From Red Lists to Species of Conservation Concern

Abstract:  National red lists of threatened animal and plant species prepared according to the criteria of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) adequately reflect the extinction risk of species within a country but cannot be used directly to set conservation priorities. In particular, the significance of national populations for the conservation of the species as a whole is not taken into account. We present a procedure that can be used to assess national responsibility based on the national red-list status of a species, the international importance of the national population, and the species' "historical rarity" status. We distinguished five responsibility classes for breeding birds: B1, threatened species with internationally important populations in Switzerland; B2, threatened species with internationally less important populations; B3, nonthreatened species with internationally important populations; B4, nonthreatened species with internationally less important populations; and B5, species that have never been common in Switzerland. Two responsibility classes were distinguished for birds occurring in Switzerland as visitors: G1, species with large concentrations in Switzerland and an unfavorable conservation status in Europe, and G2, species with large concentrations in Switzerland and a favorable conservation status in Europe. Two additional classes (G3 and G4) for visiting species occurring in internationally less important numbers are possible but were not analyzed in detail. Responsibility classes B1, B2, B3, G1, and G2 were defined as species of national conservation concern. We developed the method for birds in Switzerland, but it can be used in other countries and for other taxonomic groups as well. It is particularly suitable where national red lists are established according to IUCN guidelines.     

Building on IUCN Regional Red Lists to Produce Lists of Species of Conservation Priority: a Model with Irish Bees

Abstract:  A World Conservation Union (IUCN) regional red list is an objective assessment of regional extinction risk and is not the same as a list of conservation priority species. Recent research reveals the widespread, but incorrect, assumption that IUCN Red List categories represent a hierarchical list of priorities for conservation action. We developed a simple eight-step priority-setting process and applied it to the conservation of bees in Ireland. Our model is based on the national red list but also considers the global significance of the national population; the conservation status at global, continental, and regional levels; key biological, economic, and societal factors; and is compatible with existing conservation agreements and legislation. Throughout Ireland, almost one-third of the bee fauna is threatened (30 of 100 species), but our methodology resulted in a reduced list of only 17 priority species. We did not use the priority species list to broadly categorize species to the conservation action required; instead, we indicated the individual action required for all threatened, near-threatened, and data-deficient species on the national red list based on the IUCN's conservation-actions template file. Priority species lists will strongly influence prioritization of conservation actions at national levels, but action should not be exclusive to listed species. In addition, all species on this list will not necessarily require immediate action. Our method is transparent, reproducible, and readily applicable to other taxa and regions.     

Evaluating Completeness of Species Lists for Conservation and Macroecology: a Case Study of Mexican Land Birds

Abstract: Studies of species diversity, macroecology, and conservation are usually based on lists of species, but lists found in the scientific literature vary in completeness. The use of such data sets can produce misleading results, making it necessary to test species lists for completeness before undertaking an analysis. Species-richness estimators are useful for judging the completeness of species lists but have limitations. To add rigor to studies based on species lists, we propose that species lists should test for " omnipresent" taxa—species, genera, and families that occur throughout the region concerned—and for a minimum number of species and families. As a case study, we compared species assemblages in diverse habitats in Mexico and found that seven families and two genera of land birds are omnipresent in mainland Mexico (excluding treeless areas) and that the most depauperate assemblage known contains 35 species from 21 families. We concluded that a list of land birds from Mexico that lacks any of these omnipresent taxa or that contains fewer than 35 species or 21 families is incomplete. Similar analyses can be done for other taxa and other parts of the world. Tests for omnipresent taxa and for a minimum number of species and families can be used in combination with other existing criteria, such as species-richness functions, to better evaluate the completeness of species lists. Realistic results may be produced in macroecological and conservation studies only if they are based on reasonably complete species lists.     

Beyond Biology: toward a More Public Ecology for Conservation

Abstract: The ultimate purpose of conservation science is to inform and affect conservation policy. Therefore, conservation biologists and all the people who produce, review, and apply conservation research should evaluate the success of their knowledge according to its ability to influence conservation decisions. In addition to possessing conventional "scientific" attributes such as validity, generalizability, and precision, conservation knowledge must also possess qualities that make it effective in the political arena of decision making. "Public ecology" is a philosophy and practice of conservation science that goes beyond biology and beyond the norms of modern science to construct knowledge that is useful for environmental decision making. As post-normal conservation science, public ecology is defined by the following six attributes: evaluative, contextual, multiscalar, integrative, adaptive, and accessible. We discuss the need for a more public ecology and describe the qualites that make it a more powerful ecology.     

Language Fouls in Teaching Ecology: Why Traditional Metaphors Undermine Conservation Literacy

Abstract: We believe that the language commonly used in teaching actually hinders the creation of conservation literacy. We examined four frequently used ecology and environmental studies textbooks and considered the ways in which commonly used language can obscure or enhance an understanding of ecology and conservation. Specifically, we used the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis (a.k.a. linguistic relativity) and framing theory to examine the approaches reflected in three elements of the texts: introductions and treatment of two key ecological concepts (matter cycling and energy). Language used in the texts contained implicit metaphors that portrayed nature as a resource; resisted ecological realities, such as the finite nature of matter and the loss of energy with each transformation; and fundamentally served to separate humans from nature. Although the basis of conservation literacy is understanding of the complexity of ecological systems, culturally based communication as exemplified in these texts does not encourage students or educators to recognize the feedback loops that clarify human membership in the ecosystem. Consequently, the language used to teach ecology perpetuates the idea that humans exist outside of its laws. With this paper, we hope to initiate a dialogue about how to retool the language used in teaching and communicating about ecology such that it resonates with, rather than undermines, conservation.     

National Responsibilities in European Species Conservation: a Methodological Review

Abstract: One particular challenge in reducing the loss of biodiversity by 2010, as agreed on at the Earth Summit in 2002, is to assign conservation tasks to geographic or administrative entities (e.g., countries or regions) on different geographical scales. To identify conservation tasks, it is imperative to determine the importance of a specific area for the global survival of a species. So far, these national or subnational responsibilities for the conservation of species have been included differently in methods prioritizing conservation. We reviewed how 12 European and 3 non‐European methods determined national conservation responsibilities and evaluated the international importance of a biological population. Different countries used different methodologies, which made a direct comparison of assessments of national responsibilities among countries extremely difficult. Differences existed in the importance criteria used. Criteria included population decline, range reduction, rarity status, degree of isolation of a population, endemism, proportional distribution, and geographic location. To increase comparability, it is imperative to develop criteria for which data are generally available and to standardize the methodology among countries. A standardized method would allow conservation decisions to be based on the conservation status of a species and on the responsibility of a geographic or administrative entity for the survival of a species. We suggest that such a method should use a scalable index of proportional distribution, taxonomic status, and the distribution pattern of a taxon or species as key elements. Such a method would allow for the creation of hierarchical lists and would be highly relevant for parts of the world with multiple political jurisdictions or state unions and for nations with regional governmental structures. Conservation priorities could then be reasonably set by combining national responsibility assessments with the international conservation status of a species.     

Advancing the Integration of History and Ecology for Conservation

Abstract: The important role of humans in the development of current ecosystems was recognized decades ago; however, the integration of history and ecology in order to inform conservation has been difficult. We identified four issues that hinder historical ecological research and considered possible solutions. First, differences in concepts and methods between the fields of ecology and history are thought to be large. However, most differences stem from miscommunication between ecologists and historians and are less substantial than is usually assumed. Cooperation can be achieved by focusing on the features ecology and history have in common and through understanding and acceptance of differing points of view. Second, historical ecological research is often hampered by differences in spatial and temporal scales between ecology and history. We argue that historical ecological research can only be conducted at extents for which sources in both disciplines have comparable resolutions. Researchers must begin by clearly defining the relevant scales for the given purpose. Third, periods for which quantitative historical sources are not easily accessible (before AD 1800) have been neglected in historical ecological research. Because data from periods before 1800 are as relevant to the current state of ecosystems as more recent data, we suggest that historical ecologists actively seek out data from before 1800 and apply analytic methods commonly used in ecology to these data. Fourth, humans are not usually considered an intrinsic ecological factor in current ecological research. In our view, human societies should be acknowledged as integral parts of ecosystems and societal processes should be recognized as driving forces of ecosystem change.     

Use of Substitute Species in Conservation Biology

Abstract:  In conservation biology, researchers often want to study the reasons why an endangered population is faring poorly but are unable to study it directly for logistical or political reasons. Instead they study a species that substitutes for the one of concern in the hope that it will cast light on the conservation problem. Here we outline the assumptions underlying this approach. Substitutes can be different populations or species and may be chosen because they are similar biologically to the target or representatives of a constellation of species of which the target is one. They also may be used to develop a predictive model to which the conservation target can be related. For substitutes to be appropriate, they should share the same key ecological or behavioral traits that make the target sensitive to environmental disturbance and the relationship between population vital rates and level of disturbance should match that of the target. These conditions are unlikely to pertain in most circumstances and the use of substitute species to predict endangered populations' responses to disturbance is questionable.     

Focal Species: A Multi-Species Umbrella for Nature Conservation

To prevent the further loss of species from landscapes used for productive enterprises such as agriculture, forestry, and grazing, it is necessary to determine the composition, quantity, and configuration of landscape elements required to meet the needs of the species present. I present a multi-species approach for defining the attributes required to meet the needs of the biota in a landscape and the management regimes that should be applied. The approach builds on the concept of umbrella species, whose requirements are believed to encapsulate the needs of other species. It identifies a suite of "focal species," each of which is used to define different spatial and compositional attributes that must be present in a landscape and their appropriate management regimes. All species considered at risk are grouped according to the processes that threaten their persistence. These threats may include habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, weed invasion, and fire. Within each group, the species most sensitive to the threat is used to define the minimum acceptable level at which that threat can occur. For example, the area requirements of the species most limited by the availability of particular habitats will define the minimum suitable area of those habitat types; the requirements of the most dispersal-limited species will define the attributes of connecting vegetation; species reliant on critical resources will define essential compositional attributes; and species whose populations are limited by processes such as fire, predation, or weed invasion will define the levels at which these processes must be managed. For each relevant landscape parameter, the species with the most demanding requirements for that parameter is used to define its minimum acceptable value. Because the most demanding species are selected, a landscape designed and managed to meet their needs will encompass the requirements of all other species.