Literature DB >> 19245533

Assessing the threat status of ecological communities.

Emily Nicholson1, David A Keith, David S Wilcove.   

Abstract

Conservationists are increasingly interested in determining the threat status of ecological communities as a key part of their planning efforts. Such assessments are difficult because of conceptual challenges and a lack of generally accepted criteria. We reviewed 12 protocols for assessing the threat status of communities and identified conceptual and operational issues associated with developing a rigorous, transparent, and universal set of criteria for assessing communities, analogous to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List standards for species. We examined how each protocol defines a community and its extinction and how each applies 3 overarching criteria: decline in geographic distribution, restricted geographic distribution, and changes to ecological function. The protocols vary widely in threshold values used to assess declines and distribution size and the time frames used to assess declines, leading to inconsistent assessments of threat status. Few of the protocols specify a scale for measuring distribution size, although assessment outcomes are highly sensitive to scale. Protocols that apply different thresholds for species versus communities tend to require greater declines and more restricted distributions for communities than species to be listed in equivalent threat categories. Eleven of the protocols include a reduction in ecological function as a criterion, but almost all assess it qualitatively rather than quantitatively. We argue that criteria should be explicit and repeatable in their concepts, parameters, and scale, applicable to a broad range of communities, and address synergies between types of threats. Such criteria should focus on distribution size, declines in distribution, and changes to key ecological functions, with the latter based on workable proxies for assessing the severity, scope, and immediacy of degradation. Threat categories should be delimited by thresholds that are assessed at standard scales and are logically consistent with the viability of component species and important ecological functions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19245533     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01158.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  8 in total

1.  Establishing IUCN Red List criteria for threatened ecosystems.

Authors:  Jon Paul Rodríguez; Kathryn M Rodríguez-Clark; Jonathan E M Baillie; Neville Ash; John Benson; Timothy Boucher; Claire Brown; Neil D Burgess; Ben Collen; Michael Jennings; David A Keith; Emily Nicholson; Carmen Revenga; Belinda Reyers; Mathieu Rouget; Tammy Smith; Mark Spalding; Andrew Taber; Matt Walpole; Irene Zager; Tara Zamin
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2010-11-05       Impact factor: 6.560

2.  Accounting for ecosystem alteration doubles estimates of conservation risk in the conterminous United States.

Authors:  Randy Swaty; Kori Blankenship; Sarah Hagen; Joseph Fargione; Jim Smith; Jeannie Patton
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-08-05       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Using Qualitative and Quantitative Methods to Choose a Habitat Quality Metric for Air Pollution Policy Evaluation.

Authors:  Edwin C Rowe; Adriana E S Ford; Simon M Smart; Peter A Henrys; Mike R Ashmore
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-24       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Hidden species diversity in Sylvirana nigrovittata (Amphibia: Ranidae) highlights the importance of taxonomic revisions in biodiversity conservation.

Authors:  Jennifer A Sheridan; Bryan L Stuart
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-03-14       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Using multiple lines of evidence to assess the risk of ecosystem collapse.

Authors:  Lucie M Bland; Tracey J Regan; Minh Ngoc Dinh; Renata Ferrari; David A Keith; Rebecca Lester; David Mouillot; Nicholas J Murray; Hoang Anh Nguyen; Emily Nicholson
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-09-27       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Assessment on the effectiveness of vessel-approach regulations to protect cetaceans in Australia: A review on behavioral impacts with case study on the threatened Burrunan dolphin (Tursiops australis).

Authors:  Helena Puszka; Jeff Shimeta; Kate Robb
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-01-19       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Scientific foundations for an IUCN Red List of ecosystems.

Authors:  David A Keith; Jon Paul Rodríguez; Kathryn M Rodríguez-Clark; Emily Nicholson; Kaisu Aapala; Alfonso Alonso; Marianne Asmussen; Steven Bachman; Alberto Basset; Edmund G Barrow; John S Benson; Melanie J Bishop; Ronald Bonifacio; Thomas M Brooks; Mark A Burgman; Patrick Comer; Francisco A Comín; Franz Essl; Don Faber-Langendoen; Peter G Fairweather; Robert J Holdaway; Michael Jennings; Richard T Kingsford; Rebecca E Lester; Ralph Mac Nally; Michael A McCarthy; Justin Moat; María A Oliveira-Miranda; Phil Pisanu; Brigitte Poulin; Tracey J Regan; Uwe Riecken; Mark D Spalding; Sergio Zambrano-Martínez
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-08       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  The use of plant community attributes to detect habitat quality in coastal environments.

Authors:  Silvia Del Vecchio; Antonio Slaviero; Edy Fantinato; Gabriella Buffa
Journal:  AoB Plants       Date:  2016-07-11       Impact factor: 3.276

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.