PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 24, 2009Conservation Biology103 citationsOpen Access

Assessing the Threat Status of Ecological Communities

View Full Paper
ENEmily NicholsonDKDavid A. KeithDWDavid S. Wilcove

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

Conservationists are increasingly interested in determining the threat status of ecological communities as a key part of their planning efforts. Such assessments are difficult because of conceptual challenges and a lack of generally accepted criteria. We reviewed 12 protocols for assessing the threat status of communities and identified conceptual and operational issues associated with developing a rigorous, transparent, and universal set of criteria for assessing communities, analogous to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List standards for species. We examined how each protocol defines a community and its extinction and how each applies 3 overarching criteria: decline in geographic distribution, restricted geographic distribution, and changes to ecological function. The protocols vary widely in threshold values used to assess declines and distribution size and the time frames used to assess declines, leading to inconsistent assessments of threat status. Few of the protocols specify a scale for measuring distribution size, although assessment outcomes are highly sensitive to scale. Protocols that apply different thresholds for species versus communities tend to require greater declines and more restricted distributions for communities than species to be listed in equivalent threat categories. Eleven of the protocols include a reduction in ecological function as a criterion, but almost all assess it qualitatively rather than quantitatively. We argue that criteria should be explicit and repeatable in their concepts, parameters, and scale, applicable to a broad range of communities, and address synergies between types of threats. Such criteria should focus on distribution size, declines in distribution, and changes to key ecological functions, with the latter based on workable proxies for assessing the severity, scope, and immediacy of degradation. Threat categories should be delimited by thresholds that are assessed at standard scales and are logically consistent with the viability of component species and important ecological functions.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Nicholson et al. (2009) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a16f4967cba52b0f77bc3a3https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01158.x
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Ecology: From Individuals to Ecosystems2006 · 2,148 citations
  2. 2The Individualistic Concept of the Plant Association1926 · 2,389 citations
  3. 3Nature Conservation and the Regional Forest Agreement Process1998 · 67 citations
  4. 4Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example2002 · 1,796 citations
  5. 5Communities and Ecosystems1977 · 671 citations