Population viability analysis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Population viability analysis (PVA) is a species-specific method of risk assessment frequently used in conservation biology. It is traditionally defined as the process that determines the probability that a population will go extinct within a given number of years. More recently, PVA has been described as a marriage of ecology and statistics that brings together species characteristics and environmental variability to forecast population health and extinction risk. Each PVA is individually developed for a target population or species, and consequently, each PVA is unique. The larger goal in mind when conducting a PVA is to ensure that the population of a species is self-sustaining over the long term.[1]


Population viability analysis (PVA) is used to estimate the likelihood of a population’s extinction and indicate the urgency of recovery efforts, and identify key life stages or processes that should be the focus of recovery efforts. PVA is also used to compare proposed management options and assess existing recovery efforts. PVA is frequently used in endangered species management to develop a plan of action, rank the pros and cons of different management scenarios, and assess the potential impacts of habitat loss.


In the 1970s, Yellowstone National Park was the centre of a heated debate over different proposals to manage the Park’s problem grizzly bears (Ursus arctos). In 1978, Mark Shaffer proposed a model for the grizzlies that incorporated random variability, and calculated extinction probabilities and minimum viable population size. The first PVA is credited to Shaffer.

PVA gained popularity in the United States as federal agencies and ecologists required methods to evaluate the risk of extinction and possible outcomes of management decisions, particularly in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976.

In 1986, Gilpin and Soulé broadened the PVA definition to include the interactive forces that affect the viability of a population, including genetics. The use of PVA increased dramatically in the late 1980s and early 1990s following advances in personal computers and software packages.


A PVA for the endangered Fender’s Blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides) was recently performed with a goal of providing additional information to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, which was developing a recovery plan for the species. The PVA concluded that the species was more at risk of extinction than previously thought and identified key sites where recovery efforts should be focused. The PVA also indicated that because the butterfly populations fluctuate widely from year to year, to prevent the populations from going extinct the minimum annual population growth rate must be kept much higher than at levels typically considered acceptable for other species.[2]

Following a recent outbreak of canine distemper virus, a PVA was performed for the critically endangered island fox (Urocyon littoralis) of Santa Catalina Island, California. The Santa Catalina island fox population is uniquely composed of two subpopulations that are separated by an isthmus, with the eastern subpopulation at greater risk of extinction than the western subpopulation. PVA was conducted with the goals of 1) evaluating the island fox’s extinction risk, 2) estimating the island fox’s sensitivity to catastrophic events, and 3) evaluating recent recovery efforts which include release of captive-bred foxes and transport of wild juvenile foxes from the west to the east side. Results of the PVA concluded that the island fox is still at significant risk of extinction, and is highly susceptible to catastrophes that occur more than once every 20 years. Furthermore, extinction risks and future population sizes on both sides of the island were significantly dependent on the number of foxes released and transported each year.[3]


Debates exist and remain unresolved over the appropriate uses of PVA in conservation biology and PVA’s ability to accurately assess extinction risks.

A large quantity of field data is desirable for PVA; some conservatively estimate that for a precise extinction probability assessment extending T years into the future, five-to-ten times T years of data are needed. Datasets of such magnitude are typically unavailable for rare species; it has been estimated that suitable data for PVA is available for only 2% of threatened bird species. PVA for threatened and endangered species is particularly a problem as the predictive power of PVA plummets dramatically with minimal datasets. Ellner et al. (2002) argued that PVA has little value in such circumstances and is best replaced by other methods. Others argue that PVA remains the best tool available for estimations of extinction risk, especially with the use of sensitivity model runs.

Even with an adequate dataset, it is possible that a PVA can still have large errors in extinction rate predictions. It is impossible to incorporate all future possibilities into a PVA: habitats may change, catastrophes may occur, new diseases may be introduced. PVA utility can be enhanced by multiple model runs with varying sets of assumptions including the forecast future date. Some prefer to use PVA always in a relative analysis of benefits of alternative management schemes, such as comparing proposed resource management plans.

Future directions[edit]

Improvements to PVA likely to occur in the near future include: 1) creating a fixed definition of PVA and scientific standards of quality by which all PVA are judged and 2) incorporating recent genetic advances into PVA.

See also[edit]

External links[edit]


  1. ^ Sanderson, E.W. (2006) How many animals do we want to save? The many ways of setting population target levels for conservation. BioScience 56: 911-922, (p. 913).
  2. ^ Schultz, Cheryl B.; Hammond, Paul C. (October 2003). "Using Population Viability Analysis to Develop Recovery Criteria for Endangered Insects: Case Study of the Fender's Blue Butterfly". Conservation Biology 17 (5): 1372–1385. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02141.x. 
  3. ^ Kohlmann, Stephan G.; Schmidt, Gregory A.; Garcelon, David K. (April 2005). "A population viability analysis for the Island Fox on Santa Catalina Island, California". Ecological Modelling 183 (1): 77–94. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.07.022. 


  • Beissinger, Steven R. and McCullough, Dale R. (2002). “Population Viability Analysis”, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Beissinger, S.R. and Westphal, M.I. (1998). "On the use of demographic models of population viability in endangered species management". Journal of Wildlife Management (Allen Press) 62 (3): 821–841. doi:10.2307/3802534. JSTOR 3802534. 
  • Brook, B.W., Burgman, M.A., Akçakaya, H.R., O'Grady, J.J., and Frankham, R. (2002). "Critiques of PVA ask the wrong questions: Throwing the heuristic baby out with the numerical bath water". Conservation Biology 16: 262–263. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01426.x. 
  • Brook, B.W., J.J. O'Grady, A.P. Chapman, M.A. Burgman, H.R. Akçakaya, and R. Frankham (2000). "Predictive accuracy of population viability analysis in conservation biology". Nature 404 (6776): 385–387. doi:10.1038/35006050. PMID 10746724. 
  • Crouse, D.T., Crowder, L.B., and Caswell, H. (1987). "A stage-based population model for loggerhead sea turtles and implications for conservation". Ecology (Ecological Society of America) 68 (5): 1412–1423. doi:10.2307/1939225. JSTOR 1939225. 
  • Ellner, S.P., Fieberg, J., Ludwig, D., and Wilcox, C. (2002). "Precision of population viability analysis". Conservation Biology 16: 258–261. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00553.x. 
  • Gilpin, M.E. and Soulé, M.E. (1986). “Conservation biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity”, Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates
  • Perrins, C.M., Lebreton, J.D., and Hirons, G.J.M. (eds.) (1991). “Bird population studies: relevance to conservation and management”, New York: Oxford University Press
  • McCarthy, M.A., Keith, D., Tietjen, J., Burgman, M.A., Maunder M.N., Master, L., Brook, B.W., Mace, G., Possingham, H.P., Medellin, R., Andelman, S., Regan, H., Regan, T., and Ruckelshaus, M (2004). "Comparing predictions of extinction risk using models and subjective judgment". Acta Oecologica 26 (2): 67–74. doi:10.1016/j.actao.2004.01.008. 
  • Maunder M.N. (2004). "Population Viability Analysis, Based on Combining Integrated, Bayesian, and Hierarchical Analyses". Acta Oecologica 26 (2): 85–94. doi:10.1016/j.actao.2003.11.008. 
  • Menges, E.S. (2000). "Population viability analyses in plants: challenges and opportunities". Trends in Ecology & Evolution 15 (2): 51–56. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01763-2. PMID 10652555. 
  • Morris, W.F. , Hudgens, B.R., Moyle, L.C., Stinchcombe, J.R., and Bloch, P.L. (2002). "Population viability analysis in endangered species recovery plans: Past use and future improvements". Ecological Applications 12 (3): 708–712. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0708:PVAIES]2.0.CO;2. ISSN 1051-0761. 
  • Reed, J.M., L.S. Mills, J.B. Dunning, E.S. Menges, K.S. Mckelvey, R. Frye, S.R. Beissinger, M. Anstett, and P. Miller. (2002). "Emerging issues in population viability analysis". Conservation Biology 16: 7–19. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.99419.x. 
  • Taylor, B.L. (1995). "The reliability of using population viability analysis for risk classification of species". Conservation Biology 9 (3): 551–559. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.09030551.x.