What Exactly Is an Endangered Species? An Analysis of the U.S. Endangered Species List: 1985–1991
Abstract
Critics of the Endangered Species Act have asserted that is protects an inordinate number of subspecies and populations, in addition to full species, and that the scientific rationale for listing decisions is absent or weak. We reviewed all U.S. plants and animals proposed for listing or added to the endangered species list from 1985 through 1991 to determine the relative proportion of species, subspecies, and populations, and their rarity at time of listing. Approximately 80% of the taxa added to the list were full species, 18% were subspecies, and 2% were distinct populations segments of more widespread vertebrate species. The proportion of subspecies and populations was considerably higher among birds and mammals than among other groups. The median populations size at time of listing for vertebrate animals was 1075 individuals; for invertebrate animals it was 999. The median population size of a plant at time of listing was less than 120 individuals. Earlier listing of declining species could significantly improve the likelihood of successful recovery, and it would provide land managers and private citizens with more options for protecting vanishing plants and animals at less social or economic cost.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In 1985-1991, the median population size at time of listing was 1075 for vertebrates, 999 for invertebrates, and less than 120 for plants.
“The authors found that the median population size at time of listing during the second decade of ‘legal protection’ by the ESA (1985–1991) was just 1075 for vertebrates and 999 individuals for invertebrates. The median population size at listing for plant species was less than 120 individuals.”
From Too few, too late: U.S. Endangered Species Act undermined by inaction and inadequate funding (2022) · cites this paper as [8]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lande, R. (1995) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.09040782.x · Cited by 686 · see citing works
Too few, too late: U.S. Endangered Species Act undermined by inaction and inadequate funding
Eberhard, E. K., Wilcove, D. S., & Dobson, A. P. (2022) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0275322 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Wilcove, D. S., McMillan, M., & Winston, K. C.
- Affiliations
- Environmental Defense Fund (US)
- ORCID
- Wilcove, David S.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1993-03
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 87-93
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W2049785699
- Cited by
- 115
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 43.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Conservation Biology (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Conservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
- Keywords
- Endangered Species Act, endangered species listing, subspecies, population size, species rarity, vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, birds, mammals, listing decisions, species recovery
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review