Assessing the threat status of ecological communities

Nicholson, Emily, Keith, David A. and Wilcove, David S. 2009, Assessing the threat status of ecological communities, Conservation biology, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 259-274, doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01158.x.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Assessing the threat status of ecological communities
Author(s) Nicholson, EmilyORCID iD for Nicholson, Emily orcid.org/0000-0003-2199-3446
Keith, David A.
Wilcove, David S.
Journal name Conservation biology
Volume number 23
Issue number 2
Start page 259
End page 274
Total pages 16
Publisher Wiley
Place of publication London, Eng.
Publication date 2009-04
ISSN 1523-1739
Keyword(s) Classification protocols
Conservation status
IUCN
NatureServe
Red list
Threat categories
Threatened species lists
Summary Conservationists are increasingly interested in determining the threat status of ecological communities as a key part of their planning efforts. Such assessments are difficult because of conceptual challenges and a lack of generally accepted criteria. We reviewed 12 protocols for assessing the threat status of communities and identified conceptual and operational issues associated with developing a rigorous, transparent, and universal set of criteria for assessing communities, analogous to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List standards for species. We examined how each protocol defines a community and its extinction and how each applies 3 overarching criteria: decline in geographic distribution, restricted geographic distribution, and changes to ecological function. The protocols vary widely in threshold values used to assess declines and distribution size and the time frames used to assess declines, leading to inconsistent assessments of threat status. Few of the protocols specify a scale for measuring distribution size, although assessment outcomes are highly sensitive to scale. Protocols that apply different thresholds for species versus communities tend to require greater declines and more restricted distributions for communities than species to be listed in equivalent threat categories. Eleven of the protocols include a reduction in ecological function as a criterion, but almost all assess it qualitatively rather than quantitatively. We argue that criteria should be explicit and repeatable in their concepts, parameters, and scale, applicable to a broad range of communities, and address synergies between types of threats. Such criteria should focus on distribution size, declines in distribution, and changes to key ecological functions, with the latter based on workable proxies for assessing the severity, scope, and immediacy of degradation. Threat categories should be delimited by thresholds that are assessed at standard scales and are logically consistent with the viability of component species and important ecological functions.
Language eng
DOI 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01158.x
Field of Research 050202 Conservation and Biodiversity
Socio Economic Objective 960805 Flora
HERDC Research category C1.1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
ERA Research output type C Journal article
Copyright notice ©2009, Wiley
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30073646

Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 43 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 55 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 136 Abstract Views, 1 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Thu, 22 Oct 2015, 08:54:38 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.