Modelling the probability of meeting IUCN Red List criteria to support reassessments.

Comparative extinction risk analysis-which predicts species extinction risk from correlation with traits or geographical characteristics-has gained research attention as a promising tool to support extinction risk assessment in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. However, its uptake has been very limited so far, possibly because existing models only predict a species' Red List category, without indicating which Red List criteria may be triggered. This prevents such approaches to be integrated into Red List assessments. We overcome this implementation gap by developing models that predict the probability of species meeting individual Red List criteria. Using data on the world's birds, we evaluated the predictive performance of our criterion-specific models and compared it with the typical criterion-blind modelling approach. We compiled data on biological traits (e.g. range size, clutch size) and external drivers (e.g. change in canopy cover) often associated with extinction risk. For each specific criterion, we modelled the relationship between extinction risk predictors and species' Red List category under that criterion using ordinal regression models. We found criterion-specific models were better at identifying threatened species compared to a criterion-blind model (higher sensitivity), but less good at identifying not threatened species (lower specificity). As expected, different covariates were important for predicting extinction risk under different criteria. Change in annual temperature was important for criteria related to population trends, while high forest dependency was important for criteria related to restricted area of occupancy or small population size. Our criteria-specific method can support Red List assessors by producing outputs that identify species likely to meet specific criteria, and which are the most important predictors. These species can then be prioritised for re-evaluation. We expect this new approach to increase the uptake of extinction risk models in Red List assessments, bridging a long-standing research-implementation gap.

A standard approach for including climate change responses in IUCN Red List assessments.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List is a central tool for extinction risk monitoring and influences global biodiversity policy and action. But, to be effective, it is crucial that it consistently accounts for each driver of extinction. Climate change is rapidly becoming a key extinction driver, but consideration of climate change information remains challenging for the IUCN. Several methods can be used to predict species' future decline, but they often fail to provide estimates of the symptoms of endangerment used by IUCN. We devised a standardized method to measure climate change impact in terms of change in habitat quality to inform criterion A3 on future population reduction. Using terrestrial nonvolant tetrapods as a case study, we measured this impact as the difference between the current and the future species climatic niche, defined based on current and future bioclimatic variables under alternative model algorithms, dispersal scenarios, emission scenarios, and climate models. Our models identified 171 species (13% out of those analyzed) for which their current red-list category could worsen under criterion A3 if they cannot disperse beyond their current range in the future. Categories for 14 species (1.5%) could worsen if maximum dispersal is possible. Although ours is a simulation exercise and not a formal red-list assessment, our results suggest that considering climate change impacts may reduce misclassification and strengthen consistency and comprehensiveness of IUCN Red List assessments.

Una estrategia estándar para incluir las respuestas al cambio climático en las evaluaciones de la Lista Roja de la UICN Resumen La Lista Roja de la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (UICN) es una herramienta central para el monitoreo del riesgo de extinción e influye sobre las acciones y políticas para la biodiversidad. Para que esta herramienta sea efectiva, es crucial que tenga en cuenta de manera regular cada factor de extinción. El cambio climático se está convirtiendo rápidamente en un factor de extinción importante, pero considerar información sobre este factor todavía es un reto para la UICN. Se pueden usar varios métodos para predecir la declinación de una especie en el futuro, pero generalmente fallan en proporcionar estimaciones de los síntomas del peligro usados por la UICN. Diseñamos un método estandarizado para medir el impacto del cambio climático en términos del cambio en la calidad del hábitat para informar el criterio A3 sobre la reducción futura de las poblaciones. Usamos a los tetrápodos terrestres no voladores como estudio de caso para medir este impacto como la diferencia entre el nicho climático actual y futuro de las especies, definido con base en las variables bioclimáticas actuales y futuras con algoritmos de modelos alternativos, escenarios de dispersión y emisión y modelos climáticos. Nuestros modelos identificaron 171 especies (13% de las especies analizadas) para las que su categoría actual en la lista roja podría empeorar bajo el criterio A3 si no logran dispersarse más allá de su distribución actual en el futuro. Las categorías para 14 especies (1.5%) podrían empeorar si es posible la dispersión máxima. Aunque realizamos una simulación y no una evaluación formal para listas rojas, nuestros resultados sugieren que considerar los impactos del cambio climático podría reducir la clasificación incorrecta y fortalecer la coherencia y exhaustividad de las evaluaciones de la Lista Roja de la UICN.

Prioritizing the reassessment of data-deficient species on the IUCN Red List.

Despite being central to the implementation of conservation policies, the usefulness of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species is hampered by the 14% of species classified as data-deficient (DD) because information to evaluate these species' extinction risk was lacking when they were last assessed or because assessors did not appropriately account for uncertainty. Robust methods are needed to identify which DD species are more likely to be reclassified in one of the data-sufficient IUCN Red List categories. We devised a reproducible method to help red-list assessors prioritize reassessment of DD species and tested it with 6887 DD species of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, and Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies). For each DD species in these groups, we calculated its probability of being classified in a data-sufficient category if reassessed today from covariates measuring available knowledge (e.g., number of occurrence records or published articles available), knowledge proxies (e.g., remoteness of the range), and species characteristics (e.g., nocturnality); calculated change in such probability since last assessment from the increase in available knowledge (e.g., new occurrence records); and determined whether the species might qualify as threatened based on recent rate of habitat loss determined from global land-cover maps. We identified 1907 species with a probability of being reassessed in a data-sufficient category of >0.5; 624 species for which this probability increased by >0.25 since last assessment; and 77 species that could be reassessed as near threatened or threatened based on habitat loss. Combining these 3 elements, our results provided a list of species likely to be data-sufficient such that the comprehensiveness and representativeness of the IUCN Red List can be improved.

Priorización de la reevaluación de las especies con datos deficientes en la Lista Roja de la UICN Resumen No obstante que es fundamental para la implementación de políticas de conservación, la utilidad de la Lista Roja de Especies Amenazadas de la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (UICN) está limitada por el 14% de especies clasificadas con datos deficientes (DD) debido a que la información para evaluar el riesgo de extinción de estas especies no existía cuando fueron evaluadas la última vez o porque los evaluadores no consideraron la incertidumbre apropiadamente. Se requieren métodos robustos para identificar las especies DD con mayor probabilidad de ser reclasificadas en alguna de las categorías en la Lista Roja UICN con datos suficientes. Diseñamos un método reproducible para ayudar a que los evaluadores de la lista roja prioricen la reevaluación de especies DD y lo probamos con 6,887 especies DD de mamíferos, reptiles, anfibios, peces y Odonata (libélulas y caballitos del diablo). Para cada una de las especies DD en estos grupos, calculamos la probabilidad de ser clasificadas en una categoría con datos suficientes si fuera reevaluada hoy a partir de covariables que miden el conocimiento disponible (e.g., número de registros de ocurrencia o artículos publicados disponibles), sustitutos de conocimiento (e.g., extensión del rango de distribución) y características de la especie ((e.g., nocturnidad); calculamos el cambio en tal probabilidad desde la última reevaluación a partir del incremento en el conocimiento disponible (e.g., registros de ocurrencia nuevos); y determinamos si las especies podrían calificar como amenazadas con base en pérdidas de hábitat recientes a partir de mapas globales de cobertura de suelo recientes. Identificamos 1,907 especies con una probabilidad >0.5 de ser reclasificados en una categoría con datos suficientes; 624 especies cuya probabilidad aumentó en >0.25 desde la última evaluación, y 77 especies que podrían ser reclasificadas como casi en peligro con base en la pérdida de hábitat. Combinando estos 3 elementos, nuestros resultados proporcionaron una lista de especies probablemente con datos suficientes de tal modo que la exhaustividad y la representatividad de la Lista Roja de la UICN pueden ser mejoradas.

Human activity is altering the world's zoogeographical regions.

Zoogeographical regions, or zooregions, are areas of the Earth defined by species pools that reflect ecological, historical and evolutionary processes acting over millions of years. Consequently, researchers have assumed that zooregions are robust and unlikely to change on a human timescale. However, the increasing number of human-mediated introductions and extinctions can challenge this assumption. By delineating zooregions with a network-based algorithm, here we show that introductions and extinctions are altering the zooregions we know today. Introductions are homogenising the Eurasian and African mammal zooregions and also triggering less intuitive effects in birds and amphibians, such as dividing and redefining zooregions representing the Old and New World. Furthermore, these Old and New World amphibian zooregions are no longer detected when considering introductions plus extinctions of the most threatened species. Our findings highlight the profound and far-reaching impact of human activity and call for identifying and protecting the uniqueness of biotic assemblages.

Biases in comparative analyses of extinction risk: mind the gap.

1. Comparative analyses are used to address the key question of what makes a species more prone to extinction by exploring the links between vulnerability and intrinsic species' traits and/or extrinsic factors. This approach requires comprehensive species data but information is rarely available for all species of interest. As a result comparative analyses often rely on subsets of relatively few species that are assumed to be representative samples of the overall studied group. 2. Our study challenges this assumption and quantifies the taxonomic, spatial, and data type biases associated with the quantity of data available for 5415 mammalian species using the freely available life-history database PanTHERIA. 3. Moreover, we explore how existing biases influence results of comparative analyses of extinction risk by using subsets of data that attempt to correct for detected biases. In particular, we focus on links between four species' traits commonly linked to vulnerability (distribution range area, adult body mass, population density and gestation length) and conduct univariate and multivariate analyses to understand how biases affect model predictions. 4. Our results show important biases in data availability with c.22% of mammals completely lacking data. Missing data, which appear to be not missing at random, occur frequently in all traits (14-99% of cases missing). Data availability is explained by intrinsic traits, with larger mammals occupying bigger range areas being the best studied. Importantly, we find that existing biases affect the results of comparative analyses by overestimating the risk of extinction and changing which traits are identified as important predictors. 5. Our results raise concerns over our ability to draw general conclusions regarding what makes a species more prone to extinction. Missing data represent a prevalent problem in comparative analyses, and unfortunately, because data are not missing at random, conventional approaches to fill data gaps, are not valid or present important challenges. These results show the importance of making appropriate inferences from comparative analyses by focusing on the subset of species for which data are available. Ultimately, addressing the data bias problem requires greater investment in data collection and dissemination, as well as the development of methodological approaches to effectively correct existing biases.

Bridging the research-implementation gap in IUCN Red List assessments.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species is central in biodiversity conservation, but insufficient resources hamper its long-term growth, updating, and consistency. Models or automated calculations can alleviate those challenges by providing standardised estimates required for assessments, or prioritising species for (re-)assessments. However, while numerous scientific papers have proposed such methods, few have been integrated into assessment practice, highlighting a critical research-implementation gap. We believe this gap can be bridged by fostering communication and collaboration between academic researchers and Red List practitioners, and by developing and maintaining user-friendly platforms to automate application of the methods. We propose that developing methods better encompassing Red List criteria, systems, and drivers is the next priority to support the Red List.