Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 462

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 103 of the 103 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Emerging Issues in Population Viability Analysis

Reed, J. Michael, Mills, L. Scott, Dunning, John B., Menges, Eric S., McKelvey, Kevin S., Frye, Robert, Beissinger, Steven R., Anstett, Marie‐Charlotte, Miller, Philip·2002·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Abstract: Population viability analysis ( PVA) has become a commonly used tool in endangered species management. There is no single process that constitutes PVA, but all approaches have in common an assessment of a population's risk of extinction (or quasi extinction) or its projected population growth either under current conditions or expected from proposed management. As model sophistication increases, and software programs that facilitate PVA without the need for modeling expertise become more available, there is greater potential for the misuse of models and increased confusion over interpreting their results. Consequently, we discuss the practical use and limitations of PVA in conservation planning, and we discuss some emerging issues of PVA. We review extant issues that have become prominent in PVA, including spatially explicit modeling, sensitivity analysis, incorporating genetics into PVA, PVA in plants, and PVA software packages, but our coverage of emerging issues is not comprehensive. We conclude that PVA is a powerful tool in conservation biology for comparing alternative research plans and relative extinction risks among species, but we suggest caution in its use: (1) because PVA is a model, its validity depends on the appropriateness of the model's structure and data quality; (2) results should be presented with appropriate assessment of confidence; (3) model construction and results should be subject to external review, and (4) model structure, input, and results should be treated as hypotheses to be tested. We also suggest (5) restricting the definition of PVA to development of a formal quantitative model, (6) focusing more research on determining how pervasive density‐dependence feedback is across species, and (7) not using PVA to determine minimum population size or (8) the specific probability of reaching extinction. The most appropriate use of PVA may be for comparing the relative effects of potential management actions on population growth or persistence.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.99419.x

Cites

103 of 103 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 103 references

Cited by

See all 462

Metadata

Authors
Reed, J. M., Mills, L. S., Dunning, J. B., Menges, E. S., McKelvey, K. S., Frye, R., Beissinger, S. R., Anstett, M., & Miller, P.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-01-18
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
7-19
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W2157565246
Cited by
462
References
103
FWCI
26.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Emerging Issues in Population Viability Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.99419.x
The paper
Reed, J. M., Mills, L. S., Dunning, J. B., Menges, E. S., McKelvey, K. S., Frye, R., Beissinger, S. R., Anstett, M., & Miller, P. (2002). Emerging Issues in Population Viability Analysis. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.99419.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.