Comment
Setting priorities for existing conservation needs of crayfish and mink Mar´ıa D´ıez-Le´ on,∗ Rafael Miranda,† Arturo H. Ari˜ no,† and David Galicia† ‡ ∗
Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada †Department of Environmental Biology, University of Navarra, Irunlarrea 1, Pamplona 31008, Spain
Introduction According to Clavero (2014), the conservation in Spain of the white-clawed crayfish (Austropotamobius italicus) and the European mink (Mustela lutreola) to the detriment of 3 North American species (red swamp crayfish [Procambarus clarkii], signal crayfish [Pacifastacus leniusculus], and feral American mink [Neovison vison]) represents a case of shifting baseline syndrome (Pauly 1995; Papworth et al. 2009). Clavero argues there is clear evidence that all these species are nonnative to the Iberian Peninsula and therefore preserving the white-clawed crayfish and the European mink responds to an a priori social assimilation of these species as native and, thus, to a shift of the baseline of Spanish natural freshwater ecosystems. We question Clavero’s evidence on the nonnative status of these 2 species in the Iberian Peninsula and disagree with the importance he attributes to species’ native or nonnative status when setting conservation priorities. Nonnative species occur outside their historical natural range following intentional or accidental human introduction (Heywood 1995). Contrary to Clavero’s claim, evidence suggests the white-clawed crayfish and the European mink are native to the Iberian Peninsula (see below). Moreover, the current known European distribution for both species makes natural dispersion a plausible biogeographic process because the Pyrenean range is permeable at its extremes (e.g., Mart´ınezRica & Monserrat-Recoder 1990) and, at least for mustelids, mountains are not a barrier to dispersal (e.g., Zuberogoitia & Zabala 2003). White-Clawed Crayfish Clavero argues that the white-clawed crayfish is not native to the Iberian Peninsula because their popula-
tions have low genetic variability (Grandjean et al. 2000; Trontelj et al. 2005) and historical records of their presence in Spain date from only approximately 200 years ago (Clavero & Villero 2013). Low genetic variability in itself is not conclusive evidence of human introduction. It may indicate a population bottleneck, but it does not necessarily indicate the causes of such a bottleneck. In addition, the low genetic variability reported for the white-clawed crayfish has been attributed to the use of flawed methods (Di´eguez-Uribeondo et al. 2008). Moreover, recent, more extensive studies report high levels of genetic variability for the species (Pedraza-Lara et al. 2010; Matallanas et al. 2011). High genetic variability does not necessarily prove that a species is native, but, together with phylogenetic evidence placing the diversification of the Iberian white-clawed crayfish population over 10,000 years ago (Matallanas et al. 2013), it provides strong support for it. Clavero and Villero (2013) suggest that multiple introductions carried out since the 17th century explain this high genetic variability. This mechanism, however, does not account for the genetic differences between the Iberian and Italian populations (Di´eguez-Uribeondo et al. 2008) of white-clawed crayfish. Furthermore, Clavero and Villero (2013) and Clavero imply that the absence of written evidence of the presence of the species before the 17th century is the evidence that the species was absent in the peninsula until then. Aside from the logical problem with this type of reasoning, there are methodological issues to consider; the area dealt with in the historical documents does not overlap with the area where the first confirmed records occurred; therefore, sampling biases cannot be ruled out (Sober´ on & Peterson 2004; Lobo et al. 2007). In light of the current genetic evidence and the problems with the historical data approach, Clavero’s statement that “although historical and genetic data provide evidence for the introduced status of
‡Address correspondence to D. Galicia, email [email protected] Paper submitted May 8, 2014; revised manuscript accepted July 28, 2014.
599 Conservation Biology, Volume 29, No. 2, 599–601 C 2014 Society for Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12406
Setting Priorities for Conservation
600
the white-clawed crayfish . . . this information is largely ignored” is unfounded. European Mink The recent distribution of the European mink excluded the Iberian Peninsula until approximately 1950 (Ondarra 1955). Michaux et al. (2005) found little genetic variation in the western and southeastern populations of the species and suggest that the Iberian populations originated from a recent colonization by a few individuals. Clavero seems to overlook that Michaux et al. (2005) also suggest that the refugial role of Mediterranean regions during Pleistocene glaciations cannot be ruled out. Although no author suggests conclusively (as Clavero claims) that European mink were deliberately introduced in France, the presence of this species in Spain has been explained as a natural colonization from the French population (Youngman 1982; Maran & Henttonen 1995). Also, once more, the lack of written records does not prove the species was absent in the area. As an illustration, no written records of the recent presence of the European mink exist in the Netherlands (Youngman 1982), yet the subfossil record confirms the species was present in the area (van Bree 1961 as cited in Maran and Henttonen 1995). Therefore, contrary to Clavero’s appraisal, the European mink’s presence in the Iberian Peninsula seems a case of natural expansion of its natural distribution range, which makes it a native species in its occupied territory. Beyond Regional Biogeographical Considerations The native or nonnative status of a species is not a necessary or sufficient basis for the design of conservation policies for a particular species in a particular region. If it were, each new contribution to the knowledge of a species’ historical distribution or phylogeny would necessitate the complete revision of conservation policies in every region where the species exists. Further, the nonnative status of a species in a range should be weighed against the full range of the species because the species may have disappeared from its native range due to natural changes to an ecosystem (Harrison et al. 2006). Clavero states that conserving introduced species “would imply that anthropogenetically modified ecosystem states are desirable.” Although the presence of a nonnative species in an ecosystem is a sign of degradation, conservation managers rarely face ideal scenarios. (See Neff and Larson 2014 for a discussion of on-going shifts in conservation strategies.) Our disagreement with Clavero stems from his suggestion that the 5 species chosen to illustrate his point are all allegedly nonnative and therefore should all be managed as nonnative species without further considerations. This suggestion could
Conservation Biology Volume 29, No. 2, 2015
jeopardize conservation efforts in the Iberian Peninsula aimed at reducing the environmental damaged caused by the North American species and efforts directed at protecting the endangered European mink and whiteclawed crayfish (see below). We suggest that managing species on the basis of their native status without taking into account the threat that some of those species are under and the threat that the other species pose is very problematic from a conservation and policy point of view. The North American species, as well as being nonnative (e.g., Stubbe 1993; Vedia & Miranda 2013), are invasive species (i.e., their impact threatens biological diversity; Carlton 2003) and are managed accordingly. The white-clawed crayfish and the European mink undoubtedly have impacts on the environment (e.g., Clavero & Villero 2013), yet to date there is no evidence that such impacts warrant designation as an invasive species. (See Jeschke et al. 2014 for the importance of defining impact in discussions of nonnative species.) Moreover, unlike the North American species, both these species are threatened with extinction (Alonso et al. 2000; Maran et al. 2011). Degree of invasiveness and conservation status are important differences between the North American species and the white-clawed crayfish and European mink that Clavero overlooks and they deserve more consideration than a species’ native or nonnative designation (e.g., Andersen et al. 2004; Almeida et al. 2013) when designing species-level conservation strategies. The white-clawed crayfish and the European mink have been protected and managed in Spain in accordance with available scientific knowledge and their global conservation status. In addition, the preference Spanish society might have toward these 2 species does not respond to shifting baselines; rather, it is the result of an a posteriori social acknowledgement of the documented environmental threat posed by the North American invasive species and the global threatened status of white-clawed crayfish and European mink populations. The conservation of a species is a global pursuit that requires an international approach to achieve positive results. Clavero states: “decisions about what should be a conservation priority should be taken by societies.” We agree, provided that societies base such decisions on rigorous scientific data and provided that a society that cares about conservation thinks globally.
Acknowledgments We thank 3 anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and discussions which greatly improved an earlier version of this manuscript.
D´ıez-Le´on et al.
Literature Cited Almeida, D., F. Ribeiro, P. M. Leunda, L. Vilizzi, and G. H. Copp. 2013. Effectiveness of FISK, an invasiveness screening tool for non-native freshwater fishes, to perform risk identification assessments in the Iberian Peninsula. Risk Analysis 33:1404– 1413. Alonso, F., C. Temi˜ no, and C. Di´eguez-Uribeondo. 2000. Status of the white-clawed crayfish, Austropotamobius pallipes (Lereboullet, 1858), in Spain: distribution and legislation. Bulletin Franc¸ais de la Pˆeche et de la Pisciculture 356:31–53. Andersen, M. C., H. Adams, B. Hope, and M. Powell. 2004. Risk assessment for invasive species. Risk Analysis 24:787–793. Carlton, J. 2003. Invasive species: vectors and management strategies. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Clavero, M., and D. Villero. 2013. Historical ecology and invasion biology: long-term distribution changes of introduced freshwater species. BioScience 64:145–153. Clavero, M. 2014. Shifting baselines and the conservation of non-native species. Conservation Biology 28: DOI: 10.1111/ cobi.12266. Di´eguez-Uribeondo, J., F. Royo, C. Souty-Grosset, A. Ropiquet, and F. Grandjean. 2008. Low genetic variability of the white-clawed crayfish in the Iberian Peninsula: its origin and management implications. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18:19–31. Grandjean, F., J. Harris, C. Souty-Grosset, and K. A. Crandall. 2000. Systematics of the European endangered crayfish species Austropotamobius pallipes (Decapoda: Astacidae). Journal of Crustacean Biology 20:522–529. Harrison, P. A., P. M. Berry, N. Butt, and M. New. 2006. Modelling climate change impacts on species’ distributions at the European scale: implications for conservation policy. Environmental Science and Policy 9:116–128. Heywood, V. H., editor. 1995. The global biodiversity assessment. United Nations Environment Programme. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Jeschke, M., et al. 2014. Defining the impact of non-native species. Conservation Biology 28: DOI: 10.111/cobi.12299. Lobo, J. M., A. Baselga, J. Hortal, A. Jim´enez-Valverde, and J. F G´ omez. 2007. How does the knowledge about the spatial distribution of Iberian dung beetle species accumulate over time? Diversity and Distributions 13:772–780. Maran, T., and H. Henttonen. 1995. Why is the European mink (Mustela lutreola) disappearing?—A review of the process and hypotheses. Annales Zoologici Fennici 32:47–54. Maran, T., D. Skumatov, S. Palaz´ on, A. Gomez, M. P˜ odra, A. Saveljev, A. Kranz, R. Libois, and S. Aulagnier. 2011. Mustela lutreola. In 2013 IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2013.2. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland. Available from www.iucnredlist.org (accessed February 2014). Mart´ınez-Rica, J. P., and P. Monserrat-Recoder. 1990. Biogeographic fea-
601
tures of the Pyrenean range. Mountain Research and Development 10:235–240. Matallanas, B., M. D. Ochando, A. Vivero, B. Beroiz, F. Alonso, and C. Callejas. 2011. Mitochondrial DNA variability in Spanish populations of A. italicus inferred from the analysis of a COI region. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems 401:30. Matallanas, B., A. Ochando, F. Alonso, and C. Callejas. 2013. Phylogeography of the white-clawed crayfish (Australopotamobius italicus) in Spain: inferences from microsatellite markers. Molecular Biology Reports 40:5327–5338. Michaux, J. R., O. J. Hardy, F. Justy, P. Fournier, A. Kranz, M. Cabria, A. Davison, R. Rosoux, and R. Libois. 2005. Conservation genetics and population history of the threatened European mink, Mustela lutreola, with an emphasis on the west European population. Molecular Ecology 14:2373–2389. Neff, M. W., and B. M. H. Larson. 2014. Scientists, managers and assisted colonization: four contrasting perspectives entangle science and policy. Biological Conservation 172:1–7. Ondarra, P. R. 1955. Hallazgo, en Guipuzcoa, de un mam´ıfero no citado en la “Fauna Ib´erica” de Cabrera, el Putorius lutreola. Munibe 7:201–207. Papworth, S. K., J. Rist, L. Coad, and E. J. Milner-Gulland. 2009. Evidence for shifting baseline syndrome in conservation. Conservation Letters 2:93–100. Pauly, D. 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10:430. Pedraza-Lara, C., F. Alda, S. Carranza, and I. Doadrio. 2010. Mitochondrial DNA structure of the Iberian populations of the white-clawed crayfish, Austropotamobius italicus italicus (Faxon, 1914). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 57:327–342. Sober´ on, J., and A. T. Peterson. 2004. Biodiversity informatics: managing and applying primary biodiversity data. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B 359:689–698. Stubbe, M. 1993. Mustela vison. Pages 654–698 in M. Stubbe and F. Krapp, editors. Handbuch der S¨augetiere Europas. Bd. 5, Raubs¨auger. Teil 2. Mustelidae 2, Viverridae, Herpestridae, Felidae. AULA, Wiesbaden. Trontelj, P., Y. Machino, and B. Sket. 2005. Phylogenetic and phylogeographic relationships in the crayfish genus Austropotamobius inferred from mitochondrial COI gene sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 34:212–226. van Bree, P. J. H. 1961. On a subfossil skull of Mustela lutreola (L.) (Mammalia, Carnivora), found at Vlaardingen, the Netherlands. Zoologischer Anzeiger 166:242–244. Vedia, I., and R. Miranda. 2013. Review of the state of knowledge of crayfish species in the Iberian Peninsula. Limnetica 32:269–286. Youngman, P. H. 1982. Distribution and the systematics of the European mink Mustela lutreola Linnaeus 1761. Acta Zoologica Fennica 166:1–48. Zuberogoitia, I., and J. Zabala. 2003. Does European mink use only rivers or do they also use other habitats? Small Carnivore Conservation 28:7–8.
Conservation Biology Volume 29, No. 2, 2015
Setting priorities for existing conservation needs of crayfish and mink Mar´ıa D´ıez-Le´ on,∗ Rafael Miranda,† Arturo H. Ari˜ no,† and David Galicia† ‡ ∗
Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada †Department of Environmental Biology, University of Navarra, Irunlarrea 1, Pamplona 31008, Spain
Introduction According to Clavero (2014), the conservation in Spain of the white-clawed crayfish (Austropotamobius italicus) and the European mink (Mustela lutreola) to the detriment of 3 North American species (red swamp crayfish [Procambarus clarkii], signal crayfish [Pacifastacus leniusculus], and feral American mink [Neovison vison]) represents a case of shifting baseline syndrome (Pauly 1995; Papworth et al. 2009). Clavero argues there is clear evidence that all these species are nonnative to the Iberian Peninsula and therefore preserving the white-clawed crayfish and the European mink responds to an a priori social assimilation of these species as native and, thus, to a shift of the baseline of Spanish natural freshwater ecosystems. We question Clavero’s evidence on the nonnative status of these 2 species in the Iberian Peninsula and disagree with the importance he attributes to species’ native or nonnative status when setting conservation priorities. Nonnative species occur outside their historical natural range following intentional or accidental human introduction (Heywood 1995). Contrary to Clavero’s claim, evidence suggests the white-clawed crayfish and the European mink are native to the Iberian Peninsula (see below). Moreover, the current known European distribution for both species makes natural dispersion a plausible biogeographic process because the Pyrenean range is permeable at its extremes (e.g., Mart´ınezRica & Monserrat-Recoder 1990) and, at least for mustelids, mountains are not a barrier to dispersal (e.g., Zuberogoitia & Zabala 2003). White-Clawed Crayfish Clavero argues that the white-clawed crayfish is not native to the Iberian Peninsula because their popula-
tions have low genetic variability (Grandjean et al. 2000; Trontelj et al. 2005) and historical records of their presence in Spain date from only approximately 200 years ago (Clavero & Villero 2013). Low genetic variability in itself is not conclusive evidence of human introduction. It may indicate a population bottleneck, but it does not necessarily indicate the causes of such a bottleneck. In addition, the low genetic variability reported for the white-clawed crayfish has been attributed to the use of flawed methods (Di´eguez-Uribeondo et al. 2008). Moreover, recent, more extensive studies report high levels of genetic variability for the species (Pedraza-Lara et al. 2010; Matallanas et al. 2011). High genetic variability does not necessarily prove that a species is native, but, together with phylogenetic evidence placing the diversification of the Iberian white-clawed crayfish population over 10,000 years ago (Matallanas et al. 2013), it provides strong support for it. Clavero and Villero (2013) suggest that multiple introductions carried out since the 17th century explain this high genetic variability. This mechanism, however, does not account for the genetic differences between the Iberian and Italian populations (Di´eguez-Uribeondo et al. 2008) of white-clawed crayfish. Furthermore, Clavero and Villero (2013) and Clavero imply that the absence of written evidence of the presence of the species before the 17th century is the evidence that the species was absent in the peninsula until then. Aside from the logical problem with this type of reasoning, there are methodological issues to consider; the area dealt with in the historical documents does not overlap with the area where the first confirmed records occurred; therefore, sampling biases cannot be ruled out (Sober´ on & Peterson 2004; Lobo et al. 2007). In light of the current genetic evidence and the problems with the historical data approach, Clavero’s statement that “although historical and genetic data provide evidence for the introduced status of
‡Address correspondence to D. Galicia, email [email protected] Paper submitted May 8, 2014; revised manuscript accepted July 28, 2014.
599 Conservation Biology, Volume 29, No. 2, 599–601 C 2014 Society for Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12406
Setting Priorities for Conservation
600
the white-clawed crayfish . . . this information is largely ignored” is unfounded. European Mink The recent distribution of the European mink excluded the Iberian Peninsula until approximately 1950 (Ondarra 1955). Michaux et al. (2005) found little genetic variation in the western and southeastern populations of the species and suggest that the Iberian populations originated from a recent colonization by a few individuals. Clavero seems to overlook that Michaux et al. (2005) also suggest that the refugial role of Mediterranean regions during Pleistocene glaciations cannot be ruled out. Although no author suggests conclusively (as Clavero claims) that European mink were deliberately introduced in France, the presence of this species in Spain has been explained as a natural colonization from the French population (Youngman 1982; Maran & Henttonen 1995). Also, once more, the lack of written records does not prove the species was absent in the area. As an illustration, no written records of the recent presence of the European mink exist in the Netherlands (Youngman 1982), yet the subfossil record confirms the species was present in the area (van Bree 1961 as cited in Maran and Henttonen 1995). Therefore, contrary to Clavero’s appraisal, the European mink’s presence in the Iberian Peninsula seems a case of natural expansion of its natural distribution range, which makes it a native species in its occupied territory. Beyond Regional Biogeographical Considerations The native or nonnative status of a species is not a necessary or sufficient basis for the design of conservation policies for a particular species in a particular region. If it were, each new contribution to the knowledge of a species’ historical distribution or phylogeny would necessitate the complete revision of conservation policies in every region where the species exists. Further, the nonnative status of a species in a range should be weighed against the full range of the species because the species may have disappeared from its native range due to natural changes to an ecosystem (Harrison et al. 2006). Clavero states that conserving introduced species “would imply that anthropogenetically modified ecosystem states are desirable.” Although the presence of a nonnative species in an ecosystem is a sign of degradation, conservation managers rarely face ideal scenarios. (See Neff and Larson 2014 for a discussion of on-going shifts in conservation strategies.) Our disagreement with Clavero stems from his suggestion that the 5 species chosen to illustrate his point are all allegedly nonnative and therefore should all be managed as nonnative species without further considerations. This suggestion could
Conservation Biology Volume 29, No. 2, 2015
jeopardize conservation efforts in the Iberian Peninsula aimed at reducing the environmental damaged caused by the North American species and efforts directed at protecting the endangered European mink and whiteclawed crayfish (see below). We suggest that managing species on the basis of their native status without taking into account the threat that some of those species are under and the threat that the other species pose is very problematic from a conservation and policy point of view. The North American species, as well as being nonnative (e.g., Stubbe 1993; Vedia & Miranda 2013), are invasive species (i.e., their impact threatens biological diversity; Carlton 2003) and are managed accordingly. The white-clawed crayfish and the European mink undoubtedly have impacts on the environment (e.g., Clavero & Villero 2013), yet to date there is no evidence that such impacts warrant designation as an invasive species. (See Jeschke et al. 2014 for the importance of defining impact in discussions of nonnative species.) Moreover, unlike the North American species, both these species are threatened with extinction (Alonso et al. 2000; Maran et al. 2011). Degree of invasiveness and conservation status are important differences between the North American species and the white-clawed crayfish and European mink that Clavero overlooks and they deserve more consideration than a species’ native or nonnative designation (e.g., Andersen et al. 2004; Almeida et al. 2013) when designing species-level conservation strategies. The white-clawed crayfish and the European mink have been protected and managed in Spain in accordance with available scientific knowledge and their global conservation status. In addition, the preference Spanish society might have toward these 2 species does not respond to shifting baselines; rather, it is the result of an a posteriori social acknowledgement of the documented environmental threat posed by the North American invasive species and the global threatened status of white-clawed crayfish and European mink populations. The conservation of a species is a global pursuit that requires an international approach to achieve positive results. Clavero states: “decisions about what should be a conservation priority should be taken by societies.” We agree, provided that societies base such decisions on rigorous scientific data and provided that a society that cares about conservation thinks globally.
Acknowledgments We thank 3 anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and discussions which greatly improved an earlier version of this manuscript.
D´ıez-Le´on et al.
Literature Cited Almeida, D., F. Ribeiro, P. M. Leunda, L. Vilizzi, and G. H. Copp. 2013. Effectiveness of FISK, an invasiveness screening tool for non-native freshwater fishes, to perform risk identification assessments in the Iberian Peninsula. Risk Analysis 33:1404– 1413. Alonso, F., C. Temi˜ no, and C. Di´eguez-Uribeondo. 2000. Status of the white-clawed crayfish, Austropotamobius pallipes (Lereboullet, 1858), in Spain: distribution and legislation. Bulletin Franc¸ais de la Pˆeche et de la Pisciculture 356:31–53. Andersen, M. C., H. Adams, B. Hope, and M. Powell. 2004. Risk assessment for invasive species. Risk Analysis 24:787–793. Carlton, J. 2003. Invasive species: vectors and management strategies. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Clavero, M., and D. Villero. 2013. Historical ecology and invasion biology: long-term distribution changes of introduced freshwater species. BioScience 64:145–153. Clavero, M. 2014. Shifting baselines and the conservation of non-native species. Conservation Biology 28: DOI: 10.1111/ cobi.12266. Di´eguez-Uribeondo, J., F. Royo, C. Souty-Grosset, A. Ropiquet, and F. Grandjean. 2008. Low genetic variability of the white-clawed crayfish in the Iberian Peninsula: its origin and management implications. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18:19–31. Grandjean, F., J. Harris, C. Souty-Grosset, and K. A. Crandall. 2000. Systematics of the European endangered crayfish species Austropotamobius pallipes (Decapoda: Astacidae). Journal of Crustacean Biology 20:522–529. Harrison, P. A., P. M. Berry, N. Butt, and M. New. 2006. Modelling climate change impacts on species’ distributions at the European scale: implications for conservation policy. Environmental Science and Policy 9:116–128. Heywood, V. H., editor. 1995. The global biodiversity assessment. United Nations Environment Programme. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Jeschke, M., et al. 2014. Defining the impact of non-native species. Conservation Biology 28: DOI: 10.111/cobi.12299. Lobo, J. M., A. Baselga, J. Hortal, A. Jim´enez-Valverde, and J. F G´ omez. 2007. How does the knowledge about the spatial distribution of Iberian dung beetle species accumulate over time? Diversity and Distributions 13:772–780. Maran, T., and H. Henttonen. 1995. Why is the European mink (Mustela lutreola) disappearing?—A review of the process and hypotheses. Annales Zoologici Fennici 32:47–54. Maran, T., D. Skumatov, S. Palaz´ on, A. Gomez, M. P˜ odra, A. Saveljev, A. Kranz, R. Libois, and S. Aulagnier. 2011. Mustela lutreola. In 2013 IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2013.2. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland. Available from www.iucnredlist.org (accessed February 2014). Mart´ınez-Rica, J. P., and P. Monserrat-Recoder. 1990. Biogeographic fea-
601
tures of the Pyrenean range. Mountain Research and Development 10:235–240. Matallanas, B., M. D. Ochando, A. Vivero, B. Beroiz, F. Alonso, and C. Callejas. 2011. Mitochondrial DNA variability in Spanish populations of A. italicus inferred from the analysis of a COI region. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems 401:30. Matallanas, B., A. Ochando, F. Alonso, and C. Callejas. 2013. Phylogeography of the white-clawed crayfish (Australopotamobius italicus) in Spain: inferences from microsatellite markers. Molecular Biology Reports 40:5327–5338. Michaux, J. R., O. J. Hardy, F. Justy, P. Fournier, A. Kranz, M. Cabria, A. Davison, R. Rosoux, and R. Libois. 2005. Conservation genetics and population history of the threatened European mink, Mustela lutreola, with an emphasis on the west European population. Molecular Ecology 14:2373–2389. Neff, M. W., and B. M. H. Larson. 2014. Scientists, managers and assisted colonization: four contrasting perspectives entangle science and policy. Biological Conservation 172:1–7. Ondarra, P. R. 1955. Hallazgo, en Guipuzcoa, de un mam´ıfero no citado en la “Fauna Ib´erica” de Cabrera, el Putorius lutreola. Munibe 7:201–207. Papworth, S. K., J. Rist, L. Coad, and E. J. Milner-Gulland. 2009. Evidence for shifting baseline syndrome in conservation. Conservation Letters 2:93–100. Pauly, D. 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10:430. Pedraza-Lara, C., F. Alda, S. Carranza, and I. Doadrio. 2010. Mitochondrial DNA structure of the Iberian populations of the white-clawed crayfish, Austropotamobius italicus italicus (Faxon, 1914). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 57:327–342. Sober´ on, J., and A. T. Peterson. 2004. Biodiversity informatics: managing and applying primary biodiversity data. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B 359:689–698. Stubbe, M. 1993. Mustela vison. Pages 654–698 in M. Stubbe and F. Krapp, editors. Handbuch der S¨augetiere Europas. Bd. 5, Raubs¨auger. Teil 2. Mustelidae 2, Viverridae, Herpestridae, Felidae. AULA, Wiesbaden. Trontelj, P., Y. Machino, and B. Sket. 2005. Phylogenetic and phylogeographic relationships in the crayfish genus Austropotamobius inferred from mitochondrial COI gene sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 34:212–226. van Bree, P. J. H. 1961. On a subfossil skull of Mustela lutreola (L.) (Mammalia, Carnivora), found at Vlaardingen, the Netherlands. Zoologischer Anzeiger 166:242–244. Vedia, I., and R. Miranda. 2013. Review of the state of knowledge of crayfish species in the Iberian Peninsula. Limnetica 32:269–286. Youngman, P. H. 1982. Distribution and the systematics of the European mink Mustela lutreola Linnaeus 1761. Acta Zoologica Fennica 166:1–48. Zuberogoitia, I., and J. Zabala. 2003. Does European mink use only rivers or do they also use other habitats? Small Carnivore Conservation 28:7–8.
Conservation Biology Volume 29, No. 2, 2015
