Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Apr;12(4):20150843.
doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0843.

Clarifying misconceptions of extinction risk assessment with the IUCN Red List

Ben Collen  1 , Nicholas K Dulvy  2 , Kevin J Gaston  3 , Ulf Gärdenfors  4 , David A Keith  5 , André E Punt  6 , Helen M Regan  7 , Monika Böhm  8 , Simon Hedges  9 , Mary Seddon  10 , Stuart H M Butchart  11 , Craig Hilton-Taylor  12 , Michael Hoffmann  13 , Steven P Bachman  14 , H Reşit Akçakaya  15
Affiliations

Clarifying misconceptions of extinction risk assessment with the IUCN Red List

Ben Collen et al. Biol Lett. 2016 Apr.

Abstract

The identification of species at risk of extinction is a central goal of conservation. As the use of data compiled for IUCN Red List assessments expands, a number of misconceptions regarding the purpose, application and use of the IUCN Red List categories and criteria have arisen. We outline five such classes of misconception; the most consequential drive proposals for adapted versions of the criteria, rendering assessments among species incomparable. A key challenge for the future will be to recognize the point where understanding has developed so markedly that it is time for the next generation of the Red List criteria. We do not believe we are there yet but, recognizing the need for scrutiny and continued development of Red Listing, conclude by suggesting areas where additional research could be valuable in improving the understanding of extinction risk among species.

Keywords: climate change; geographical range; population decline; rarity; spatial autocorrelation; uncertainty.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Temporal trend in assessments on IUCN Red List.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Proportion of threatened species meeting each criterion: (a) vertebrates and non-vertebrates; and (b) non-vertebrates subdivided.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Mace G, Collar N, Gaston K, Hilton-Taylor C, Akcakaya H, Leader-Williams N, Milner-Gulland EJ, Stuart S. 2008. Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN's system for classifying threatened species. Conserv. Biol. 22, 1424–1442. ( 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01044.x) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hoffmann M, et al. 2010. The impact of conservation on the status of the world's vertebrates. Science 330, 1503–1509. ( 10.1126/science.1194442) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Harnik P, Simpson C, Payne J. 2012. Long-term differences in extinction risk among the seven forms of rarity. Proc. R. Soc. B 279, 4969–4976. ( 10.1098/rspb.2012.1902) - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Abeli T, Gentili R, Rossi G, Bedini G, Foggi B.. 2009. Can the IUCN criteria be effectively applied to peripheral isolated plant populations? Biodivers. Conserv. 18, 3877–3890. ( 10.1007/s10531-009-9685-4) - DOI
    1. Fisher D, Owens I. 2004. The comparative method in conservation biology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 391–398. ( 10.1016/j.tree.2004.05.004) - DOI - PubMed