» Articles » PMID: 30653250

Applying Habitat and Population-density Models to Land-cover Time Series to Inform IUCN Red List Assessments

Overview
Journal Conserv Biol
Date 2019 Jan 18
PMID 30653250
Citations 18
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Red List categories and criteria are the most widely used framework for assessing the relative extinction risk of species. The criteria are based on quantitative thresholds relating to the size, trends, and structure of species' distributions and populations. However, data on these parameters are sparse and uncertain for many species and unavailable for others, potentially leading to their misclassification or classification as data deficient. We devised an approach that combines data on land-cover change, species-specific habitat preferences, population abundance, and dispersal distance to estimate key parameters (extent of occurrence, maximum area of occupancy, population size and trend, and degree of fragmentation) and hence predict IUCN Red List categories for species. We applied our approach to nonpelagic birds and terrestrial mammals globally (∼15,000 species). The predicted categories were fairly consistent with published IUCN Red List assessments, but more optimistic overall. We predicted 4.2% of species (467 birds and 143 mammals) to be more threatened than currently assessed and 20.2% of data deficient species (10 birds and 114 mammals) to be at risk of extinction. Incorporating the habitat fragmentation subcriterion reduced these predictions 1.5-2.3% and 6.4-14.9% (depending on the quantitative definition of fragmentation) for threatened and data deficient species, respectively, highlighting the need for improved guidance for IUCN Red List assessors on the application of this aspect of the IUCN Red List criteria. Our approach complements traditional methods of estimating parameters for IUCN Red List assessments. Furthermore, it readily provides an early-warning system to identify species potentially warranting changes in their extinction-risk category based on periodic updates of land-cover information. Given our method relies on optimistic assumptions about species distribution and abundance, all species predicted to be more at risk than currently evaluated should be prioritized for reassessment.

Citing Articles

Enhanced risk assessment framework integrating distribution dynamics, genetically inferred populations, and morphological traits of lizards.

Xiao Q, Shi X, Shi L, Yao Z, Chen Y, Yang W Zool Res. 2025; 46(1):15-26.

PMID: 39757017 PMC: 11890995. DOI: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2024.287.


Cryptic species conservation: a review.

Hending D Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2024; 100(1):258-274.

PMID: 39234845 PMC: 11718601. DOI: 10.1111/brv.13139.


Using comparative extinction risk analysis to prioritize the IUCN Red List reassessments of amphibians.

Lucas P, Di Marco M, Cazalis V, Luedtke J, Neam K, Brown M Conserv Biol. 2024; 38(6):e14316.

PMID: 38946355 PMC: 11589027. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14316.


A model for the noninvasive, habitat-inclusive estimation of upper limit abundance for synanthropes, exemplified by .

Koch Liston A, Zhu X, Bang T, Phiapalath P, Hun S, Ahmed T Sci Adv. 2024; 10(21):eadn5390.

PMID: 38787941 PMC: 11122667. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adn5390.


Mapping the planet's critical areas for biodiversity and nature's contributions to people.

Neugarten R, Chaplin-Kramer R, Sharp R, Schuster R, Strimas-Mackey M, Roehrdanz P Nat Commun. 2024; 15(1):261.

PMID: 38199986 PMC: 10781687. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-43832-9.


References
1.
Ripple W, Wolf C, Newsome T, Hoffmann M, Wirsing A, McCauley D . Extinction risk is most acute for the world's largest and smallest vertebrates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017; 114(40):10678-10683. PMC: 5635868. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1702078114. View

2.
Ripple W, Abernethy K, Betts M, Chapron G, Dirzo R, Galetti M . Bushmeat hunting and extinction risk to the world's mammals. R Soc Open Sci. 2016; 3(10):160498. PMC: 5098989. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.160498. View

3.
Hoffmann M, Hilton-Taylor C, Angulo A, Bohm M, Brooks T, Butchart S . The impact of conservation on the status of the world's vertebrates. Science. 2010; 330(6010):1503-9. DOI: 10.1126/science.1194442. View

4.
Pettorelli N, Safi K, Turner W . Satellite remote sensing, biodiversity research and conservation of the future. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014; 369(1643):20130190. PMC: 3983925. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0190. View

5.
Pereira H, Ferrier S, Walters M, Geller G, Jongman R, Scholes R . Ecology. Essential biodiversity variables. Science. 2013; 339(6117):277-8. DOI: 10.1126/science.1229931. View