Wild Species 2005: chapter 1

Section 1: Background

Introduction

Canada is home to over 70 000 wild speciesFootnote1 including, but by no means limited to, birds, fishes, vascular plants, butterflies, dragonflies, bees, worms, mosses and mushrooms. These species, and other aspects of nature, are highly valued by Canadians. Canadians recognize that wild species provide a host of resources, such as foods, medicines and materials, as well as services that we often take for granted, such as cleaning the air and water, regulating the climate, generating and conserving soils, pollinating crops, and controlling pests. In addition, Canadians take pride in, and profit internationally from, a reputation for pristine landscapes with abundant wildlife. But perhaps above all else, Canadians value the aesthetic splendour and spiritual nourishment still afforded by the incredible range of wild species living in Canada. For all these reasons, we acknowledge a responsibility to future Canadians and the rest of the world to conserve our nation's natural heritage, by preventing the loss of species due to human actions.

The first step in preventing the loss of species is to know which species we have, where they occur and how they are doing. The aim of the Wild Species series is to provide this overview. Wild Species 2005: The General Status of Species in Canada presents the results of general status assessments for 7732 species, including all of Canada's vertebrate species, all of Canada's vascular plants and four invertebrate groups. General status assessments integrate the best available information to create a snapshot of each species' status; their population size and distribution, the threats that each species faces in Canada, and any trends in these factors. General status assessments are used to categorize species into coarse-scaled general status ranks; some species will be ranked secure; some will show early signs of trouble and may need additional monitoring or management, while still others will be prioritized for detailed status assessments. General status ranks also highlight information gaps: for some species, there will not be enough information to assess whether they are secure or already in trouble. Each species receives a general status rank for each province, territory or ocean region in which it occurs, as well as a Canada General Status rank (Canada rank), reflecting the overall status of the species in Canada (Figure 1-iii).

One of the strengths of the general status approach is that general status ranks are generated for many species in all regions of the country, allowing patterns of declines or threats to emerge across suites of species. In addition, general status ranks are reviewed and updated periodically. This will allow Canadians to begin to track patterns of improvement or decline through time, revealing which species are maintaining or improving their status and which are declining or facing new threats. Such patterns not only give a better indication of the nature and magnitude of a problem, but may also point the way to improved conservation practices.

This report presents the generals status assessments for 10 groups of species; vascular plants, freshwater mussels, crayfishes, odonates, tiger beetles, fishes, amphibians, reptiles birds and mammals. Six groups of species; vascular plants, freshwater mussels, crayfishes, tiger beetles, odonates and marine fishes, are being assessed for the first time in this report. For these groups, Wild Species 2005 establishes a comprehensive, common platform for examining the general status of species across their Canadian range, as well as a solid baseline against which future changes in the distribution and abundance of species can be compared. In addition, Wild Species 2005 provides updated general status ranks for six groups that were first assessed in Wild Species 2000; ferns and orchids, freshwater fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.

Assessing this mix of species from all regions of the country presents a considerable challenge - the number of species is large and the area great. More than 70 000 species are known to live in Canada, distributed across the length and breadth of the nation: 10 million square kilometres of land and fresh water, almost 6 million square kilometres of ocean, and 202 080 kilometres of coast (the longest coastline in the world). Across this massive area, the distribution of species is influenced by the staggering array of topography, soil types and habitats found within our borders including boreal forest, tundra, taiga, bogs, temperate rainforests, grasslands, marshlands, alpine meadows, the Atlantic coastline and the Arctic Ocean.

Assessing the general status of Canadian species is challenging, but the process is essential. Our resource-based economy and high standard of living have an impact on the natural world: vegetation is cleared, cities expand, resources are extracted, waste is produced and exotic species are introduced. In altering nature for the benefit of Canadians, our goal must be to ensure that our activities do not imperil the very species that we both celebrate and depend upon. The Wild Species series is a tool for all Canadians; a guide indicating where more information is needed, a method of tracking changes in the status of Canada's species over time, an effective tool for improved conservation, and a testimony to the cooperative will of Canadians to protect wild species.

Why a report on species in Canada?

Wild Species 2005: The General Status of Species in Canada is a requirement of the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk, an agreement in principle established in 1996 by provincial, territorial, and federal ministers responsible for wildlife. The goal of the Accord is to prevent species in Canada from becoming extinct or extirpated because of human impact. As part of this goal, parties to the Accord agree to "monitor, assess and report regularly on the status of all wild species" with the objective of identifying those species whose populations are starting to decline, those for which a formal status assessment or additional management attention is necessary, and those for which more information is needed. Each province, territory, and federal agency responsible for wildlife undertakes to assess the species occurring within its jurisdiction. In addition, because the status of species can change over time, information about species is reported every five years.

In anticipation of this new information and changing general status for some species, provinces, territories and federal departments work together to produce a national "snapshot" of this ongoing process at least once every five years: how species are faring at that time across regions, across taxonomic groups, and across the nation. The national product of this agreement is the Wild Species series, of which Wild Species 2005: The General Status of Species in Canada is the second report.

Organization of this report

This report is divided into seven main sections. You can navigate the report using the links below, by using the Table of Contents, or by using the links on the left-hand side of the pages on this site.

  • Executive summary - Brief overview of Wild Species 2005.
  • Background - Aim and context of the report and information about the methods, results, and interpretation of general status assessments.
  • General status summaries - Overview of each group assessed, summary of general status ranks, and comparison to Wild Species 2000, where appropriate.
  • Summary of overall results - Summary of general status ranks for all groups covered in this report.
  • Next steps - The future direction of the Wild Species series.
  • Appendices - Contact information for provincial, territorial and federal representatives and websites, as well as credits and references.
  • General status search tool - Contains the provincial/territorial, ocean region and Canada General Status Ranks (Canada ranks). The search tool can be used to search general status ranks by common name, scientific name, rank, year, and region. Where relevant, the search tool contains links to the website of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), and links to the website of the World Conservation Union (IUCN). Additional information on species' status is provided in the comments section, where available. Data can be downloaded from the search tool as an excel spreadsheet.

What this report does

This report summarizes the general status assessments of a large number and variety of wild species2 occurring in Canada. Almost 7800 species from 10 major groups are covered, including all of Canada's vertebrate species, all of Canada's vascular plants and four invertebrate groups. The report focuses on the general status of all species within each of these groups, rather than on the general status of only rare or endangered species. So, for example, one can ask questions like: Are salamanders doing better than frogs in Nova Scotia? Has the general status of salamanders in Nova Scotia changed since 2000? Is this pattern the same in Manitoba, or Canada as a whole? How does the general status of salamanders and frogs compare with that of other groups that are associated with water, like fishes? These and many other questions can be answered because the report draws together information on different types of species, from all provinces and territories and portions of three bordering oceans, and presents general status ranks for species in each region as well as overall Canada General Status Ranks (Canada ranks).

General status assessments focus on establishing what information and expertise already exist and using these to develop general status ranks for as many species as possible. This allows existing knowledge to be presented to the public rather than delaying a report until complete scientific information is available. In the case of updated general status assessments, for the six species groups that were first evaluated in Wild Species 2000, this meant drawing upon previously established information networks as well as new sources of information to determine which species showed evidence of status change since 2000.

The exceptional number and variety of species covered in the Wild Species series requires that this report focuses on distilling detailed information into broad general status categories. Accordingly, while in some cases the report draws upon the information available from initiatives devoted to particular species groups, regions, or functions, it is not a replacement for these efforts, which have a narrower focus and more specific aims. In particular, general status assessments do not replace comprehensive scientific evaluations by COSEWIC or provincial and territorial equivalents, which provide in-depth, targeted assessments of individual species that may be at risk. General status assessments also differ in methods and scope from bird conservation plans (e.g. Partners in Flight for landbirds; Canadian Shorebird Conservation Plan for shorebirds; and Wings Over Water for seabirds and colonial waterbirds), which have developed their own priority-setting systems tailored to their unique program objectives. Links to information about these programs can be found in Appendix III.

The following is a summary of some of the achievements of Wild Species 2005 and the Wild Species series. This series:

  • Integrates information on a large number and variety of Canada's wild species (almost 7800 species in 10 groups), including all vertebrates and all vascular plants that have been found in Canada. This allows comparison of general status between individual species, as well as comparison within and between groups of species, based on taxonomic or regional boundaries.
  • Alerts Canadians to species that may require attention to prevent their extinction, before the species reach a "critical condition." Early warning of a species in trouble increases the success and cost-effectiveness of conservation programs. General status assessments also help to prioritize which species are in most urgent need of a more detailed status assessment, additional management attention, or basic research into population size, distribution, threats or trends.
  • Updates the general status of 1330 species in six groups, which were assessed for the first time in 2000. This comparison highlights species whose general status is declining or improving, shows where information gaps have been filled, and where further information is still required.
  • Summarizes the identity and distribution of select non-native wild species (Exotic species) across Canada. Few Canadians are aware of fauna and flora that is introduced, or the potential impacts of exotics on native species.
  • Identifies gaps in our knowledge about wild species in Canada. Directing resources and expertise towards filling these gaps is essential for a more accurate and comprehensive picture of the general status of Canadian wild species.
  • Establishes or enhances local networks of people with information to share about Canada's wild species. People identified during this process form part of a coordinated knowledge base critical to this, and future, Wild Species reports.
  • Shares information with Canadians about the diversity and general status of wild species across the country. Consolidating information about wild species in Canada lets everyone from schoolchildren to resource managers, farmers, and developers know what species are present in Canada and how they are doing.

Summary of Wild Species 2000

Wild Species 2000 was the first report on the general status of species in Canada, and summarized the provincial/territorial/oceanic region and Canada General Status Ranks (Canada ranks) of species in eight groups: ferns, orchids, butterflies, freshwater fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. The completed Canada ranks for freshwater fishes and butterflies were published in 2002. Once the 2002 Canada ranks for freshwater fishes and butterflies are combined with the 2000 Canada ranks for the other groups, the following results emerge for the 1670 species ranked; the majority (59%) of species had Canada ranks of Secure, while 5% had Canada ranks of At Risk and 5% had Canada ranks of May Be At Risk (Figure 1-i, Table 1-i).

Wild Species 2000 has been used by a wide variety of groups and individuals, from students learning about Canada's wildlife, to government agencies, wildlife managers and naturalists.

Figure 1-i: Summary of overall species' general status from Wild Species 2000, and updated freshwater fishes and butterfly Canada ranks from 2002. Includes the following taxa; ferns, orchids, butterflies, freshwater fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. PAC = Pacific Ocean Region, WAO = WesternArctic Ocean Region, EAO = Eastern Arctic Ocean Region, ATL = Atlantic Ocean Region.
bar chart (see long description below)
Long description for Figure 1-i

Figure 1-i summarizes the number of species per region broken down into rank status, as assessed in Wild Species 2000 with updated fish and butterfly ranks from 2002. In Canada there were 1670 species considered, including 14 extirpated species, 77 at-risk, 89 that may be at risk, 187 that were sensitive, 992 that were secure, 49 that were undetermined, 6 that were not assessed, 53 that were exotic, and 203 that were accidental. In Yukon there were 20 species at risk, 54 that may be at risk, 86 that were sensitive, 244 secure, 37 undetermined, 5 not assessed, 4 exotic, and 38 accidental, for a total of 508 species. In Northwest Territories there were 3 species at risk, 15 that may be at risk, 69 sensitive, 255 secure, 123 undetermined, 12 not assessed, 4 exotic, and 21 accidental, for a total of 502 species. In Nunavut there was 1 at risk species, 11 may be at risk, 55 sensitive, 89 secure, 49 undetermined, 37 not assessed, 2 exotic, and 14 accidental for a total of 258 species. In British Columbia there were 6 extinct or extirpated species, 51 at risk, 55 may be at risk, 122 sensitive, 607 secure, 10 undetermined, 6 not assessed, 47 exotic, and 99 accidental for a total of 1003 species. In Alberta there were 4 extinct or extirpated species, 12 at risk, 54 may be at risk, 122 sensitive, 432 secure, 73 undetermined, 6 not assessed, 22 exotic, and 94 accidental for a total of 809 species. In Saskatchewan there were 3 species extinct or extirpated, 7 at risk, 47 may be at risk, 123 sensitive, 402 secure, 72 undetermined, 3 not assessed, 22 exotic, and 124 accidental for a total of 803 species. In Manitoba there were 9 species extinct or extirpated, 16 at risk, 60 may be at risk, 63 sensitive, 517 secure, 11 undetermined, 4 not assessed, 27 exotic, and 91 accidental for a total of 798 species. In Ontario there were 13 species extinct or extirpated, 35 at risk, 98 may be at risk, 96 sensitive, 535 secure, 65 undetermined, 52 exotic, and 174 accidental for a total of 1068 species. In Quebec there were 6 species extirpated or extinct, 15 at risk, 99 may be at risk, 66 sensitive, 426 secure, 3 undetermined, 147 not assessed, 18 exotic, and 35 accidental for a total of 815 species. In New Brunswick there were 6 species extirpated or extinct, 9 at risk, 43 may be at risk, 74 sensitive, 384 secure, 31 undetermined, 5 not assessed, 19 exotic, and 129 accidental for a total of 700 species. In Nova Scotia there were 6 species extirpated or extinct, 5 at risk, 18 may be at risk, 56 sensitive, 389 secure, 20 undetermined, 2 not assessed, 27 exotic, and 183 accidental for a total of 706 species. In PEI there were 11 species extirpated or extinct, 1 at risk, 8 may be at risk, 21 sensitive, 231 secure, 32 undetermined, 44 not assessed, 17 exotic, and 131 accidental for a total of 496 species. In Labrador there were 3 species extirpated or extinct, 4 at risk, 11 may be at risk, 19 sensitive, 217 secure, 65 undetermined, 7 exotic, and 79 accidental for a total of 401 species. In Newfoundland there were 3 species extirpated or extinct, 4 at risk, 25 may be at risk, 47 sensitive, 231 secure, 32 undetermined, 27 exotic, and 177 accidental for a total of 546 species. In the Pacific Ocean Region there were 3 species at risk, 3 sensitive, 9 secure, 9 undetermined, 2 not assessed, and 5 accidental for a total of 31 species. In the Eastern Arctic Ocean Region there was 1 species at risk, 1 sensitive, 6 secure and 2 undetermined, for a total of 10 species. In the Western Arctic Ocean Region there was 1 species that was sensitive, 3 secure, 1 undetermined, 1 not assessed, and 4 accidental for a total of 10 species. In the Atlantic Ocean Region there were 3 species extinct or extirpated, 4 at risk, 5 sensitive, 13 secure, 2 undetermined, 2 not assessed, and 6 accidental for a total of 35 species.

 

Table 1-i: Summary of overall species' general status from Wild Species 2000, and updated freshwater fishes and butterfly Canada ranks from 2002. Includes the following taxa; ferns, orchids, butterflies, freshwater fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. PAC = Pacific Ocean Region, WAO = Western Arctic Ocean Region, EAO = Eastern Arctic Ocean Region, ATL = Atlantic Ocean Region.
Rank CA YT NT NU BC AB SK MB ON QC NB NS PE LB NF PAC EAO WAO ATL
Extirpated or extinct 14 0 0 0 6 4 3 9 13 6 6 6 11 1 3 0 0 0 3
At risk 77 40 3 1 51 12 7 16 35 15 9 5 1 2 4 3 1 0 4
May be at risk 89 54 15 11 55 54 47 60 98 99 43 18 8 11 25 0 0 0 0
Sensitive 187 86 69 55 122 112 123 63 96 66 74 56 21 19 47 3 1 1 5
Secure 992 244 255 89 607 432 402 517 535 426 384 389 231 217 231 9 6 3 13
Undetermined 49 37 123 49 10 73 72 11 65 3 31 20 32 65 32 9 2 1 2
Not assessed 6 5 12 37 6 6 3 4 0 147 5 2 44 0 0 2 0 1 2
Exotic 53 4 4 2 47 22 22 27 52 18 19 27 17 7 27 0 0 0 0
Accidental 203 38 21 14 99 94 124 91 174 35 129 183 131 79 177 5 0 4 6
Total 1670 508 502 258 1003 809 803 798 1068 815 700 706 496 401 546 31 10 10 35

Users of Wild Species 2000 include:

  • Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) - general status ranks are used by some of the Species Specialist Subcommittees (SSCs) to help prioritize species for detailed COSEWIC status assessments.
  • Wildlife managers, land-use planning committees and co-management boards -general status ranks used to provide lists of species in a given area, and a guide to species' status.
  • Industry and consultants - general status ranks provide information used to conduct environmental impact assessments.
  • Funding programs - general status ranks used to help prioritize which research and conservation projects are funded.
  • Research scientists - general status ranks used to obtain lists of Exotic species, and distributions of species in Canada.
  • General public - general status ranks used to provide lists of species in a given area, as a guide to species' status, and to provide information used to check the accuracy of environmental impact assessments.
  • Educators and students - general status ranks and the Wild Species 2005 report have been used as an educational resource and a research tool.

Changes in the Wild Species 2005 report

Several important changes have been made in Wild Species 2005 compared with the previous report. The changes are designed to improve both the data on which the report is based, and the way in which the data are presented. It is expected that the Wild Species reports will continue to evolve over time, but it is important to record changes in methodology so that data can be compared between reports.

Firstly, Wild Species 2005 is being released only on the web and not as a printed publication. This allows the presentation of interactive graphs and charts which can be tailored to the needs of individual users. It is hoped that the new format will make the report easily accessible and user-friendly for a wide audience, as well as reducing the environmental impact of producing multiple copies of the report.

The single rank of Extirpated/Extinct has been split into two separate categories, Extirpated and Extinct. This change allows clear identification of species that are no longer found in Canada, but are still found in other countries (Extirpated) and those that no longer exist anywhere in the world (Extinct).

In Wild Species 2000, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador provided two ranks, one for the island of Newfoundland and a separate rank for mainland Labrador. For this report, and in the future, Newfoundland and Labrador will provide one combined rank per species, in a similar manner to the other provinces and territories. This change will be most obvious when using the general status search tool to compare ranks between Wild Species 2000 and this report. For further information on the Newfoundland and Labrador ranks, please visit the provincial website or contact the provincial representative (contact information provided in Appendix I).

Freshwater fishes were first ranked in Wild Species 2000. At that time, freshwater fishes were ranked in all the provinces and territories in which they occur. However, some of these species also occur in marine waters. Similarly, some primarily marine fish, do also occur in freshwater. Therefore, in this report, some fishes are given ranks in the provinces, territories, as well as the ocean regions in which they occur.

Finally, a Parks Canada representative has been added to the National General Status Working Group (NGSWG), to provide expertise on species living within Canada's national parks.

Species diversity in context

Life is variable at every conceivable scale. From the DNA that makes up an organism's genes to the composition and behaviour of entire ecosystems, a seemingly endless and complex array of living things surrounds us. The most familiar measure of diversity is the number and type of species, and this report focuses on that perspective of biodiversity (Figure 1-ii). However, the species perspective is not the only valuable viewpoint. For example, Canada's Arctic has relatively few species, but many of the species occurring there have special adaptations to extremes of climate that allow them to persist there and nowhere else. Variety in types of organisms is at least as important as their numbers, because different types of organisms have important, often irreplaceable, functions in nature. For example, certain species of fungi live in association with plant roots and provide the plant with vital minerals. Without their inconspicuous fungal partners, many species of vascular plants could simply not grow!

Data sources and methods

This report is the responsibility of the National General Status Working Group (NGSWG), under the direction of the Canadian Wildlife Directors Committee (CWDC). The NGSWG is composed of representatives from all provinces and territories and three federal government agencies: Canadian Wildlife Service, Parks Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). Prior to Wild Species 2000, the NGSWG established the guidelines for the criteria that would be used to derive general status ranks. The NGSWG also established which taxonomic groups of species were ranked in each report. A list of NGSWG members appears at the end of this report (Appendix I).

General status ranks were created at two scales; regional and national (Figures 1-iii and 1-iv). At the regional scale, ranks were created for each province and territory. Since marine species (e.g. whales) are often difficult to associate with a particular province or territory, ranks were also generated in four ocean regions; Pacific Ocean Region, Western Arctic Ocean Region, Eastern Arctic Ocean Region and Atlantic Ocean Region. Provincial and territorial representatives hold the primary responsibility for establishing lists of species that occur in their region, as well as for sourcing, compiling, storing and interpreting the information that informs their region's ranks for a given species. DFO holds the primary responsibility for establishing lists of species that occur in each oceanic region and compiling ranks for each marine species.

Figure 1-ii: Diversity and number of species assessed in Wild Species 2005.
Bar chart (see long description below)
Long description for Figure 1

Figure 1-ii illustrates the number of assessed and unassessed species in each of the major taxonomic groups in Canada for the Wild Species 2005 report. For the mammals, 218 species were assessed, and 0 were unassessed. For the birds, 652 species were assessed and 0 were unassessed. For the Reptiles, 47 species were assessed and 0 were unassessed. For the Amphibia, 46 species were assessed and 0 were unassessed. For the bony fish, 1323 species were assessed and 0 were unassessed. For the sharks and kin, 78 species were assessed and 0 were unassessed. For the lampreys and hagfishes, 13 were assessed and 0 were unassessed. For other chordates, 0 were assessed and 353 were unassessed. For the starfishes and urchins, 0 were assessed and 398 were unassessed. For the spiders, mites and kin, 0 were assessed and 3275 were unassessed. For the crustaceans, 11 were assessed and 3128 were unassessed. For Other Arthropods, 0 were assessed and 2727 were unassessed. For the butterflies, moths and kin, 293 were assessed and 4336 were unassessed. For the flies and kin, 0 were assessed and 7058 were unassessed. For the wasps, bees and kin, 0 were assessed and 6028 were unassessed. For the beetles, 30 were assessed and 6718 were unassessed. For the true bugs, 0 were assessed and 3079 were unassessed. For the dragonflies and damselflies, 209 were assessed and 0 were unassessed. For the annelid worms and kin, 0 were assessed and 1192 were unassessed. For the molluscs, 55 were assessed and 1445 were unassessed. For the nematode worms and kin, 0 were assessed and 1643 were unassessed. For the moss animals and kin, 0 were assessed and 728 were unassessed. For the flatworms, 0 were assessed and 472 were unassessed. For the jellyfishes, comb jellies and kin, 0 were assessed and 618 were unassessed. For the sponges, 0 were assessed and 490 were unassessed. For the angiosperms, 4850 were assessed and 0 were unassessed. For the gymnosperms, 53 were assessed and 0 were unassessed. For the ferns and kin, 176 were assessed and 0 were unassessed. For the mosses and liverworts, 0 were assessed and 965 were unassessed. For the lichens, 0 were assessed and 2000 were unassessed. For other fungi, 0 were assessed and 1400 were unassessed. For ascomycote fungi, 0 were assessed and 5000 were unassessed. For basidomysote fungi, 0 were assessed and 3400 were unassessed. For the algae, 0 were assessed and 5303 were unassessed.

It has been estimated that there are roughly 70 000 recorded species in Canada, and an additional 68 000 species that are undescribed or unrecorded (i.e. species that are new to science or species that are already known to science but that have not yet been documented as occurring in Canada, Mosquin et al. 1992). For each major group, the names of some common or recognizable members are provided, along with the number of species ranked in this report (green bars), and the number of species left to be ranked (yellow bars).

Figure 1-iii: Map of Canada, showing the 13 provinces and territories and the four ocean regions for which general status ranks are generated. [computer map]. 1:1 000 000. National Scale Frameworks. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada, 2003. Using ArcGIS [GIS software]. Version 9.1. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute. 1995-2006.
Map of Canada (see long description below)
Long description for Figure 2

Figure 1-iii illustrates a map of Canada showing the 13 provinces and territories (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Yukon) and four ocean regions (Atlantic, Eastern Arctic, Western Arctic, and Pacific) for which status ranks were generated.

Figure 1-vi: Diagram outlining how regional ranks (i.e. provincial, territorial and ocean region ranks) and Canada ranks are generated. Regional ranks are generated by provincial/territorial representatives or by DFO (ocean region ranks). Canada ranks are then generated by the NGSWG, based on the regional ranks and additional input from specialists.
Diagram (see long description below)
Long description for Figure 2

Figure 1-vi illustrates the ways that regional ranks and national ranks are generated. Regional ranks are determined for each of the provinces, territories and ocean regions through Aboriginal traditional knowledge, community knowledge, literature, CDC (conservation data centres), specialists, the Canadian Wildlife Service, DFO, and Parks Canada. COSEWIC status reports and assessments also inform both regional and national ranks. The regional ranks, with input from specialists, inform the generation of Canada General Status Ranks, which are assigned by the National General Status Working Group as Extinct, Extirpated, At risk, May be at Risk, Sensitive, Secure, Not Assessed, Undetermined, Accidental, or Exotic. This information goes towards the development of the Wild Species Report, which is produced every 5 years, and in turn helps to inform regional ranks.

Once regional (i.e. provincial, territorial, and oceanic) general status ranks are completed, the NGSWG is responsible for assigning a Canada General Status Rank (Canada rank); a national rank that interprets the overall state of the species in Canada based on the information provided by each province, territory, or ocean region where the species occurs.

The remainder of this section provides more detailed information on the methods and sources of information used in Wild Species 2005: The General Status of Species in Canada. Included are definitions of general status categories (Box 1) and underlying criteria (Box 2), as well as a description of the process used to derive ranks and some generalized examples of general status assessments (Box 3).

The species concept

The general status assessment process assigns ranks to species, commonly defined as populations of organisms that do not usually interbreed with other populations, even where they overlap in space and time. Species are the most common and recognizable units of biological classification used in conservation, but they are not the only one. Subspecies (genetically distinct populations that may look and behave differently) and stocks (population divisions of harvested species, that may require different management approaches because they experience different ecological pressures) are examples of divisions below the species level. While these divisions have merit, there tends to be more disagreement over the precise limits and biological significance of differences observed at this finer scale. Moreover, relatively few species have been examined closely enough to distinguish whether or not subspecies or discrete stocks exist. Accordingly, only species were assigned general status ranks. However, where additional information is available for particular subspecies or stocks (particularly for birds), it can be found in the comments field, accompanying the general status rank for the species, available through the search tool. For further information about the general status of species for a particular province or territory, or about the general status of a particular species, see the list of contacts at the end of this report.

Sources of information

Achieving the most accurate overall impression of a species' status requires compiling local information to generate regional and then national pictures of a species' general status. This makes assessing the general status of Canada's species a complicated and challenging task, because there are many species, and most are distributed across a vast area. Fortunately, there are many sources of information about Canada's species, some in published documents, but much in the accumulated knowledge and expertise of people. For example, amateur naturalists, museum specialists, government biologists, and holders of community knowledge or aboriginal traditional knowledge are often key to determining which species occur within a region and what their status is. In many provinces, some of this local knowledge was already maintained by NatureServe within its network of Conservation Data Centres (CDCs) and Natural Heritage Information Centres (NHICs). Still, even in provinces and territories with a CDC or NHIC, previously unrecognized sources of knowledge were often identified.

Involving a great variety of people with knowledge to share about species ensures that the best and most comprehensive picture of a species' general status is achieved. An added benefit is that the extensive consultation required to collect data for species' general status assessments fosters a network of expertise that is an enduring resource for wildlife management and conservation within each province or territory. The products of these knowledge networks were current lists of species in a given region and, in most cases, sufficient information for the province or territory to establish a general status rank for each species. In addition, gaps identified in this network point to where investment may be necessary to develop expertise in particular species groups, and highlight the need to capture the knowledge currently held by today's experts in a lasting form.

New general status assessments

Over 6000 species in six groups (vascular plants, freshwater mussels, crayfishes, odonates, tiger beetles and marine fishes) were assessed for the first time for this report, and many sources of information were used to guide the establishment of general status ranks for each species. Although the details of the general status assessment process varied somewhat between jurisdictions, the process was relatively standardized. The most common process was for informal or formal committees to distil the available information into scores for the set of seven criteria (see Box 2) that underlie general status ranks (for examples, see Box 3). Criteria were scored according to the strength of information (e.g. empirical versus anecdotal) that was available. General status ranks were the result of a further weighting of all criteria for which information was available. Another common method for generating general status ranks, was for provinces and territories to convert existing sub-national conservation status ranks (S ranks), developed by their Conservation Data Centre or Natural Heritage Information Centre, into general status ranks.

Updated general status assessments

Updated general status assessments were conducted for 1330 species that were first assessed in Wild Species 2000 (ferns and orchids, freshwater fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals). Provinces and territories relied on information sources used to generate ranks in Wild Species 2000, as well as new sources of information, and looked for changes that had occurred since 2000. The first step was to check for changes to the species list. These could include new species, taxonomic changes and correction of errors. Additional species were assessed using the criteria for new general status assessments, described above.

The next step was to assess species that occurred in the region in both 2000 and 2005. For each species, if no major change in abundance, distribution, trends or threats was found to have occurred, or if no new information was available, the species usually retained the rank it was given in 2000. If major changes were believed to have occurred, or if new information was available (e.g. a new COSEWIC status assessment, or a new survey showing a broader distribution), the species was reassessed using the same criteria as for a new general status assessment (see Box 3 for an example).

From regional to national general status assessments

A Canada General Status Rank (Canada rank) was assigned for each species in order to provide a coarse-scale picture of national general status. Canada ranks were assigned by the NGSWG through a review of ranks and associated information from provinces, territories, and ocean regions. In general, where ranks vary across the country, the regional rank that represents the lowest level of risk (excluding ranks of Undetermined, Not Assessed, Exotic or Accidental) was used as the Canada rank. For example, Smooth Greensnake (Opheodrys vernalis) is ranked Undetermined in Prince Edward Island, Sensitive in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec, and Secure in Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Therefore, Smooth Greensnake received a Canada rank of Secure. However, the geographic distribution of the species was also taken into account so that a region harbouring the majority of a species' range carried more influence in determining the Canada rank, than did a region in which the species was only marginally represented. For example the Barrenground Shrew (Sorex ugyunak) is ranked Sensitive in the Yukon and Undetermined in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. If the usual guideline was followed, the Canada rank for this species would be Sensitive. However, since only a small portion of this shrew's range is in the Yukon, the Barrenground Shrew was given a Canada rank of Undetermined. Finally, for species with restricted breeding range (especially shorebirds), status within the breeding range was particularly important in determining the Canada rank. For example, within Canada, the Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres) breeds primarily on the tundra in northern Nunavut. Here it is ranked Sensitive due to population declines. However, the Ruddy Turnstone is a common migrant in suitable habitat throughout much of southern Canada, and is ranked Secure in every province except Saskatchewan, where it is ranked Accidental. If the normal procedure of assigning the rank with the lowest level of risk as the Canada rank was followed, the Canada rank would be Secure. However, Ruddy Turnstone received a Canada rank of Sensitive, due to concerns within its breeding range. For more information on this type of exception, please see the Birds section.

The general status search tool

National and regional general status ranks for each species assessed can be found by using the general status search tool. Information presented includes English and French common names, scientific name, taxonomic group, Canada rank, regional general status ranks, and year of assessment. In addition, a comments section is available which supplies relevant additional information, and links to COSEWIC and IUCN webpages where applicable. The general status search tool can be used to search the general status ranks by common name, scientific name, region, rank, taxonomic group or year.

Box 1 - General status categories

Each species assessed in Wild Species 2005 received a rank (often represented by a numerical code) that summarizes its general status. Each general status assessment was based upon a series of criteria (see Box 2) that capture information, where available, on population size and distribution, threats to individuals or their habitat and trends (increases or decreases) in these factors. Species received a general status rank in each province, territory, or ocean region in which they are known to be present, as well as an overall Canada General Status Rank (Canada rank).

General status categories are necessarily broad, both because the large number of species covered precludes the detailed and intensive species assessments that would inform a finer-scaled system, and because of variation in the amount of information available for different species. The reader should also note that all general status categories refer only to a species' status in Canada. Where the species also occurs outside of Canada (as most of our species do), the situation for those populations of the species may be different. For example, a species that is abundant elsewhere (e.g. USA, Europe) may exist in Canada in very low numbers. In this case, it could be ranked as May Be At Risk, reflecting the Canadian general status and level of concern for its future here, while being of lesser conservation concern in other parts of its range.

The general status categories used in this report are as follows:

0.2 Extinct
Species that are extirpated worldwide (i.e., they no longer exist anywhere). This rank partially replaces the rank of Extirpated/Extinct, used in Wild Species 2000.
1.0 Extirpated
Species that are no longer present in a given geographic area, but occur in other areas. This rank partially replaces the rank of Extirpated/Extinct, used in Wild Species 2000.
1 At Risk
Species for which a formal, detailed risk assessment (COSEWIC status assessment or provincial or territorial equivalent) has been completed and that have been determined to be at risk of extirpation or extinction (i.e. Endangered or Threatened). A COSEWIC designation of Endangered or Threatened automatically results in a Canada General Status Rank (Canada rank) of At Risk. Where a provincial or territorial formal risk assessment finds a species to be Endangered or Threatened in that particular region, then, under the general status program, the species automatically receives a provincial or territorial general status rank of At Risk.
2 May be at risk
Species that may be at risk of extirpation or extinction and are therefore candidates for a detailed risk assessment by COSEWIC, or provincial or territorial equivalents.
3 Sensitive
Species that are not believed to be at risk of immediate extirpation or extinction but may require special attention or protection to prevent them from becoming at risk.
4 Secure
Species that are not believed to belong in the categories Extirpated, Extinct, At Risk, May Be At Risk, Sensitive, Accidental or Exotic. This category includes some species that show a trend of decline in numbers in Canada but remain relatively widespread or abundant.
5 Undetermined
Species for which insufficient data, information, or knowledge is available with which to
reliably evaluate their general status.
6 Not assessed
Species that are known or believed to be present regularly in the geographic area in Canada
to which the rank applies, but have not yet been assessed by the general status program.
7 Exotic
Species that have been moved beyond their natural range as a result of human activity. In
this report, Exotic species have been purposefully excluded from all other categories.
8 Accidental
Species occurring infrequently and unpredictably, outside their usual range.

Box 2 - Criteria underlying general status assessments

The general status of a given species was reached by considering available information relating to a set of seven criteria that collectively reflect the status of a species' population within specific geographic areas - that is, provinces, territories, ocean regions, and Canada as a whole. These criteria were based on definitions developed and applied by the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the Criteria for Amendment of Appendices I and II (Res. Conf. 9.24) of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and the Natural Heritage Program and Conservation Data Centres of NatureServe. Criteria were used as a guide to help determine the appropriate general status category for a species. Where possible, representatives from each province, territory, and federal agency followed the following definitions of the seven criteria:

  • Number of occurrences is defined as the estimated number of sites where the species currently occurs. A site occurrence is described ecologically as a location representing a habitat that sustains or otherwise contributes to the survival of a population. A site occurrence will be defined differently for different species, depending on its natural history. When a species' distribution is extremely limited and there are very few site occurrences, the species is very susceptible to any number of disturbances, both predictable and unpredictable. Therefore, when the number of occurrences is few, this criterion is usually the single most important factor influencing overall rank.
  • Geographic distribution is defined as the area contained within the shortest continuous imaginary boundary that can be drawn to encompass all known, inferred, or projected sites of occurrence, excluding outlier occurrences (i.e. chance occurrences, unlikely to be repeated). The area within the imaginary boundary should, however, exclude significant areas where the species does not occur. For migratory species, the geographic distribution is the smallest area essential at any stage for the survival of the species.
  • Trend in population is defined as an estimate of the change (if any) in the number of mature individuals over time. Where declines are indicated, rapidly declining is defined as a decrease of 50% in the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is longer. Declining is defined as a decrease of 20% in the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is longer. Natural fluctuations will not normally count as part of a decline, but an observed decline should not be considered part of a natural fluctuation unless there is evidence for this interpretation.
  • Trend in distribution is defined as the change (if any) in the geographic distribution of the species over time. Where declines in distribution are indicated, rapidly declining is defined as a decrease of 50% in the last 20 years or six generations, whichever is longer. Declining is defined as a decrease of 20% in the last 20 years or six generations, whichever is longer.
  • Threats to population are defined as observed, inferred, or projected direct exploitation, harassment, or ecological interactions with predators, competitors, pathogens, or parasites that may result in population declines. Extreme threats are significant, could affect more than half the population, and are unmitigated. Moderate threats are also serious but affect less than half the population or are mitigated by some level of human protection. Limited threats are less significant to population viability or are being mitigated through protective measures.
  • Threats to habitat are defined as observed, inferred, or projected habitat alterations (loss, conversion, degradation, or fragmentation) that may result in population declines. Extreme threats are significant, affect more than half the population, and are unmitigated. Moderate threats are also serious but affect less than half the population or are mitigated by some level of human protection. Limited threats are less significant to population viability or are being mitigated through protective measures.

Box 3 - Profile of regional general status ranks

The following examples show criteria scores that could inform a general status rank for a given species in a province, territory, or ocean region. Each score is a relative assessment based on available data, since for most species, definitive, qualitative data are rare. Therefore, thresholds between scores are not absolute. The amount and type of information (e.g. empirically versus anecdotally based) were used as factors in weighting the contribution of each score to the final overall rank. Thus, each general status rank is not a simple average of component criteria scores but depends on the particular character of the information underlying each criterion.

The first example, Lake Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis), represents a species that was first assessed in Wild Species 2000, but whose criteria scores and oceanic rank has not changed since that time. The second example, Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica), represents a species which was first assessed in Wild Species 2000, but that has since faced declines in population and distribution, resulting in a change in its regional rank.

Lake Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis)
General Status Rank
(prov./terr.)
Criterion Scores
Secure I. Abundance and distribution
Population size in prov./terr.
Population size in prov./terr. - more than 10 000
Large
Secure I. Abundance and distribution
Population size in prov./terr.
Number of occurrences in prov./terr. - more than 100; throughout the mainland
Large
Secure I. Abundance and distribution
Population size in prov./terr.
Geographic distribution (% of prov./terr.) - 88%
Widespread
Secure II. Trend scores
Trend in population - Trend in population
Stable
Secure II. Trend scores
Trend in distribution - Trend in distribution
Stable
Secure III. Threat scores
Threats to population - commercial fishing; limited threat in prov./terr.
Limited
Secure III. Threat scores
Threats to habitat - limited in prov./terr.
Limited

 

Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica)
General Status Rank (prov./terr.) Criterion 2000
Scores
2005
Scores
Secure in 2000
Sensitive in 2005
I. Abundance and distribution
Population size in region
Medium Medium
Secure in 2000
Sensitive in 2005
I. Abundance and distribution
Number of occurrences
Large Large
Secure in 2000
Sensitive in 2005
I. Abundance and distribution
Geographic distribution
Medium Medium
Secure in 2000
Sensitive in 2005
II. Trend scores
Trend in population
Stable Decreasing
Secure in 2000
Sensitive in 2005
II. Trend scores
Trend in distribution - Migratory
Stable Decreasing
Secure in 2000
Sensitive in 2005
III. Threat scores
Threats to population - Severe weather including hurricanes can cause reverse
migration and massive die offs as was evidenced in
Atlantic Canada in the fall of 2005
Limited Medium
Secure in 2000
Sensitive in 2005
III. Threat scores
Threats to habitat - Loss of large hollow trees and chimneys suitable for nesting poses a threat in northern portions of the breeding range.
Medium Medium

Results and interpretations

In Section II of this report, General status summaries, an overview is provided for each of the 10 groups of species assessed (i.e. vascular plants, freshwater mussels, crayfishes, odonates, tiger beetles, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals). Each overview gives some background information on important characteristics of that group of species, their role in the environment, status of knowledge of the group in Canada, and, most importantly, some key statistics gleaned from the general status ranks for that group. Overviews for groups with updated ranks also provide a comparison with ranks presented in 2000, along with a brief discussion of the reasons for changes. General status ranks for individual species at the national level, or for a particular province, territory, or ocean region, can be found by consulting the General Status Search Tool. The general status ranks present the best estimate of the general status of these species at the time of assessment. However, the situation for species is dynamic: some populations will fare better or worse in the time between this report and the next.

The reader is cautioned against over-interpreting differences in general status ranks; general status ranks are best viewed as a coarse-scaled guide, based on the best information available at the time of assessment, to allow comparison among species and regions. Variability in general status ranks is introduced when we try to compare the status of groups with widely different life histories and habitat requirements. For example, if you imagine trying to compare the number of occurrences, the distribution and the population size of a tiger beetle, a bear and a migratory, marine fish, you will see why general status categories must necessarily be broad and somewhat flexible. In addition, while general status ranks are based on the best available information at the time of completion, the quality of information varies widely among species, and among regions, and definitive, quantitative data are simply not available for many species, nor likely to be available in the near future. Variation in general status ranks does not diminish their value as guides to a species' status, but it does necessitate a conservative approach to their interpretation.

In Wild Species 2005, we present species richness values as a proportion of the total species richness within the region of interest, whereas in Wild Species 2000, species richness values were presented primarily as a proportion of resident species richness. "Resident species" refers to regularly occurring, extant (still found in Canada) species (i.e. species ranked Extinct, Extirpated and Accidental are excluded). Within the results section of each general status summary, species richness values are presented as a proportion of total species richness, so the numbers given in the text cannot be directly compared with numbers given in the text of Wild Species 2000. However, wherever relevant, a footnote in the results section gives species richness values from Wild Species 2000 as a function of total species richness, to allow a direct comparison. This difference does not apply to graphs, which can be compared directly between the two reports.

In Wild Species 2000, all butterflies and freshwater fishes were ranked Not Assessed at the national level, and in some instances at the provincial/territorial level also. These groups were assessed nationally in 2002, at which time, some of the provincial/territorial ranks for butterflies were also updated; these ranks are available on the Wild Species website. Wild Species 2005 contains an updated assessment of freshwater fishes, but butterfly ranks will not be updated until the next Wild Species report.

References

Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk (1996, revised 1998). (Accessed March 17, 2006).

Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). 2001. Wild Species 2000: The general status of species in Canada. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. (Accessed March 17, 2006).

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). (Accessed March 17, 2006).

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2005. Canada's oceans action plan. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa. (Accessed March 17, 2006).

IUCN. (2001). IUCN Red List categories and criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. ii + 30 pp. (Accessed March 17, 2006).

Mosquin, T., Whiting, P. G. and McAllister, D. E. 1992. Canada country study of biodiversity: Taxonomic and ecological census, economic benefits, conservation costs and unmet needs. Draft report for delegations to the International Convention on Biological Diversity, Brazil, 1992. Ottawa: canadian Museum of Nature.

NatureServe Canada. (Accessed March 17, 2006).

Species At Risk Act Public Registry. (Accessed March 17, 2006).

The Atlas of Canada. (Accessed March 17, 2006).

Page details

Date modified: