The effect of sampling effort and methodology on range size estimates of poorly-recorded species for IUCN Red List assessments

Abstract

Geographic range size is the most commonly implemented criterion of species’ extinction risk used in IUCN Red List assessments, especially for poorly-recorded species. IUCN applies two contrasting range size measures to capture different facets of a species’ distribution: Extent of Occurrence (EOO; Criterion B1) is the area bounding all known occurrences and is a proxy for the spatial autocorrelation of risk, while the Area of Occupancy (AOO; Criterion B2) is the area occupied within this boundary and is related to population size at finer grains. Various methods have been proposed to measure both EOO and AOO. We evaluate the impact of applying four methods for each of Criterion B1 and of B2, as well as key parameter choices, on the Red List status of 227 poorly-recorded neotropical pteridophyte species. Between 2 and 100% of species would be considered threatened depending on methodology. The minimum convex polygon method of estimating EOO was relatively robust to sampling effort for all but the least-recorded species. The IUCN-recommended method for estimating AOO of summing occupied 2 × 2 km grid cells was very strongly correlated with the total number of records. It is likely that only a small fraction of species can be adequately assessed using this method, and we recommend caution applying the method to poorly-recorded species in particular, where models predicting occupancy in unsampled areas (e.g. species distribution models) may provide more accurate assessments. It is vital that methodological information is retained with assessments, and comparisons should only be made between assessments utilising equivalent methods.