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


JSON-LD (schema.org) Export

{
  "description": "<p>ABSTRACT</p>\n\n<p>Evidence-based assessments of extinction risk are established tools used to inform the<br>\nconservation of plant species, and form the basis of key targets within the framework of the<br>\nGlobal Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC). An overall picture of plants threat assessments<br>\nis challenging due to the use of a variety of methodologies and range in scope from global to<br>\nsubnational. In this study, we quantify the state of progress in assessing the extinction risk of all<br>\nland plants, determine the key geographic and taxonomic gaps with respect to our understanding<br>\nof plant extinction risk, and evaluate the impact of different sources and methodologies on the<br>\nutility of plant assessments. To this end, we have analyzed a cleaned dataset compiled from<br>\nIUCN Red List of threatened Species and Regional Red Lists. We reveal that there are<br>\nassessments available for 89,810 distinct species or 25% of all accepted land plant species.<br>\nHowever unlike with other major organismal lineages the bulk of the plant species assessments<br>\nare derived from Regional Red Lists, and not the global IUCN Red List. We demonstrate that<br>\nthis bias towards regional assessments results in distinct taxonomic and geographic strengths and<br>\nweaknesses, and we identify substantial taxonomic and geographic gaps in the assessment<br>\ncoverage. With species that have been assessed in common at both global and regional levels, we<br>\nexplore the implications of deriving threat assessments from different sources. We find that half<br>\nof global and regional assessments do not agree on the exact category of extinction risk for a<br>\nspecies. As expected, regional assessments tend to assign a higher risk of extinction, however<br>\nworryingly regional assessments underestimate extinction risk with almost equal frequency. We<br>\nconclude with recommended interventions, but support the suggestion that all threat assessments</p>\n\n<p>3 should be pooled to provide a more data for GSPC targets.</p>", 
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode", 
  "creator": [
    {
      "@type": "Person", 
      "name": "Ross Mounce"
    }, 
    {
      "@type": "Person", 
      "name": "Malin Rivers"
    }, 
    {
      "@type": "Person", 
      "name": "Suzanne Sharrock"
    }, 
    {
      "@type": "Person", 
      "name": ", Paul Smith"
    }, 
    {
      "@type": "Person", 
      "name": "Samuel Brockington"
    }
  ], 
  "url": "https://zenodo.org/record/1197396", 
  "datePublished": "2017-12-12", 
  "@context": "https://schema.org/", 
  "identifier": "https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1197396", 
  "@id": "https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1197396", 
  "@type": "CreativeWork", 
  "name": "Comparing and\u00a0contrasting threat assessments of\u00a0plant species at\u00a0the\u00a0global and\u00a0sub\u2011global level"
}
264
102
views
downloads
All versions This version
Views 264264
Downloads 102102
Data volume 9.1 MB9.1 MB
Unique views 242242
Unique downloads 101101

Share

Cite as