			Home About us Contact

Threat Status (threat + status)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Life Sciences	71%

Selected Abstracts

The Need to Rationalize and Prioritize Threatening Processes Used to Determine Threat Status in the IUCN Red List

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, Issue 6 2009
MATT W. HAYWARD
carnivora; competencia; estatus de conservación; procesos amenazantes Abstract:,Thorough evaluation has made the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List the most widely used and accepted authority on the conservation status of biodiversity. Although the system used to determine risk of extinction is rigorously and objectively applied, the list of threatening processes affecting a species is far more subjectively determined and has not had adequate review. I reviewed the threats listed in the IUCN Red List for randomly selected groups within the three most threatened orders of mammals: Artiodactyla, Carnivora, and Primates. These groups are taxonomically related and often ecologically similar, so I expected they would suffer relatively similar threats. Hominoid primates and all other terrestrial fauna faced similar threats, except for bovine artiodactyls and large, predatory carnivores, which faced significantly different threats. Although the status of bovines and hominoids and the number of threats affecting them were correlated, this was not the case for large carnivores. Most notable, however, was the great variation in the threats affecting individual members of each group. For example, the endangered European bison (Bison bonasus) has no threatening processes listed for it, and the lion (Panthera leo) is the only large predator listed as threatened with extinction by civil war. Some threatening processes appear spurious for the conservation of the species, whereas other seemingly important factors are not recorded as threats. The subjective nature of listing threatening processes, via expert opinion, results in substantial biases that may be allayed by independent peer review, use of technical manuals, consensus among multiple assessors, incorporation of probability modeling via decision-tree analysis, and adequate coordination among evaluators. The primary focus should be on species-level threats rather than population-level threats because the IUCN Red List is a global assessment and smaller-scale threats are more appropriate for national status assessments. Until conservationists agree on the threats affecting species and their relative importance, conservation action and success will be hampered by scattering scarce resources too widely and often by implementing conflicting strategies. Resumen:,La evaluación exhaustiva ha hecho que la Lista Roja de la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (UICN) sea la autoridad más aceptada y ampliamente utilizada respecto al estatus de conservación de la biodiversidad. Aunque el sistema utilizado para determinar el riesgo de extinción es aplicado rigurosa y objetivamente, la lista de procesos amenazantes que afectan a las especies es determinado muy subjetivamente y no es revisado adecuadamente. Revisé las amenazas consideradas en la Lista Roja UICN para grupos seleccionados aleatoriamente en los tres órdenes de mamíferos más amenazados: Artyodactila, Carnivora y Primates. Estos grupos están relacionados taxonómicamente y a menudo son ecológicamente similares, así que esperaba que tuvieran amenazas relativamente similares. Los primates homínidos y toda la demás fauna terrestre enfrentan amenazas similares, excepto por los bovinos artiodáctilos y los carnívoros depredadores mayores, que enfrentan amenazas significativamente diferentes. Aunque el estatus de los bovinos y homínidos y el número de amenazas que los afectan estuvieron correlacionados, este no fue el caso para los carnívoros mayores. Sin embargo, lo más notable fue la gran variación en las amenazas que afectan a miembros individuales de cada grupo. Por ejemplo, no hay procesos amenazantes enlistados para el bisonte europeo (Bison bonasus), y el león (Panthera leo) es el único depredador mayor enlistado como amenazado de extinción por la guerra civil. Algunos procesos amenazantes parecen espurios para la conservación de las especies, mientras que otros factores aparentemente importantes no están registrados como amenazas. La naturaleza subjetiva de los procesos de enlistado, por medio de la opinión de expertos, resulta en sesgos sustanciales que pueden disiparse por la revisión independiente por pares, el uso de manuales técnicos, el consenso de múltiples asesores, la incorporación del modelado probabilístico mediante análisis de árboles de decisión y la adecuada coordinación entre evaluadores. El enfoque principal debería ser sobre amenazas a nivel de especies en lugar de amenazas a nivel de poblaciones porque la Lista Roja UICN es una evaluación global y las amenazas a menor escala son más apropiadas para evaluaciones nacionales de estatus. Hasta que los conservacionistas estén de acuerdo sobre las amenazas que afectan a las especies y su importancia relativa, las acciones de conservación y su éxito estarán obstaculizados por la dispersión demasiado amplia de recursos limitados y a menudo por la implementación de estrategias contrapuestas. [source]

You can swim but you can't hide: the global status and conservation of oceanic pelagic sharks and rays

AQUATIC CONSERVATION: MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS, Issue 5 2008
Nicholas K. Dulvy
Abstract 1.Fishing spans all oceans and the impact on ocean predators such as sharks and rays is largely unknown. A lack of data and complicated jurisdictional issues present particular challenges for assessing and conserving high seas biodiversity. It is clear, however, that pelagic sharks and rays of the open ocean are subject to high and often unrestricted levels of mortality from bycatch and targeted fisheries for their meat and valuable fins. 2.These species exhibit a wide range of life-history characteristics, but many have relatively low productivity and consequently relatively high intrinsic vulnerability to over-exploitation. The IUCN,,,World Conservation Union Red List criteria were used to assess the global status of 21 oceanic pelagic shark and ray species. 3.Three-quarters (16) of these species are classified as Threatened or Near Threatened. Eleven species are globally threatened with higher risk of extinction: the giant devilray is Endangered, ten sharks are Vulnerable and a further five species are Near Threatened. Threat status depends on the interaction between the demographic resilience of the species and intensity of fisheries exploitation. 4.4. Most threatened species, like the shortfin mako shark, have low population increase rates and suffer high fishing mortality throughout their range. Species with a lower risk of extinction have either fast, resilient life histories (e.g. pelagic stingray) or are species with slow, less resilient life histories but subject to fisheries management (e.g. salmon shark). 5.5. Recommendations, including implementing and enforcing finning bans and catch limits, are made to guide effective conservation and management of these sharks and rays. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

Priority Wetland Invertebrates as Conservation Surrogates

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, Issue 2 2010
S. J. ORMEROD
agua dulce; caracoles; conservación; especies paraguas; especies sustitutas; gasterópodos Abstract:,Invertebrates are important functionally in most ecosystems, but seldom appraised as surrogate indicators of biological diversity. Priority species might be good candidates; thus, here we evaluated whether three freshwater invertebrates listed in the U.K. Biodiversity Action Plan indicated the richness, composition, and conservation importance of associated wetland organisms as defined respectively by their alpha diversity, beta diversity, and threat status. Sites occupied by each of the gastropods Segmentina nitida, Anisus vorticulus, and Valvata macrostoma had greater species richness of gastropods and greater conservation importance than other sites. Each also characterized species assemblages associated with significant variations between locations in alpha or beta diversity among other mollusks and aquatic macrophytes. Because of their distinct resource requirements, conserving the three priority species extended the range of wetland types under management for nature conservation by 18% and the associated gastropod niche-space by around 33%. Although nonpriority species indicated variations in richness, composition, and conservation importance among other organisms as effectively as priority species, none characterized such a wide range of high-quality wetland types. We conclude that priority invertebrates are no more effective than nonpriority species as indicators of alpha and beta diversity or conservation importance among associated organisms. Nevertheless, conserving priority species can extend the array of distinct environments that are protected for their specialized biodiversity and environmental quality. We suggest that this is a key role for priority species and conservation surrogates more generally, and, on our evidence, can best be delivered through multiple species with contrasting habitat requirements. Resumen:,Los invertebrados son funcionalmente importantes en la mayoría de los ecosistemas, pero raramente son valorados como indicadores sustitutos de la diversidad biológica. Las especies prioritarias pueden ser buenos candidatos; por lo tanto, aquí evaluamos sí tres especies de invertebrados enlistados en el Plan de Acción para la Biodiversidad del Reino Unido eran indicadores de la riqueza, la composición e importancia para la conservación de organismos de humedal asociados definida por su diversidad alfa, diversidad beta y estatus de amenaza respectivamente. Los sitios ocupados por cada uno de los gasterópodos Segmentina nitida, Anisus vorticulus and Valvata macrostoma tuvieron una mucho mayor riqueza de gasterópodos y mayor importancia para la conservación que otros sitios. Cada uno también caracterizó a los ensambles asociados con variaciones significativas entre localidades en la diversidad alfa o entre otros moluscos y macrofitas acuáticas en la diversidad beta. Debido a sus diferentes requerimientos de recursos, la conservación de las tres especies prioritarias se amplió la extensión de todos los tipos de humedal bajo manejo para la conservación de la naturaleza en 18% y el nicho-espacio de los gasterópodos asociados se amplió alrededor de 33%. Aunque las especies no prioritarias indicaron variaciones en riqueza, composición e importancia de conservación entre otros organismos tan efectivamente como las especies prioritarias, ninguna caracterizó un rango tan amplio de humedales de alta calidad. Concluimos que los invertebrados prioritarios no son más efectivos que las especies no prioritarias como indicadores de la diversidad alfa y beta ni de la importancia para la conservación entre organismos asociados. Sin embargo, la conservación de especies prioritarias puede ampliar el conjunto de ambientes diferentes que son protegidos por su biodiversidad especializada y calidad ambiental. Sugerimos que este es un papel clave para las especies prioritarias y, más generalmente, para los sustitutos de conservación, y, con base en nuestra evidencia, puede ser desarrollado mediante múltiples especies con requerimientos de hábitat contrastantes. [source]

Do threatened hosts have fewer parasites?

JOURNAL OF ANIMAL ECOLOGY, Issue 2 2007
A comparative study in primates
Summary 1Parasites and infectious diseases have become a major concern in conservation biology, in part because they can trigger or accelerate species or population declines. Focusing on primates as a well-studied host clade, we tested whether the species richness and prevalence of parasites differed between threatened and non-threatened host species. 2We collated data on 386 species of parasites (including viruses, bacteria, protozoa, helminths and arthropods) reported to infect wild populations of 36 threatened and 81 non-threatened primate species. Analyses controlled for uneven sampling effort and host phylogeny. 3Results showed that total parasite species richness was lower among threatened primates, supporting the prediction that small, isolated host populations harbour fewer parasite species. This trend was consistent across three major parasite groups found in primates (helminths, protozoa and viruses). Counter to our predictions, patterns of parasite species richness were independent of parasite transmission mode and the degree of host specificity. 4We also examined the prevalence of selected parasite genera among primate sister-taxa that differed in their ranked threat categories, but found no significant differences in prevalence between threatened and non-threatened hosts. 5This study is the first to demonstrate differences in parasite richness relative to host threat status. Results indicate that human activities and host characteristics that increase the extinction risk of wild animal species may lead simultaneously to the loss of parasites. Lower average parasite richness in threatened host taxa also points to the need for a better understanding of the cascading effects of host biodiversity loss for affiliated parasite species. [source]

The sizes of species' geographic ranges

JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, Issue 1 2009
Kevin J. Gaston
Summary 1Geographic range size and how it changes through time is one of the fundamental ecological and evolutionary characteristics of a species, and a strong predictor of extinction risk. However, the measurement of range size remains a substantial challenge. Indeed, there is significant confusion in the literature as to how this should be done, particularly in the context of the distinction between the fundamentally different concepts of extent of occurrence (EOO) and area of occupancy (AOO), and the use of these quantities, including in assessments of the threat status of species. 2Here we review the different approaches to determining the geographic distributions of species, the measurement of their range sizes, the relationships between the two, and other difficulties posed by range size measurement (especially those of range discontinuities when measuring EOO, and spatial scale when measuring AOO). 3We argue that it is important to (i) distinguish the estimation of the distribution of a species from the measurement of its geographic range size; (ii) treat measures of EOO and AOO as serving different purposes, rather than regarding them as more or less accurate ways of measuring range size; and (iii) measure EOO including discontinuities in habitat or occupancy. 4Synthesis and applications. With the availability and collation of extensive data sets on species occurrences, a rapidly increasing number of studies are investigating geographic range size, and particularly how various measures of range size predict macroecological patterns and inform assessments of the conservation status of species and areas. The distinction between EOO and AOO is becoming blurred in many contexts, but most particularly in that of threatened species assessments for Red Listing. Continued progress in these fields demands greater clarity in the meaning and derivation of measures of geographic range size. The two principal measures serve different purposes, and should not be regarded as alternatives that simply differ in accuracy. [source]

Distribution, endemism and threat status of freshwater fishes in the Western Ghats of India

JOURNAL OF BIOGEOGRAPHY, Issue 1 2004
Neelesh Dahanukar
Abstract Aim, To study (1) the large-scale distribution patterns of freshwater fishes in the Western Ghats of India; (2) the endemism and uniqueness of the fishes in various zones; and (3) the threat status of fishes by categorizing them under low risk (LR), vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) and critically endangered (CR). Location, The Western Ghats of India. Methods, The scientific literature describing the freshwater fishes of the Western Ghats was reviewed. Data describing the lists of the species were extracted and complied. The species accumulation curve was plotted using Michaelis,Menten-like equation. The Western Ghats was divided into six zones and similarity of the species was calculated using Jacquard's index. Results, Literature to date records 288 species belonging to 12 orders, 41 families and 109 genera, of which 118 species are endemic and 51 are unique. However, the species accumulation curve shows that there might be 345 species in this region, indicating that 16% species have not been recorded to date. An analysis of the distribution pattern of fishes in the Western Ghats suggests that the southern region is more diverse than the northern and central regions. The southern region shows high endemism and high uniqueness while the northern region shows high endemism but less uniqueness. The similarity index between the zones indicates that as the distance between the zones increases similarity decreases. The status of 105 of 288 species was not known due to data deficiency but among the remaining 183 species, 58 species were categorized as LR, 41 as VU, 54 as EN, 24 as CR while the remaining six species were introduced. Conclusions, The distribution patterns of fishes in the Western Ghats are discussed in accordance with the geography of Western Ghats, its climatic conditions and ,Satpura Hypothesis'. The threat status of fishes found in Western Ghats suggests that at least 41% of fish fauna is threatened by either being VU, EN or CR. Implication of potent conservation measures is necessary to conserve the fish fauna of Western Ghats. [source]