DOI: 10.1126/science.275.5299.550. Geographic Distribution of Endangered Species in the United States

Geographic Distribution of Endangered Species in the United States

10.1126/science.275.5299.550

Crossref journal-article

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Science (221)

Abstract

Geographic distribution data for endangered species in the United States were used to locate “hot spots” of threatened biodiversity. The hot spots for different species groups rarely overlap, except where anthropogenic activities reduce natural habitat in centers of endemism. Conserving endangered plant species maximizes the incidental protection of all other species groups. The presence of endangered birds and herptiles, however, provides a more sensitive indication of overall endangered biodiversity within any region. The amount of land that needs to be managed to protect currently endangered and threatened species in the United States is a relatively small proportion of the land mass.

Bibliography

Dobson, A. P., Rodriguez, J. P., Roberts, W. M., & Wilcove, D. S. (1997). Geographic Distribution of Endangered Species in the United States. Science, 275(5299), 550â553.

Authors 4

A. P. Dobson (first)
J. P. Rodriguez (additional)
W. M. Roberts (additional)
D. S. Wilcove (additional)

References 27 Referenced 469

Pearson D. L., Cassola F., Conserv. Biol. 6, 376 (1992). (10.1046/j.1523-1739.1992.06030376.x) / Conserv. Biol. by Pearson D. L. (1992)
Bibby C. J., et al., Putting Biodiversity on the Map: Priority Areas for Global Conservation (International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge, 1992). / Putting Biodiversity on the Map: Priority Areas for Global Conservation by Bibby C. J. (1992)
Scott J. M., Csuti B., Jacobi J. D., Estes J. E., Bioscience 37, 782 (1987). (10.2307/1310544) / Bioscience by Scott J. M. (1987)
Scott J. M., et al., Wildl. Monogr. 123, 1 (1993). / Wildl. Monogr. by Scott J. M. (1993)
10.1038/365335a0
Williams P., et al., Conserv. Biol. 10, 155 (1996). (10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10010155.x) / Conserv. Biol. by Williams P. (1996)
Dinerstein E., Wikramanayake E. D., ibid. 7, 53 (1993). / ibid. by Dinerstein E. (1993)
Pressey R. L., ibid. 8, 662 (1994). / ibid. by Pressey R. L. (1994)
United States Environmental Protection Agency Endangered Species by County Database (Office of Pesticide Programs Washington DC 1995).
MapViewer.I. Golden Software (Golden Software Golden CO 1995).
I. Vane-Wright R., Humphries C. J., Williams P. H., Biol. Conserv. 55, 235 (1991). (10.1016/0006-3207(91)90030-D) / Biol. Conserv. by I. Vane-Wright R. (1991)
Pressey R. L., Possingham H. P., Margules C. R., ibid. 76, 259 (1996). (10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.259) / ibid. by Pressey R. L. (1996)
10.1016/0169-5347(93)90023-I
Half of the currently listed plant species are found in the 13 highest ranked counties in their complementary county subset; the total area of these counties is 1.33% of the U.S. land mass. The equivalent figures for the other groups are as follows: molluscs 6 counties (0.14%); arthropods 9 counties (0.46%); fish 14 counties (2.04%); herptiles 7 counties (0.34%); birds 4 counties (0.28%); and mammals 7 counties (0.40%).
Mean values for birds are inflated by the occurrence of peregrine falcons ( Falco peregrinus ) and bald eagles ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus ) in a large number of counties throughout the United States. If data for these two species are excluded the mean number of counties that each endangered bird species was located in would drop to 31.7 with 37% of endangered birds restricted to a single county.
U. S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1991 (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1991). / Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1991 by U. S. Bureau of the Census (1991)
The stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed on the entire data set and then on each major taxonomic division. Because complete sets of economic and geographic data are only available at the state level the analysis was performed at this coarser geographic scale. The density of endangered species was expressed as the total number of endangered species recorded in the state divided by total area of the state for all terrestrial species. In the case of predominantly aquatic species (fish and clams) only the area of each state classified as water or wetland was used to calculate density. The variables included in the analysis were the annual value of farm products produced in the state the year in which the state was incorporated into the United States water use in the state manufacturing exports percent of the net state area that is forested percent of the state that is urban percent of the state classified as wetlands percent of the state classified as agricultural land human population density in the state percent of the human population living in urban areas highest point in the state average annual temperature in the state and average annual rainfall in the state. The analysis was undertaken twice—once including Hawaii and once for just the mainland states. In both cases there was no substantial difference in the analyses except for birds plants and all species combined. A large proportion of the endangered birds and plants occur only in Hawaii. When Hawaii is included in the analysis its high density of endangered species and extreme values for several independent variables (such as extreme topography and tropical climate) combine to yield trends that are unrepresentative of the continental United States. For this reason we have only provided results for the 49 continental states in the main text.
MacArthur R. H., Geographical Ecology: Patterns in the Distribution of Species (Harper and Row, New York, 1972). / Geographical Ecology: Patterns in the Distribution of Species by MacArthur R. H. (1972)
Adams J. M., Plants Today 2, 183 (1989). / Plants Today by Adams J. M. (1989)
Gentry A. H., in Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity, , Soule M. E., Ed. (Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, 1986), pp. 153-181. / Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity by Gentry A. H. (1986)
Flather C. H., Joyce L. A., Bloomgarden C. A., Anonymous, Species Endangerment Patterns in the United States RM-241, General Technical Report, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, CO, 1994). (10.2737/RM-GTR-241) / Species Endangerment Patterns in the United States / RM-241, General Technical Report by Flather C. H. (1994)
Banarescu P., Zoogeography of Fresh Waters, vol. 2, Distribution and Dispersal of Freshwater Animals in North America and Eurasia (AULA-Verlag, Wiesbaden, Germany, 1992). / Zoogeography of Fresh Waters, vol. 2, Distribution and Dispersal of Freshwater Animals in North America and Eurasia by Banarescu P. (1992)
Kiester A. R., et al., Conserv. Biol.in press. / Conserv. Biol. by Kiester A. R.
Stein B. A., Chipley R. M., Priorities for Conservation: 1996 Annual Report Card for U.S. Plant and Animal Species (The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, 1996). / Priorities for Conservation: 1996 Annual Report Card for U.S. Plant and Animal Species by Stein B. A. (1996)
Wilcove D. S., McMillan M., Winston K. C., Conserv. Biol. 7, 87 (1993). (10.1046/j.1523-1739.1993.07010087.x) / Conserv. Biol. by Wilcove D. S. (1993)
Bringing these species to the point of recovery (by increasing their populations) would involve a greater amount of land than they currently occupy. However as the geographic distributions of many endangered species do not overlap more than a single county this is likely to be less of a problem for species groups with restricted ranges (such as plants and arthropods) than it is for birds and mammals.
We thank L. Turner and M. Hood at the Environmental Protection Agency for comments on the manuscript and for providing us with the raw data for this analysis; user support services at Golden Software CO for providing help in producing the maps in Figs. 1 and 2; and M. Scott M. Bean and three anonymous referees for comments on the manuscript. The work was made possible by a grant to the Environmental Defense Fund from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.

Dates

Type	When
Created	23 years, 1 month ago (July 27, 2002, 5:45 a.m.)
Deposited	1 year, 7 months ago (Jan. 12, 2024, 9:57 p.m.)
Indexed	2 weeks, 3 days ago (Aug. 12, 2025, 6:11 p.m.)
Issued	28 years, 7 months ago (Jan. 24, 1997)
Published	28 years, 7 months ago (Jan. 24, 1997)
Published Print	28 years, 7 months ago (Jan. 24, 1997)

Funders 0

None

BibTeX

@article{Dobson_1997, title={Geographic Distribution of Endangered Species in the United States}, volume={275}, ISSN={1095-9203}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5299.550}, DOI={10.1126/science.275.5299.550}, number={5299}, journal={Science}, publisher={American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)}, author={Dobson, A. P. and Rodriguez, J. P. and Roberts, W. M. and Wilcove, D. S.}, year={1997}, month=jan, pages={550–553} }

JSON

{
  "indexed": {
    "date-parts": [
      [
        2025,
        8,
        12
      ]
    ],
    "date-time": "2025-08-12T22:11:34Z",
    "timestamp": 1755036694448
  },
  "reference-count": 27,
  "publisher": "American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)",
  "issue": "5299",
  "content-domain": {
    "domain": [],
    "crossmark-restriction": false
  },
  "published-print": {
    "date-parts": [
      [
        1997,
        1,
        24
      ]
    ]
  },
  "abstract": "<jats:p>Geographic distribution data for endangered species in the United States were used to locate \u201chot spots\u201d of threatened biodiversity. The hot spots for different species groups rarely overlap, except where anthropogenic activities reduce natural habitat in centers of endemism. Conserving endangered plant species maximizes the incidental protection of all other species groups. The presence of endangered birds and herptiles, however, provides a more sensitive indication of overall endangered biodiversity within any region. The amount of land that needs to be managed to protect currently endangered and threatened species in the United States is a relatively small proportion of the land mass.</jats:p>",
  "DOI": "10.1126/science.275.5299.550",
  "type": "journal-article",
  "created": {
    "date-parts": [
      [
        2002,
        7,
        27
      ]
    ],
    "date-time": "2002-07-27T09:45:15Z",
    "timestamp": 1027763115000
  },
  "page": "550-553",
  "source": "Crossref",
  "is-referenced-by-count": 469,
  "title": "Geographic Distribution of Endangered Species in the United States",
  "prefix": "10.1126",
  "volume": "275",
  "author": [
    {
      "given": "A. P.",
      "family": "Dobson",
      "sequence": "first",
      "affiliation": [
        {
          "name": "A. P. Dobson, J. P. Rodriguez, W. M. Roberts, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544-1003, USA."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "given": "J. P.",
      "family": "Rodriguez",
      "sequence": "additional",
      "affiliation": [
        {
          "name": "A. P. Dobson, J. P. Rodriguez, W. M. Roberts, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544-1003, USA."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "given": "W. M.",
      "family": "Roberts",
      "sequence": "additional",
      "affiliation": [
        {
          "name": "A. P. Dobson, J. P. Rodriguez, W. M. Roberts, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544-1003, USA."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "given": "D. S.",
      "family": "Wilcove",
      "sequence": "additional",
      "affiliation": [
        {
          "name": "D. S. Wilcove, Environmental Defense Fund, 1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20009, USA."
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "member": "221",
  "reference": [
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_2_2",
      "doi-asserted-by": "crossref",
      "first-page": "376",
      "DOI": "10.1046/j.1523-1739.1992.06030376.x",
      "volume": "6",
      "author": "Pearson D. L.",
      "year": "1992",
      "unstructured": "Pearson D. L., Cassola F., Conserv. Biol. 6, 376 (1992).",
      "journal-title": "Conserv. Biol."
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_3_2",
      "volume-title": "Putting Biodiversity on the Map: Priority Areas for Global Conservation",
      "author": "Bibby C. J.",
      "year": "1992",
      "unstructured": "Bibby C. J., et al., Putting Biodiversity on the Map: Priority Areas for Global Conservation (International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge, 1992)."
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_4_2",
      "doi-asserted-by": "crossref",
      "first-page": "782",
      "DOI": "10.2307/1310544",
      "volume": "37",
      "author": "Scott J. M.",
      "year": "1987",
      "unstructured": "Scott J. M., Csuti B., Jacobi J. D., Estes J. E., Bioscience 37, 782 (1987).",
      "journal-title": "Bioscience"
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_5_2",
      "first-page": "1",
      "volume": "123",
      "author": "Scott J. M.",
      "year": "1993",
      "unstructured": "Scott J. M., et al., Wildl. Monogr. 123, 1 (1993).",
      "journal-title": "Wildl. Monogr."
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_6_2",
      "doi-asserted-by": "publisher",
      "DOI": "10.1038/365335a0"
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_7_2",
      "doi-asserted-by": "crossref",
      "first-page": "155",
      "DOI": "10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10010155.x",
      "volume": "10",
      "author": "Williams P.",
      "year": "1996",
      "unstructured": "Williams P., et al., Conserv. Biol. 10, 155 (1996).",
      "journal-title": "Conserv. Biol."
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_8_2",
      "first-page": "53",
      "volume": "7",
      "author": "Dinerstein E.",
      "year": "1993",
      "unstructured": "Dinerstein E., Wikramanayake E. D., ibid. 7, 53 (1993).",
      "journal-title": "ibid."
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_9_2",
      "first-page": "662",
      "volume": "8",
      "author": "Pressey R. L.",
      "year": "1994",
      "unstructured": "Pressey R. L., ibid. 8, 662 (1994).",
      "journal-title": "ibid."
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_10_2",
      "unstructured": "United States Environmental Protection Agency Endangered Species by County Database (Office of Pesticide Programs Washington DC 1995)."
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_11_2",
      "unstructured": "MapViewer.I. Golden Software (Golden Software Golden CO 1995)."
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_12_2",
      "doi-asserted-by": "crossref",
      "first-page": "235",
      "DOI": "10.1016/0006-3207(91)90030-D",
      "volume": "55",
      "author": "I. Vane-Wright R.",
      "year": "1991",
      "unstructured": "I. Vane-Wright R., Humphries C. J., Williams P. H., Biol. Conserv. 55, 235 (1991).",
      "journal-title": "Biol. Conserv."
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_13_2",
      "doi-asserted-by": "crossref",
      "first-page": "259",
      "DOI": "10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.259",
      "volume": "76",
      "author": "Pressey R. L.",
      "year": "1996",
      "unstructured": "Pressey R. L., Possingham H. P., Margules C. R., ibid. 76, 259 (1996).",
      "journal-title": "ibid."
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_14_2",
      "doi-asserted-by": "publisher",
      "DOI": "10.1016/0169-5347(93)90023-I"
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_15_2",
      "unstructured": "Half of the currently listed plant species are found in the 13 highest ranked counties in their complementary county subset; the total area of these counties is 1.33% of the U.S. land mass. The equivalent figures for the other groups are as follows: molluscs 6 counties (0.14%); arthropods 9 counties (0.46%); fish 14 counties (2.04%); herptiles 7 counties (0.34%); birds 4 counties (0.28%); and mammals 7 counties (0.40%)."
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_16_2",
      "unstructured": "Mean values for birds are inflated by the occurrence of peregrine falcons ( Falco peregrinus ) and bald eagles ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus ) in a large number of counties throughout the United States. If data for these two species are excluded the mean number of counties that each endangered bird species was located in would drop to 31.7 with 37% of endangered birds restricted to a single county."
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_17_2",
      "volume-title": "Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1991",
      "author": "U. S. Bureau of the Census",
      "year": "1991",
      "unstructured": "U. S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1991 (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1991)."
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_18_2",
      "unstructured": "The stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed on the entire data set and then on each major taxonomic division. Because complete sets of economic and geographic data are only available at the state level the analysis was performed at this coarser geographic scale. The density of endangered species was expressed as the total number of endangered species recorded in the state divided by total area of the state for all terrestrial species. In the case of predominantly aquatic species (fish and clams) only the area of each state classified as water or wetland was used to calculate density. The variables included in the analysis were the annual value of farm products produced in the state the year in which the state was incorporated into the United States water use in the state manufacturing exports percent of the net state area that is forested percent of the state that is urban percent of the state classified as wetlands percent of the state classified as agricultural land human population density in the state percent of the human population living in urban areas highest point in the state average annual temperature in the state and average annual rainfall in the state. The analysis was undertaken twice\u2014once including Hawaii and once for just the mainland states. In both cases there was no substantial difference in the analyses except for birds plants and all species combined. A large proportion of the endangered birds and plants occur only in Hawaii. When Hawaii is included in the analysis its high density of endangered species and extreme values for several independent variables (such as extreme topography and tropical climate) combine to yield trends that are unrepresentative of the continental United States. For this reason we have only provided results for the 49 continental states in the main text."
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_19_2",
      "volume-title": "Geographical Ecology: Patterns in the Distribution of Species",
      "author": "MacArthur R. H.",
      "year": "1972",
      "unstructured": "MacArthur R. H., Geographical Ecology: Patterns in the Distribution of Species (Harper and Row, New York, 1972)."
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_20_2",
      "first-page": "183",
      "volume": "2",
      "author": "Adams J. M.",
      "year": "1989",
      "unstructured": "Adams J. M., Plants Today 2, 183 (1989).",
      "journal-title": "Plants Today"
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_21_2",
      "first-page": "153",
      "volume-title": "Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity",
      "author": "Gentry A. H.",
      "year": "1986",
      "unstructured": "Gentry A. H., in Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity, , Soule M. E., Ed. (Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, 1986), pp. 153-181."
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_22_2",
      "series-title": "RM-241, General Technical Report",
      "doi-asserted-by": "crossref",
      "DOI": "10.2737/RM-GTR-241",
      "volume-title": "Species Endangerment Patterns in the United States",
      "author": "Flather C. H.",
      "year": "1994",
      "unstructured": "Flather C. H., Joyce L. A., Bloomgarden C. A., Anonymous, Species Endangerment Patterns in the United States RM-241, General Technical Report, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, CO, 1994)."
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_23_2",
      "volume-title": "Zoogeography of Fresh Waters, vol. 2, Distribution and Dispersal of Freshwater Animals in North America and Eurasia",
      "author": "Banarescu P.",
      "year": "1992",
      "unstructured": "Banarescu P., Zoogeography of Fresh Waters, vol. 2, Distribution and Dispersal of Freshwater Animals in North America and Eurasia (AULA-Verlag, Wiesbaden, Germany, 1992)."
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_24_2",
      "author": "Kiester A. R.",
      "unstructured": "Kiester A. R., et al., Conserv. Biol.in press.",
      "journal-title": "Conserv. Biol."
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_25_2",
      "volume-title": "Priorities for Conservation: 1996 Annual Report Card for U.S. Plant and Animal Species",
      "author": "Stein B. A.",
      "year": "1996",
      "unstructured": "Stein B. A., Chipley R. M., Priorities for Conservation: 1996 Annual Report Card for U.S. Plant and Animal Species (The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, 1996)."
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_26_2",
      "doi-asserted-by": "crossref",
      "first-page": "87",
      "DOI": "10.1046/j.1523-1739.1993.07010087.x",
      "volume": "7",
      "author": "Wilcove D. S.",
      "year": "1993",
      "unstructured": "Wilcove D. S., McMillan M., Winston K. C., Conserv. Biol. 7, 87 (1993).",
      "journal-title": "Conserv. Biol."
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_27_2",
      "unstructured": "Bringing these species to the point of recovery (by increasing their populations) would involve a greater amount of land than they currently occupy. However as the geographic distributions of many endangered species do not overlap more than a single county this is likely to be less of a problem for species groups with restricted ranges (such as plants and arthropods) than it is for birds and mammals."
    },
    {
      "key": "e_1_3_1_28_2",
      "unstructured": "We thank L. Turner and M. Hood at the Environmental Protection Agency for comments on the manuscript and for providing us with the raw data for this analysis; user support services at Golden Software CO for providing help in producing the maps in Figs. 1 and 2; and M. Scott M. Bean and three anonymous referees for comments on the manuscript. The work was made possible by a grant to the Environmental Defense Fund from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation."
    }
  ],
  "container-title": "Science",
  "original-title": [],
  "language": "en",
  "link": [
    {
      "URL": "https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.275.5299.550",
      "content-type": "unspecified",
      "content-version": "vor",
      "intended-application": "similarity-checking"
    }
  ],
  "deposited": {
    "date-parts": [
      [
        2024,
        1,
        13
      ]
    ],
    "date-time": "2024-01-13T02:57:04Z",
    "timestamp": 1705114624000
  },
  "score": 1,
  "resource": {
    "primary": {
      "URL": "https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.275.5299.550"
    }
  },
  "subtitle": [],
  "short-title": [],
  "issued": {
    "date-parts": [
      [
        1997,
        1,
        24
      ]
    ]
  },
  "references-count": 27,
  "journal-issue": {
    "issue": "5299",
    "published-print": {
      "date-parts": [
        [
          1997,
          1,
          24
        ]
      ]
    }
  },
  "alternative-id": [
    "10.1126/science.275.5299.550"
  ],
  "URL": "http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5299.550",
  "relation": {},
  "ISSN": [
    "0036-8075",
    "1095-9203"
  ],
  "subject": [],
  "container-title-short": "Science",
  "published": {
    "date-parts": [
      [
        1997,
        1,
        24
      ]
    ]
  }
}