Optimization of capture–recapture monitoring of elusive species illustrated with a threatened grasshopper

Information on population sizes and trends of threatened species is essential for their conservation, but obtaining reliable estimates can be challenging. We devised a method to improve the precision of estimates of population size obtained from capture–recapture studies for species with low capture and recapture probabilities and short seasonal activity, illustrated with population data of an elusive grasshopper (Prionotropis rhodanica). We used data from 5 capture–recapture studies to identify methodological and environmental factors affecting capture and recapture probabilities and estimates of population size. In a simulation, we used the population size and capture and recapture probability estimates obtained from the field studies to identify the minimum number of sampling occasions needed to obtain unbiased and robust estimates of population size. Based on these results we optimized the capture–recapture design, implemented it in 2 additional studies, and compared their precision with those of the nonoptimized studies. Additionally, we simulated scenarios based on thresholds of population size in criteria C and D of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List to investigate whether estimates of population size for elusive species can reliably inform red-list assessments. Identifying parameters that affect capture and recapture probabilities (for the grasshopper time since emergence of first adults) and optimizing field protocols based on this information reduced study effort (−6% to −27% sampling occasions) and provided more precise estimates of population size (reduced coefficient of variation) compared with nonoptimized studies. Estimates of population size from the scenarios based on the IUCN thresholds were mostly unbiased and robust (only the combination of very small populations and little study effort produced unreliable estimates), suggesting capture–recapture can be considered reliable for informing red-list assessments. Although capture–recapture remains difficult and costly for elusive species, our optimization procedure can help determine efficient protocols to increase data quality and minimize monitoring effort.     

Geographic range size and extinction risk assessment in nomadic species

Geographic range size is often conceptualized as a fixed attribute of a species and treated as such for the purposes of quantification of extinction risk; species occupying smaller geographic ranges are assumed to have a higher risk of extinction, all else being equal. However many species are mobile, and their movements range from relatively predictable to‐and‐fro migrations to complex irregular movements shown by nomadic species. These movements can lead to substantial temporary expansion and contraction of geographic ranges, potentially to levels which may pose an extinction risk. By linking occurrence data with environmental conditions at the time of observations of nomadic species, we modeled the dynamic distributions of 43 arid‐zone nomadic bird species across the Australian continent for each month over 11 years and calculated minimum range size and extent of fluctuation in geographic range size from these models. There was enormous variability in predicted spatial distribution over time; 10 species varied in estimated geographic range size by more than an order of magnitude, and 2 species varied by >2 orders of magnitude. During times of poor environmental conditions, several species not currently classified as globally threatened contracted their ranges to very small areas, despite their normally large geographic range size. This finding raises questions about the adequacy of conventional assessments of extinction risk based on static geographic range size (e.g., IUCN Red Listing). Climate change is predicted to affect the pattern of resource fluctuations across much of the southern hemisphere, where nomadism is the dominant form of animal movement, so it is critical we begin to understand the consequences of this for accurate threat assessment of nomadic species. Our approach provides a tool for discovering spatial dynamics in highly mobile species and can be used to unlock valuable information for improved extinction risk assessment and conservation planning.     

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

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.     

Toward reassessing data‐deficient species

One in 6 species (13,465 species) on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List is classified as data deficient due to lack of information on their taxonomy, population status, or impact of threats. Despite the chance that many are at high risk of extinction, data‐deficient species are typically excluded from global and local conservation priorities, as well as funding schemes. The number of data‐deficient species will greatly increase as the IUCN Red List becomes more inclusive of poorly known and speciose groups. A strategic approach is urgently needed to enhance the conservation value of data‐deficient assessments. To develop this, we reviewed 2879 data‐deficient assessments in 6 animal groups and identified 8 main justifications for assigning data‐deficient status (type series, few records, old records, uncertain provenance, uncertain population status or distribution, uncertain threats, taxonomic uncertainty, and new species). Assigning a consistent set of justification tags (i.e., consistent assignment to assessment justifications) to species classified as data deficient is a simple way to achieve more strategic assessments. Such tags would clarify the causes of data deficiency; facilitate the prediction of extinction risk; facilitate comparisons of data deficiency among taxonomic groups; and help prioritize species for reassessment. With renewed efforts, it could be straightforward to prevent thousands of data‐deficient species slipping unnoticed toward extinction.     

Establishing IUCN Red List Criteria for Threatened Ecosystems

Abstract: The potential for conservation of individual species has been greatly advanced by the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) development of objective, repeatable, and transparent criteria for assessing extinction risk that explicitly separate risk assessment from priority setting. At the IV World Conservation Congress in 2008, the process began to develop and implement comparable global standards for ecosystems. A working group established by the IUCN has begun formulating a system of quantitative categories and criteria, analogous to those used for species, for assigning levels of threat to ecosystems at local, regional, and global levels. A final system will require definitions of ecosystems; quantification of ecosystem status; identification of the stages of degradation and loss of ecosystems; proxy measures of risk (criteria); classification thresholds for these criteria; and standardized methods for performing assessments. The system will need to reflect the degree and rate of change in an ecosystem's extent, composition, structure, and function, and have its conceptual roots in ecological theory and empirical research. On the basis of these requirements and the hypothesis that ecosystem risk is a function of the risk of its component species, we propose a set of four criteria: recent declines in distribution or ecological function, historical total loss in distribution or ecological function, small distribution combined with decline, or very small distribution. Most work has focused on terrestrial ecosystems, but comparable thresholds and criteria for freshwater and marine ecosystems are also needed. These are the first steps in an international consultation process that will lead to a unified proposal to be presented at the next World Conservation Congress in 2012.     

Contribution of the Natura 2000 Network to Biodiversity Conservation in Italy

Abstract:  The Natura 2000 network is the most important conservation effort being implemented in Europe. Nevertheless, no comprehensive and systematic region—or nationwide evaluation of the effectiveness of the network has been conducted. We used habitat suitability models and extent of occurrence of 468 species of vertebrates to evaluate the contribution of the Natura 2000 network to biodiversity conservation in Italy. We also estimated the population size of 101 species inside the Natura 2000 network to assess its capacity to maintain or improve the population status of listed species. In general the Italian Natura 2000 did not seem to integrate existing protected areas well. The Natura 2000 network increased from 11% to 20% the area devoted to conservation in Italy and the coverage provided to areas with high biodiversity. Nevertheless, some areas with high numbers of species were devoid of conservation areas, and more than 50% of the highly irreplaceable areas were not considered in the system. Moreover, the Natura 2000 network cannot maintain 44–80% (depending on the taxa considered) of the species in a "favorable conservation status" under World Conservation Union Red List criteria. The Natura 2000 network is probably stronger than the results of our analyses suggest. The system is based on a site-specific expert-based strategy and is driven by direct and detailed knowledge of local diversity. Nevertheless, if Natura 2000 is taken to represent the final point of all the EU conservation policies, it will inevitably fail. Its role in conservation could be enhanced by integrating the Natura 2000 system into a more general strategy that considers natural processes and the ecological and evolutionary mechanisms underlying these processes.