Author Query Form

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Author Query Form Our reference: BIOC4915 P-authorquery-v8 AUTHOR QUERY FORM Journal: BIOC Please e-mail or fax your responses and any corrections to: E-mail: [email protected] ^*^7#%N Article Number: 4915 Fax: +31 2048 52799 ELSEVIER Dear Author, Please check your proof carefully and mark all corrections at the appropriate place in the proof (e.g., by using on-screen annotation in the PDF file) or compile them in a separate list. To ensure fast publication of your paper please return your corrections within 48 hours. For correction or revision of any artwork, please consult http://www.elsevier.com/artworkinstructions. Any queries or remarks that have arisen during the processing of your manuscript are listed below and highlighted by flags in the proof. Click on the 'CT link to go to the location in the proof. Location in Query / Remark: click on the 0 link to go article Please insert your reply or correction at the corresponding line in the proof Qi References Cardoso et al. (in preparation) and Caspar et al. (2011) is cited in the text but not listed. Kindly check. Thank you for your assistance. BIOC 4915 No. of Pages 1, Model 5G ARTICLE IN PRESS 1 August 2011 Highlights ► We identify seven impediments to invertebrate conservation. ► Three dilemmas: public, political and scientific. ► Four shortfalls: Linnean, Wallacean, Prestonian and Hutchinsonian. ► We present possible solutions for each impediment. BIOC 4915 No. of Pages 10, Model 5G ARTICLE IN PRESS 1 August 2011 Biological Conservation xxx (2011) xxx-xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation ELSEVIER journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation and how to overcome them Pedro Cardoso a'b'*, Terry L Erwina, Paulo A.V. Borgesb, Tim R. Newc 3 Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, 10th & Constitution NW, Washington, DC 20560, USA bAzorean Biodiversity Group (CITA-A), Departamento de Ciencias Agrdrias, Universidade dos Acores, 9700-042 Angra do Heroismo, Portugal cDepartment of Zoology, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3086, Australia ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT }i 11 Article history: Despite their high diversity and importance for humankind, invertebrates are often neglected in biodiver- 25 12 Received 12 January 2011 sity conservation policies. We identify seven impediments to their effective protection: (1) invertebrates 26 13 Received in revised form 13 July 2011 and their ecological services are mostly unknown to the general public (the public dilemma): (2) policy- 27 14 Accepted 19 July 2011 makers and stakeholders are mostly unaware of invertebrate conservation problems (the political 28 15 Available online xxxx dilemma): (3) basic science on invertebrates is scarce and underfunded (the scientific dilemma): (4) most 29 species are undescribed (the Linnean shortfall): (5) the distribution of described species is mostly 30 16 Keywords: unknown (the Wallacean shortfall): (6) the abundance of species and their changes in space and time 31 17 Conservation priorities 32 18 Ecosystem services are unknown (the Prestonian shortfall): (7) species ways of life and sensitivities to habitat change are lar- 33 19 Extinction gely unknown (the Hutchinsonian shortfall). 20 Information shortfalls Numerous recent developments in taxonomy, inventorying, monitoring, data compilation, statistical 34 21 Science funding analysis and science communication facilitate overcoming these impediments in both policy and prac- 35 22 Species diversity tice. We suggest as possible solutions for the public dilemma: better public information and marketing. 36 23 For the political dilemma: red-listing, legal priority listing and inclusion in environmental impact assess- 37 ment studies. For the scientific dilemma: parataxonomy, citizen science programs and biodiversity infor- 38 matics. For the Linnean shortfall: biodiversity surrogacy, increased support for taxonomy and advances in 39 taxonomic publications. For the Wallacean shortfall: funding of inventories, compilation of data in public 40 repositories and species distribution modeling. For the Prestonian shortfall: standardized protocols for 41 inventorying and monitoring, widespread use of analogous protocols and increased support for natural 42 history collections. For the Hutchinsonian shortfall: identifying good indicator taxa and studying extinc- 43 tion rates by indirect evidence. 44 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. 45 46 47 48 1. The importance of invertebrates parasitoids, even hyper-parasitoids, or the top predators of a long 62 chain. They may be cosmopolitan, or present in extremely re- 63 49 Invertebrates dominate among multicellular organisms in stricted distributions of a few hectares (e.g. some cave adapted 64 50 terms of richness, abundance and often biomass; for example, species). They live on land, in fresh water, and in all the oceans 65 51 more than 100,000 species of terrestrial arthropods occupy a single of the world. With such richness of species and roles in all ecosys- 66 52 hectare of rain forest in the western Amazon (Erwin et al„ 2004) tems, preserving the diversity of invertebrates, as of all other 67 53 and there is more ant biomass in the soils of the Serengeti Plains organisms, is a true life insurance for humankind. As eloquently 68 54 than there is of surface mammals (Holldobler and Wilson, 1990). noted by Wilson (1987), "If human beings were to disappear 69 55 About 80% of all described species are invertebrates. Beetles alone tomorrow, the world would go on with little change. (...) But if 70 56 comprise at least 10 times the number of species of all vertebrates invertebrates were to disappear, I doubt that the human species 71 57 together and over 25% of all described species. Invertebrates may could last more than a few months". 72 58 be as small as 30-40 p,m (male Cycliophorans, which have fewer The ways human beings benefit from the conservation of inver- 73 59 than 60 cells on average (Neves et al„ 2009)) or as large as 14 m tebrates are hard to quantify and the general public is often una- 74 60 (the colossal squid Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni). They may be ware of them. A study by Costanza et al. (2007) calculated that 75 61 saprophagous, phytophagous, symbionts, parasites, endo and ecto- global ecosystem services are valued at US$33 trillion per year, a 76 large part of it directly or indirectly related with invertebrates. 77 By 2050, biodiversity loss will be valued at 7% of the World's 78 * Corresponding author at: Azorean Biodiversity Group (CITA-A), Universidade dos Acores, Rua Capitao Joao d'Avila, 9700-042 Angra do Heroismo, Portugal. Tel.: GDP (see: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/ 79 +351 295 402 200: fax: +351 295 402 205. economics/teeb_en.htm). In the United States alone, and with a 80 E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Cardoso). conservative and partial estimate, ecological services provided by 81 0006-3207/$ - see front matter © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.07.024 Please cite this article in press as: Cardoso, P., et al. The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation and how to overcome them. Biol. Conserv. (2011), doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.07.024 BIOC4915 No. of Pages 10, Model 5G ARTICLE IN PRESS 1 August 2011 P. Cardoso et al./Biological Conservation xxx (2011) xxx-xxx 82 insects annually were valued at US$57 billion (Losey and Vaughan, Dunn et al., 2009). When corrected for knowledge bias, data from 137 83 2006). invertebrates show even higher extinction rates and proportions 138 84 In order to reiterate the importance of ecosystems and their of threatened species than those of well-known taxa such as birds 139 85 constituent species to humankind, ecosystem services have been and mammals (MacKinney, 1999; Moir et al., 2010; Stork and Lyal, 140 86 divided in four broad categories by the Millennium Ecosystem 1993; Thomas and Morris, 1994). Nevertheless, only 70 species 141 87 Assessment (2003, 2005): provisioning, regulating, cultural, and have been officially reported extinct for the last 600 years (Dunn, 142 88 supporting services. 2005), all others having vanished before discovery or description, 143 the so-called Centinelan (Wilson, 1992) or Linnean extinctions 144 89 1.1. Provisioning services (Cardoso et al., 2010; Ladle and Jepson, 2008; Regnier et al., 145 2009; Triantis et al., 2010). 146 90 These are related with the goods that humans can use and The loss of species often implies the loss of functional diversity 147 91 trade. Besides being or providing food (e.g. molluscs, bees), inver- and the provision of ecosystem services, with consequences to hu- 148 92 tebrates yield many new pharmaceuticals and compounds or pro- man well-being (Section 1; see a review in Balvanera et al., 2006). 149 93 cesses useful for technological and industrial purposes (see: http:// The loss of pollinators may cause the loss of productivity in many 150 94 www.wwf.org.au/publications/wwf-2010-and-beyond/), or may crops (Kremen et al., 2002; Kremen and Ostfeld, 2005); the loss of 151 95 even be a target for mining activities (e.g. coral reefs). predators and parasitoids in agricultural fields may cause the loss 152 of ecosystem capacity to control pest outbreaks and the conse- 153 96 1.2. Regulating services quent loss in productivity (Landis et al., 2000; Symondson et al., 154 2002); the loss of groundwater fauna may cause the disruption 155 97 These are related to the benefits of regulation of ecosystem pro- of purification and bioremediation processes and consequent pol- 156 98 cesses provided by the different species. These services include lution problems (Boulton et al., 2008); the loss of coral reefs may 157 99 pollination (e.g. of crop cultures), trophic regulation (e.g. pest con- cause diminishing returns from tourism (Moberg and Folke, 158 100 trol), or water purification (e.g. of ground waters by cave-obligate 1999); among many other examples.
Recommended publications
  • SDG Indicator Metadata (Harmonized Metadata Template - Format Version 1.0)
    Last updated: 4 January 2021 SDG indicator metadata (Harmonized metadata template - format version 1.0) 0. Indicator information 0.a. Goal Goal 15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss 0.b. Target Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species 0.c. Indicator Indicator 15.5.1: Red List Index 0.d. Series 0.e. Metadata update 4 January 2021 0.f. Related indicators Disaggregations of the Red List Index are also of particular relevance as indicators towards the following SDG targets (Brooks et al. 2015): SDG 2.4 Red List Index (species used for food and medicine); SDG 2.5 Red List Index (wild relatives and local breeds); SDG 12.2 Red List Index (impacts of utilisation) (Butchart 2008); SDG 12.4 Red List Index (impacts of pollution); SDG 13.1 Red List Index (impacts of climate change); SDG 14.1 Red List Index (impacts of pollution on marine species); SDG 14.2 Red List Index (marine species); SDG 14.3 Red List Index (reef-building coral species) (Carpenter et al. 2008); SDG 14.4 Red List Index (impacts of utilisation on marine species); SDG 15.1 Red List Index (terrestrial & freshwater species); SDG 15.2 Red List Index (forest-specialist species); SDG 15.4 Red List Index (mountain species); SDG 15.7 Red List Index (impacts of utilisation) (Butchart 2008); and SDG 15.8 Red List Index (impacts of invasive alien species) (Butchart 2008, McGeoch et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Goal C: to Improve the Status of Biodiversity by Safeguarding Ecosystems, Species and Genetic Diversity
    BIPTPM 2012 Strategic Goal C: To improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity Target 11 - Protected areas Indicator Name Indicator Partners Last Next Description CBD Operational Indicator(s) Update Update Protected Area Management University of 2010 2013 Trends in extent of marine protected areas, coverage of Effectiveness (PAME) Queensland, IUCN, KPAs and management effectiveness (A) WCPA, University of Trends in protected area condition and/or management Oxford, UNEP- effectiveness including more equitable management WCMC Trends in the delivery of ecosystem services and equitable benefits from PAs Protected area status of inland McGill University, New 2013? Trends in coverage of protected waters WWF, UNEP-WCMC areas Arctic Protected Areas indicator CBMP, UNEP- 2010 2015? Trends in representative coverage WCMC, Protected of PAs areas agencies Trends in PA condition and across Arctic management effectiveness countries Living Planet Index WWF, ZSL 2012 2014 Trends in species populations inside (and outside) protected areas Arctic Species Trend Index CBMP, ZSL, WWF 2012 2014 Trends in PA condition and management effectiveness Important Bird Area state, Birdlife Trends in PA condition and measure and response values management effectiveness Protected area coverage of Birdlife, IUCN etc Trends in representative coverage important sites for biodiversity of Pas and sites of particular (IBAs, KBA etc) importance for biodiversity Red List Index for Species with Birdlife, IUCN etc N/A Protected /
    [Show full text]
  • Download-Report-2
    Gao et al. BMC Plant Biology (2020) 20:430 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-020-02646-3 REVIEW Open Access Plant extinction excels plant speciation in the Anthropocene Jian-Guo Gao1* , Hui Liu2, Ning Wang3, Jing Yang4 and Xiao-Ling Zhang5 Abstract Background: In the past several millenniums, we have domesticated several crop species that are crucial for human civilization, which is a symbol of significant human influence on plant evolution. A pressing question to address is if plant diversity will increase or decrease in this warming world since contradictory pieces of evidence exit of accelerating plant speciation and plant extinction in the Anthropocene. Results: Comparison may be made of the Anthropocene with the past geological times characterised by a warming climate, e.g., the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) 55.8 million years ago (Mya)—a period of “crocodiles in the Arctic”, during which plants saw accelerated speciation through autopolyploid speciation. Three accelerators of plant speciation were reasonably identified in the Anthropocene, including cities, polar regions and botanical gardens where new plant species might be accelerating formed through autopolyploid speciation and hybridization. Conclusions: However, this kind of positive effect of climate warming on new plant species formation would be thoroughly offset by direct and indirect intensive human exploitation and human disturbances that cause habitat loss, deforestation, land use change, climate change, and pollution, thus leading to higher extinction risk than speciation in the Anthropocene. At last, four research directions are proposed to deepen our understanding of how plant traits affect speciation and extinction, why we need to make good use of polar regions to study the mechanisms of dispersion and invasion, how to maximize the conservation of plant genetics, species, and diverse landscapes and ecosystems and a holistic perspective on plant speciation and extinction is needed to integrate spatiotemporally.
    [Show full text]
  • Improvements to the Red List Index Stuart H
    Improvements to the Red List Index Stuart H. M. Butchart1*, H. Resit Akc¸akaya2, Janice Chanson3, Jonathan E. M. Baillie4, Ben Collen4, Suhel Quader5,8, Will R. Turner6, Rajan Amin4, Simon N. Stuart3, Craig Hilton-Taylor7 1 BirdLife International, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2 Applied Biomathematics, Setauket, New York, United States of America, 3 Conservation International/Center for Applied Biodiversity Science-World Conservation Union (IUCN)/Species Survival Commission Biodiversity Assessment Unit, IUCN Species Programme, Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, Washington, D. C., United States of America, 4 Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, London, United Kingdom, 5 Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 6 Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, Washington, D. C., United States of America, 7 World Conservation Union (IUCN) Species Programme, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 8 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Sandy, United Kingdom The Red List Index uses information from the IUCN Red List to track trends in the projected overall extinction risk of sets of species. It has been widely recognised as an important component of the suite of indicators needed to measure progress towards the international target of significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. However, further application of the RLI (to non-avian taxa in particular) has revealed some shortcomings in the original formula and approach: It performs inappropriately when a value of zero is reached; RLI values are affected by the frequency of assessments; and newly evaluated species may introduce bias. Here we propose a revision to the formula, and recommend how it should be applied in order to overcome these shortcomings.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributions of Extinction Times from Fossil Ages and Tree Topologies: the Example of Some Mid-Permian Synapsid Extinctions
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.11.448028; this version posted June 11, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Distributions of extinction times from fossil ages and tree topologies: the example of some mid-Permian synapsid extinctions Gilles Didier1 and Michel Laurin2 1IMAG, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, Montpellier, France 2CR2P (“Centre de Recherches sur la Paléobiodiversité et les Paléoenvironnements”; UMR 7207), CNRS/MNHN/UPMC, Sorbonne Université, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France June 11, 2021 Abstract Given a phylogenetic tree of extinct and extant taxa with fossils where the only temporal infor- mation stands in the fossil ages, we devise a method to compute the distribution of the extinction time of a given set of taxa under the Fossilized-Birth-Death model. Our approach differs from the previous ones in that it takes into account the possibility that the taxa or the clade considered may diversify before going extinct, whilst previous methods just rely on the fossil recovery rate to estimate confidence intervals. We assess and compare our new approach with a standard previous one using simulated data. Results show that our method provides more accurate confidence intervals. This new approach is applied to the study of the extinction time of three Permo-Carboniferous synapsid taxa (Ophiacodontidae, Edaphosauridae, and Sphenacodontidae) that are thought to have disappeared toward the end of the Cisuralian, or possibly shortly thereafter. The timing of extinctions of these three taxa and of their component lineages supports the idea that a biological crisis occurred in the late Kungurian/early Roadian.
    [Show full text]
  • A Users' Guide to Biodiversity Indicators
    European Academies’ Science Advisory Council A users’ guide to biodiversity indicators 29 November 2004 CONTENTS 1 Summary briefing 1.1 Key points 1.2 The EASAC process 1.3 What is meant by biodiversity? 1.4 Why is it important? 1.5 Can biodiversity be measured? 1.6 What progress is being made at European and global levels? 1.7 What could be done now? 1.8 What is stopping it? 1.9 Is this a problem? 1.10 What further needs to be done to produce a better framework for monitoring? 1.11 Recomendations 2 Introduction 2.1 What is biodiversity? 2.2 Biodiversity in Europe 2.3 Why does it matter? 2.4 What is happening to biodiversity? 2.5 The need for measurement and assessment 2.6 Drivers of change 2.7 Progress in developing indicators 2.8 Why has it been so difficult to make progress? 3 Conclusions and recommended next steps 3.1 Immediate and short term – what is needed to have indicators in place to assess progress against the 2010 target 3.2 The longer term – developing indicators for the future Annexes A Assessment of available indicators A.1 Trends in extent of selected biomes, ecosystems and habitats A.2 Trends in abundance and distribution of selected species A.3 Change in status of threatened and/or protected species A.4 Trends in genetic diversity of domesticated animals, cultivated plants and fish species of major socio- economic importance A.5 Coverage of protected areas A.6 Area of forest, agricultural, fishery and aquaculture ecosystems under sustainable management A.7 Nitrogen deposition A.8 Number and costs of alien species A.9
    [Show full text]
  • A Robust Goal Is Needed for Species in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework
    Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 April 2020 Title: A robust goal is needed for species in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework Running title: A post-2020 goal for species conservation Authors: Brooke A. Williams*1,2, James E.M. Watson1,2,3, Stuart H.M. Butchart4,5, Michelle Ward1,2, Nathalie Butt2, Friederike C. Bolam6, Simon N. Stuart7, Thomas M. Brooks8,9,10, Louise Mair6, Philip J. K. McGowan6, Craig Hilton-Taylor11, David Mallon12, Ian Harrison8,13, Jeremy S. Simmonds1,2. Affiliations: 1School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072, Australia 2Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072, Queensland, Australia. 3Wildlife Conservation Society, Global Conservation Program, Bronx, NY 20460, USA. 4BirdLife International, The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, UK 5Department of Zoology, Cambridge University, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK 6School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK 7Synchronicity Earth, 27-29 Cursitor Street, London, EC4A 1LT, UK 8IUCN, 28 rue Mauverney, CH-1196, Gland, Switzerland 9World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), University of the Philippines Los Baños, Laguna, 4031, Philippines 10Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia 11IUCN, The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, UK 12Division of Biology and Conservation Ecology, Manchester Metropolitan University, Chester St, Manchester, M1 5GD, U.K 13Conservation International, Arlington, VA 22202, USA Emails: Brooke A. Williams: [email protected]; James E.M. Watson: [email protected]; Stuart H.M.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT of 13 July 2012
    THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES: STRATEGIC PLAN 2017-2020 Citation: IUCN Red List Committee. 2017. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ Strategic Plan 2017 - 2020. Prepared by the IUCN Red List Committee. Cover images (left to right) and photographer credits: IUCN & Intu Boehihartono; Brian Stockwell; tigglrep (via Flickr under CC licence); IUCN & Gillian Eborn; Gianmarco Rojas; Michel Roggo; IUCN & Imene Maliane; IUCN & William Goodwin; IUCN & Christian Winter The IUCN Red List of Threatened SpeciesTM Strategic Plan 2017 – 2020 2 THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES: STRATEGIC PLAN 2017-2020 January 2017 The IUCN Red List Partnership ............................................................................................ 4 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 5 The IUCN Red List: a key conservation tool ....................................................................... 6 The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Strategic Plan 2017-2020 ......................... 7 Result 1. IUCN Red List taxonomic and geographic coverage is expanded ............. 8 Result 2. More IUCN Red List Assessments are prepared at national and, where appropriate, at regional scales .......................................................................................... 8 Result 3. Selected species groups are periodically reassessed to allow the IUCN Red List Index to be widely used as an effective biodiversity indicator. ....................
    [Show full text]
  • Nterim Guidance
    Updated February 1, 2021 Guidance on Responding to Petitions and Conducting Status Reviews under the Endangered Species Act Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 2 I. Evaluating Petitions ............................................................................................................................................. 3 A. Establishing Leads .................................................................................................. 3 B. Verifying Petition Requirements ............................................................................. 3 C. Making a Petition Finding ....................................................................................... 4 II. Conducting a Status Review ........................................................................................................................... 8 A. Roles and Responsibilities ...................................................................................... 9 B. Compiling the Best Available Data ....................................................................... 11 C. Identifying Distinct Population Segments, if Appropriate ..................................... 12 D. Conducting a Risk Assessment .............................................................................. 14 1. Key Terminology ................................................................................................... 14 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Material Happiness
    Material happiness Uncoupling a meaningful life from the destruction of nature Copyright c 2018 Falko Buschke PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE AND THE VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License (the “License”). You may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0. Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an “AS IS” BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License. First printing, October 2018 Contents I Part One 1 An unprecedented problem ...................................7 1.1 If you care about nature, then why are you destroying it?7 1.2 The purpose of this document8 1.3 The state of nature8 1.3.1 The Living Planet Index............................................8 1.3.2 The Red List Index................................................9 1.3.3 Other studies................................................... 10 1.3.4 The sixth extinction?.............................................. 11 1.3.5 Planetary boundaries............................................ 12 1.4 Why should we care about the destruction of nature? 13 1.4.1 Economic reasons to avoid losing nature............................. 13 1.4.2 Ethical reasons to conserve nature.................................. 14 2 Why do we harm nature? ..................................... 17 2.1 The real reasons for harming nature 17 2.1.1 Information: do we know what we are doing to the environment?......... 17 2.1.2 Indifference: when we know that we are harming nature, but do we care?.
    [Show full text]
  • Red List Index Can Measure Conservation Organisations' Effectiveness
    Red List Index can measure conservation organisations’ effectiveness The IUCN’s Red List Index (RLI) of threatened species can be used to measure the effectiveness of conservation organisations. This is according to a new study 19 February 2015 which used the index to assess an organisation’s conservation impact on 17 species. Eight of these species saw improvements in their threat status, whereas Issue 404 16 would have seen no improvement at all, or even deterioration, if there was no Subscribe to free weekly News Alert conservation action. Source: Young, R.P., Hudson, M. A., Terry, A. A huge amount of resources, time and effort are put into conservation practice and M.R., et al. (2014) policy. Monitoring and evaluation of conservation efforts are necessary to ensure that these Accounting for resources and efforts are effective in preserving biodiversity, helping to set management conservation: Using the and policy objectives and communicating results to stakeholders, such as governments, IUCN Red List Index to NGOs and the public. evaluate the impact of a conservation organization. However, there are few measures of conservation success applicable to all situations. As Biological Conservation such, many conservation organisations have developed their own metrics for measuring 180: 84–96. their success based on their own specific goals and situation. DOI:10.1016/j.biocon.2014 Aiming to address this lack of comparability, the study examined the practicality of using the .09.039. RLI as a basis for evaluating the conservation effectiveness of individual agencies. Contact: [email protected] The IUCN RLI is a global approach to evaluating the conservation status and extinction risk of plant and animal species.
    [Show full text]
  • IUCN Red List Index Guidance for National and Regional Use
    IUCN Red List Index Guidance for national and regional use Version 1.1 The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ Guidance for national and regional use This guidance document to support national and regional use of the IUCN Red List Index is a product of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™. It has been developed by IUCN and its partner organizations. Support for the production of this document has been provided by the 2010 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (www.twentyten.net). It has been written by: Philip Bubb, UNEP-WCMC Disclaimer: The designation of geographical entities in this Stuart Butchart, BirdLife International book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply Ben Collen, Institute of Zoology, London the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of Holly Dublin, Chair, IUCN Species Survival Commission, IUCN, Biodiversity Indicators Partnership or UNEP-WCMC 2004-2008 concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, Val Kapos, UNEP-WCMC or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its Caroline Pollock, IUCN Species Programme frontiers or boundaries. Simon Stuart, Chair, IUCN Species Survival Commission, Jean-Christophe Vié, IUCN Species Programme The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN, Biodiversity Indicators Partnership or IUCN intends these guidelines to be a “living document” similar to UNEP-WCMC. the Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (http://www.iucnredlist.org/static/categories_criteria). © 2009 International
    [Show full text]