Are the IUCN standard home-range thresholds for species a good indicator to prioritise conservation urgency in small islands? A case study in the Canary Islands (Spain)

Journal for Nature Conservation

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 87-98

  Martín, José L ^a  

^a Biodiversity   (Spain)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Conservation biology; Islands; IUCN; Red lists; Setting priorities; Species recovery; Threatened species

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION STATUS; ENDANGERED SPECIES; HOME RANGE; NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION; RED LIST; TAXONOMY;

ATLANTIC ISLANDS; ATLANTIC OCEAN; CANARY ISLANDS; EURASIA; EUROPE; MACARONESIA; SOUTHERN EUROPE; SPAIN;

EID: 67349151831     PISSN: 16171381     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jnc.2008.10.001     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Agarrad, K. (2003). Regional red data lists and invertebrates in the Nordic countries. In D. Procter, & P. T. Harding (Eds.), Proceedings of INCardiff 2003 Red Lists for invertebrates: Their application at different spatial scales - practical issues, pragmatic approaches (pp. 7-15). Cardiff, 5-9 September 2003.
2. Avery M., Wingfield Gibbons D., Porter R., Tew T., Tucker G., and Williams G. Revising the British red data list for birds: The biological basis of UK conservation priorities. Ibis 137 (1995) 232-239
3. Báldi A., Csorba G., and Korsós Z. Setting priorities for the conservation of terrestrial vertebrates in Hungary. Biodiversity and Conservation 10 (2001) 1283-1296
4. Bañares A. Recuperación de la flora amenazada de los parques nacionales canarios. Metodología para su planificación y ejecución. Ecología 8 (1994) 227-244
5. Brook B.W., and Sodhi N.S. Rarity bites. Nature 444 (2006) 555-557
6. Brown J.H., Stevens G.C., and Kaufman D.M. The geographic range: Size, shape, boundaries, and internal structure. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematic 25 (1996) 597-623
7. Butchart S.H.M., Stattersfield A.J., Baillie J., Bennun L.A., Stuart S.N., Akçakaya H.R., et al. Using red list indices to measure progress towards the 2010 target and beyond. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360 (2005) 255-268
8. Courchamp F., Angulo E., Rivalan P., Hall R.J., Signoret L., Bull L., et al. Rarity value and species extinction: The anthropogenic allee effect. PLoS Biology 4 12 (2006) e415 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040415
9. Daugherty C.H., Cree A., Hay J.M., and Thompson M.B. Neglected taxonomy and continuing extinctions of tuatara (Sphenodon). Nature 347 6289 (1990) 177-179
10. de Grammont P.C., and Cuaron A.D. An evaluation of threatened species categorization systems used on the American continent. Conservation Biology 20 1 (2006) 14-27
11. de Lange, P.J. & Norton, D.A. (1998). Revisiting rarity: a botanical perspective on the meanings of rarity and the classification of New Zealand's uncommon plants. In Ecosystem, entomology and plants. The Royal Society of New Zealand Miscelaneous Series. Vol. 48. (pp. 145-160).
12. Domínguez F., and Schwartz M.W. Patterns of rarity and taxonomic group size in plants. Biological Conservation 126 (2005) 146-154
13. Dunn E.H., Hussell D.J.T., and Welsh D.A. Priority-setting tool applied to Canada′s landbirds based on concern and responsibility for species. Conservation Biology 13 6 (1999) 1404-1415
14. Eaton M., Gregory R.D., Noble D.G., Robinson J.A., Hughes J., Procter D., et al. Regional IUCN red-listing: the process as applied to birds in the United Kingdom. Conservation Biology 19 5 (2005) 1557-1570
15. In: Fernandez-Palacios J.M., and Martín-Esquivel J.L. (Eds). Naturaleza de las Islas Canarias. Ecología y conservación (2001), Publicaciones Turquesa, S/C de Tenerife
16. Gärdenfors U. Classifying threatened species at national versus global levels. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16 (2001) 511-516
17. Gärdenfors, U. (2003). The challenge of evaluating red list status for 33,000 invertebrate species in Sweden. In D. Procter, & P. T. Harding (Eds.), Proceedings of INCardiff 2003 Red Lists for invertebrates: Their application at different spatial scales - practical issues, pragmatic approaches (pp. 17-22). Cardiff, 5-9 September 2003.
18. Gärdenfors U., Hilton-Taylor C., Mace G.M., and Rodríguez J.P. The application of IUCN red list criteria at regional levels. Conservation Biology 15 5 (2001) 1206-1212
19. Gaston K.J. Rarity (1994), Chapman & Hall, London
20. Gaston K.J. The structure and dynamics of geographic ranges (2003), Oxford University Press, Oxford
21. Gaston K.J., Davies R.D., Gascoine C.E., and Williamson M. The structure of global species-range size distributions: raptors & owls. Global Ecology and Biogeography 14 (2005) 67-76
22. Gaston K.J., Quinn R.M., Blackburn T.M., and Eversham B.C. Species-range size distribution in Britain. Ecography 21 4 (1998) 361-370
23. Geist V. Endangered species and the law. Nature 357 (1992) 274-357
24. Glazier D.S. Toward a predictive theory of speciation: the ecology of isolate selection. Journal of Theoretical Biology 126 (1987) 323-333
25. Gruttke, H. & Haupt, H. (2003). German Red Lists for invertebrate taxa at a national level. In D. Procter, & P. T. Harding (Eds.), Proceedings of INCardiff 2003 Red Lists for invertebrates: Their application at different spatial scales - practical issues, pragmatic approaches (pp. 38-44). Cardiff, 5-9 September 2003.
26. Hanski I., and Ovaskainen O. Extinction debt at extinction threshold. Conservation Biology 16 (2002) 666-673
27. Hartley S., and Kunin W.E. Scale dependence of rarity, extinction risk, and conservation priority. Conservation Biology 17 6 (2003) 1559-1570
28. IUCN (1994). IUCN Red List categories. Gland: IUCN Species Survival Commission.
29. IUCN (2001). IUCN Red List categories and criteria: Version 3.1. Gland: IUCN Species Survival Commission.
30. IUCN, (2003). Guidelines for application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional levels: version 3.0. Gland: IUCN Species Survival Commission.
31. IUCN, (2005). Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List categories and criteria. Prepared by the standards and petitions subcommittee of the IUCN SSC Red List Programme Committee. Gland: IUCN Species Survival Commission.
32. Izquierdo, I., Martín, J. L., Zurita, N. & Arechavaleta, M. (Eds.), (2004). Lista de especies silvestres de Canarias (hongos, plantas y animales terrestres) 2004. S/C de Tenerife: Consejería de Medio Ambiente y Ordenación Territorial, Gobierno de Canarias.
33. Keller V., and Bollmann K. From red lists to species of conservation concern. Conservation Biology 18 (2004) 1636-1644
34. Kunin W.E. Extrapolating species abundance across spatial scales. Science 281 (1998) 1513-1515
35. Legakis, A. (2003). The application of invertebrate Red Lists in national and European legislation: the case of Greece. In D. Procter, & P. T. Harding (Eds.), Proceedings of INCardiff 2003 Red Lists for invertebrates: Their application at different spatial scales - practical issues, pragmatic approaches (pp. 46-52). Cardiff, 5-9 September 2003.
36. Linklater W.L. Science and management in a conservation crisis: a case study with rhinoceros. Conservation Biology 17 4 (2003) 968-975
37. Mace, G. (1999). Report of a workshop held at the Quarantine Station Conference Centre, Manly, Sydney, Australia on 3-5 May 1999, part of the review of the IUCN criteria for listing threatened species. Not edited, copies may be obtained by contacting the SSC Red List Officer of IUCN.
38. Mace G.M., Possingham H.P., and Leader-Williams N. Prioritizing choices in conservation. In: McDonald D.W., and Service K. (Eds). Key topics in conservation biology (2006), Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA USA 17-34
39. Machado, A. (1997). Guidelines for action plans for animal species: Planning recovery. Strasbourg: Council of Europe (Nature and Environment, 92), p. 81.
40. Manne LL., Brooks T.M., and Pimm S.L. The relative risk of extinction of passerine birds on continents and islands. Nature 399 (1999) 258-261
41. Marsh H., Dennis A., Hines H., Kutt A., McDonald K., Weber E., et al. Optimizing allocation of management resources for wildlife. Conservation Biology 21 2 (2007) 387-399
42. Martín, J. L., Zurita, N., Marrero, M. C., Izquierdo, I., Arechavaleta, M., Fajardo, S., et al. (2005a). El banco de datos de biodiversidad de Canarias. S/C de Tenerife: Consejería de Medio Ambiente y Ordenación Territorial del Gobierno de Canarias.
43. Martín, J. L., Fajardo, S., Cabrera, M. A., Arechavaleta, M., Aguiar, A., Martín, S. et al. (2005b). Evaluación 2004 de especies amenazadas de Canarias. Especies en peligro de extinción, sensibles a la alteración de su hábitat y vulnerables. S/C de Tenerife: Consejería de Medio Ambiente y Ordenación Territorial del Gobierno de Canarias.
44. Master L. Assessing threat and setting priorities for conservation. Conservation Biology 5 (1991) 559-563
45. McIntyre S. Risks associated with the setting of conservation priorities from rare plant species lists. Biological Conservation 60 (1992) 31-37
46. Millsap B.A., Gore J.A., Runde D.E., and Cerulean S.I. Setting priorities for the conservation of fish and wildlife species in Florida. Wildlife Monograph 111 (1990) 1-57
47. Molloy J., Bell B., Clout M., De Lange P., Gibbs G., Given G., et al. Classifying species according to threat of extinction. A system for New Zealand. Threatened species occasional publication 22 (2002) 1-26
48. Mrosovsky N. Predicting extinction: Fundamental flaws in IUCN's red list system exemplified by the case of sea turtles (2003), University of Toronto Press, Toronto. http://members.seaturtle.org/mrosovsky/ Available in the internet address. 〈http://members.seaturtle.org/mrosovsky/〉
49. Munton P. Concepts of threat to the survival of species used in red data books and similar compilations. In: Fitter R., and Fitter M. (Eds). The road to extinction (1987), IUCN, Gland 71-111
50. O'Brien S.J., and Mayr E. Bureaucratic mischief: recognizing endangered species and subspecies. Science 251 4998 (1991) 1187-1188
51. Orme C.D.L., Davies R.G., Olson V.A., Thomas G.H., Ross S.G., Ding T.S., et al. Global patterns of geographic range size in birds. PLoS Biology 4 7 (2006) 1276-1283
52. Possingham H.P., Andelmann S.J., Burgman M.A., and Medellin R.A. Limits to the use of threatened species list. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17 (2002) 503-507
53. Quinn R.M., Gaston K.J., and Arnold H.R. Relative measures of geographic range sizes. Empirical comparisons. Oecologia 107 2 (2004) 179-188
54. Rabinowitz D. Seven forms of rarity. In: Synge H. (Ed). The biological aspects of rare plant conservation (1981), Wiley, New York 205-217
55. Rabinowitz D., Cairns S., and Dillon T. Seven forms of rarity and their frequency in the flora of the British Isles. In: Soule M. (Ed). Conservation biology: The science of scarcity and diversity (1986), Sinauer Associates, Sunderland 182-204
56. Robbirt K.M., Roberts D.L., and Hawkins J.A. Comparing IUCN and probabilistic assessments of threat: Do IUCN red list criteria conflate rarity and threat?. Biodiversity and Conservation 15 (2006) 1903-1912
57. Rogers G., and Overton J. Regional patterns of plant species richness in southern New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Botany 38 (2000) 609-627
58. Sapir Y., Schmida A., and Fragman O. Constructing red numbers for setting conservation priorities of endangered plan species: Israeli flora as a test case. Journal for Nature Conservation 11 (2003) 91-107
59. Scarpace, E. K. & Schimpff, J. A. (2001). Endangered and threatened species listing criteria: A review of agency and organizational experiences. Bureau of Integrated Science Services, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Special publication PUB-SS-957, p. 109.
60. Schnittler M., and Günther K.F. Central European vascular plants requiring priority conservation measures-an analysis from national red lists and distribution maps. Biodiversity and Conservation 8 (1999) 891-925
61. Schwartz M.W., and Simberloff D. Taxon size predicts rates of rarity in vascular plants. Ecology Letters 4 5 (2001) 464-469
62. Shelden K.E.W., and DeMaster D.P. Guidelines for developing status-determining criteria. Endangered Species Update 21 4 (2004) 119-123
63. Shelden K.E.W., DeMaster D.P., Rough D.J., and Olson A.M. Developing classification criteria under the US Endangered Species Act: Bowhead whales as a case study. Conservation Biology 15 5 (2001) 1300-1307
64. Webb G.J.W., and Carrillo E. Risk of extinction and categories of endangerment: Perspectives from long-lived reptiles. Population Ecology 42 (2000) 11-17
65. Willis J.C. Age and area: A study in geographical distribution and origin of species (1922), Cambridge University Press, London
66. Witkowski, Z. (2003). Inventory, monitoring, threat assessment and conservation measures for invertebrates in Poland. In D. Procter, & P. T. Harding (Eds.), Proceedings of INCardiff 2003 Red Lists for invertebrates: Their application at different spatial scales - practical issues, pragmatic approaches (pp. 23-27). Cardiff, 5-9 September 2003.
67. Wyse-Jackson, P. S. & Akeroyd, J. R. (1994). Guidelines to be followed in the design of plant conservation or recovery plans. Strasbourg: Council of Europe (Nature and environment, 68), p. 49.
68. Zulka, K. P., Eder, E., Höttinger, H. & Weigand, E. (2003). Threat descriptors and extinction risk - the Austrian Red List concept. In H. H. de Iong, O. S. Bánki, W. Bergmans, & M. J. van der Werff ten Bosch (Eds.), The harmonization of Red Lists for threatened species in Europe. In Proceedings of an international seminar in Leiden, 27 and 28 November 2002. Leiden: The Netherlands Commission for International Nature Protection (Mededelingen No. 38).