Non-reproductive popuations

[cegr...@gmail.com]

Hi all,

A question from my team: should we include populations that are not reproductive? An example from Australia is an endangered eucalypt. One population has 219 individuals but 0 reproductively mature (for an extended time, greater than the length of time to maturity). Other documentation considers them functionally extinct. Exclude?

All best, Catherine

[shoban]

This is a judgement call.  In the US if the expert report says something like 'likely extinct' we are calling it extinct.  However if the trees are there but just not reproducing (pollinator is missing, invasive animals eat the seeds) the population is not really extinct and has good potential and the genetic diversity is there- especially in a long lived species there is a good chance.  So I would probably consider this case that the population is there and there are 219 trees, IMO