Available data support protection of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher under the Endangered Species Act

Tad Theimer, Aaron D. Smith, Sean M. Mahoney, Kirsten E. Ironside

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Zink (2015) argued there was no evidence for genetic, morphological, or ecological differentiation between the federally endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) and other Willow Flycatcher subspecies. Using the same data, we show there is a step-cline in both the frequency of a mtDNA haplotype and in plumage variation roughly concordant with the currently recognized boundary between E. t. extimus and E. t adastus, the subspecies with which it shares the longest common boundary. The geographical pattern of plumage variation is also concordant with previous song analyses differentiating those 2 subspecies and identified birds in one low-latitude, high-elevation site in Arizona as the northern subspecies. We also demonstrate that the ecological niche modeling approach used by Zink yields the same result whether applied to the 2 flycatcher subspecies or to 2 unrelated species, E. t. extimus and Yellow Warbler (Setophaga petechia). As a result, any interpretation of those results as evidence for lack of ecological niche differentiation among Willow Flycatcher subspecies would also indicate no differentiation among recognized species and would therefore be an inappropriate standard for delineating subspecies. We agree that many analytical techniques now available to examine genetic, morphological, and ecological differentiation would improve our understanding of the distinctness (or lack thereof) of Willow Flycatcher subspecies, but we argue that currently available evidence supports protection of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher under the Endangered Species Act.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)289-299
Number of pages11
JournalCondor
Volume118
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2016

Fingerprint

Endangered Species Act
plumage
endangered species
subspecies
niches
Setophaga
animal communication
analytical methods
haplotypes
mitochondrial DNA
birds
cline
Empidonax trailii extimus
song
analytical method
bird
Empidonax

Keywords

  • Endangered Species Act
  • mitochondrial DNA
  • niche modeling
  • plumage coloration
  • song
  • subspecies
  • Willow Flycatcher

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Animal Science and Zoology
  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

Cite this

Available data support protection of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher under the Endangered Species Act. / Theimer, Tad; Smith, Aaron D.; Mahoney, Sean M.; Ironside, Kirsten E.

In: Condor, Vol. 118, No. 2, 01.05.2016, p. 289-299.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Theimer, Tad ; Smith, Aaron D. ; Mahoney, Sean M. ; Ironside, Kirsten E. / Available data support protection of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher under the Endangered Species Act. In: Condor. 2016 ; Vol. 118, No. 2. pp. 289-299.
@article{22404686aa3b4db3a84f5a75f5f120dd,
title = "Available data support protection of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher under the Endangered Species Act",
abstract = "Zink (2015) argued there was no evidence for genetic, morphological, or ecological differentiation between the federally endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) and other Willow Flycatcher subspecies. Using the same data, we show there is a step-cline in both the frequency of a mtDNA haplotype and in plumage variation roughly concordant with the currently recognized boundary between E. t. extimus and E. t adastus, the subspecies with which it shares the longest common boundary. The geographical pattern of plumage variation is also concordant with previous song analyses differentiating those 2 subspecies and identified birds in one low-latitude, high-elevation site in Arizona as the northern subspecies. We also demonstrate that the ecological niche modeling approach used by Zink yields the same result whether applied to the 2 flycatcher subspecies or to 2 unrelated species, E. t. extimus and Yellow Warbler (Setophaga petechia). As a result, any interpretation of those results as evidence for lack of ecological niche differentiation among Willow Flycatcher subspecies would also indicate no differentiation among recognized species and would therefore be an inappropriate standard for delineating subspecies. We agree that many analytical techniques now available to examine genetic, morphological, and ecological differentiation would improve our understanding of the distinctness (or lack thereof) of Willow Flycatcher subspecies, but we argue that currently available evidence supports protection of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher under the Endangered Species Act.",
keywords = "Endangered Species Act, mitochondrial DNA, niche modeling, plumage coloration, song, subspecies, Willow Flycatcher",
author = "Tad Theimer and Smith, {Aaron D.} and Mahoney, {Sean M.} and Ironside, {Kirsten E.}",
year = "2016",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1650/CONDOR-15-71.1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "118",
pages = "289--299",
journal = "Condor",
issn = "0010-5422",
publisher = "American Ornithologist Society",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Available data support protection of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher under the Endangered Species Act

AU - Theimer, Tad

AU - Smith, Aaron D.

AU - Mahoney, Sean M.

AU - Ironside, Kirsten E.

PY - 2016/5/1

Y1 - 2016/5/1

N2 - Zink (2015) argued there was no evidence for genetic, morphological, or ecological differentiation between the federally endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) and other Willow Flycatcher subspecies. Using the same data, we show there is a step-cline in both the frequency of a mtDNA haplotype and in plumage variation roughly concordant with the currently recognized boundary between E. t. extimus and E. t adastus, the subspecies with which it shares the longest common boundary. The geographical pattern of plumage variation is also concordant with previous song analyses differentiating those 2 subspecies and identified birds in one low-latitude, high-elevation site in Arizona as the northern subspecies. We also demonstrate that the ecological niche modeling approach used by Zink yields the same result whether applied to the 2 flycatcher subspecies or to 2 unrelated species, E. t. extimus and Yellow Warbler (Setophaga petechia). As a result, any interpretation of those results as evidence for lack of ecological niche differentiation among Willow Flycatcher subspecies would also indicate no differentiation among recognized species and would therefore be an inappropriate standard for delineating subspecies. We agree that many analytical techniques now available to examine genetic, morphological, and ecological differentiation would improve our understanding of the distinctness (or lack thereof) of Willow Flycatcher subspecies, but we argue that currently available evidence supports protection of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher under the Endangered Species Act.

AB - Zink (2015) argued there was no evidence for genetic, morphological, or ecological differentiation between the federally endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) and other Willow Flycatcher subspecies. Using the same data, we show there is a step-cline in both the frequency of a mtDNA haplotype and in plumage variation roughly concordant with the currently recognized boundary between E. t. extimus and E. t adastus, the subspecies with which it shares the longest common boundary. The geographical pattern of plumage variation is also concordant with previous song analyses differentiating those 2 subspecies and identified birds in one low-latitude, high-elevation site in Arizona as the northern subspecies. We also demonstrate that the ecological niche modeling approach used by Zink yields the same result whether applied to the 2 flycatcher subspecies or to 2 unrelated species, E. t. extimus and Yellow Warbler (Setophaga petechia). As a result, any interpretation of those results as evidence for lack of ecological niche differentiation among Willow Flycatcher subspecies would also indicate no differentiation among recognized species and would therefore be an inappropriate standard for delineating subspecies. We agree that many analytical techniques now available to examine genetic, morphological, and ecological differentiation would improve our understanding of the distinctness (or lack thereof) of Willow Flycatcher subspecies, but we argue that currently available evidence supports protection of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher under the Endangered Species Act.

KW - Endangered Species Act

KW - mitochondrial DNA

KW - niche modeling

KW - plumage coloration

KW - song

KW - subspecies

KW - Willow Flycatcher

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84962596987&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84962596987&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1650/CONDOR-15-71.1

DO - 10.1650/CONDOR-15-71.1

M3 - Article

VL - 118

SP - 289

EP - 299

JO - Condor

JF - Condor

SN - 0010-5422

IS - 2

ER -