Categorization deficiencies and research needs in threatened species
An analysis of the vertebrates and plants of the department of Loreto, Peru
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15381/rpb.v28iespecial.21967Keywords:
Biodiversity, conservation planning, conservation priorities, extinction risk, red listsAbstract
In order to make decisions on the conservation or management of wild species, it is a priority to know their conservation status. For this purpose, the most widely used method is IUCN’s categorization of species according to the level of threat they face, both globally and nationally. In this article we conducted an analysis of threatened plant and vertebrate species, and of data deficient species in the department of Loreto, the largest and one of the most biodiverse in Peru, to identify the main threats they face, identify information gaps, and compare the national and global lists. According to both lists combined, 226 species considered threatened have been recorded in Loreto. Large differences exist between the national and global lists, mainly for plants and fish. The main threat recorded is habitat loss, which affects most of the threatened terrestrial vertebrate species. Large gaps persist in information on population size and trends for all taxonomic groups, and on distribution for threatened plants. Among the data deficient species, the main gaps are in distribution and population aspects, but also in threats, ecology, and taxonomy. Our results highlight the need to update the list of threatened plants of Peru, as well as to create a list of threatened fish species and to conduct research on the distribution, population, threats, and taxonomy of species with deficient data and threatened species with information gaps.
Downloads
References
Bland LM, Collen B, Orme CD, Bielby J. 2014. Predicting the conservation status of data-deficient species. Conservation Biology. 29(1):250-259. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12372
Bland LM, Bielby J, Kearney S, Orme CDL, Watson JEM, Collen B. 2017. Toward reassessing data-deficient species. Conservation Biology 31(3): 531-539. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12850.
Brito D, Ambal RG, Brooks T, De Silva N, Foster M, Hao W, Hilton-Taylor C, Paglia A, Rodríguez JP, Rodríguez JV. 2010. How similar are national red lists and the IUCN red list? Biological Conservation 143(5):1154-1158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.015
Brummitt N, Bachman S, Moat J. 2008. Applications of the IUCN Red List: towards a global barometer for plant diversity. Endangered Species Research 6: 127–135.
Brummitt N, Bachman SP, Moat J. 2008. Applications of the IUCN Red List: towards a global barometer for plant diversity. Endangered Species Research. 6(2):127–135. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00135Colyvan M, Burgman MA, Todd CR, Akçakaya HR, Boek C. 1999. The treatment of uncertainty and the structure of IUCN threatened species categories. Biological Conservation 89: 245–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00013-0
Dhami KK. 2019. A national assessment of Aichi biodiversity target 12 - an international conservation initiative. MOJ Ecology & Environmental Sciences 4(5) :220-223. https://doi.org/10.15406/mojes.2019.04.00157
De Grammont PC, Cuarón AD. 2006. An evaluation of threatened species categorization systems used on the American continent. Conservation Biology 20(1): 14-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00352.x
Farrier D, Whelan R, Mooney C. 2007. Threatened species listing as a trigger for conservation action. Environmental Science and Policy 10(3): 219-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2006.12.001
León B, Pitman N, Roque J. 2006. Introducción a las plantas endémicas del Perú. Revista Peruana de Biología, Número Especial 13(2): 9s-22s. https://doi.org/10.15381/rpb.v13i2.1782
Mace GM, Lande R. 1991. Assessing extinction threats: toward a reevaluation of IUCN threatened species. Conservation Biology 5: 148-157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00119.x
Mounce R, Rivers M, Sharrock S, Smith P, Brockigton S. 2018. Comparing and contrasting threat assessments of plant species at the global and sub-global level. Biodiversity Conservation 27: 907-930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1472-z
Perz SG. 2014. Sustainable development: the promise and perils of roads. Nature 513: 178-179. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13744
Rao M, Johnson A, Bynum N. 2007. Assessing threats in conservation planning and management. Lessons in Conservation 1: 44-71.
Roberts DL, Taylor L, Joppa LN. 2016. Threatened or Data deficient: assessing the conservation status of poorly known species. Biodiversity and Distributions 22:558-565. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12418
Rodrigues AS, Pilgrim JD, Lamoreux JF, Hoffmann M, Brooks TM. 2006. The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21: 71-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.010
SERFOR. 2017. Nuestros bosques en números. Primer reporte del inventario nacional forestal y de fauna silvestre. SERFOR, Lima.
SERFOR. 2018. Libro rojo de la fauna silvestre amenazada del Perú. Primera edición. Lima, Perú. 548 pp.
Soares BS, Nepstad DC, Curran LM, Cerqueira GC, Garcia RA, et al. 2006. Modeling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature 440: 520-523. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04389
Sousa-Baena MS, Garcia LC, Peterson TA. 2013. Knowledge behind conservation status decisions: Data basis for "Data Deficient" Brazilian plant species. Biological Conservation 173:80-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.06.034
UICN 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Species Survival Commission, World Conservation Union (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K.
UICN. 2012. Categorías y Criterios de la Lista Roja de la UICN: Versión 3.1. Segunda edición. Gland, Suiza y Cambridge, Reino Unido: UICN. vi + 34pp. Originalmente publicado como IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Second edition. Gland, Switzerland & Cambridge, UK: IUCN.
UICN. 2020. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-3. <https://www.iucnredlist.org>
Von May R, Catenazzi A, Angulo A, Brown JL, Carrillo J, Chávez G, Córdoba JH, Curo A, Delgado A, Enciso MA, Gutierrez R, Lehr E, Martínez JL, Medina-Muller M, Miranda A, Neira DR, Ochoa JA, Quiroz AJ, Rodríguez DA, Rodríguez LO, Salas AW, Seimon T, Seimon A, Siu-Ting K, Suárez J, Torres C, Twomey E. 2008. Current state of conservation knowledge on threatened amphibian species in Peru. Tropical Conservation Science 1(4): 376-396. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008290800100406
Walsh JC, Watson JE, Bottrill MC, Joseph LN, Possingham HP. 2013. Trends and biases in the listing and recovery planning for threatened species: an Australian case study. Oryx 47: 134-143. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531100161X
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 E. Daniel Cossios, Leonardo Maffei
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
AUTHORS RETAIN THEIR RIGHTS:
a. Authors retain their trade mark rights and patent, and also on any process or procedure described in the article.
b. Authors retain their right to share, copy, distribute, perform and publicly communicate their article (eg, to place their article in an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in the Revista Peruana de Biologia.
c. Authors retain theirs right to make a subsequent publication of their work, to use the article or any part thereof (eg a compilation of his papers, lecture notes, thesis, or a book), always indicating its initial publication in the Revista Peruana de Biologia (the originator of the work, journal, volume, number and date).
