Shortfalls in extinction risk assessments for plants
Matthew Alfonzetti
A H , Malin C. Rivers B , Tony D. Auld C D E , Tom Le Breton E , Tim Cooney C , Stephanie Stuart F , Heidi Zimmer C , Robert Makinson G , Katy Wilkins C E , Eren Delgado C , Nadya Dimitrova A and Rachael V. Gallagher A
A Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW 2019, Australia.
B Botanic Gardens Conservation International, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3BW, UK.
C Science Division, NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, 4 Parramatta Square, Parramatta, NSW 2150, Australia.
D School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia.
E Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
F Saving our Species Program, Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, 4 Parramatta Square, 12 Darcy Street, Parramatta, NSW 2150, Australia.
G Bob Makinson Consulting, 19 Fern Street, Pymble, NSW 2073, Australia.
H Corresponding author. Email: matthew.alfonzetti@mq.edu.au
Australian Journal of Botany 68(6) 466-471 https://doi.org/10.1071/BT20106
Submitted: 18 August 2020 Accepted: 8 October 2020 Published: 2 December 2020
Abstract
Research on species recovery, reintroduction, and conservation disproportionally focusses on birds and mammals. Typically, less attention is given to hyper-diverse but ecologically important groups such as plants and invertebrates. In this study, we focussed on a continent with one of the world’s highest proportions of endemic plant species (Australia) comparing the number of extinction risk assessments relative to birds and mammals. Specifically, we generated a checklist of Australian endemic vascular plants and used three resources which differ in styles and scope to collate information on how many have an extinction risk assessment – the ThreatSearch database, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, (EPBC Act). Between 76 and 93% of endemic Australian plants examined lack an extinction risk assessment based on data from our three sources. We also compared the proportions of endemic plants assessed relative to birds and mammals. Of all endemic plant taxa examined, only 6.8% have been assessed under the EPBC Act, compared with 9.4% of birds and 28.9% of mammals. Similarly, only 8.8% of endemic plants have been assessed for the IUCN Red List, compared with 29.1% of birds and 61.1% of mammals, whereas all birds and mammals have been examined in National Action Plans. This represents a significant underestimation of the actual proportion of Australian endemic plants that are likely to satisfy extinction-risk criteria for listing as threatened. This shortfall in risk assessments for plants is a matter of international significance for conservation given Australia’s high rate of plant endemism. A change in policy and approach to assessing extinction risk is needed to ensure adequate assessment effort across different taxonomic groups.
Keywords: biodiversity, conservation biology, EPBC Act, ecology, endangered plants, endemic species, endemism, extinction risk assessment, IUCN Red List, plant conservation, species extinction, threatening processes, vascular plants.
References
Bachman SP, Lughadha EMN, Rivers MC (2018) Quantifying progress toward a conservation assessment for all plants. Conservation Biology 32, 516–524.| Quantifying progress toward a conservation assessment for all plants.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Betts J, Young RP, Hilton‐Taylor C, Hoffmann M, Rodríguez JP, Stuart SN, Milner‐Gulland E (2019) A framework for evaluating the impact of the IUCN Red List of threatened species. Conservation Biology 34, 632–643.
| A framework for evaluating the impact of the IUCN Red List of threatened species.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Botanic Gardens Conservation International (2019) ThreatSearch online database. (BGCI: Richmond, UK) Available at www.bgci.org/threat_search.php [Verified 24 July 2019]
Botanic Gardens Conservation International (2020) Global Tree Assessment. (BGCI: Kew, UK) Available at https://globaltreeassessment.org [Verified 3 March 2020]
Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, van Strien A, Scharlemann JPW, Almond REA, Baillie JEM, Bomhar B, Brown C, Bruno J, Carpenter KE, Carr GM, Chanson J, Chenery AM, Csirke J, Davidson NC, Dentener F, Foster M, Galli A, Galloway JN, Genovesi P, Gregory RD, Hockings M, Kapos V, Lamarque J-F, Leverington F, Loh J, McGeoch MA, McRae L, Minasyan A, Morcillo MH, Oldfield TEE, Pauly D, Quader S, Revenga C, Sauer JR, Skolnik B, Spear D, Stanwell-Smith D, Stuart SN, Symes A, Tierney M, Tyrrell TD, Vie J-C, Watson R (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328, 1164–1168.
| Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cayuela L, Granzow‐de la Cerda Í, Albuquerque FS, Golicher DJ (2012) Taxonstand: an R package for species names standardisation in vegetation databases. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3, 1078–1083.
| Taxonstand: an R package for species names standardisation in vegetation databases.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Chapman AD (2009) Numbers of living species in Australia and the world. Report to the Australian Department of Environment, Water, Heritage, and the Arts. pp. 1–78. Australian Biodiversity Information Services, Toowoomba, Qld, Australia.
Clark J, May R (2002) Taxonomic bias in conservation research. Science 297, 191–192.
| Taxonomic bias in conservation research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dawson D, Shogren JF (2001) An update on priorities and expenditures under the Endangered Species Act. Land Economics 77, 527–532.
| An update on priorities and expenditures under the Endangered Species Act.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Department of the Environment (2020) Species profile and threats database. Department of the Environment, Canberra, ACT, Australia. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat [Verified 19 September 2019]
Ellison AM, Bank MS, Clinton BD, et al (2005) Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3, 479–486.
| Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fazey I, Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2005) What do conservation biologists publish? Biological Conservation 124, 63–73.
| What do conservation biologists publish?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gallagher RV, Falster DS, Maitner BS, et al (2020) Open Science principles for accelerating trait-based science across the Tree of Life. Nature Ecology & Evolution 4, 294–303.
| Open Science principles for accelerating trait-based science across the Tree of Life.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Garnett ST, E Duursma D, Ehmke G, et al. (2015) Australian bird data version 1.0. Available at https://figshare.com/collections/Australian_Bird_Data_Version_1_0_2015_/1499292 [Verified 21 February 2020]
Gordon ER, Butt N, Rosner‐Katz H, Binley AD, Bennett JR (2020) Relative costs of conserving threatened species across taxonomic groups. Conservation Biology 34, 276–281.
| Relative costs of conserving threatened species across taxonomic groups.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Heywood VH (2017) Plant conservation in the Anthropocene – challenges and future prospects. Plant diversity 39, 314–330.
| Plant conservation in the Anthropocene – challenges and future prospects.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 6, 65–70.
International Union for Conservation of Nature (2020) The IUCN Global Species Programme. (IUCN: Gland, Switzerland) Available at https://www.iucn.org/theme/species/about/iucn-global-species-programme [Verified 3 March 2020]
IPBES (2019) Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services: summary for Policymakers. (IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany)
Le Breton TD, Zimmer HC, Gallagher RV, Cox M, Allen S, Auld TD (2019) Using IUCN criteria to perform rapid assessments of at-risk taxa. Biodiversity and Conservation 28, 863–883.
| Using IUCN criteria to perform rapid assessments of at-risk taxa.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Male TD, Bean MJ (2005) Measuring progress in US endangered species conservation. Ecology Letters 8, 986–992.
| Measuring progress in US endangered species conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Martín-López B, Montes C, Ramírez L, Benayas J (2009) What drives policy decision-making related to species conservation? Biological Conservation 142, 1370–1380.
| What drives policy decision-making related to species conservation?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Martín-López B, González JA, Montes C (2011) The pitfall-trap of species conservation priority setting. Biodiversity and Conservation 20, 663–682.
| The pitfall-trap of species conservation priority setting.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pelletier TA, Carstens BC, Tank DC, Sullivan J, Espíndola A (2018) Predicting plant conservation priorities on a global scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115, 13027–13032.
| Predicting plant conservation priorities on a global scale.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Restani M, Marzluff JM (2001) Avian Conservation under the Endangered Species Act: expenditures versus recovery priorities. Conservation Biology 15, 1292–1299.
| Avian Conservation under the Endangered Species Act: expenditures versus recovery priorities.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Restani M, Marzluff JM (2002) Funding extinction? Biological needs and political realities in the allocation of resources to endangered species recovery. Bioscience 52, 169–177.
| Funding extinction? Biological needs and political realities in the allocation of resources to endangered species recovery.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rodman JE, Cody JH (2003) The taxonomic impediment overcome: NSF’s partnerships for enhancing expertise in taxonomy (PEET) as a model. Systematic Biology 52, 428–435.
| The taxonomic impediment overcome: NSF’s partnerships for enhancing expertise in taxonomy (PEET) as a model.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
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.
| The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Seddon PJ, Soorae PS, Launay F (2005) Taxonomic bias in reintroduction projects. Animal Conservation 8, 51–58.
| Taxonomic bias in reintroduction projects.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Strayer DL (2006) Challenges for freshwater invertebrate conservation. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25, 271–287.
| Challenges for freshwater invertebrate conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Tear TH, Scott JM, Hayward PH, Griffith B (1995) Recovery plans and the Endangered Species Act: are criticisms supported by data? Conservation Biology 9, 182–195.
| Recovery plans and the Endangered Species Act: are criticisms supported by data?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wandersee JH, Schussler EE (1999) Preventing plant blindness. The American Biology Teacher 61, 82–86.
| Preventing plant blindness.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wilson JR, Procheş Ş, Braschler B, Dixon ES, Richardson DM (2007) The (bio)diversity of science reflects the interests of society. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5, 409–414.
| The (bio)diversity of science reflects the interests of society.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Woinarski J, Burbidge AA, Harrison P (2014) ‘The action plan for Australian mammals 2012.’ (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, Vic., Australia)
Woinarski JCZ, Braby MF, Burbidge AA, Coates D, Garnett ST, Fensham RJ, Legge SM, McKenzie NL, Silcock JL, Murphy BP (2019) Reading the black book: the number, timing, distribution and causes of listed extinctions in Australia. Biological Conservation 239, 108261
| Reading the black book: the number, timing, distribution and causes of listed extinctions in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
WWF (2018) ‘Living planet report.’ (Eds M Grooten, REA Almond) (WWF: Gland, Switzerland)
