Testing a global standard for quantifying species recovery and assessing conservation impact
2021
Grace, Molly K. | Akçakaya, H. Resit | Bennett, Elizabeth L. | Brooks, Thomas M. | Heath, Anna | Hedges, Simon | Hilton Taylor, Craig | Hoffmann, Michael | Hochkirch, Axel | Jenkins, Richard | Arbetman, Marina Paula | Azat, Claudio | Bacchetta, Gianluigi | Badola, Ruchi | Barcelos, Luís M. D. | Barreiros, Joao Pedro | Basak, Sayanti | Martin, Gabriel Mario | Morales, Carolina Laura | Quintana Medina, Manuel Gregorio | Wallace, Bryan | Waller, Lauren J. | Wang, Hongfeng | Wearn, Oliver R. | Weerd, Merlijn van | Weigmann, Simon | Willcox, Daniel | Woinarski, John | Yong, Jean W. H. | Young, Stuart
Recognizing the imperative to evaluate species recovery and conservation impact, in 2012 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) called for development of a “Green List of Species” (now the IUCN Green Status of Species). A draft Green Status framework for assessing species’ progress toward recovery, published in 2018, proposed 2 separate but interlinked components: a standardized method (i.e., measurement against benchmarks of species’ viability, functionality, and preimpact distribution) to determine current species recovery status (herein species recovery score) and application of that method to estimate past and potential future impacts of conservation based on 4 metrics (conservation legacy, conservation dependence, conservation gain, and recovery potential). We tested the framework with 181 species representing diverse taxa, life histories, biomes, and IUCN Red List categories (extinction risk). Based on the observed distribution of species’ recovery scores, we propose the following species recovery categories: fully recovered, slightly depleted, moderately depleted, largely depleted, critically depleted, extinct in the wild, and indeterminate. Fifty-nine percent of tested species were considered largely or critically depleted. Although there was a negative relationship between extinction risk and species recovery score, variation was considerable. Some species in lower risk categories were assessed as farther from recovery than those at higher risk. This emphasizes that species recovery is conceptually different from extinction risk and reinforces the utility of the IUCN Green Status of Species to more fully understand species conservation status. Although extinction risk did not predict conservation legacy, conservation dependence, or conservation gain, it was positively correlated with recovery potential. Only 1.7% of tested species were categorized as zero across all 4 of these conservation impact metrics, indicating that conservation has, or will, play a role in improving or maintaining species status for the vast majority of these species. Based on our results, we devised an updated assessment framework that introduces the option of using a dynamic baseline to assess future impacts of conservation over the short term to avoid misleading results which were generated in a small number of cases, and redefines short term as 10 years to better align with conservation planning. These changes are reflected in the IUCN Green Status of Species Standard.
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Grace, Molly K.. University of Oxford; Reino Unido
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Akçakaya, H. Resit. State University of New York. Stony Brook University; Estados Unidos
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Bennett, Elizabeth L.. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados Unidos
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Brooks, Thomas M.. University of Tasmania; Australia. University of the Philippines; Filipinas. International Union for Conservation of Nature; Suiza
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Heath, Anna. Synchronicity Earth; Reino Unido
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Hedges, Simon. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados Unidos
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Hilton Taylor, Craig. International Union for Conservation of Nature; Reino Unido
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Hoffmann, Michael. The Zoological Society of London; Reino Unido
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Hochkirch, Axel. Universitat Trier; Alemania
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Jenkins, Richard. International Union for Conservation of Nature; Reino Unido
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Arbetman, Marina Paula. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universidad Bariloche. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; Argentina
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Azat, Claudio. Universidad Andrés Bello; Chile
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Bacchetta, Gianluigi. Università degli Studi di Cagliari; Italia
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Badola, Ruchi. Wildlife Institute of India; India
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Barcelos, Luís M. D.. Universidade Dos Açores; Portugal
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Barreiros, Joao Pedro. Universidade Dos Açores; Portugal
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Basak, Sayanti. Wildlife Institute of India; India
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Martin, Gabriel Mario. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Centro de Investigación Esquel de Montaña y Estepa Patagónica. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia "San Juan Bosco". Centro de Investigación Esquel de Montaña y Estepa Patagónica; Argentina
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Morales, Carolina Laura. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas. Centro Cientifico Tecnologico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones En Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Subsede Junín de Los Andes-inibioma-centro de Ecología Aplicada del Neuquén (cean) | Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universitario Bariloche. Instituto de Investigaciones En Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Subsede Junín de Los Andes-inibioma-centro de Ecología Aplicada del Neuquén (cean).; Argentina
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Quintana Medina, Manuel Gregorio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales "Bernardino Rivadavia"; Argentina
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Wallace, Bryan. Ecolibrium Inc; Estados Unidos
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Waller, Lauren J.. University of the Western Cape; Sudáfrica
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Wang, Hongfeng. Northeast Forestry University; China
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Wearn, Oliver R.. No especifíca;
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Weerd, Merlijn van. Leiden University; Países Bajos
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Weigmann, Simon. Universitat Hamburg; Alemania
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Willcox, Daniel. Save Vietnam's Wildlife; Vietnam
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Woinarski, John. Charles Darwin University. School of Environmental Research; Australia
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Yong, Jean W. H.. Wedish University of Agricultural Sciences; Suecia
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Young, Stuart. International Union for Conservation of Nature; Reino Unido
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Palabras clave de AGROVOC
Información bibliográfica
Este registro bibliográfico ha sido proporcionado por Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas