4.6 Article

The Sampled Red List Index for Plants, phase II: ground-truthing specimen-based conservation assessments

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0015

Keywords

Sampled Red List Index; Plants; IUCN Red List; conservation assessments; ground-truthing

Categories

Funding

  1. Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust
  2. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
  3. Esmee Fairbairn Foundation
  4. Fondation Prince Albert II of Monaco
  5. European Union
  6. UK government
  7. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
  8. Natural History Museum, London
  9. Rio Tinto plc
  10. NERC [NE/L013045/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The IUCN Sampled Red List Index (SRLI) is a policy response by biodiversity scientists to the need to estimate trends in extinction risk of the world's diminishing biological diversity. Assessments of plant species for the SRLI project rely predominantly on herbarium specimen data from natural history collections, in the overwhelming absence of accurate population data or detailed distribution maps for the vast majority of plant species. This creates difficulties in re-assessing these species so as to measure genuine changes in conservation status, which must be observed under the same Red List criteria in order to be distinguished from an increase in the knowledge available for that species, and thus re-calculate the SRLI. However, the same specimen data identify precise localities where threatened species have previously been collected and can be used to model species ranges and to target fieldwork in order to test specimen-based range estimates and collect population data for SRLI plant species. Here, we outline a strategy for prioritizing fieldwork efforts in order to apply a wider range of IUCN Red List criteria to assessments of plant species, or any taxa with detailed locality or natural history specimen data, to produce a more robust estimation of the SRLI.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available