Toward reassessing data-deficient species.

Jon Bielby,C David L Orme,Ben Collen,Stephen Kearney,James E M Watson,Lucie M Bland

doi:10.1111/cobi.12850

Abstract

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.

Highlights

Limited knowledge of the biological world is a considerable obstacle to the development of effective conservation measures (Whittaker et al 2005)
Assignment of the Data Deficient (DD) category does not correspond to a level of extinction risk, but reflects “inadequate information to make a direct, or indirect, assessment of its risk of extinction based on its distribution and/or population status” (IUCN 2001)
We focused on 2,879 species from six terrestrial and freshwater animal groups that were comprehensively assessed and two that were assessed with the Sampled Red List approach

Summary

Introduction

Limited knowledge of the biological world is a considerable obstacle to the development of effective conservation measures (Whittaker et al 2005). Transparent prioritization of species for research and re-assessment is desperately needed, as non-threatened DD species tend to be re-assessed first under ad hoc surveys (Bland et al 2015a) These ad hoc re-assessments do not inform either of the two stated aims of the IUCN RLTS, which are to monitor biodiversity in a representative manner and identify individual species at high risk of extinction (IUCN 2016). Prioritization protocols can be informed by the likely threat status of DD species, and the cost and likelihood of success of research actions (Joseph et al 2009; Kearney 2015), all of which are linked to the causes of data deficiency. Which option(s) to implement will depend on the trade-offs between increased understanding of species research and conservation needs, and the time and cost constraints operating on the red listing process (Bland et al 2015b; Rondinini et al 2014)

Conclusion

Findings

Literature Cited