IUCN Red List of Ecosystems

Last updated

LRE - Knowledge product of IUCN/CEM Logo RLE website en.jpg
LRE - Knowledge product of IUCN/CEM

The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) is a global framework for monitoring and documenting the status of ecosystems. It was developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature for biodiversity risk assessment. Its main objectives are to support conservation, resource use, and management decisions by evaluating all the world's ecosystems by 2025.

Contents

The Red List of Ecosystem was developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the same entity that created the Red List of Threatened Species, a global framework to monitor the level of risk of animal and plant species.

With the help of RLE and its partner organizations, many governments and organizations create national and regional red lists, generally based on the IUCN categories and criteria, to classify the ecosystems under threat within their territorial limits.

History

Image of the Aral Sea in 1989 (left) and 2014. The Aral Sea is an example of a Collapsed (CO) ecosystem. (image source: NASA) AralSea1989 2014.jpg
Image of the Aral Sea in 1989 (left) and 2014. The Aral Sea is an example of a Collapsed (CO) ecosystem. (image source: NASA)

The Red List of Ecosystems was created to carry out assessments of biodiversity at a level of biological organization above species. [2] Existing protocols developed by national or subnational authorities differed in focus and implementation, were often not comparable, and did not distinguish between strict risk analysis and the process of setting conservation priorities. [3] [4]

In 2008, during the IV World Conservation Congress (Barcelona, Spain), the process of developing criteria to estimate their risk status was activated and the IUCN laid the foundations for the creation of a Red List of Ecosystems (RLE). The initial development of the criteria for the List was based on analogies with the criteria for species and on existing protocols designed for regional applications. [5] [6]

In 2013, the process of creating The Categories and Criteria of the IUCN Red List Ecosystems, was finalized. That same year, "Scientific Foundations of an IUCN Red List of Ecosystems" was published to provide a consistent, practical and theory-based framework for establishing a systematic list. [1]

The RLE was officially recognized by IUCN in 2014, to be managed as a Thematic Group under the IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management (CEM).

The Red List of Ecosystems as a tool

Like other IUCN products, the LRE provides an opportunity to facilitate the achievement of international conservation objectives and allows to assess an ecosystem's danger of collapse either globally or by portions developed over a region, country, or subnational entity.

This provides a means to make more effective territorial arrangements, minimizing the impacts from the anthropic transformations of large surfaces. It contributes to better management of the limited resources devoted to conservation. It prioritizes ecosystems with the most imminent chances of disappearing, focussing on them the greatest efforts to mitigate environmental threats, and create effective protected areas to safeguard them.

Categories and Criteria

The basis of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems are the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria, a set of eight categories and five criteria that provide a consistent method for assessing an ecosystem's risk of collapse. They are designed to be: broadly applicable across type ecosystems and geographic areas, transparent and scientifically rigorous, and easy to understand by decision makers and the public. The eight categories and the five criteria of the Red List of Ecosystems are:

Risk Categories

Schematic of categories to classify ecosystems according to the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems criteria Schematic of categories to classify ecosystems according to the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems criteria.png
Schematic of categories to classify ecosystems according to the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems criteria
The Aral Sea is considered Collapsed (CO). Ship in the Aral Sea, Mo'ynoq.jpg
The Aral Sea is considered Collapsed (CO).
The Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System is considered Critically Endangered (CR). Belize Caye Caulker-207.jpg
The Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System is considered Critically Endangered (CR).
The tidal flats of the Yellow Sea are considered Endangered (EN). Yellow Sea, February 24, 2015.jpg
The tidal flats of the Yellow Sea are considered Endangered (EN).
European Reed beds are considered Vulnerable (VU). Harchies (Belgique), roseliere situees a l'ouest de la digue d'Harchies.jpg
European Reed beds are considered Vulnerable (VU).
Tepui shrublands are considered Least Concern (LC). Tepuy vegetation - Roraima Venezuela.JPG
Tepui shrublands are considered Least Concern (LC).
The Costa Rican Paramo have been evaluated as Data Deficient and are pending further studies to assess their risk of collapse. Chirripo Grande Costa Rica hogar de Sibu.jpg
The Costa Rican Páramo have been evaluated as Data Deficient and are pending further studies to assess their risk of collapse.

The acronyms of the RLE risk categories (CO, CR, EN, VU, NT, LC, DD, NE) are in English and, unlike others, do not change in line with the language in which the document where they appear is written.

Collapsed (CO)

An ecosystem is Collapsed when it is virtually certain that its defining biotic or abiotic features are lost from all occurrences, and the characteristic native biota are no longer sustained. This category is only assigned when assessors are virtually certain (>99% probability) of the assessment outcome, otherwise, if Collapsed is the more likely category, it should listed as Critically Endangered with upper bound of Collapsed. [12]

Collapse is considered an endpoint of ecosystem decline and degradation and is thus the most extreme outcome of the risk assessment protocol. For this reason, this category must only be assigned when the evidence complies a very high standard. Unlike the analogous process of species extinction, collapse is theoretically reversible. [13] In other assessment protocols, the terms 'extinct', 'eliminated' or 'disappeared' are often used instead of 'collapsed'. [5] [14]

Currently, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems only has two ecosystems classified as collapsed. These are the Aral Sea of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, and the Central Ayeyarwady palm savanna of Myanmar. [7] [15]

Critically endangered (CR)

An ecosystem is Critically Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for Critically Endangered. It is therefore considered to be at an extremely high risk of collapse. Formally this represents a 50% probability of collapse in a time frame of 50 years into the future (according to criterion E). [12] In practice, this category is delimited by thresholds based on a compromise between theoretical and practical considerations: [13] For criteria related to decline in ecosystem distribution (criterion A), degradation of abiotic environment (criterion C) and disruption of biotic interactions and processes (criterion D) the threshold values were set at high values for current and future declines (80%), and a higher value for historical declines (90%). For the assessment of restricted distribution (criterion B) the thresholds have been set following several simulation tests regarding the effect of spatially explicit threats on ecosystems with different spatial configurations. [12] [16] [17]

Endangered (EN)

An ecosystem is Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for Endangered. It is therefore considered to be at a very high risk of collapse. Formally this represents a 20% probability of collapse in a time frame of 50 years into the future (according to criterion E). For criteria related to decline in ecosystem distribution (criterion A), degradation of abiotic environment (criterion C) and disruption of biotic interactions and processes (criterion D) the threshold values were set at intermediate values for current and future declines (50%), and a higher value for historical declines (70%). For the assessment of restricted distribution (criterion B) the thresholds have been set following several simulation tests regarding the effect of spatially explicit threats on ecosystems with different spatial configurations. [12] [16]

Formally an ecosystem is considered Endangered when there is a 20% probability of collapse in a time frame of 50 years into the future. [12] In practice, this category is delimited by thresholds based on a compromise between theoretical and practical considerations, and might be considered artificial by some critics. [13]

Some examples of endangered ecosystems are:

The term endangered has also been used in other contexts with similar meaning but slightly different definitions. A proposal of classification of Endangered Ecosystems of the United States considered the category endangered for ecosystems evidencing 85–98% decline. [20] The Helsinki Commission used the category endangered to denote a heavy decline in distribution or quality of baltic habitats and biotopes. [21]

Vulnerable (VU)

An ecosystem is Vulnerable when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for Vulnerable. It is therefore considered to be at a high risk of collapse. Formally this represents a 10% probability of collapse in a time frame of 100 years into the future (according to criterion E). For criteria related to decline in ecosystem distribution (criterion A), degradation of abiotic environment (criterion C) and disruption of biotic interactions and processes (criterion D) the threshold values were set at low values for current and future declines (30%), and an intermediate value for historical declines (50%). For the assessment of restricted distribution (criterion B) the thresholds have been set following several simulation tests regarding the effect of spatially explicit threats on ecosystems with different spatial configurations. [12] [16]

Near Threatened (NT)

An ecosystem is Near Threatened when it has been evaluated against the criteria but does not qualify for Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable now, but is close to qualifying for or is likely to qualify for a threatened category in the near future.

Least Concern (LC)

An ecosystem is Least Concern when it has been evaluated against the criteria and does not qualify for Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened. Widely distributed and relatively undegraded ecosystems are included in this category. Theoretically, all ecosystems have some risk of collapse, just as all species face some risk of extinction. The term Least concern reflects the fact that this risk is relatively low. In practice this category is reserved for ecosystems that unambiguously meet none of the quantitative criteria (decline in distribution, restricted distribution, degradation of environmental conditions or disruption of biotic processes and interactions). [13]

Data Deficient (DD)

An ecosystem is Data Deficient when there is inadequate information to make a direct, or indirect, assessment of its risk of collapse based on decline in distribution, disruption of ecological function or degradation of the physical environment. Data Deficient is not a category of threat, and does not imply any level of collapse risk. Listing of ecosystems in this category indicates that their situation has been reviewed, but that more information is required to determine their risk status.

Not Evaluated (NE)

An ecosystem is Not Evaluated when it has not yet been evaluated against the criteria. The category of 'Not Evaluated' does not indicate that an ecosystem is not at risk from collapse, but simply that the ecosystem has not yet been studied for any risk to be quantified and published.

Criteria (A-E)

Two of the criteria for assigning ecosystems to a risk category evaluate the spatial symptoms of the ecosystem's collapse: decrease in distribution (A) and restricted distribution (B). Two evaluate the functional symptoms of the ecosystem's collapse: environmental degradation (C) and interruption of biotic processes and interactions (D). Multiple threats and symptoms can be integrated into an ecosystem dynamics model to produce quantitative estimates of the risk of collapse (E).

The RLE risk categories acronyms (CO, CR, EN, VU, NT, LC, DD, NE) are in English and, unlike others, do not change in line with the language in which it is written. the document where they appear.

Adoption and application

The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems criteria and categories have been used in different contexts. There are examples of local, national and continental application. [22] Some countries, like Finland, have adopted these guidelines as an official system to assess risk to ecosystems. [23] [24]

Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria

The Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria are documents that help the correct application of the Categories and Criteria of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, providing information on the development of the protocol and a detailed description of the scientific foundations that support the categories and criteria. To date, two versions have been published:


Impacts, critique and challenges

The development of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems considered tradeoffs between generality, precision, realism and simplicity. Conceptual and operational weaknesses of the RLE approach, categories, and criteria have been discussed and debated. A fair evaluation of it effectiveness and importance needs to consider its real achievements in conservation and natural resource management, a balance between benefits and limitations and its performance against alternative methods. [13]

The Red List of Ecosystems is a relatively recent product, and it is still difficult to measure its medium and long-term impact. Overall investment has been modest compared to other, long standing conservation knowledge products, but its reception in public audiences and media has been positive. [26] [23] It is considered a potentially important tool for creating indicators of progress of international policy, such as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the Sustainable Development Goals, but it is still lacking widespread implementation and adoption. [27] [28]

Some arguments against the wide adoption of the RLE are the lack of consistent means to classify ecosystems for assessing conservation status, technical difficulties with the concept of ecosystem collapse and lack of scientific basis for the criteria and thresholds. [29] Classification and spatial representation of ecosystems is a major challenge in itself. [30] While a standard taxonomy of organisms has existed for nearly 300 years, [31] the principles for systematization of ecosystem diversity have only been laid out recently and still require wider adoption. [32] [33]

The concept of ecosystem collapse is still a major point of debate. Despite the strong empirical evidence, anticipating collapse is a complex problem. [34] Although states of ecosystem collapse are often defined quantitatively, few studies adequately describe transitions from pristine or original state towards collapse. [35]

Given the real need to evaluate risk to ecosystems and set national and regional conservation priorities, there is a clear advantages in using a flexible and standard approach that is comparable between regions and countries. [36] This would save time and resources previously used to develop local guidelines, and would allow regions to share and compare experiences, and avoid common pitfalls. [4] [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">IUCN Red List</span> Inventory of the global conservation status of biological species

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species, also known as the IUCN Red List or Red Data Book, founded in 1964, is an inventory of the global conservation status and extinction risk of biological species. A series of Regional Red Lists, which assess the risk of extinction to species within a political management unit, are also produced by countries and organizations.

Conservation status is a measure used in conservation biology to assess an ecoregion's degree of habitat alteration and habitat conservation. It is used to set priorities for conservation.

A threatened species is any species which is vulnerable to extinction in the near future. Species that are threatened are sometimes characterised by the population dynamics measure of critical depensation, a mathematical measure of biomass related to population growth rate. This quantitative metric is one method of evaluating the degree of endangerment without direct reference to human activity.

The conservation status of a group of organisms indicates whether the group still exists and how likely the group is to become extinct in the near future. Many factors are taken into account when assessing conservation status: not simply the number of individuals remaining, but the overall increase or decrease in the population over time, breeding success rates, and known threats. Various systems of conservation status are in use at international, multi-country, national and local levels, as well as for consumer use such as sustainable seafood advisory lists and certification. The two international systems are by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">São Tomé shrew</span> Species of mammal

The São Tomé shrew is a white-toothed shrew about 3.0 in (7.6 cm) long found only on São Tomé Island, São Tomé and Príncipe. It is listed as a critically endangered species due to habitat loss and a restricted range. It was discovered in 1886. The population continues to decrease, making these animals rare. It is found only on São Tomé Island, a small island that is actually a shield volcano that rises out of the Atlantic Ocean.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pico Humboldt</span> Mountain peak in Venezuela

Pico Humboldt is Venezuela's second highest peak, at 4,925 metres above sea level. It is located in the Sierra Nevada de Merida, in the Venezuelan Andes of. The peak, its sister peak Pico Bonpland, and the surrounding páramos are protected by the Sierra Nevada National Park. The mountain is named after German explorer and naturalist Alexander von Humboldt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Least-concern species</span> IUCN conservation category

A least-concern species is a species that has been evaluated and categorized by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as not being a focus of wildlife conservation because the specific species is still plentiful in the wild. They do not qualify as threatened, near threatened, or conservation dependent.

A conservation-dependent species is a species which has been categorized as "Conservation Dependent" ("LR/cd") by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), as dependent on conservation efforts to prevent it from becoming endangered. A species that is reliant on the conservation attempts of humans is considered conservation dependent. Such species must be the focus of a continuing species-specific and/or habitat-specific conservation program, the cessation of which would result in the species qualifying for one of the threatened categories within a period of five years. The determination of status is constantly monitored and can change.

An endangered species recovery plan, also known as a species recovery plan, species action plan, species conservation action, or simply recovery plan, is a document describing the current status, threats and intended methods for increasing rare and endangered species population sizes. Recovery plans act as a foundation from which to build a conservation effort to preserve animals which are under threat of extinction. More than 320 species have died out and the world is continuing a rate of 1 species becoming extinct every two years. Climate change is also linked to several issues relating to extinct species and animals' quality of life.

<i>Threatened Species Protection Act 1995</i> Act of the Parliament of Tasmania, Australia

The Threatened Species Protection Act 1995, is an act of the Parliament of Tasmania that provides the statute relating to conservation of flora and fauna. Its long title is An Act to provide for the protection and management of threatened native flora and fauna and to enable and promote the conservation of native flora and fauna. It received the royal assent on 14 November 1995.

In spatial ecology and macroecology, scaling pattern of occupancy (SPO), also known as the area-of-occupancy (AOO) is the way in which species distribution changes across spatial scales. In physical geography and image analysis, it is similar to the modifiable areal unit problem. Simon A. Levin (1992) states that the problem of relating phenomena across scales is the central problem in biology and in all of science. Understanding the SPO is thus one central theme in ecology.

A Regional Red List is a report of the threatened status of species within a certain country or region. It is based on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, an inventory of the conservation status of species on a global scale. Regional Red Lists assess the risk of extinction to species within a political management unit and therefore may feed directly into national and regional planning. This project is coordinated by the Zoological Society of London, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and partners in national governments, universities and organizations throughout the world.

Justicia flaviflora is a species of herbaceous plant in the family Acanthaceae. It was previously classified as Beloperone flaviflora. The species is endemic to the island of Trinidad in the Caribbean republic of Trinidad and Tobago where it is only known from near the peaks of mountains in the Northern Range. It is an erect herb with leaves up to 27 cm (11 in) long. It is suffering from habitat degradation and has become increasingly rare, being now rated as "critically endangered".

A not evaluated (NE) species is one which has been categorized under the IUCN Red List of threatened species as not yet having been assessed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. A species which is uncategorized and cannot be found in the IUCN repository is also considered 'not evaluated'.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oyster reef</span> Rock-like reefs, composed of dense aggregations of oysters

The term oyster reef refers to dense aggregations of oysters that form large colonial communities. Because oyster larvae need to settle on hard substrates, new oyster reefs may form on stone or other hard marine debris. Eventually the oyster reef will propagate by spat settling on the shells of older or nonliving oysters. The dense aggregations of oysters are often referred to as an oyster reef, oyster bed, oyster bank, oyster bottom, or oyster bar interchangeably. These terms are not well defined and often regionally restricted.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecosystem collapse</span> Ecological communities abruptly losing biodiversity, often irreversibly

An ecosystem, short for ecological system, is defined as a collection of interacting organisms within a biophysical environment. Ecosystems are never static, and are continually subject to both stabilizing and destabilizing processes. Stabilizing processes allow ecosystems to adequately respond to destabilizing changes, or perturbations, in ecological conditions, or to recover from degradation induced by them: yet, if destabilizing processes become strong enough or fast enough to cross a critical threshold within that ecosystem, often described as an ecological 'tipping point', then an ecosystem collapse. occurs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Endangered species (IUCN status)</span> Species which have been categorized as very likely to become extinct in the near future

Endangered species, as classified by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), are species which have been categorized as very likely to become extinct in their known native ranges in the near future. On the IUCN Red List, endangered is the second-most severe conservation status for wild populations in the IUCN's schema after critically endangered. In 2012, the IUCN Red List featured 3,079 animal and 2,655 plant species as endangered worldwide. The figures for 1998 were 1,102 and 1,197 respectively.

David A. Keith is an Australian botanist / ecologist who works in the areas of vegetation dynamics, population and ecosystem modelling, and fire. He is currently professor of botany at the University of New South Wales. His work has led to his being a member of the Australian Threatened Species Scientific Committee and the standards committees for the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Important Shark and Ray Areas</span>

Important Shark and Ray Areas (ISRA) are discrete three-dimensional portions of habitat that are important for one or more species of chondrichthyans and have the potential to be managed for conservation. This project is led by the Shark Specialist Group of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Species Survival Commission.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Keith, DA; Rodríguez, J.P.; Rodríguez-Clark, K.M.; Aapala, K.; Alonso, A.; Asmussen, M.; Bachman, S.; Bassett, A.; Barrow, E.G.; Benson, J.S.; Bishop, M.J.; Bonifacio, R.; Brooks, T.M.; Burgman, M.A.; Comer, P.; Comín, F.A.; Essl, F.; Faber-Langendoen, D.; Fairweather, P.G.; Holdaway, R.J.; Jennings, M.; Kingsford, R.T.; Lester, R.E.; Mac Nally, R.; McCarthy, M.A.; Moat, J.; Nicholson, E.; Oliveira-Miranda, M.A.; Pisanu, P.; Poulin, B.; Riecken, U.; Spalding, M.D.; Zambrano-Martínez, S. (2013). "Scientific Foundations for an IUCN Red List of Ecosystems". PLOS ONE. 8 (5): e62111. Bibcode:2013PLoSO...862111K. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062111 . PMC   3648534 . PMID   23667454.
  2. ↑ Rodríguez, J.P. (2010). "Threatened Ecosystems. Join a global network for developing an IUCN Red List for imperiled ecosystems" (PDF). Society for Conservation Biology Newsletter. 17 (4): 2–3. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 February 2017. Retrieved 10 September 2018.
  3. ↑ Keith, David A. (2014). "Separating risks from values in setting priorities for plant community conservation". Applied Vegetation Science. 17 (3): 384–385. doi: 10.1111/avsc.12112 . ISSN   1402-2001. S2CID   52252167.
  4. 1 2 Nicholson, Emily; Regan, Tracey J.; Auld, Tony D.; Burns, Emma L.; Chisholm, Laurie A.; English, Valerie; Harris, Stephen; Harrison, Peter; Kingsford, Richard T.; Leishman, Michelle R.; Metcalfe, Daniel J.; Pisanu, Phil; Watson, Christopher J.; White, Matthew; White, Matt D.; Williams, Richard J.; Wilson, Bruce; Keith, David A. (2015). "Towards consistency, rigour and compatibility of risk assessments for ecosystems and ecological communities". Austral Ecology. 40 (4): 347–363. doi:10.1111/aec.12148. hdl: 1885/66771 . ISSN   1442-9985. S2CID   82412136.
  5. 1 2 Rodríguez, Jon Paul; Balch, Jennifer K.; Rodríguez-Clark, Kathryn M. (2006). "Assessing extinction risk in the absence of species-level data: quantitative criteria for terrestrial ecosystems". Biodiversity and Conservation. 16 (1): 183–209. doi:10.1007/s10531-006-9102-1. ISSN   0960-3115. S2CID   21066475.
  6. ↑ Rodríguez, Jon Paul; Rodríguez-Clark, Kathryn M.; Keith, David A.; Barrow, Edmund G.; Benson, John; Nicholson, Emily; Wit, Piet (2012). "IUCN Red List of Ecosystems". Sapiens. 5 (2). Retrieved 10 September 2018.
  7. 1 2 "Aral Sea". IUCN Red List of Ecosystems. 2013.
  8. ↑ Bland, L.; Regan, T.; Ngoc Dinh, M.; Ferrari, R.; Keith, D.; Lester, R.; Mouillot, D.; Murray, N.; Anh Nguyen, H.; Nicholson, E. (2017). "Meso-American Reef: Using multiple lines of evidence to assess the risk of ecosystem collapse". Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 284 (1863): 20170660. doi:10.1098/rspb.2017.0660. PMC   5627190 . PMID   28931744. Archived from the original on 28 October 2020. Retrieved 9 September 2018.
  9. 1 2 Murray, Nicholas J.; Ma, Zhijun; Fuller, Richard A. (2015). "Tidal flats of the Yellow Sea: A review of ecosystem status and anthropogenic threats". Austral Ecology. 40 (4): 472–481. doi: 10.1111/aec.12211 . ISSN   1442-9985. S2CID   51896674.
  10. ↑ Rodríguez, J.P.; Rojas-Suárez, F.; Giraldo Hernández, D. (2010). Red Book of Venezuelan Terrestrial Ecosystems (PDF) (in Spanish). Provita. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 February 2017. Retrieved 10 September 2018.
  11. ↑ Herrera – F, B .; Zamora, N.; Chacón, O. (2015). Lista Roja de los Ecosistemas Terrestres de Costa Rica: Informe final de proyecto (PDF). Turrialba – Costa Rica: CATIE. pp. 75 p. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 September 2018. Retrieved 13 September 2018.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IUCN (2024). Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria (Version 2.0. ed.). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management (CEM). ISBN   978-2-8317-2281-8 . Retrieved 15 September 2024.
  13. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Keith, David A.; Rodríguez, Jon Paul; Brooks, Thomas M.; Burgman, Mark A.; Barrow, Edmund G.; Bland, Lucie; Comer, Patrick J.; Franklin, Janet; Link, Jason; McCarthy, Michael A.; Miller, Rebecca M.; Murray, Nicholas J.; Nel, Jeanne; Nicholson, Emily; Oliveira-Miranda, María A.; Regan, Tracey J.; Rodríguez-Clark, Kathryn M.; Rouget, Mathieu; Spalding, Mark D. (2015). "The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems: Motivations, Challenges, and Applications". Conservation Letters. 8 (3): 214–226. doi: 10.1111/conl.12167 . hdl: 10536/DRO/DU:30073631 . ISSN   1755-263X.
  14. ↑ Rodríguez, Jon Paul; Rodríguez-Clark, Kathryn M.; Baillie, Jonathan E. M.; Ash, Neville; Benson, John; Boucher, Timothy; Brown, Claire; Burgess, Neil D.; Collen, Ben; Jennings, Michael; Keith, David A.; Nicholson, Emily; Revenga, Carmen; Reyers, Belinda; Rouget, Mathieu; Smith, Tammy; Spalding, Mark; Taber, Andrew; Walpole, Matt; Zager, Irene; Zamin, Tara (2011). "Establishing IUCN Red List Criteria for Threatened Ecosystems". Conservation Biology. 25 (1): 21–29. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01598.x. ISSN   0888-8892. PMC   3051828 . PMID   21054525.
  15. ↑ "Central Ayeyarwady palm savanna". IUCN Red List of Ecosystems. 2020.
  16. 1 2 3 Murray, Nicholas J.; Keith, David A.; Bland, Lucie M.; Nicholson, Emily; Regan, Tracey J.; Rodríguez, Jon Paul; Bedward, Michael; Roura-Pascual, Núria (2017). "The use of range size to assess risks to biodiversity from stochastic threats". Diversity and Distributions. 23 (5): 474–483. doi: 10.1111/ddi.12533 . hdl: 10536/DRO/DU:30091065 . ISSN   1366-9516.
  17. ↑ Keith, David A.; Akçakaya, H. Resit; Murray, Nicholas J. (2018). "Scaling range sizes to threats for robust predictions of risks to biodiversity". Conservation Biology. 32 (2): 322–332. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12988 . ISSN   0888-8892. PMID   28703324.
  18. ↑ "Assessments". UCN Red List of Ecosystems. IUCN-CEM. Archived from the original on 22 September 2018. Retrieved 22 September 2018.
  19. ↑ Sievers, Michael; Pearson, Ryan M.; Turschwell, Mischa P.; Bishop, Melanie J.; Bland, Lucie; Brown, Christopher J.; Tulloch, Vivitskaia J. D.; Haig, Jodie A.; Olds, Andrew D.; Maxwell, Paul S.; Connolly, Rod M. (1 September 2020). "Integrating outcomes of IUCN red list of ecosystems assessments for connected coastal wetlands". Ecological Indicators. 116: 106489. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106489 . hdl: 10536/DRO/DU:30137886 . ISSN   1470-160X.
  20. ↑ Noss, R.F.; LaRoe, E.T.; Scott, J.M. (1995). "Endangered ecosystems of the United States: a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation". US Department of the Interior, National Biological Service. 28. Archived from the original on 9 May 2008. Retrieved 22 September 2018.
  21. ↑ HELCOM (2013). Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes (PDF). Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 138. Retrieved 22 September 2018.
  22. ↑ Marshall, Ashleigh F.; Schulte to Bühne, Henrike; Bland, Lucie; Pettorelli, Nathalie (2018). "Assessing ecosystem collapse risk in ecosystems dominated by foundation species: The case of fringe mangroves" (PDF). Ecological Indicators. 91: 128–137. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.03.076. S2CID   89659707.
  23. 1 2 Bland, Lucie M.; Nicholson, Emily; Miller, Rebecca M.; Andrade, Angela; Etter, Andres; Ferrer-Paris, José Rafael; Kontula, Tytti; Lindgaard, Arild; Pliscoff, Patricio; Skowno, Andrew; Zager, Irene; Keith, David A. (2019). "Impacts of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems on Conservation Policy and Practice". Conservation Letters. 12 (5). doi: 10.1111/conl.12666 . hdl: 10138/341611 .
  24. ↑ Ferrer-Paris, José R.; Zager, Irene; Keith, David A.; Oliveira-Miranda, María A.; Rodríguez, Jon Paul; Josse, Carmen; González-Gil, Mario; Miller, Rebecca M.; Zambrana-Torrelio, Carlos; Barrow, Edmund (2019). "An ecosystem risk assessment of temperate and tropical forests of the Americas with an outlook on future conservation strategies". Conservation Letters. 12 (2): e12623. doi: 10.1111/conl.12623 . hdl: 1959.4/unsworks_60337 .
  25. ↑ Bland, L.M.; Keith, D. A.; Miller, R.; Murray, N.J.; Rodríguez, J.P. (2017). Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria (Version 1.1. ed.). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. pp. ix + 99pp. ISBN   9782831717692 . Retrieved 10 September 2018.
  26. ↑ Juffe-Bignoli, Diego; Brooks, Thomas M.; Butchart, Stuart H. M.; Jenkins, Richard B.; Boe, Kaia; Hoffmann, Michael; Angulo, Ariadne; Bachman, Steve; Böhm, Monika; Brummitt, Neil; Carpenter, Kent E.; Comer, Pat J.; Cox, Neil; Cuttelod, Annabelle; Darwall, William R. T.; Di Marco, Moreno; Fishpool, Lincoln D. C.; Goettsch, Bárbara; Heath, Melanie; Hilton-Taylor, Craig; Hutton, Jon; Johnson, Tim; Joolia, Ackbar; Keith, David A.; Langhammer, Penny F.; Luedtke, Jennifer; Nic Lughadha, Eimear; Lutz, Maiko; May, Ian; Miller, Rebecca M.; Oliveira-Miranda, María A.; Parr, Mike; Pollock, Caroline M.; Ralph, Gina; Rodríguez, Jon Paul; Rondinini, Carlo; Smart, Jane; Stuart, Simon; Symes, Andy; Tordoff, Andrew W.; Woodley, Stephen; Young, Bruce; Kingston, Naomi (2016). "Assessing the Cost of Global Biodiversity and Conservation Knowledge". PLOS ONE. 11 (8): e0160640. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1160640J. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160640 . ISSN   1932-6203. PMC   4986939 . PMID   27529491.
  27. ↑ "The policy impact of scientific research: looking back at 10 years of PLOS ONE". PLOS Collections. PLOS Blogs. 27 June 2017. Retrieved 20 September 2018.
  28. ↑ Brooks, Thomas M.; Butchart, Stuart H.M.; Cox, Neil A.; Heath, Melanie; Hilton-Taylor, Craig; Hoffmann, Michael; Kingston, Naomi; Rodríguez, Jon Paul; Stuart, Simon N.; Smart, Jane (2015). "Harnessing biodiversity and conservation knowledge products to track the Aichi Targets and Sustainable Development Goals". Biodiversity. 16 (2–3): 157–174. doi: 10.1080/14888386.2015.1075903 . ISSN   1488-8386.
  29. ↑ Boitani, Luigi; Mace, Georgina M.; Rondinini, Carlo (2014). "Challenging the Scientific Foundations for an IUCN Red List of Ecosystems" (PDF). Conservation Letters. 8 (2): 125–131. doi: 10.1111/conl.12111 .
  30. ↑ Gigante, Daniela; Foggi, Bruno; Venanzoni, Roberto; Viciani, Daniele; Buffa, Gabriella (2016). "Habitats on the grid: The spatial dimension does matter for red-listing" (PDF). Journal for Nature Conservation. 32: 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2016.03.007. hdl: 10278/3671359 .
  31. ↑ Linné, Carl von; Salvius, Lars (1753). Caroli Linnaei ... Species plantarum :exhibentes plantas rite cognitas, ad genera relatas, cum differentiis specificis, nominibus trivialibus, synonymis selectis, locis natalibus, secundum systema sexuale digestas... Holmiae: Impensis Laurentii Salvii.
  32. ↑ Halvorsen, Rune; Skarpaas, Olav; Bryn, Anders; Bratli, Harald; Erikstad, Lars; Simensen, Trond; Lieungh, Eva (5 August 2020). Zarnetske, Phoebe (ed.). "Towards a systematics of ecodiversity: The EcoSyst framework". Global Ecology and Biogeography. 29 (11): 1887–1906. doi: 10.1111/geb.13164 . hdl: 10852/85768 . ISSN   1466-822X.
  33. ↑ Keith, David A.; Ferrer-Paris, José R.; Nicholson, Emily; Bishop, Melanie J.; Polidoro, Beth A.; Ramirez-Llodra, Eva; Tozer, Mark G.; Nel, Jeanne L.; Mac Nally, Ralph; Gregr, Edward J.; Watermeyer, Kate E.; Essl, Franz; Faber-Langendoen, Don; Franklin, Janet; Lehmann, Caroline E. R.; Etter, Andrés; Roux, Dirk J.; Stark, Jonathan S.; Rowland, Jessica A.; Brummitt, Neil A.; Fernandez-Arcaya, Ulla C.; Suthers, Iain M.; Wiser, Susan K.; Donohue, Ian; Jackson, Leland J.; Pennington, R. Toby; Iliffe, Thomas M.; Gerovasileiou, Vasilis; Giller, Paul; Robson, Belinda J.; Pettorelli, Nathalie; Andrade, Angela; Lindgaard, Arild; Tahvanainen, Teemu; Terauds, Aleks; Chadwick, Michael A.; Murray, Nicholas J.; Moat, Justin; Pliscoff, Patricio; Zager, Irene; Kingsford, Richard T. (12 October 2022). "A function-based typology for Earth's ecosystems". Nature. 610 (7932): 513–518. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05318-4. PMC   9581774 . PMID   36224387.
  34. ↑ Sato, Chloe F.; Lindenmayer, David B. (2018). "Meeting the Global Ecosystem Collapse Challenge". Conservation Letters. 11 (1): e12348. doi: 10.1111/conl.12348 . hdl: 10536/DRO/DU:30144542 .
  35. ↑ Bland, L.; Rowland, J.; Regan, T.; Keith, D.; Murray, N.; Lester, R.; Linn, M.; Rodríguez, J.P.; Nicholson, E. (2018). "Developing a standardized definition of ecosystem collapse for risk assessment". Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 16 (1): 29–36. doi: 10.1002/fee.1747 . hdl: 11343/283474 . S2CID   89792842.
  36. ↑ Alaniz, Alberto J.; Pérez-Quezada, Jorge F.; Galleguillos, Mauricio; Vásquez, Alexis E.; Keith, David A. (2019). "Operationalizing the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems in public policy". Conservation Letters. 12 (5). doi: 10.1111/conl.12665 . ISSN   1755-263X.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.