Literature DB >> 25917114

The difference conservation makes to extinction risk of the world's ungulates.

Michael Hoffmann1,2, J W Duckworth1,3, Katharine Holmes1,4, David P Mallon5, Ana S L Rodrigues6, Simon N Stuart1,2,7,8,9.   

Abstract

Previous studies show that conservation actions have prevented extinctions, recovered populations, and reduced declining trends in global biodiversity. However, all studies to date have substantially underestimated the difference conservation action makes because they failed to account fully for what would have happened in the absence thereof. We undertook a scenario-based thought experiment to better quantify the effect conservation actions have had on the extinction risk of the world's 235 recognized ungulate species. We did so by comparing species' observed conservation status in 2008 with their estimated status under counterfactual scenarios in which conservation efforts ceased in 1996. We estimated that without conservation at least 148 species would have deteriorated by one International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List category, including 6 species that now would be listed as extinct or extinct in the wild. The overall decline in the conservation status of ungulates would have been nearly 8 times worse than observed. This trend would have been greater still if not for conservation on private lands. While some species have benefited from highly targeted interventions, such as reintroduction, most benefited collaterally from conservation such as habitat protection. We found that the difference conservation action makes to the conservation status of the world's ungulate species is likely to be higher than previously estimated. Increased, and sustained, investment could help achieve further improvements.
© 2015 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.

Keywords:  IUCN Red List; Lista Roja UICN; conservation impact; counterfactual scenarios; escenarios contrafáctico; extinction risk; impacto de la conservación; riesgo de extinción

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25917114     DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12519

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


  10 in total

1.  The dynamics underlying avian extinction trajectories forecast a wave of extinctions.

Authors:  Melanie J Monroe; Stuart H M Butchart; Arne O Mooers; Folmer Bokma
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2019-12-18       Impact factor: 3.703

Review 2.  Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century.

Authors:  Sean L Maxwell; Victor Cazalis; Nigel Dudley; Michael Hoffmann; Ana S L Rodrigues; Sue Stolton; Piero Visconti; Stephen Woodley; Naomi Kingston; Edward Lewis; Martine Maron; Bernardo B N Strassburg; Amelia Wenger; Harry D Jonas; Oscar Venter; James E M Watson
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2020-10-07       Impact factor: 69.504

3.  Evaluating Conservation Breeding Success for an Extinct-in-the-Wild Antelope.

Authors:  Holly A Little; Tania C Gilbert; Marie L Athorn; Andrew R Marshall
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-12-09       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Prey depletion as a threat to the world's large carnivores.

Authors:  Christopher Wolf; William J Ripple
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2016-08-03       Impact factor: 2.963

5.  Saving the World's Terrestrial Megafauna.

Authors:  William J Ripple; Guillaume Chapron; José Vicente López-Bao; Sarah M Durant; David W Macdonald; Peter A Lindsey; Elizabeth L Bennett; Robert L Beschta; Jeremy T Bruskotter; Ahimsa Campos-Arceiz; Richard T Corlett; Chris T Darimont; Amy J Dickman; Rodolfo Dirzo; Holly T Dublin; James A Estes; Kristoffer T Everatt; Mauro Galetti; Varun R Goswami; Matt W Hayward; Simon Hedges; Michael Hoffmann; Luke T B Hunter; Graham I H Kerley; Mike Letnic; Taal Levi; Fiona Maisels; John C Morrison; Michael Paul Nelson; Thomas M Newsome; Luke Painter; Robert M Pringle; Christopher J Sandom; John Terborgh; Adrian Treves; Blaire Van Valkenburgh; John A Vucetich; Aaron J Wirsing; Arian D Wallach; Christopher Wolf; Rosie Woodroffe; Hillary Young; Li Zhang
Journal:  Bioscience       Date:  2016-07-27       Impact factor: 8.589

6.  Wildlife population trends in protected areas predicted by national socio-economic metrics and body size.

Authors:  Megan D Barnes; Ian D Craigie; Luke B Harrison; Jonas Geldmann; Ben Collen; Sarah Whitmee; Andrew Balmford; Neil D Burgess; Thomas Brooks; Marc Hockings; Stephen Woodley
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 14.919

7.  A Global Mitigation Hierarchy for Nature Conservation.

Authors:  William N S Arlidge; Joseph W Bull; Prue F E Addison; Michael J Burgass; Dimas Gianuca; Taylor M Gorham; Céline Jacob; Nicole Shumway; Samuel P Sinclair; James E M Watson; Chris Wilcox; E J Milner-Gulland
Journal:  Bioscience       Date:  2018-04-18       Impact factor: 8.589

8.  How much does it cost to save a species from extinction? Costs and rewards of conserving the Lear's macaw.

Authors:  Antonio E A Barbosa; José L Tella
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2019-07-10       Impact factor: 2.963

9.  Integrated index-based assessment reveals long-term conservation progress in implementation of Convention on Biological Diversity.

Authors:  Yisi Hu; Meng Wang; Tianxiao Ma; Mingpan Huang; Guangping Huang; Wenliang Zhou; Xiaoge Ping; Yonglong Lu; Fuwen Wei
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2022-01-05       Impact factor: 14.136

Review 10.  An analysis of threats, strategies, and opportunities for African rhinoceros conservation.

Authors:  Admire Chanyandura; Victor K Muposhi; Edson Gandiwa; Never Muboko
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 2.912

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.