Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 44.1 (2021) 79 The importance of addressing different Red Lists in conservation studies: an analysis comparing the conservation status of Brazilian mammals M. C. Drago, D. Vrcibradic Drago, M. C., Vrcibradic, D., 2021. The importance of addressing different Red Lists in conservation studies: an analysis comparing the conservation status of Brazilian mammals. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation, 44.1: 79–88, Doi: https://doi.org/10.32800/abc.2021.44.0079 Abstract The importance of addressing different Red Lists in conservation studies: an analysis comparing the conserva- tion status of Brazilian mammals. Red Lists are important conservation tools because they attempt to estimate the extinction risks of species. We compared the conservation status of Brazilian mammals presented in the Brazilian Red Book with those presented in the IUCN Red List, highlighting the importance of each list and why they should be used jointly. Out of 636 species, 181 were considered endemic to Brazil and 121 were considered threatened by at least one of the lists. Considering the complete database, 86 % of the species had the same status on both lists, whereas only 48 % of the threatened species had the same status. Some pos- sible factors responsible for variations are the period in which the evaluations were carried out, the evaluation process and the fact that a species threatened nationally may not be threatened globally. We recommend that communication should be improved, that lists should be kept updated, and that both the type of information and the data itself to be used in the assessments should be standardized. Key words: Brazilian Red Book of Threatened Fauna, IUCN Red List, Mammalia, Biodiversity, Endemic spe- cies, Threatened species Resumen La importancia de abordar diferentes Listas Rojas en los estudios de conservación: un análisis que compara el estado de conservación de los mamíferos brasileños. Las Listas Rojas son importantes herramientas de conser- vación porque intentan estimar el riesgo de extinción de las especies. Comparamos los estados de conservación de los mamíferos brasileños presentados en el Libro Rojo de Brasil con los presentados en la Lista Roja de la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (UICN) y destacamos la importancia de cada lista y el motivo por el que se deberían usar conjuntamente. De 636 especies, 181 se consideraron endémicas del Brasil y 121 se consideraron ameanazadas en al menos una de las listas. Considerando la base de datos completa, el 86 % de las especies tenía el mismo estado en ambas listas; no obstante, esto solo ocurría en el 48 % de las especies amenazadas. Las variaciones se explican, entre otros factores, por el período en el que se realizaron las evaluaciones, el proceso de evaluación y el hecho de que una especie amenazada a nivel nacional puede no estarlo a nivel mundial. Recomendamos que se mejore la comunicación, que las listas se mantengan actualizadas y que se estandaricen tanto el tipo de información como los propios datos que se utilizarán en las evaluaciones. Palabras clave: Libro Rojo de Fauna Amenazada de Brasil, Lista Roja de la UICN, Mammalia, Biodiversidad, Especies endémicas, Especies ameanazadas Received: 23 VII 20; Conditional acceptance: 28 X 20; Final acceptance: 25 XI 20 Matheus C. Drago, Programa de Pós–Graduação em Ciências Biológicas (Biodiversidade Neotropical), Universi- dade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.– Davor Vrcibradic, Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Corresponding author: Matheus C. Drago. E–mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: M. C. Drago: 0000-0003-3737-8552; D. Vrcibradic: 0000-0002-6355-3441 ISSN: 1578–665 X © [2021] Copyright belongs to the authors, who license the eISSN: 2014–928 X journal Animal Biodiversity and Conservation to publish the paper under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. 80 Drago and Vrcibradic Introduction the Brazilian Red Book of Threatened Fauna with those presented in the IUCN Red List, highlighting Biodiversity conservation is one of the biggest challen- the importance of each list and why they should be ges facing the current generation (Vale et al., 2009). used jointly in order to generate even more accurate Megadiverse countries, such as Brazil, therefore have assessments. We expected to find some differences an enormous responsibility when it comes to protec- in the status of species whose geographic distribution ting endangered species (Brandon et al., 2005). The was broad and exceeded the country's territorial limits richness of Brazil's mammal species, for example, (i.e. non–endemic species). However, as the national is considered by some authors to be the highest in distribution of species that occur exclusively in Brazil the world, with over 700 species and a high degree (i.e. endemic species) corresponds to their global of endemism at the national level (Mittermeier et al., distribution, we postulated that the status of those 1997; Costa et al., 2005; Lewinsohn and Prado, 2005; species would not vary between lists. In case some Quintela et al., 2020). endemic species (especially those considered to be When species are assigned to categories (known threatened) had a different conservation status in each as conservation status) that represent their degree list, we would emphasize the need for special attention of threat, their risk of extinction can be estimated, the next time their conservation status is assessed. making it easier to infer which species need urgent conservation actions (Peres et al., 2011), evaluate the state of biodiversity, identify sites for conservation Material and methods action, and inform policy and management (Rodri- gues et al., 2006). Red Lists of threatened fauna We compiled a database (see table 1s in supplemen- are, from this point of view, important conservation tary material) containing all Brazilian mammal species tools. Having already assessed the global risk of (regardless of subspecies) according to the Brazilian extinction of more than 116,000 species (including Red Book of Threatened Fauna (ICMBio/MMA, 2018), more than 5,000 mammals), the International Union their national (obtained from the Brazilian Red Book for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has played a itself) and global conservation status (obtained from major role in making these lists known worldwide. the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species platform, Some of the criteria used in those assessments are 2019–3 version), and the year in which the species’ restricted geographic distribution, small and declining status was assessed in each of the lists. In the Brazi- population size, and, based on quantitative analysis, lian Red Book, however, the pampas deer (Ozotoceros a high probability of extinction in nature. Its scheme bezoarticus) and some primates were evaluated only of species classification according to threat status at the subspecific level. In these cases, to standardize uses the following categories: Not Evaluated (NE), our analysis, we chose to consider the status of the Data Deficient (DD) (when there is no adequate least threatened subspecies as the status of the spe- information to assess the risk), Least Concern (LC) cies. Using the data found in the 'Geographic Range' (when the species is evaluated but does not fall into section of the IUCN Red List and the Brazilian Red the other categories; usually encompassing abundant Book, we also added the information of whether a and widely distributed taxa), Near Threatened (NT) species was endemic to Brazil or not. The lists were (when the species is close to qualifying as threatened then compared according to the conservation status or when it is expected to be classified as such soon), of each species to observe which species differed in Vulnerable (VU) (when the species faces a high risk status between lists. of extinction in the wild), Endangered (EN) (when the We also observed whether each species had the species faces a very high risk of extinction in the wild), same status on both lists or if it had a lower conser- Critically Endangered (CR) (when the species face vation status (i.e. less threatened) on one of the lists. an even higher risk of extinction in the wild), Extinct For example, if a species was assessed as not threa- in the Wild (EW) and Extinct (EX). tened (i.e. Least Concern or Near Threatened) by the In Brazil, the Instituto Chico Mendes de Conser- Brazilian Red Book but as threatened (i.e. Vulnerable, vação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio), a Brazilian gover- Endangered or Critically Endangered) by the IUCN nment institution from the Ministry of Environment, Red List, we considered it had a lower status in the periodically publishes the so–called Red Books of national list. Similarly, if a species was classified as Threatened Fauna. These Red Books have a similar Critically Endangered in the Brazilian Red Book and role to the IUCN Red Lists, listing the species con- as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List, we considered sidered to be threatened nationally, classifying them that it had a lower status in the global list, despite according to their conservation status, and providing being considered threatened by both lists. We made ecological information about them. The most recent those comparisons considering four different scena- Red Book was published in 2018, representing a rios: a) all species present in our database; b) only huge effort to evaluate all described vertebrate taxa the endemic species; c) only the species considered occurring in the country and listing 680 mammal to be threatened (i.e. species classified as either species officially known to occur in Brazil. Of these, Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered) 108 (15.9 %) were considered nationally threatened by at least one of the lists; d) species considered, (ICMBio/MMA, 2018). simultaneously, as endemic and threatened. These In the present study, we compared the conser- analyses did not include species that were categorized vation status of Brazilian mammal species listed in as Data Deficient in either of the lists.