other human-led threats such as plastic pollution, climate change and rising sea levels could further contribute to the decline of this species in the future. At present, Hawksbill turtles are listed as critically endangered.

We are addressing our planet's biggest threats by understanding, promoting, and protecting wild habitats and our unique wildlife. With your help, tiger populations are recovering in Thailand, rhino numbers are increasing in Nepal, and world leaders have pledged to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030. You can help us make a difference too, by supporting our work to create a better future where people and nature can thrive. 

Help us help nature

As humans continue to shape the planet, the natural world is declining. But it doesn't have to be this way. With your help, forests can be replanted, oceans can be restored, nature can be preserved, and wildlife can be protected. 

If you would like to support our work, adopt an animal today and help make a difference where it really matters.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 22 September 2020

Half of resources in threatened species conservation plans are allocated to research and monitoring

• Rachel T. Buxton 1 ,
• Stephanie Avery-Gomm   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2882-0978 2 ,
• Hsein-Yung Lin 1 ,
• Paul A. Smith 1 , 2 ,
• Steven J. Cooke 1 , 3 &
• Joseph R. Bennett   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3901-9513 1 , 3  

Nature Communications volume  11 , Article number:  4668 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

9710 Accesses

55 Citations

151 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Conservation biology
• Environmental impact

Funds to combat biodiversity loss are insufficient, requiring conservation managers to make trade-offs between costs for actions to avoid further loss and costs for research and monitoring to guide effective actions. Using species’ management plans for 2328 listed species from three countries we show that 50% of species’ proposed recovery plan budgets are allocated to research and monitoring. The proportion of budgets allocated to research and monitoring vary among jurisdictions and taxa, but overall, species with higher proportions of budgets allocated to research and monitoring have poorer recovery outcomes. The proportion allocated to research and monitoring is lower for more recent recovery plans, but for some species, plans have allocated the majority of funds to information gathering for decades. We provide recommendations for careful examination of the value of collecting new information in recovery planning to ensure that conservation programs emphasize action or research and monitoring that directly informs action.

Similar content being viewed by others

Global shortfalls in documented actions to conserve biodiversity

Conservation prioritization can resolve the flagship species conundrum

A metric for spatially explicit contributions to science-based species targets

Introduction.

Given rapid rates of biodiversity loss and limited funding, recovery programs face difficult decisions about which conservation actions are the highest priority. Management of threatened species requires trade-offs between action and information: conservation actions are necessary to secure species from extinction, but management decisions made in the absence of sufficient information can be inefficient, or worse, undermine progress towards recovery 1 . Decisions must be made for threatened species with remarkably insufficient resources—in the U.S. for example, expenditure on endangered species is only 25% of that needed for full implementation of recovery plans 2 , 3 . Thus, conservation budgets represent a challenging resource allocation problem, where managers must efficiently balance the costs and benefits of management actions 4 with the value of collecting further information to increase the certainty of management success 5 , 6 .

Research and monitoring (RM) are important components of threatened species conservation. We define RM as activities that generate information about species (e.g., ecology, trends, population biology), threats they face, the socioeconomic context in which they occur (e.g., competing land uses), their response to interventions, and the effectiveness of new management techniques, including information designed to improve management approaches 7 . RM can lead to improved conservation decisions for threatened species when systematically integrated to iteratively improve the outcomes of management interventions (i.e., adaptive management) or may guide the implementation of actions based on the state of species populations i.e., state-dependent management 8 . In this way, when applied to inform action, RM can lead to improved efficiency and feasibility of management 9 . However, non-strategic or unwarranted RM can waste limited conservation resources, and reduces the funding available for action 10 . Prioritizing funding for RM may create the illusion that something useful is being done 11 , allowing necessary but difficult decisions regarding management actions to be deferred. Worse, some conservation monitoring programs track populations without any plan for action if a change occurs or collect information with no immediate relevance to management decisions 12 . As a result, many local populations and species have been monitored until extinction 13 , 14 .

Previous work has examined the cost of threatened species recovery plans as a resource allocation problem—optimizing the trade-off between the expected benefits and costs of management 15 , 16 , 17 . Yet, achieving recovery is unlikely if most resources are allocated to RM without clear guidance about how the information collected will trigger management interventions for recovery. We examine the proportion of threatened species budgets allocated to RM for over 2300 threatened species from three countries. We explore the characteristics of species with a high proportion of funding spent on RM to identify recovery plans that may not be sufficient to achieve recovery. We examine whether the proportion of the recovery budget allocated to RM is associated with threatened species recovery outcomes. Finally, we offer recommendations for examining the value of collecting new information when updating recovery documents, to ensure that research and monitoring are designed to generate evidence that can directly inform species recovery and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of future recovery strategies. Our findings show that, on average, half of species’ proposed recovery plan budgets are allocated to RM and that species with higher proportions of the budgets allocated to RM have poorer recovery outcomes.

Proportion of species’ budgets allocated to RM

Collectively, the United States (U.S.), New Zealand (NZ), and New South Wales, Australia (NSW), designate a mean of 50 ± 27% (±standard deviation, sd) of threatened species proposed budgets to RM. For 4% of species (3% in the U.S., 6% in NZ, and 2% in NSW), >95% of the proposed budget was allocated to RM (Fig.  1 ). For a subset of U.S. management tasks classified according to IUCN criteria, we found that the most common type of RM was an investigation of life history and ecology and the least common was research and monitoring of harvest and trade (Supplementary Fig.  1 ).

The stippled red line indicates the number of species with >95% of the budget allocated to research and monitoring (RM). The box and whiskers show the proportion of recovery plan budgets allocated to research and monitoring in each jurisdiction, with the median as a line, first and third quartiles as hinges, and the highest and lowest values within 1.5 times the inter-quartile range as whiskers. The black stippled line indicates the mean among jurisdictions (50%). Maps were created in ArcGIS for Desktop (10.3, ESRI Inc., USA).

Factors affecting the proportion allocated to RM

The U.S. and NZ had a significantly higher proportion of species’ budgets allocated to RM than NSW (mean ± sd, 52 ± 24% in the U.S., 52 ± 28% in NZ, and 36 ± 28% in NSW; Fig.  1 , Supplementary Table  2 ). The proportion of the budget allocated to RM was lower for species where the predicted benefits of the actions contained within recovery plans were estimated to be higher (see Methods for details, Supplementary Table  2 ). This trend was less pronounced for threatened species plans in the U.S. (Supplementary Table  3 ), which may relate to how the relative benefit of implementing a recovery plan was estimated by Gerber et al. 15 (see  Supplementary Methods ). Across all jurisdictions, threatened species with a larger total proposed budget had a lower proportion of the budget allocated to RM (Supplementary Table  2 ). For species with a smaller total proposed budget, there was a large variation in the proportion of the budget allocated to RM (0–100%; Supplementary Fig.  3 ). Bryophytes had the highest proportion of the budget allocated to RM, but these species are only listed in NZ (Fig.  2 , Supplementary Table  2 , Supplementary Fig.  2 ). In the U.S. and NSW, amphibians had the highest proportion of the budget allocated to RM (Supplementary Fig.  2 , Supplementary Table  2 ). Across all jurisdictions, birds had the lowest proportion of the budget allocated to RM (Fig.  2 , Supplementary Table  2 ).

The median and range of proportion of recovery plan budgets allocated to research and monitoring (RM) for n  = 2261 threatened species in a variety of taxa in the United States (U.S.), New Zealand (NZ), and New South Wales, Australia (NSW). For each taxon, the box and whiskers show the median as a line, first and third quartiles as hinges, and the highest and lowest values within 1.5 times the inter-quartile range as whiskers. Maps were created in ArcGIS for Desktop (10.3, ESRI Inc., USA).

We explored additional characteristics unique to U.S. recovery documents, including species listing status, the proportion of RM management tasks noted as complete, the first fiscal year of the earliest RM, the number of species in the recovery plan, the proportion of RM assigned as high priority, and a covariate called recovery potential (see Methods, Table  1 ). Of these variables, only the proportion of RM assigned as high priority and the first fiscal year of the earliest RM were significant, whereby species with a higher proportion of RM assigned high priority and those where RM began longer ago had a higher proportion of the proposed budget allocated to RM (Supplementary Table  3 ). In addition, using U.S. species recovery plans, we summarized the proportion of budget allocated to RM by year the recovery plan was published and found that older plans had more resources allocated to RM than newer plans (Supplementary Fig.  4 ).

Species recovery outcomes

For species where an index of recovery could be extracted (79% of U.S. species, 14% of NZ species, and 15% of NSW species), those with the highest proportion of the budget allocated to RM had the lowest recovery success (Fig.  3 ). For example, in the U.S., species with a recovery index of −9 to −11 (indicating a declining status in 9 to 11 of 11 status reports) had a median of 70% of the proposed budget allocated to RM (Fig.  3 ). In NZ and NSW, species with a recovery index of −2 to −3 (indicating a declining status in 2 to 3 of 4 and 5 status reports, respectively) had a median of 44% of the proposed budget allocated to RM (Fig.  3 ).

The median and range of proportion of recovery plan budgets allocated to research and monitoring (RM) for n  = 1143 threatened species in the United States (U.S.), New Zealand (NZ), and New South Wales, Australia (NSW) as a function of index of recovery. The index of recovery is the sum of reports in which population increases (+1), decreases (−1), or remains constant (0) between assessments, the range for the U.S. is: −11 to 11, NZ: −3 to 3, and NSW: −5 to 5 (although no species had an index of −5 or −4). Taxon of each species is indicated by color. For each recovery index, the box and whiskers show the median as a line, first and third quartiles as hinges, and the highest and lowest values within 1.5 times the inter-quartile range as whiskers. All vector graphics are open source.

On average, approximately half of all proposed budgets for threatened species recovery are allocated to research and monitoring. This percentage is significantly higher than research and development (R&D) costs in other sectors: the top 10 largest corporations spend ~13% of annual revenue on R&D 18 , and the pharmaceutical industry, which invests the most in R&D of any industry 19 , spends on average 8–25% of its annual revenue on R&D initiatives 20 . We note that this comparison is not direct—conservation does not typically generate revenue—and percentages would be considerably different if RM were compared to contributions of threatened species to human society, which are consistently undervalued 21 . The difference between RM for threatened species and R&D in other sectors could be interpreted as indicative of high uncertainty in ecology 22 ; however, complex decision-making with high stakes and large uncertainties are not unique to conservation biology (e.g., law 23 , medicine 24 , economics 25 ). If planning to allocate half of conservation resources to RM is problematic, the reality may be more so. For most threatened species, only a small proportion of the total proposed budget is implemented 2 , and only a fraction of proposed management tasks are achieved 26 . Thus, depending on the order in which tasks in the recovery plan are implemented, the proportion of resources allocated to RM could be much higher than described here.

Across all jurisdictions, we found that threatened species with poorer recovery outcomes had higher proportions of their recovery budgets allocated to RM. This relationship is likely a result of several factors. First, it suggests that planning almost exclusively for RM with little plan for action in recovery strategies is unlikely to abate threats and improve species status. Second, greater allocation of resources to RM for species with poor recovery outcomes could suggest that high uncertainty associated with actions for especially imperiled species reinforces a fear of negative outcomes and may deter necessary actions 27 . Thus, there may be a predisposition to spend more on RM instead of action on species that are more critically endangered. Alternatively, species with worse recovery outcomes may require higher proportions of RM because little may be known about them and their threats. Regardless, the question remains: would allocating a greater proportion of funds to action improve recovery outcomes and if so, what is the optimal allocation between RM and action to maximize the achievement of conservation objectives? Other studies have shown that recovery outcomes are positively related to the number of years listed 28 , years with a recovery plan 29 , and funding 30 , yet these effects are weak, potentially due to the low quality of species recovery data 28 . Gerber 2 found that spending is insufficient for the US Endangered Species Act (ESA), resources are allocated disproportionately among species, and there are significant discrepancies between proposed and actualized budgets, whereby excess budgets do not translate into better recovery outcomes. Thus, making deliberate decisions about resource allocation between species and potentially between RM and action offers the potential to improve outcomes for threatened species.

For some species, our results suggest that recovery programs may be trapped in a cycle where more resources are allocated to information gathering versus action. Among threatened species in the U.S., we found that when RM began longer ago there was a higher proportion of the budget allocated to RM, perhaps suggesting that species with a greater historical need for information continue to require a disproportionate amount of information, or more likely, that research on a threatened species may promote interest in more research 31 . This was especially true for mammals, which arguably already have substantially more monitoring information than other taxa 32 . Fortunately, our analysis suggests that the proportion of the budget allocated to RM is decreasing over time, as the conservation community moves away from surveillance monitoring and towards more targeted adaptive monitoring 12 . For example, the recovery plan for the Florida scrub jay ( Aphelocoma coerulescens ) was written in 1990 and management tasks were entirely RM. Since then, genetic research has demonstrated that Florida scrub jays are largely incapable of moving across habitat gaps 33 . These results have been incorporated into a new draft recovery plan, which allocates <1% of the proposed budget to ongoing research and monitoring, with the majority of resources allocated to the protection and acquisition of intact jay habitat 34 .

Of all three jurisdictions, NSW had the lowest proportion of the budget allocated to RM. Here, when developing recovery plans, experts were asked only to include RM if required to inform specific management actions 17 . In recent years, NZ and NSW have assigned threatened species into streams that prioritize RM only for species where population trends, status, and threats are uncertain, and prioritize action for all species where declines are understood. Our results support the value of policies such as these that limit the allocation of resources to RM during the development of recovery plans, to establish a more effective balance between resources allocated to RM versus action.

There are numerous scientific tools that can help balance resources invested in RM and action in order to maximize the probability of achieving conservation outcomes for different species in unique contexts. This includes cost-effectiveness analysis 35 and Value of Information (VOI) analysis, which aims to improve management outcomes by understanding the optimal balance between conservation action and efficiency gained by gathering new information through RM 5 , 36 , 37 . For example, one single-species VOI study has examined the optimal allocation of resources for a threatened species (Koalas, Phascolarctos cinereus 6 ) and found that no more than 1.7% of the recovery budget should be spent on RM. Systematic prioritization tools e.g., 38 could also be used in sensitivity analyses to indicate areas of uncertainty that have the greatest influence on management decision-making for threatened species. Socio-economic context is also an important consideration when determining what proportion of a budget to allocate to RM to achieve conservation outcomes, where our analyses present data from relatively resource rich countries 39 .

Given the ongoing biodiversity crisis, the continual shortfalls in conservation budgets, and consistent undervaluation of nature, managers are tasked with impossible decisions about how to allocate meagre conservation resources. Bending the curve for biodiversity means not just halting declines, but also recovering imperiled populations, and achieving this challenging goal will require transformative societal change 40 , 41 . Although much more is needed, increasing the efficiency of recovery efforts can help facilitate progress to improve outcomes for threatened species. By carefully and strategically limiting RM to that which increases our ability to deliver actions that improve the status of a species, we can preserve resources for the implementation of actions that will ultimately recover populations.

Threatened species assessments

We assessed the proportion of the proposed budget allocated to RM for a total of 2328 species, independently managed subspecies, or distinct populations (hereafter species): 700 in NZ, 361 in NSW, and 1267 freshwater and terrestrial species in the U.S. In all jurisdictions this included the most threatened listed species and/or those with recovery plans: species with Threatened and Endangered status in the U.S. with active recovery plans as of January 2017, species that met a series of criteria in NSW as of 2013 (e.g., excluding less threatened species that do not require any active intervention and those with a large geographic range 17 ), and the most threatened species in New Zealand as of 2012, which included all species in the Threatened and At-Risk categories with declining populations 42 . In all three jurisdictions, species are listed for legal protection if they are at risk of extinction. Once listed, recovery planning (including proposed projects, management tasks, and budgets) documents are developed with the objective of securing species from extinction and recovering populations to a point that they can be de-listed. Although our dataset examining threatened species recovery planning is the most comprehensive to date, our data do not represent all spending on species—there are other activities for both management action and RM that occur at a sub-jurisdictional level or outside of government.

Estimating resources allocated to RM vs action

We gathered information on the planned costs of management tasks necessary to achieve recovery for threatened species from previously published recovery planning databases (details provided in refs. 15 , 16 , 43 , 44 and Supplementary Methods ). Briefly, for NZ and NSW, a suite of management tasks had been developed during structured expert elicitation workshops, as part of a systematic prioritization exercise 16 , 17 . For the U.S., management tasks and their cost had been extracted from each species’ published recovery plans ( Supplementary Methods 15 ). These data represent an evolution of the implementation of a systematic and cost-effective approach to endangered species resource allocation (i.e., the Project Prioritization Protocol), beginning with NZ in 2009 16 , and subsequently applied to NSW in 2013 17 and the U.S. in 2016 15 .

For each proposed management task we used the methods description to categorize tasks as research and monitoring or action based on the definitions in IUCN classification schemes ( https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/classification-schemes , Supplementary Table  1 45 ). For NZ and NSW, using previously published datasets we used a combination of the methods description field and 4 other columns that classified the management task methods into increasingly general categories 16 , 17 , 43 . We used keywords such as survey, monitor, surveillance, develop techniques, inventory, research , and develop plan to search for research and monitoring tasks. We reviewed the management tasks identified by these broad search terms to ensure only research and monitoring tasks were included. We also reviewed the management tasks that were not captured by search terms to ensure no research and monitoring tasks were excluded. For the US, the methods descriptions were too complex for keyword searches. Instead, the first author and a trained technician classified each management task manually. To ensure that management tasks were being classified similarly, the first 200 tasks were classified by both observers and any uncertainty was flagged for review together.

For all jurisdictions, any methods descriptions that were vague, lacked context, or required further assumptions were excluded (2.6% of management tasks, U.S. only). Some management tasks (3.9%) were scored as both action and RM (e.g., translocate birds, action, and monitor the success of the release, RM; weed surveillance, RM, and control, action). For some management tasks, the distinction between action and RM was unclear. These tasks were discussed among the authors and the technician to reach a consensus. For example, ‘standard surveillance to detect invasive mammals’ in NZ could be considered an action, since it is required to detect and subsequently control invasions. However, we assigned it as RM because other management tasks clearly include an action component (e.g., ‘surveillance for invasive species and control if detected’) and other authors have categorized invasive species surveillance as monitoring 46 . Generally, management tasks to develop conservation plans are distinct from implementing plans and were thus scored as RM (K. Martin pers. comm.). Where we were unable to distinguish between RM and action, we scored as both action and RM.

For a subset of 8050 management tasks (the first 207 species) in U.S. recovery plans, we further categorized the type of RM to explore common RM activities (Supplementary Table  1 ). Because we found that assigning management tasks into these 17 categories was challenging without making subjective judgement calls, we did not analyze specific tasks further.

We estimated the cost of implementing each management task for each species following similar methods to those previously published, calculating costs over 50 years 15 , Supplementary Methods 16 , 17 . We calculated the proportion of the proposed budget allocated to RM for each species as the total cost of all management tasks scored as research or monitoring divided by the total cost of all management tasks. For management tasks that were scored as both action and RM, we multiplied the cost of the task by the average proportional difference between action and RM for each jurisdiction.

We compared the characteristics of each species recovery plan with the proportion of proposed spending designated as RM. Characteristics available in recovery planning databases for all three jurisdictions included taxon, the estimated benefit of implementing all management tasks, and the total budget estimated for each species (Table  1 , Supplementary Methods ). The most general category shared among all jurisdictions was taxon, resulting in nine categories: amphibians, birds, bryophytes, fishes, fungus, invertebrates, mammals, reptiles, and vascular plants (set as a reference category). Lichens were removed from further analysis because there were only two species. For NZ and NSW, we extracted expert-elicited estimates of the benefit of implementing all management tasks, where experts were asked to consider the probability of species being secure in 50 years with and without the suite of management tasks 16 , 17 . Thus, benefit was calculated as the difference between the probability of security with and without the management tasks. For the U.S., in the absence of expert elicitation, the benefit of completing all management tasks in a recovery plan was approximated using information embedded in Recovery Priority Numbers (RPN). RPNs are an 18-category numeric rank for each species based on three categories of threat (high, moderate, and low), high or low recovery potential, and taxonomic distinctness monotypic genus, species, and subspecies, 47 . The limitations of using RPN to estimate the probability of persistence with or without management are discussed by Gerber et al. 15 and Avery-Gomm 48 . To generate the total budget for each species, we used previously published total costs, which considered actions that benefited more than one species cost as shared among species projects 15 , 16 , 17 . In all further analysis, we removed species with a proposed budget of 0 (23 species in the U.S.) and extinct species (Guam broadbill— Myiagra freycineti and Eastern puma— Puma concolor couguar ).

We explored additional characteristics unique to U.S. recovery planning documents, using U.S. data only (Table  1 ). These included: the federal listing status, the number of species in the recovery plan (66% of plans include multiple species), the priority assigned to each management task (1: emergency measures needed to prevent extinction, 2: measures required to stabilize a species headed for extinction, and 3: needed to delist), the estimated management task duration in years, the fiscal year the management task was implemented, the management task status (ongoing, complete, planned, discontinued), the total estimated time to recovery, and an RPN, which we used to make a new factor called ‘recovery potential’ (one of six scores based on the RPN, where the highest had a high probability of recovery and low degree of threat and the lowest had a low probability of recovery and a high degree of threat). Federal listing status was collapsed from six into three categories: endangered, threatened, and not listed (including candidate species, species removed from ESA due to recovery, or populations considered as ‘non-essential, experimental’). Taxa were assigned to eight categories: amphibians, birds, fishes, invertebrates (set as a reference category), mammals, reptiles, and flowering and non-flowering plants.

Quantitative analysis

To examine what characteristics of recovery plans are associated with the proportion of the budget allocated to RM we used beta regression in the betareg package 49 in R version 3.6.1 50 . We fit two models—one including all data, with jurisdiction included as a covariate, and one including a wider suite of covariates only available for the U.S. (Table  1 ). All continuous covariates were standardized by subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation to ensure the resulting parameter estimates would be comparable 51 . We standardized the total budget of each jurisdiction separately to account for each countries’ different currency and year the budget was estimated. To improve model fit we removed five species with total budgets over 5 million dollars (five times the median: Barton Springs salamander - Eurycea sosorum , Austin blind salamander— Eurycea waterlooensis , Indiana bat— Myotis sodalis , Bull trout - Salvelinus confluentus , Grizzly Bear— Ursus arctos horribilis ). Our results are robust to the inclusion or exclusion of these species.

Categorical covariates were converted to dummy variables. To select a reference category, we ran an initial model, using the category with the lowest mean proportion of budget RM as the reference. In this initial model, we selected the dummy variable with the highest variance inflation factor VIF in the car package 52 ; as the reference in the final model. As a result, all VIF were <2 in final models, indicating little correlation between covariates. We found that the number of species in a recovery plan and the first fiscal year of RM were correlated with the total budget (VIF >3). We excluded correlated covariates in successive models and chose the final model with the lowest Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC 53 ). The final model excluded the total proposed budget, which was correlated with the number of species in multi-species plans and the first fiscal year of the earliest RM. We consider any covariates where 95% confidence intervals around parameter estimates exclude zero to indicate a significant effect.

Estimating species recovery outcomes

To assess the relationship between the proportion of the budget allocated to RM and species recovery outcomes, we extracted a previously published index of recovery for U.S. listed species 2 and developed similar indices based on annual and semi-annual reports from NZ and NSW ( Supplementary Methods ).

To generate the U.S. recovery index, Gerber 2 calculated sums of biennial status data from reports to Congress during 1989–2011 (total of 11 status reports 30 ). For each species, reports included whether their status was extinct, declining (scored as −1), stable (scored as 0), improving (scored as +1), or unknown. These scores were summed, generating values from −11 to 11, indicating whether species are declining or improving more frequently.

To develop recovery indices for NZ and NSW, we used similar reports through the New Zealand Threat Classification System and New South Wales Saving our Species annual report card over 4 and 5 assessment periods respectively. Assessments were annual in NSW and in NZ the periods between reports were on average every 4 years ( Supplementary Methods ). For each update or report card, we used a similar scoring (−1, 0, and +1) to indicate whether species were declining, stable, or improving between assessments (further details in  Supplementary Methods ). Note that in this analysis we were limited to a subset of the 2328 threatened species (78.5% of U.S. species, 13.5% of NZ species, and 14.7% of NSW species). Other studies have noted the limitations of recovery assessments 28 .

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the  Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the Figshare repository, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12071358.v1 . Note that some unique U.S. species identifiers have been removed in compliance with USFWS. Data for recovery indices in New Zealand were extracted from the NZ Threat Classification System online database ( https://nztcs.org.nz/home ), for New South Wales from Saving our Species ( https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/animals-and-plants/threatened-species/saving-our-species-report-cards ), and for the United States from https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2016/03/08/1525085113.DCSupplemental/pnas.1525085113.sapp.pdf .

Code availability

All code used for analysis during the current study are available in the Figshare repository, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12071358.v1 .

Cook, C. N., Hockings, M. & Carter, R. Conservation in the dark? The information used to support management decisions. Front Ecol. Environ. 8 , 181–186 (2010).

Google Scholar  

Gerber, L. R. Conservation triage or injurious neglect in endangered species recovery. PNAS 113 , 3563–3566 (2016).

ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

McCarthy, D. P. et al. Financial costs of meeting global biodiversity conservation targets: current spending and unmet needs. Science 338 , 946–949 (2012).

Carwardine, J. et al. Prioritizing threat management for biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Lett. 5 , 196–204 (2012).

Bennett, J. R. et al. When to monitor and when to act: value of information theory for multiple management units and limited budgets. J. Appl. Ecol. 55 , 2102–2113 (2018).

Maxwell, S. L. et al. How much is new information worth? Evaluating the financial benefit of resolving management uncertainty. J. Appl. Ecol. 52 , 12–20 (2015).

Lindenmayer, D. B. & Likens, G. E. Effective Ecological Monitoring. (CSIRO Publishing, 2010).

Sutherland, W. J., Pullin, A. S., Dolman, P. M. & Knight, T. M. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 , 305–308 (2004).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Wintle, B. A., Runge, M. C. & Bekessy, S. A. Allocating monitoring effort in the face of unknown unknowns. Ecol. Lett. 13 , 1325–1337 (2010).

McDonald-Madden, E. et al. Monitoring does not always count. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25 , 547–550 (2010).

Legg, C. & Nagy, L. Why most conservation monitoring is, but need not be, a waste of time. J. Environ. Manag. 78 , 194–199 (2006).

Nichols, J. D. & Williams, B. K. Monitoring for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21 , 668–673 (2006).

Lindenmayer, D. B., Piggott, M. P. & Wintle, B. A. Counting the books while the library burns: why conservation monitoring programs need a plan for action. Front Ecol. Environ. 11 , 549–555 (2013).

Martin, T. G. et al. Acting fast helps avoid extinction. Conserv. Lett. 5 , 274–280 (2012).

Gerber, L. R. et al. Endangered species recovery: a resource allocation problem. Science 362 , 284–286 (2018).

Joseph, L. N., Maloney, R. F. & Possingham, H. P. Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol. Conserv. Biol. 23 , 328–338 (2009).

Brazill-Boast, J. et al. A large-scale application of project prioritization to threatened species investment by a government agency. PLOS ONE 13 , e0201413 (2018).

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Strategy&. The 2018 Global Innovation Study. (Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2018) https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/gx/en/insights/innovation1000.html#Methodology%7CGlobalKeyFindingsTabs2%7CVisualTabs1 .

Schuhmacher, A., Gassmann, O. & Hinder, M. Changing R&D models in research-based pharmaceutical companies. J. Transl. Med. 14 , 105 (2016).

Institute for Health & Socio-Economic Policy—IHSP. The R&D Smokescreen: The Prioritization of Marketing and Sales in the Pharmaceutical Industry. Institute for Health & Socio-Economic Policy. https://nurses.3cdn.net/e74ab9a3e937fe5646_afm6bh0u9.pdf (2016).

Guerry, A. D. et al. Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice. PNAS 112 , 7348–7355 (2015).

Milner-Gulland, E. J. & Shea, K. Embracing uncertainty in applied ecology. J. Appl. Ecol. 54 , 2063–2068 (2017).

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Dari-Mattiacci, G. & Deffains, B. Uncertainty of law and the legal process. JITE 163 , 627–656 (2007).

Ghosh, A. K. Understanding medical uncertainty: a primer for physicians. J. Assoc. Phys. India 52 , 739–742 (2004).

CAS   Google Scholar  

Hey, J. D. Uncertainty in economics. In: A Guide to Modern Economics (eds. Bleaney M., Greenway D., Stewart I.). (Taylor & Francis, 1996).

Taylor, M. F. J., Suckling, K. F. & Rachlinski, J. J. The effectiveness of the endangered species act: a quantitative analysis. Bioscience 55 , 360–367 (2005).

Meek, M. H. et al. Fear of failure in conservation: the problem and potential solutions to aid conservation of extremely small populations. Biol. Conserv . 184 , 209–217 (2015).

Gibbs, K. E. & Currie, D. J. Protecting endangered species: do the main legislative tools work? PLOS ONE 7 , e35730 (2012).

ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kerkvliet, J. & Langpap, C. Learning from endangered and threatened species recovery programs: a case study using U.S. Endangered Species Act recovery scores. Ecol. Econ. 63 , 499–510 (2007).

Male, T. D. & Bean, M. J. Measuring progress in US endangered species conservation. Ecol. Lett. 8 , 986–992 (2005).

Martín-López, B., Montes, C., Ramírez, L. & Benayas, J. What drives policy decision-making related to species conservation? Biol. Conserv. 142 , 1370–1380 (2009).

Clark, J. A. & May, R. M. Taxonomic bias in conservation research. Science 297 , 191–192 (2002).

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Coulon, A., Fitzpatrick, J. W., Bowman, R. & Lovette, I. J. Mind the gap: genetic distance increases with habitat gap size in Florida scrub jays. Biol. Lett. 8 , 582–585 (2012).

USFWS. Draft revised recovery plan for the Florida Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma Coerulescens) . (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2019) https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/Florida%20Scrub-Jay%20Draft%20Revised%20Recovery%20Plan.pdf .

Carwardine, J. et al. Priority threat management for biodiversity conservation: a handbook. J. Appl. Ecol. 56 , 481–490 (2019).

Nicol, S. et al. Quantifying the impact of uncertainty on threat management for biodiversity. Nat. Commun. 10 , 3570 (2019).

ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Canessa, S. et al. When do we need more data? A primer on calculating the value of information for applied ecologists. Methods Ecol. Evo. 6 , 1219–1228 (2015).

Hanson, J. O., Schuster, R., Strimas-Mackey, M. & Bennett, J. R. Optimality in prioritizing conservation projects. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10 , 1655–1663 (2019).

Danielsen, F. et al. Biodiversity monitoring in developing countries: what are we trying to achieve? Oryx 37 , 407–409 (2003).

Mace, G. M. et al. Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nat. Sustain . 1 , 448–451 (2018).

Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366 , eaax3100 (2019).

Bennett, J. R. et al. Balancing phylogenetic diversity and species numbers in conservation prioritization, using a case study of threatened species in New Zealand. Biol. Conserv. 174 , 47–54 (2014).

Bennett, J. R., Maloney, R. & Possingham, H. P. Biodiversity gains from efficient use of private sponsorship for flagship species conservation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. [Biol.] 282 , 20142693 (2015).

Bennett, J. R. et al. Spending limited resources on de-extinction could lead to net biodiversity loss. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1 , 0053 (2017).

Salafsky, N. et al. A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions. Conserv. Biol. 22 , 897–911 (2008).

Chadès, I. et al. General rules for managing and surveying networks of pests, diseases, and endangered species. PNAS 108 , 8323–8328 (2011).

ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

USFWS. Endangered and threatened species listing and recovery priority guidelines. Federal Register 48, 43098-43105 (1983).

Avery-Gomm, S. Plastic Pollution and Conservation of Imperilled Seabird Species. PhD Thesis, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland (2020).

Cribari-Neto, F. & Zeileis, A. Beta regression in R. J. Stat. Softw. 34 , 1–24 (2010).

R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing . (R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria, 2019) https://www.R-project.org/ .

Schielzeth, H. Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1 , 103–113 (2010).

Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. An R. Companion to Applied Regression , 4th edn (Sage, 2011).

Burnham, K. & Anderson, D. Model selection and inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. (Springer-Verlag, 1998).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank G. Iacona and L. Gerber for advice on analyzing the U.S. recovery planning database, S. Davis for coding U.S. actions into categories, and R. Kaler, R. Maloney, A. Hawcroft, J. Rolfe, and K. Martin for insight into the U.S. and New Zealand recovery planning processes. J. Bennett was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grant #06147.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada

Rachel T. Buxton, Hsein-Yung Lin, Paul A. Smith, Steven J. Cooke & Joseph R. Bennett

Environment and Climate Change Canada, National Wildlife Research Centre, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada

Stephanie Avery-Gomm & Paul A. Smith

Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada

Steven J. Cooke & Joseph R. Bennett

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

R.T.B. and J.R.B. formulated and designed the study. R.T.B., S.A.G., J.R.B., and H.Y.L. collected and analysed data. R.T.B., J.R.B., S.A.G., P.A.S., S.J.C., and H.Y.L. contributed to interpreting the results and writing and editing the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachel T. Buxton .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Communications thanks Josie Carwardine, Hugh Possingham, and Nick Salafsky for their contributions to the peer review of this work. Peer review reports are available.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Peer review file, reporting summary, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Buxton, R.T., Avery-Gomm, S., Lin, HY. et al. Half of resources in threatened species conservation plans are allocated to research and monitoring. Nat Commun 11 , 4668 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18486-6

Download citation

Received : 10 April 2020

Accepted : 25 August 2020

Published : 22 September 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18486-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Supplemental structured surveys and pre-existing detection models improve fine-scale density and population estimation with opportunistic community science data.

• Tyler A. Hallman
• W. Douglas Robinson

Scientific Reports (2024)

Management plans bias the number of threatened species in protected areas: a study case with flora species in the Atlantic Forest

• Gabriel Silva Santos
• Danielle Oliveira Moreira
• Mário Luís Garbin

Biodiversity and Conservation (2024)

Distinguishing between research and monitoring programs in environmental science and management

• T. J. Arciszewski
• D. R. Roberts
• R. R. O. Hazewinkel

Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences (2023)

Umbrella effect of monitoring protocols for mammals in the Northeast US

• Alessio Mortelliti
• Allison M. Brehm
• Bryn E. Evans

Scientific Reports (2022)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Endangered Species Research

Subject Area and Category

• Nature and Landscape Conservation

Inter-Research

Publication type

16134796, 18635407

Information

How to publish in this journal

[email protected]

The set of journals have been ranked according to their SJR and divided into four equal groups, four quartiles. Q1 (green) comprises the quarter of the journals with the highest values, Q2 (yellow) the second highest values, Q3 (orange) the third highest values and Q4 (red) the lowest values.

The SJR is a size-independent prestige indicator that ranks journals by their 'average prestige per article'. It is based on the idea that 'all citations are not created equal'. SJR is a measure of scientific influence of journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where such citations come from It measures the scientific influence of the average article in a journal, it expresses how central to the global scientific discussion an average article of the journal is.

Evolution of the number of published documents. All types of documents are considered, including citable and non citable documents.

This indicator counts the number of citations received by documents from a journal and divides them by the total number of documents published in that journal. The chart shows the evolution of the average number of times documents published in a journal in the past two, three and four years have been cited in the current year. The two years line is equivalent to journal impact factor ™ (Thomson Reuters) metric.

Evolution of the total number of citations and journal's self-citations received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. Journal Self-citation is defined as the number of citation from a journal citing article to articles published by the same journal.

Evolution of the number of total citation per document and external citation per document (i.e. journal self-citations removed) received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. External citations are calculated by subtracting the number of self-citations from the total number of citations received by the journal’s documents.

International Collaboration accounts for the articles that have been produced by researchers from several countries. The chart shows the ratio of a journal's documents signed by researchers from more than one country; that is including more than one country address.

Not every article in a journal is considered primary research and therefore "citable", this chart shows the ratio of a journal's articles including substantial research (research articles, conference papers and reviews) in three year windows vs. those documents other than research articles, reviews and conference papers.

Ratio of a journal's items, grouped in three years windows, that have been cited at least once vs. those not cited during the following year.

Evolution of the percentage of female authors.

Evolution of the number of documents cited by public policy documents according to Overton database.

Evoution of the number of documents related to Sustainable Development Goals defined by United Nations. Available from 2018 onwards.

Leave a comment

Name * Required

Email (will not be published) * Required

* Required Cancel

The users of Scimago Journal & Country Rank have the possibility to dialogue through comments linked to a specific journal. The purpose is to have a forum in which general doubts about the processes of publication in the journal, experiences and other issues derived from the publication of papers are resolved. For topics on particular articles, maintain the dialogue through the usual channels with your editor.

Follow us on @ScimagoJR Scimago Lab , Copyright 2007-2024. Data Source: Scopus®

Cookie settings

Cookie Policy

Legal Notice

Privacy Policy

Accept cookies?

We use cook ies  to give you the best online experience and to show personalised content and marketing. We use them to improve our website and content as well as to tailor our digital advertising on third-party platforms. You can change your preferences at any time.  

Popular search terms:

• British wildlife
• Wildlife Photographer of the Year
• Explore the Museum
• Anthropocene

British Wildlife

Collections

Human evolution

What on Earth?

Many different fish can inhabit the same shallow ocean habitat, making these important areas to protect. © Ilya D. Gridnev/ Shutterstock

During Beta testing articles may only be saved for seven days.

Create a list of articles to read later. You will be able to access your list from any article in Discover.

You don't have any saved articles.

Artificial intelligence could help to predict how endangered species are

The power of machine learning could be used to protect threatened fishes.

By estimating the extinction risk of different species of fish, specially trained algorithms could help to direct conservation funding to where it’s most needed.

The number of fish known to be in danger of dying out may just be the tip of the iceberg.

Currently just 300 of the more than 13,000 known species of marine fish are officially threatened with extinction. However, as almost 40% of marine fish have not been assessed, the true number could be far higher.

Getting through this backlog is difficult, as it requires vast amounts of time, money and research to systematically assess each species . While there’s no getting around the full process in the end, a new study offers a temporary fix through machine learning.

By training algorithms to recognise patterns in the characteristics of endangered fish, the researchers can estimate where currently unassessed species would likely sit on the Red List. Dr Diego Vaz , a Senior Curator of Fishes at the Natural History Museum, says this could allow conservation action to start while the fish waits for a formal assessment.

“Nothing will ever substitute the specific data for these fish, but as we don’t have enough research, resources or people to provide it in the short term, this provides a useful stand-in,” says Diego, who was not involved in the research.

“Most of the data that these models use will ultimately come from museum collections and good taxonomy. Knowing even a small amount about a species allows us to link it to its relatives, and start to make inferences about its lifestyle. This provides a basis to start taking steps to protect it.”

The research is published in the journal PLOS Biology .

The Atlantic cod is currently considered Vulnerable, one of only a few hundred marine fishes currently considered threatened on the Red List. © Tatiana Belova/ Shutterstock

Accelerating the Red List

The IUCN Red List is the gold standard in conservation biology. It assess the threatened status of individual species by using information including their lifestyle, habitat and population size. The species are then assigned one of seven classifications, from Extinct down to Least Concern.

However, putting these listings together is difficult. As Dr Rupert Collins , another Senior Curator of Fishes at the Natural History Museum, explains, it can take years for researchers to gather enough information on a species to decide just how endangered it is.

“You need a lot of data to perform a full IUCN assessment, covering various aspects of a species’ life history and habitat,” Rupert says.

“This may be near impossible for some species, where there might only very small number of specimens known from museum collections.”

These unlisted species are considered Data Deficient or Not Evaluated (DDNE). This means there is either not enough information about these animals to accurately categorise them, or that they haven’t been assessed yet.

While DDNE species wait to be assessed, there’s a serious risk that their situation could deteriorate. It’s estimated that more than half of all Data Deficient species are already threatened with extinction, with a very real concern that this could increase.

This makes it important to find out a species’ extinction risk sooner rather than later, with scientists now looking for stopgaps.

Machine learning is one promising option. These computer models are trained to recognise how characteristics like size or habitat are related to a species’ extinction risk. In some well-known groups, like mammals, these algorithms can be up to 92% accurate in predicting the conservation status of previously assessed species.

The challenge is now to extend these algorithms to look at groups which are less well understood, like marine fishes. 

Fish like the black marlin are currently considered Data Deficient - that is, there's not enough information to give them a formal conservation status. © The Trustees of the Natural History Museum, London

Finding threatened fishes

In total, almost 5,000 species of marine fish are currently DDNE. The researchers wanted to change this, and so trained two different types of algorithm and set them to work on categorising these unassessed species.

When the two algorithms agreed, a fish was assigned as either threatened or unthreatened. If they didn’t, then it was left as Data Deficient.

The team found that over 1,300 fish species currently considered DDNE were likely threatened, which would bring the proportion of marine fishes at risk of extinction up from the current 2.5% to 12.7%. These species are generally large, slow growing fish that live in restricted areas of the ocean.

But even after the work of the algorithms, around 1,000 marine fish were still considered DDNE. Rupert says that he’s “not surprised” how many species are still a mystery to conservationists.

“There are still so many groups of fishes that we just don’t know enough about, including whether they even exist in the first place,” he says. “There are thousands of fish species that are yet to be named, and so performing a conservation assessment on a fish without knowledge of how to even identify it is rather difficult.”

“It’s likely that a large number of these fish are going through a silent extinction, where we don’t even realise they’re gone until it’s too late.”

The research revealed that protected areas in Western Australia, like the Two Peoples Bay Reserve, are vital to protect fish that are currently unclassified on the Red List. © Hideaki Edo Photography/ Shutterstock

Protecting the unknown

To try and prevent these possible extinctions, the researchers also investigated the areas where the threatened fishes live to highlight the importance of these interim assessments.

In addition to biodiverse regions such as the South China Sea and the Philippine Sea, the algorithms also identified the oceans around the poles and the western coasts of Australia and North America as having many fishes in need of protective measures.

At the same time as protecting known species, scientists will need to redouble their efforts to identify the unknown fish. With thousands of potential species yet to be discovered, these animals could alter our understanding of these fish hotspots still further.

“It’s a tough job to try and protect something that you don’t know exists,” Rupert says. “Extending these algorithms to try and interpret where undiscovered species might need protections would be a very useful next step, and would give us a chance to find them before they become extinct.”

• Endangered species
• Read the paper in full  published in PLOS Biology .
• Find out what Rupert is working on .
• Discover what Diego is studying . 

Discover oceans

Find out more about why we need to protect oceans and read about the pioneering work of our marine scientists.

Related posts

Blueprint launched to save 1,000 of the world’s most threatened fishes

A new project to kickstart conservation for some of the world’s rarest fishes is making a splash.

Governments falling short of protecting the world’s oceans

Protections for the world’s oceans need strengthening, a new report suggests.

Migratory fish, mammals and birds at risk of extinction

The first State of the World’s Migratory Species report found that countries aren’t doing enough to save threatened species.

First British fossils of therizinosaur and troodontid dinosaurs are world's oldest

The isolated teeth were identified using machine learning models, and could represent some of the earliest relatives of birds ever discovered.

Don't miss a thing

Receive email updates about our news, science, exhibitions, events, products, services and fundraising activities. We may occasionally include third-party content from our corporate partners and other museums. We will not share your personal details with these third parties. You must be over the age of 13. Privacy notice .

Follow us on social media

• More Blog Popular
• Who's Who Legal
• Instruct Counsel
• My newsfeed
• Save & file
• View original
• Follow Please login to follow content.

add to folder:

• My saved (default)

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Find out more about Lexology or get in touch by visiting our About page.

Court Strikes Down Key Endangered Species Act Opinion

• Ruling that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) "underestimated the risk and harms of oil spills to protected species," a federal court vacated key environmental analyses of oil and gas operations in the Gulf of Mexico.
• The ruling creates uncertainty for the oil and gas industry while NMFS completes a new biological opinion, as ordered by the Court.
• This Holland & Knight alert takes a close look at the court decision and the potential impact on oil and gas operations in the Gulf of Mexico.

A federal court has thrown out key Endangered Species Act (ESA) analyses of oil and gas operations in the Gulf of Mexico, which will be vacated as of Dec. 20, 2024. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland ruled, in a lawsuit brought by environmental groups, that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) "underestimated the risk and harms of oil spills to protected species." The ruling creates uncertainty for oil and gas operations while NMFS completes a new biological opinion, as ordered by the Court.

Background and Applicable Law

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), administered by agencies within the U.S. Department of the Interior, governs offshore oil and gas operations on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the United States, including in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). The offshore oil and gas industry has been active in the GOM since the late 1940s, and the region is home to thousands of offshore wells, platforms, pipelines and other offshore facilities and structures necessary for oil and gas production. In order to staff, maintain, inspect and operate these offshore wells and facilities, the industry relies on the continuous operations of hundreds of marine vessels. The marine fleet supporting the offshore industry is an ubiquitous presence in the GOM, mostly operated by highly regulated, private U.S. maritime companies and supported by specialized ports located mostly in Louisiana and Texas.

The GOM is also home to thousands of marine species, many of which are listed as endangered or threatened and therefore protected under the ESA, including the Rice's whale, the Kemp's ridley sea turtle and the Gulf sturgeon. Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that any agency action is "not likely to jeopardize the continued existence" of any endangered or threatened species, or result in modification or destruction of their habitat. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). Thus, given that offshore oil and gas operations in the GOM OCS are made possible by agency action (i.e., lease issuance, permits, plan approvals), these agency actions are subject to Section 7 requirements.

Specifically, under Section 7 of the ESA, if an agency action may effect an ESA-listed marine species, then the agency must undergo formal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to analyze the effects of the proposed action on the listed species and prepare a Biological Opinion (BiOp), which includes "reasonable and prudent alternatives" to avoid or mitigate adverse effects to the endangered species. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(3)(A); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14. Additionally, even if NMFS makes a "no jeopardy" determination, NMFS must assess whether the proposed action could result in a "take" (or killing) of listed species and, if so, the BiOp must estimate the amount of the takes and describe the measures that should be taken to limit the takes. 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(i).

NMFS has previously undertaken multiple consultations relating to federal oil and gas leases in the GOM OCS using a broad or "programmatic" approach, meaning that the resulting BiOp issued in March 2020 was intended to cover all federal activities associated with all oil and gas operations in the GOM OCS under existing and new leases through 2029. In other words, for each separate agency decision or action, the agency relies on the 2020 BiOp rather than developing an individualized evaluation of the potential impacts the individual oil and gas activity may have on the listed endangered species. The 2020 BiOp concluded that no ESA-listed species would be jeopardized by the oil and gas leases except the Rice's whale. The 2020 BiOp was accompanied by a Reasonably Prudent Alternative Analysis (RPA) intended to mitigate threats to the Rice's whale and an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) permitting certain amounts of incidental takes for multiple ESA-listed species, including the Rice's whale. Because an ITS was issued in connection with Section 7 consultation for all oil and gas leases, any incidental takes by oil and gas operators consistent with those limits would not violate the ESA. Thus, in practice, the 2020 BiOp afforded oil and gas operators protections from ESA liability while removing the need for each regulated offshore operation to undergo its own ESA analysis. NMFS' findings and conclusions also dictate requirements and mitigation measures in lease agreements and other agency requirements, such as Notices to Lessees, and generally influence how the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) regulate oil and gas operators with respect to species protection.

A cohort of environmental groups filed a lawsuit in 2020 against NFMS challenging the 2020 BiOp and associated determinations under the ESA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Oil and gas industry groups and offshore operators, intervened on behalf of the industry. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that NMFS underestimated the potential effects of listed species from oil spills in its BiOp and ITS and failed to consider the likelihood of a catastrophic oil spills, such as the spill that resulted from the Deepwater Horizon incident in 2010. Plaintiffs also argued that NMFS failed to adequately consider climate change and vessel strikes when evaluating the effects of the action and species recovery and in particular failed to ensure that mitigation measures would be sufficient to avoid jeopardy to the Rice's whale.

After multiple years of briefing and parallel legal proceedings, the Court ultimately issued its opinion on Aug. 19, 2024 (Opinion), finding primarily in favor of the environmental groups, vacating the 2020 BiOp and remanding to NMFS for further proceedings. In so finding, the Court reasoned that the 2020 BiOp violates the ESA and the APA because NMFS 1) underestimated the risk and harms of oil spills to ESA-listed species, 2) the jeopardy analysis for the Rice's whale and Gulf sturgeon was based on pre- Deepwater Horizon species population numbers, 3) the RPA was inadequate to prevent jeopardy of the Rice's whale and 4) the ITS failed to include oil spills in its incidental take numbers and relied on irrational reasoning to support the number of incidental takes by vessel strike.

A major contention during these proceedings was the significant and far-reaching impacts that overturning the BiOp without a replacement in place would cause for the offshore oil and gas industry. During the proceedings, BOEM reinitiated consultation with NMFS, and the government sought stay of the case and voluntary remand in an attempt to satisfy all parties and avoid such impacts. At this time, BOEM also attempted to assuage the environmental groups' concerns with respect to the Rice's whale by issuing a Notice to Lessees for expanded Rice's whale protection efforts, trying to incorporate such protections into new leases and attempting to block off millions of acres from potential drilling for the sake of Rice's whale protection. BOEM's attempts to hold lessees to such additional restrictions ultimately failed due to administrative errors during the lease sale and a parallel legal proceeding in which a Louisiana federal court held that BOEM's actions were unlawful.

Ultimately, the Court denied the government's request for voluntary remand and proceeded to issue a decision on the merits, vacating the BiOp and allowing the potentially substantial consequences to play out. After recognizing an immediate vacatur of the 2020 BiOp would "likely disrupt oil and gas activity in the Gulf [of Mexico] without necessarily mitigating the dangers to listed species," the Court ruled that the 2020 BiOp would be vacated on Dec. 20, 2024.

Potential Outcomes and Challenges

In its decision, the Court agreed that an immediate vacatur could have significant consequences and delayed vacatur of the BiOp to Dec. 20, 2024, in an attempt to give NMFS time to either issue a new BiOp or come up with a temporary solution until a new BiOp can be issued. However, NMFS had previously informed the Court that, while its ESA review was in progress, a new BiOp would not be issued until late winter/early spring 2025 at the earliest. Therefore, the Court's decision leaves a strong likelihood that there will be a gap between invalidation of the existing BiOp and issuance of a new BiOp. As indicated in both the government's and the intervenor industries' briefings, the impacts of this gap in ESA analysis coverage are far-reaching and potentially severe, leaving offshore oil and gas operators in a state of uncertainty.

The offshore oil and gas industry relies on various plans, permits and other approvals, largely issued by BOEM, BSEE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to support the structures and activities that make offshore oil production possible. In turn, most of the plans, permits and approvals were issued in reliance on NMFS' 2020 BiOp, ITS and RPA. Indeed, many of these decisions not only incorporate aspects of NMFS' analysis but even make compliance with the BiOp, ITS and RPA a condition of approval. Without the 2020 BiOp or any alternative that would have supported the approval, the validity of these decisions are in question. If these agency decisions are deemed invalid, offshore oil and gas operations could come to a halt, jeopardizing continued oil production in the GOM, which accounts for 15 to 20 percent of total U.S. crude oil production.

Furthermore, without the 2020 ITS or a replacement in place, offshore oil and gas operations could lead to an "unauthorized take" under Section 9 of the ESA. The 2020 ITS authorized incidental takes by operators during offshore oil and gas activities, provided that the operations were in compliance with the 2020 BiOp mitigation measures and the number of incidental takes was consistent with the ITS. Once the 2020 ITS is invalidated without a replacement, any "take" of an ESA-listed species (broadly defined as to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect") or significant modification or degradation of a listed species' habitat could be construed as an unauthorized take in violation of the ESA, subjecting oil and gas operators to civil or even criminal responsibility under the ESA.

Thus, operators will have to decide whether they continue to operate at their own risk (with or without additional mitigation procedures aimed at protected endangered species like the Rice's whale), or shut down their activities while NMFS completes a new BiOp in accordance with the Court's opinion. Arguably, even shutting in platforms and ceasing activity may not completely eliminate enforcement or litigation risk because the very structures are permitted to be present within the OCS GOM pursuant to the lease and related plans that were issued in reliance on the 2020 BiOp. Also, even if shut in, operators would still have to perform certain activities (e.g., inspections, maintenance and monitoring required by regulation) and drive vessels to and from structures within the OCS to comply with BSEE's environmental and safety standards.

Additionally, agencies may halt administrative permitting and approval actions until the uncertainty has been addressed by NMFS, either by instituting a temporary measure or issuing a new BiOp, which may be unlikely given the ongoing efforts to develop and publish a permanent replacement to the 2020 BiOp. Without the 2020 BiOp, the agencies have no way to complete the requisite ESA analysis under Section 7 unless they undergo an individual ESA Section 7 consultation for every individual permit application or plan approval request, which BOEM has already indicated would be infeasible. Thus, new or pending applications for GOM oil and gas activities may stall or even come to a standstill during this period of uncertainty. Additionally, it is very unlikely that the agency will consider and decide on individual applications for incidental take permits (ITPs) under the ESA to cover incidental takes by each individual operator during the gap in coverage.

In the near term, it is likely that appeals may be filed to review and potentially stay the Court's decision. But, if the Court's decision stands and there is no new BiOp in place by Dec. 20, 2024, operators will be faced with a high degree of uncertainty and potential risk of enforcement or challenge by environmental groups. Given the significant consequences of the decision, the oil and gas industry may also advocate for legislative solutions, despite the looming election and potential "lame duck" congressional session anticipated later in the year.

Filed under

• Energy & Natural Resources
• Environment & Climate Change
• Holland & Knight LLP
• Climate change

Organisations

• National Marine Fisheries Service
• Administrative Procedure Act
• Natural Resources
• Oil related services & equipment

Popular articles from this firm

A look at increased oversight of financial institutions in florida *, friendly pc model survives in california after envision healthcare litigation settlement *, section 101 patent eligibility roundup: it's been too long *, doj introduces new twist in algorithmic collusion cases *, business associate agreements matter: demystifying the perceived simplicity of hipaa agreements *.

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [email protected] .

Related practical resources PRO

• How-to guide How-to guide: What general counsel (GC) need to know about environmental, social and governance (ESG) 
• How-to guide How-to guide: Understanding environmental, social and governance (ESG) 
• How-to guide How-to guide: How to understand and implement the ‘E’ in environmental, social and governance (ESG)

Related research hubs