Title:
Conservation status, threats, and information needs of small mammals in Alaska
Authors:
A. Droghini, K. S. Christie, R. R. Kelty, P. Schuette & T. A. Gotthardt
Published:
bioRxiv, 12 October 2020
[Keep in mind that this article is a preprint and not yet peer reviewed.]
Abstract:
Despite their diversity and ecological importance, small mammals are under-represented in conservation research relative to other mammals. We evaluated the conservation status of 36 small mammal species in Alaska, U.S.A. using a ranking system that we previously developed, the Alaska Species Ranking System (ASRS). We compared results from the ASRS with NatureServe's subnational rankings. Finally, we surveyed taxonomic experts to identify recommended conservation actions and research priorities for 5 species of high conservation concern. In general, the ASRS and NatureServe agreed on the rankings of species in the highest and lowest risk categories. Species of highest conservation concern were taxa endemic to the state, including 2 island-endemic shrews, and taxa from the orders Chiroptera and Eulipotyphla. Because the ASRS includes information needs in its assessment, 15 of the 20 species considered lowest concern by NatureServe were considered intermediate concern by the ASRS. In the ASRS, most species (n = 24) were assessed to have low biological vulnerabilities, but high information needs. Population size and trends were unknown for all species; distributional limits and understanding of population dynamics were incomplete for all species except 4. Disease and climate change effects on habitat were perceived as important threats, but affected only 8 species. Taxonomic experts identified addressing data deficiencies and protecting habitat as important conservation actions; they identified monitoring population trends, modeling habitat, and researching species' genetic diversity and adaptive capacity as high priorities. Conservation assessments that require accurate and current data on population trends or threats may lead to bias against data deficient groups such as small mammals. Our findings demonstrate the importance of accounting for data deficiencies in conservation status ranks to avoid conflation of sparse information with low conservation concern.