Meta-populations: is management as flexible as nature?

Abstract

In the absence of scientifically validated relationships, conservation must be guided by theory and inference - so should reintroductions. If use models then must understand assumptions, eg genetics not as simple as first modelled. There are always exceptions to rules and no definition of a population in nature. Theory = ideal, reality = best option. Theoretical assumptions on habitat preferences (such as historical distribution) as bad as those for genetics and MVPs. There are local 'hotspots', not an even spread (territoriality/meta-populations). Genetics - still unsure about effects of, demographic and environmental stochasticity much bigger consideration on small populations. Examples of small populations that have survived a long time, or recovered or started from small number. Inbreeding and outbreeding - a continuum with organisms right along. Is present habitat optimal? - maybe not (2 examples). How flexable is organism? Testing this behavioural and habitat flexability may help conservation efforts. Split population into many to conserve genetic variability among pops, not within pops. Extinction much less likely from a meta-population. No need for migration, without it enhances local adaptation. Meta-population often how reserves are anyway. Public involvement and support important, meta-populations can do this well. Meta-populations good for conservation of endangered species from biological, political, social and finacial point of view.