Other Open Access

Comparing and contrasting threat assessments of plant species at the global and sub‑global level

Ross Mounce; Malin Rivers; Suzanne Sharrock; , Paul Smith; Samuel Brockington

DataCite XML Export

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<resource xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://datacite.org/schema/kernel-4" xsi:schemaLocation="http://datacite.org/schema/kernel-4 http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-4.1/metadata.xsd">
  <identifier identifierType="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.1197396</identifier>
      <creatorName>Ross Mounce</creatorName>
      <creatorName>Malin Rivers</creatorName>
      <creatorName>Suzanne Sharrock</creatorName>
      <creatorName>, Paul Smith</creatorName>
      <givenName>Paul Smith</givenName>
      <creatorName>Samuel Brockington</creatorName>
    <title>Comparing and contrasting threat assessments of plant species at the global and sub‑global level</title>
    <date dateType="Issued">2017-12-12</date>
  <resourceType resourceTypeGeneral="Text">Other</resourceType>
    <alternateIdentifier alternateIdentifierType="url">https://zenodo.org/record/1197396</alternateIdentifier>
    <relatedIdentifier relatedIdentifierType="DOI" relationType="IsVersionOf">10.5281/zenodo.1197395</relatedIdentifier>
    <rights rightsURI="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International</rights>
    <rights rightsURI="info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess">Open Access</rights>
    <description descriptionType="Abstract">&lt;p&gt;ABSTRACT&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Evidence-based assessments of extinction risk are established tools used to inform the&lt;br&gt;
conservation of plant species, and form the basis of key targets within the framework of the&lt;br&gt;
Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC). An overall picture of plants threat assessments&lt;br&gt;
is challenging due to the use of a variety of methodologies and range in scope from global to&lt;br&gt;
subnational. In this study, we quantify the state of progress in assessing the extinction risk of all&lt;br&gt;
land plants, determine the key geographic and taxonomic gaps with respect to our understanding&lt;br&gt;
of plant extinction risk, and evaluate the impact of different sources and methodologies on the&lt;br&gt;
utility of plant assessments. To this end, we have analyzed a cleaned dataset compiled from&lt;br&gt;
IUCN Red List of threatened Species and Regional Red Lists. We reveal that there are&lt;br&gt;
assessments available for 89,810 distinct species or 25% of all accepted land plant species.&lt;br&gt;
However unlike with other major organismal lineages the bulk of the plant species assessments&lt;br&gt;
are derived from Regional Red Lists, and not the global IUCN Red List. We demonstrate that&lt;br&gt;
this bias towards regional assessments results in distinct taxonomic and geographic strengths and&lt;br&gt;
weaknesses, and we identify substantial taxonomic and geographic gaps in the assessment&lt;br&gt;
coverage. With species that have been assessed in common at both global and regional levels, we&lt;br&gt;
explore the implications of deriving threat assessments from different sources. We find that half&lt;br&gt;
of global and regional assessments do not agree on the exact category of extinction risk for a&lt;br&gt;
species. As expected, regional assessments tend to assign a higher risk of extinction, however&lt;br&gt;
worryingly regional assessments underestimate extinction risk with almost equal frequency. We&lt;br&gt;
conclude with recommended interventions, but support the suggestion that all threat assessments&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;3 should be pooled to provide a more data for GSPC targets.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
All versions This version
Views 264264
Downloads 102102
Data volume 9.1 MB9.1 MB
Unique views 242242
Unique downloads 101101


Cite as