Search

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List is a central tool for extinction risk monitoring and influences global biodiversity policy and action. But, to be effective, it is crucial that it consistently accounts for each driver of extinction. Climate change is rapidly becoming a key extinction driver, but consideration of climate change information remains challenging for the IUCN. Several methods can be used to predict species' future decline, but they often fail to provide estimates of the symptoms of endangerment used by IUCN. We devised a standardized method to measure climate change impact in terms of change in habitat quality to inform criterion A3 on future population reduction. Using terrestrial nonvolant tetrapods as a case study, we measured this impact as the difference between the current and the future species climatic niche, defined based on current and future bioclimatic variables under alternative model algorithms, dispersal scenarios, emission scenarios, and climate models. Our models identified 171 species (13% out of those analyzed) for which their current red-list category could worsen under criterion A3 if they cannot disperse beyond their current range in the future. Categories for 14 species (1.5%) could worsen if maximum dispersal is possible. Although ours is a simulation exercise and not a formal red-list assessment, our results suggest that considering climate change impacts may reduce misclassification and strengthen consistency and comprehensiveness of IUCN Red List assessments., (© 2024 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.)

Comparative extinction risk analysis-which predicts species extinction risk from correlation with traits or geographical characteristics-has gained research attention as a promising tool to support extinction risk assessment in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. However, its uptake has been very limited so far, possibly because existing models only predict a species' Red List category, without indicating which Red List criteria may be triggered. This prevents such approaches to be integrated into Red List assessments. We overcome this implementation gap by developing models that predict the probability of species meeting individual Red List criteria. Using data on the world's birds, we evaluated the predictive performance of our criterion-specific models and compared it with the typical criterion-blind modelling approach. We compiled data on biological traits (e.g. range size, clutch size) and external drivers (e.g. change in canopy cover) often associated with extinction risk. For each specific criterion, we modelled the relationship between extinction risk predictors and species' Red List category under that criterion using ordinal regression models. We found criterion-specific models were better at identifying threatened species compared to a criterion-blind model (higher sensitivity), but less good at identifying not threatened species (lower specificity). As expected, different covariates were important for predicting extinction risk under different criteria. Change in annual temperature was important for criteria related to population trends, while high forest dependency was important for criteria related to restricted area of occupancy or small population size. Our criteria-specific method can support Red List assessors by producing outputs that identify species likely to meet specific criteria, and which are the most important predictors. These species can then be prioritised for re-evaluation. We expect this new approach to increase the uptake of extinction risk models in Red List assessments, bridging a long-standing research-implementation gap., (© 2024 The Authors. Global Change Biology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Despite being central to the implementation of conservation policies, the usefulness of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species is hampered by the 14% of species classified as data-deficient (DD) because information to evaluate these species' extinction risk was lacking when they were last assessed or because assessors did not appropriately account for uncertainty. Robust methods are needed to identify which DD species are more likely to be reclassified in one of the data-sufficient IUCN Red List categories. We devised a reproducible method to help red-list assessors prioritize reassessment of DD species and tested it with 6887 DD species of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, and Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies). For each DD species in these groups, we calculated its probability of being classified in a data-sufficient category if reassessed today from covariates measuring available knowledge (e.g., number of occurrence records or published articles available), knowledge proxies (e.g., remoteness of the range), and species characteristics (e.g., nocturnality); calculated change in such probability since last assessment from the increase in available knowledge (e.g., new occurrence records); and determined whether the species might qualify as threatened based on recent rate of habitat loss determined from global land-cover maps. We identified 1907 species with a probability of being reassessed in a data-sufficient category of >0.5; 624 species for which this probability increased by >0.25 since last assessment; and 77 species that could be reassessed as near threatened or threatened based on habitat loss. Combining these 3 elements, our results provided a list of species likely to be data-sufficient such that the comprehensiveness and representativeness of the IUCN Red List can be improved., (© 2023 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.)

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species is central in biodiversity conservation, but insufficient resources hamper its long-term growth, updating, and consistency. Models or automated calculations can alleviate those challenges by providing standardised estimates required for assessments, or prioritising species for (re-)assessments. However, while numerous scientific papers have proposed such methods, few have been integrated into assessment practice, highlighting a critical research-implementation gap. We believe this gap can be bridged by fostering communication and collaboration between academic researchers and Red List practitioners, and by developing and maintaining user-friendly platforms to automate application of the methods. We propose that developing methods better encompassing Red List criteria, systems, and drivers is the next priority to support the Red List., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests No interests to declare., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

1. Comparative analyses are used to address the key question of what makes a species more prone to extinction by exploring the links between vulnerability and intrinsic species' traits and/or extrinsic factors. This approach requires comprehensive species data but information is rarely available for all species of interest. As a result comparative analyses often rely on subsets of relatively few species that are assumed to be representative samples of the overall studied group. 2. Our study challenges this assumption and quantifies the taxonomic, spatial, and data type biases associated with the quantity of data available for 5415 mammalian species using the freely available life-history database PanTHERIA. 3. Moreover, we explore how existing biases influence results of comparative analyses of extinction risk by using subsets of data that attempt to correct for detected biases. In particular, we focus on links between four species' traits commonly linked to vulnerability (distribution range area, adult body mass, population density and gestation length) and conduct univariate and multivariate analyses to understand how biases affect model predictions. 4. Our results show important biases in data availability with c.22% of mammals completely lacking data. Missing data, which appear to be not missing at random, occur frequently in all traits (14-99% of cases missing). Data availability is explained by intrinsic traits, with larger mammals occupying bigger range areas being the best studied. Importantly, we find that existing biases affect the results of comparative analyses by overestimating the risk of extinction and changing which traits are identified as important predictors. 5. Our results raise concerns over our ability to draw general conclusions regarding what makes a species more prone to extinction. Missing data represent a prevalent problem in comparative analyses, and unfortunately, because data are not missing at random, conventional approaches to fill data gaps, are not valid or present important challenges. These results show the importance of making appropriate inferences from comparative analyses by focusing on the subset of species for which data are available. Ultimately, addressing the data bias problem requires greater investment in data collection and dissemination, as well as the development of methodological approaches to effectively correct existing biases., (© 2012 The Authors. Journal of Animal Ecology © 2012 British Ecological Society.)