National responsibilities in European species conservation: A methodological review

Conservation Biology

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 593-601

  Schmeller, Dirk S ^a,e   Gruber, Bernd ^a   Budrys, Eduardas ^b   Framsted, Erik ^c   Lengyel, Szabolcs ^d   Henle, Klaus ^a  

^a HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^b VILNIUS UNIVERSITY   (Lithuania)

^c NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR NATURE RESEARCH   (Norway)

^d UNIVERSITY OF DEBRECEN   (Hungary)

^e Moulis   (France)

Author keywords

Conservation methods; Conservation priorities; Europe; National responsibility; Species conservation

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSERVATION STATUS; POPULATION DECLINE; RARITY; SPECIES CONSERVATION; SURVIVAL; TAXONOMY; UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT;

DEMOGRAPHY; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; EUROPE; METHODOLOGY; POLICY; REVIEW;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; DEMOGRAPHY; ECOSYSTEM; EUROPE; PUBLIC POLICY;

EURASIA; EUROPE;

EID: 44949168549     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00961.x     Document Type: Review

References (60)

1. Avery, M., D. W. Gibbons, R. Porter, T. Tew, G. Tucker, and G. Williams. 1994. Revising the British Red Data List for birds: the biological basis of UK conservation priorities. Ibis 137 : 232 239.
2. Brooks, T. M., R. A. Mittermeier, G. A. B. da Fonseca, J. Gerlach, M. Hoffmann, J. F. Lamoreux, C. G. Mittermeier, J. D. Pilgrim, and A. S. L. Rodrigues. 2006. Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313 : 58 61.
3. Burfield, I., F. van Bommel, U. Gallo-Orsi, S. Nagy, C. Orhun, R. Pople, R. van Zoest, D. Callaghan, and Birdlife International. 2004. Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. Conservation series 12. BirdLife International, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
4. Couturier, A. 1999. Conservation priorities for the birds of southern Ontario. Bird studies Canada, Port Rowan, Ontario.
5. de Grammont, P. C., and A. D. Cuaron. 2006. An evaluation of threatened species categorization systems used on the American continent. Conservation Biology 20 : 14 27.
6. Denz, O. 2003. Rangliste der Brutvogelarten für die Verantwortlichkeit Deutschlands im Artenschutz. Vogelwelt 124 : 1 16.
7. Eaton, M. A., R. D. Gregory, D. G. Noble, J. A. Robinson, J. Hughes, D. Procter, A. F. Brown, and D. W. Gibbons. 2005. Regional IUCN red listing: the process as applied to birds in the United Kingdom. Conservation Biology 19 : 1557 1570.
8. Fay, J. J., and M. Nammack. 1996. Policy regarding the recognition of district vertebrate populations. Federal Register 61 : 4721 4725.
9. Fitzpatrick, U. N. A., T. E. Murray, R. J. Paxton, and M. J. F. Brown. 2007. Building on IUCN regional red lists to produce lists of species of conservation priority: a model with Irish bees. Conservation Biology 21 : 1324 1332.
10. Fraser, D. J., and L. Bernatchez. 2001. Adaptive evolutionary conservation: towards a unified concept for defining conservation units. Molecular Ecology 10 : 2741 2752.
11. Freckleton, R. P., D. Noble, and T. J. Webb. 2006. Distributions of habitat suitability and the abundance-occupancy relationship. The American Naturalist 167 : 260 275.
12. Freitag, S., and A. S. V. Jaarsveld. 1997. Relative occupancy, endemism, taxonomic distinctiveness and vulnerability: prioritizing regional conservation actions. Biodiversity and Conservation 6 : 211 232.
13. Gaston, K. J. 1996. Species-range-size distributions: patterns, mechanisms and implications. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11 : 197 201.
14. Gaston, K. J., T. M. Blackburn, J. J. D. Greenwood, R. D. Gregory, R. M. Quinn, and J. H. Lawton. 2000. Abundance-occupancy relationships. The Journal of Applied Ecology 37 : 39 59.
15. Gärdenfors, U. 2000. Population viability analysis in the classification of threatened species: problems and potentials. Ecological Bulletins 48 : 181 190.
16. Gärdenfors, U. 2001. Classifying threatened species at national versus global levels. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16 : 511 516.
17. Gärdenfors, U., C. Hilton-Taylor, G. M. Mace, and J. P. Rodríguez. 2001. The application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional levels. Conservation Biology 15 : 1206 1212.
18. Gregory, R. D., N. I. Wilkinson, D. G. Noble, J. A. Robinson, A. F. Brown, J. Hughes, D. Procter, D. W. Gibbons, and C. A. Galbraith. 2002. The population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man: an analysis of conservation concern 2002-2007. British Birds 95 : 410 448.
19. Gregory, R. D., A. van Strien, P. Vorisek, A. W. G. Meyling, D. G. Noble, R. P. B. Foppen, and D. W. Gibbons. 2005. Developing indicators for European birds. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 360 : 269 288.
20. Gregory, R. D., A. van Strien, and P. Vorisek. 2006. Using birds as indicators of environmental change in Europe. Journal of Ornithology 147 : 16.
21. Gruttke, H., et al. 2004. Memorandum: Verantwortlichkeit Deutschlands für die weltweite Erhaltung von Arten. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 8 : 273 280.
22. Guralnick, R. P., A. W. Hill, and M. Lane. 2007. Towards a collaborative, global infrastructure for biodiversity assessment. Ecology Letters 10 : 663 672.
23. Hanski, I. 1982. On patterns of temporal and spatial variation in animal populations. Annales Zoologici Fennici 19 : 21 37.
24. Hanski, I. 1991. Single-species metapopulations dynamics: concepts, models and observations. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 42 : 17 38.
25. Hanski, I. 1994a. A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 63 : 151 162.
26. Hanski, I. 1994b. Spatial scale, patchiness and population-dynamics on land. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 343 : 19 25.
27. Hanski, I. 2001. Spatially realistic theory of metapopulation ecology. Naturwissenschaften 88 : 372 381.
28. Hanski, I., A. Moilanen, and M. Gyllenberg. 1996. Minimum viable metapopulation size. The American Naturalist 147 : 527 541.
29. Hanski, I., and I. P. Woiwod. 1993. Mean-related stochasticity and population variability. Oikos 67 : 29 39.
30. Henle, K., K. F. Davies, M. Kleyer, C. Margules, and J. Settele. 2004a. Predictors of species sensitivity to fragmentation. Biodiversity and Conservation 13 : 207 251.
31. Henle, K., S. Sarre, and K. Wiegand. 2004b. The role of density regulation in extinction processes and population viability analysis. Biodiversity and Conservation 13 : 9 52.
32. Hurlbert, A. H., and E. P. White. 2007. Ecological correlates of geographical range occupancy in North American birds. Global Ecology and Biogeography 16 : 764 773.
33. IUCN (World Conservation Union). 1996. IUCN red list of threatened animals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom.
34. IUCN (World Conservation Union). 2001. IUCN red list categories and criteria. Version 3.1. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom.
35. Keller, V., and K. Bollmann. 2001. For which bird species does Switzerland have a particular responsibility? Für welche Vogelarten trägt die Schweiz eine besondere Verantwortung? Ornithologische Beobachter 98 : 323 340.
36. Keller, V., and K. Bollmann. 2004. From red lists to species of conservation concern. Conservation Biology 18 : 1636 1644.
37. Kolb, A., and M. Diekmann. 2004. Effects of environment, habitat configuration and forest continuity on the distribution of forest plant species. Journal of Vegetation Science 15 : 199 208.
38. Lawler, J. J., and N. H. Schumaker. 2004. Evaluating habitat as a surrogate for population viability using a spatially explicit population model. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 94 : 85 100.
39. Lester, S. E., B. I. Ruttenberg, S. D. Gaines, and B. P. Kinlan. 2007. The relationship between dispersal ability and geographic range size. Ecology Letters 10 : 745 758.
40. Mace, G. M., and A. Purvis. 2008. Evolutionary biology and practical conservation: bridging a widening gap. Molecular Ecology 17 : 9 19.
41. Maurer, B. A., and M. L. Taper. 2002. Connecting geographical distributions with population processes. Ecology Letters 5 : 223 231.
42. Mehlman, D. W., K. V. Rosenberg, J. V. Wells, and B. Robertson. 2004. A comparison of North American avian conservation priority ranking systems. Biological Conservation 120 : 383 390.
43. Miller, R. M., et al. 2007. National threatened species listing based on IUCN criteria and regional guidelines: current status and future perspectives. Conservation Biology 21 : 684 696.
44. Moritz, C. 1994. Defining "evolutionary significant units" for conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 9 : 373 375.
45. National Recovery Working Group. 2005. National biological ranking. System for recovery of species at risk. Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec.
46. Rodriguez, J. P. 2002. Range contraction in declining North American bird populations. Ecological Applications 12 : 238 248.
47. Sagarin, R. D., S. D. Gaines, and B. Gaylord. 2006. Moving beyond assumptions to understand abundance distributions across the ranges of species. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21 : 524 530.
48. Schnittler, M. 2004. Verantwortlichkeitsanalyse: Wie lassen sich Theorie und Naturschutzpraxis vereinen. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 8 : 39 52.
49. Schnittler, M., G. Ludwig, P. Pretscher, and P. Boye. 1994. Konzeption der Roten Listen der in Deutschland gefährdeten Tier- und Pflanzenarten - unter Berücksichtigung der neuen internationalen Kategorien. Natur und Landschaft 69 : 451 459.
50. Schütz, P., D. Geiger-Roswora, A. Geiger, and M. Jöbges. 2004. Erste Einschätzung der Verantwortlichkeit Nordrhein-Westfalens für die Erhaltung von Säugetieren. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 8 : 267 272.
51. Sindaco, R. 2005. Erpetofauna italiana: dai dati corologici alla conservazione. Pages 679 695 in R. Sindaco, E. Razzetti, G. Doria, and F. Bernini, editors. Atlante degli Anfibi e dei rettili D'Italia (Atlas of Italian Amphibians and Reptilians). Societas Herpetologica Italica and Polistampa, Firenze, Italy.
52. Steinicke, H., K. Henle, and H. Gruttke. 2002. Einschätzung der Verantwortlichkeit Deutschlands für die Erhaltung von Tierarten am Beispiel der Amphibien und Reptilien. Natur und Landschaft 77 : 72 80.
53. The Nature Conservancy 1988. Natural heritage program operations manual. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.
54. Tucker, G. M., and M. F. Heath. 1994. Birds in Europe: their conservation status. Birdlife International, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
55. van Swaay, C. A. M., D. Maes, and D. Plate. 1997. Monitoring butterflies in the Netherlands and Flanders: the first results. Journal of Insect Conservation 1 : 81 87.
56. van Swaay, C. A. M., and M. S. Warren 1999. Red data book of European butterflies (Rhopalocera). Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, France.
57. Vrijenhoek, R. C. 1998. Conservation genetics of freshwater fish. Journal of Fish Biology 53 : 394 412.
58. Warren, M. S., L. K. Barnett, D. W. Gibbons, and M. I. Avery. 1997. Assessing national conservation priorities: an improved red list of British butterflies. Biological Conservation 82 : 317 328.
59. Wiens, J. A. 2001. The landscape context of dispersal. Pages 96 109 in J. Clobert, E. Danchin, A. A. Dhondt, and J. D. Nichols, editors. Dispersal: individual, population, and community. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
60. Wiens, J. A., R. L. Schooley, and R. D. Weeks. 1997. Patchy landscapes and animal movements: Do beetles percolate? Oikos 78 : 257 264.