The disparity between species description and conservation assessment: A case study in taxa with high rates of species discovery

The disparity between species description and conservation assessment: A case study in taxa with... The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Red List) details the extinction risk of the world's species and presents an important biodiversity indicator for conservation policy. Its continued utility relies on it containing up-to-date information on the extinction risk of species. This requires both regular reassessments and the timely assessment of newly described species. We provide an overview of the status of amphibian Red List assessments to highlight the difficulties of keeping assessments updated for species groups with high rates of species description. Since the publication of the IUCN's Global Amphibian Assessment in 2004, description rates of new species and assessment rates were initially similar; yet while the former has remained consistent, the latter has recently sharply declined. Currently 61.3% of amphibian species are either Not Evaluated or have out-of-date assessments. The situation is particularly problematic in countries with the richest amphibian diversity, which typically have the highest rates of amphibian species discovery and face the greatest threats. Efforts to keep the Red List up-to-date are primarily limited by funding, we estimate that an annual investment of US $170,478–$319,290 is needed to have an up-to-date Red List for amphibians. We propose suggestions to increase assessment rates by improving the availability of data relevant to the process: authors of species descriptions or taxonomic revisions should publish information relevant to Red List assessments. Taxonomic journals should suggest inclusion of such information in their author guidelines. We suggest that contributors with significant input into assessments should be rewarded with co-authorship of published assessments. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Biological Conservation Elsevier

The disparity between species description and conservation assessment: A case study in taxa with high rates of species discovery

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/the-disparity-between-species-description-and-conservation-assessment-qR0CfQyELs
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd
ISSN
0006-3207
D.O.I.
10.1016/j.biocon.2018.01.022
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Red List) details the extinction risk of the world's species and presents an important biodiversity indicator for conservation policy. Its continued utility relies on it containing up-to-date information on the extinction risk of species. This requires both regular reassessments and the timely assessment of newly described species. We provide an overview of the status of amphibian Red List assessments to highlight the difficulties of keeping assessments updated for species groups with high rates of species description. Since the publication of the IUCN's Global Amphibian Assessment in 2004, description rates of new species and assessment rates were initially similar; yet while the former has remained consistent, the latter has recently sharply declined. Currently 61.3% of amphibian species are either Not Evaluated or have out-of-date assessments. The situation is particularly problematic in countries with the richest amphibian diversity, which typically have the highest rates of amphibian species discovery and face the greatest threats. Efforts to keep the Red List up-to-date are primarily limited by funding, we estimate that an annual investment of US $170,478–$319,290 is needed to have an up-to-date Red List for amphibians. We propose suggestions to increase assessment rates by improving the availability of data relevant to the process: authors of species descriptions or taxonomic revisions should publish information relevant to Red List assessments. Taxonomic journals should suggest inclusion of such information in their author guidelines. We suggest that contributors with significant input into assessments should be rewarded with co-authorship of published assessments.

Journal

Biological ConservationElsevier

Published: Apr 1, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off