Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
Pacific Conservation Biology Pacific Conservation Biology Society
A journal dedicated to conservation and wildlife management in the Pacific region.
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > PC > PC23005 > Fulltext
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 30(1)

Evaluating extinction risk in Tasmania’s vascular flora using rapid IUCN Red List assessments

J. Quarmby https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3258-4878 A * , A. S. Kutt https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9679-2206 B , C. R. Dickson https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9701-346X A C and R. Hamer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9063-5426 A D
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Tasmanian Land Conservancy, Hobart, Tas. 7005, Australia.

B School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Vic. 3010, Australia.

C Department of Environment and Genetics, LaTrobe University, Melbourne, Vic. 3086, Australia.

D School of Natural Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tas. 7005, Australia.

* Correspondence to: jpquarmby@gmail.com

Handling Editor: Mike van Keulen

Pacific Conservation Biology 30, PC23005 https://doi.org/10.1071/PC23005
Submitted: 20 January 2023  Accepted: 12 April 2023  Published: 11 May 2023

© 2024 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing

Abstract

Context

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List categories and criteria are a widely accepted standard for assessing extinction risk and have been adopted by many countries, including Australia. Tasmania is globally renowned for its biodiversity, and yet very few of its plant species have been evaluated using IUCN criteria, exposing a significant gap in conservation prioritisation.

Aims

This study aimed to undertake a regional IUCN assessment of Tasmania’s vascular flora and highlight gaps and discrepancies in accepted lists of threatened species.

Methods

The R package ConR was used to automatically generate preliminary IUCN assessments for 1885 taxa based on Criterion B (geographic range). This was compared to current listing status to identify potentially misaligned or at-risk taxa. Protected areas were incorporated into the analysis, and heatmaps were used to show the distribution of threatened flora in Tasmania based on their preliminary IUCN category.

Key results

One-third of Tasmania’s vascular flora (570 taxa) were categorised as threatened by ConR, of which only 47% are currently listed under legislation. We identify 301 non-listed taxa that are potentially threatened and can now be prioritised for full IUCN assessments. Taxa categorised as threatened are more likely to occur near cities and towns, often outside of formal protected areas.

Conclusion and implications

Automated IUCN assessments are a useful means of systematically refining lists of threatened species. The adoption of IUCN categories and criteria is likely to have a substantial effect on current lists of threatened species and could shift the focus of conservation efforts.

Keywords: Common Assessment Method, ConR, flora, IUCN Red List, prioritisation, rapid assessment, Tasmania, threatened species.

References

Bachman SP, Field R, Reader T, Raimondo D, Donaldson J, Schatz GE, Lughadha EN (2019) Progress, challenges and opportunities for Red Listing. Biological Conservation 234, 45-55.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Bachman S, Walker BE, Barrios S, Copeland A, Moat J (2020) Rapid least concern: towards automating Red List assessments. Biodiversity Data Journal 8, e47018.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Braby MF (2018) Threatened species conservation of invertebrates in Australia: an overview. Austral Entomology 57, 173-181.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Broadhurst L, Coates D (2017) Plant conservation in Australia: current directions and future challenges. Plant Diversity 39, 348-356.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Callmander MW, Schatz GE, Lowry PP (2005) IUCN Red List assessment and the global strategy for plant conservation: taxonomists must act now. Taxon 54, 1047-1050.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Cardillo M, Mace GM, Gittleman JL, Jones KE, Bielby J, Purvis A (2008) The predictability of extinction: biological and external correlates of decline in mammals. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 275, 1441-1448.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Cazalis V, Di Marco M, Butchart SHM, Akçakaya HR, González-Suárez M, Meyer C, Clausnitzer V, Böhm M, Zizka A, Cardoso P, Schipper AM, Bachman SP, Young BE, Hoffmann M, Benítez-López A, Lucas PM, Pettorelli N, Patoine G, Pacifici M, Jörger-Hickfang T, Brooks TM, Rondinini C, Hill SLL, Visconti P, Santini L (2022) Bridging the research-implementation gap in IUCN Red List assessments. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 37, 359-370.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Collen B, Dulvy NK, Gaston KJ, Gärdenfors U, Keith DA, Punt AE, Regan HM, Böhm M, Hedges S, Seddon M, Butchart SHM, Hilton-Taylor C, Hoffmann M, Bachman SP, Akçakaya HR (2016) Clarifying misconceptions of extinction risk assessment with the IUCN Red List. Biology Letters 12, 20150843.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Darwall WRT, Smith KG, Allen DJ, Holland RA, Harrison IJ, Brooks EGE (Eds) (2011) ‘The diversity of life in African freshwaters: under water, under threat.’ (IUCN: Cambridge, UK and Gland, Switzerland)

Dauby G, Stévart T, Droissart V, Cosiaux A, Deblauwe V, Simo-Droissart M, Sosef MSM, Lowry PP, II, Schatz GE, Gereau RE, Couvreur TLP (2017) ConR: an R package to assist large-scale multispecies preliminary conservation assessments using distribution data. Ecology and Evolution 7, 11292-11303.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

DAWE (2021a) Common assessment method. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Canberra, Australia.

DAWE (2021b) EPBC Act List of Threatened Flora and SPRAT database. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Canberra, Australia.

de Salas MF, Baker ML (2021) A census of the vascular plants of Tasmania, including Macquarie Island. Tasmanian Herbarium, Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart, Australia.

DoE (2015) Intergovernmental memorandum of understanding agreement on a common assessment method for listing of threatened species and threatened ecological communities. Australian Government Department of the Environment, Canberra, Australia.

DPIWE (2008) Guidelines for eligibility for listing under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. Tasmanian Government Department of Primary Industries Water and Environment, Hobart, Australia.

Farjon A (2013) Athrotaxis laxifolia. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013: e.T30532A2793806. Available at https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-1.RLTS.T30532A2793806.en

Fensham RJ, Laffineur B, Collingwood TD, Beech E, Bell S, Hopper SD, Phillips G, Rivers MC, Walsh N, White M (2020) Rarity or decline: key concepts for the Red List of Australian eucalypts. Biological Conservation 243, 108455.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Gärdenfors U (2001) Classifying threatened species at national versus global levels. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16, 511-516.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Hawke A (2009) ‘The Australian Environment Act: report of the independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.’ (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts: Australia)

Hayward MW, Child MF, Kerley GIH, Lindsey PA, Somers MJ, Burns B (2015) Ambiguity in guideline definitions introduces assessor bias and influences consistency in IUCN Red List status assessments. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 3, 87.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Howard C, Flather CH, Stephens PA (2020) A global assessment of the drivers of threatened terrestrial species richness. Nature Communications 11, 993.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

IUCN (2012a) ‘Red List categories and criteria: version 3.1.’ 2nd edn. (Species Survival Commission, International Union for Conservation of Nature: Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK)

IUCN (2012b) Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional and National Levels: Version 4.0. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

IUCN (2022a) IUCN Red List summary statistics Table 1a. Version 2022-1. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

IUCN (2022b) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2022-1. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

IUCN (2022c) Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 15.1. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Committee. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Kearney SG, Adams VM, Fuller RA, Possingham HP, Watson JEM (2020) Estimating the benefit of well-managed protected areas for threatened species conservation. Oryx 54, 276-284.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Kearney SG, Carwardine J, Reside AE, Adams VM, Nelson R, Coggan A, Spindler R, Watson JEM (2022) Saving species beyond the protected area fence: threats must be managed across multiple land tenure types to secure Australia’s endangered species. Conservation Science and Practice 4, e617.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Kindsvater HK, Dulvy NK, Horswill C, Juan-Jordá M-J, Mangel M, Matthiopoulos J (2018) Overcoming the data crisis in biodiversity conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 33, 676-688.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Krupnick GA, Kress WJ, Wagner WL (2009) Achieving target 2 of the global strategy for plant conservation: building a preliminary assessment of vascular plant species using data from herbarium specimens. Biodiversity and Conservation 18, 1459-1474.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

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.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Legge S, Woinarski JCZ, Scheele BC, Garnett ST, Lintermans M, Nimmo DG, Whiterod NS, Southwell DM, Ehmke G, Buchan A, Gray J, Metcalfe DJ, Page M, Rumpff L, van Leeuwen S, Williams D, Ahyong ST, Chapple DG, Cowan M, Hossain MA, Kennard M, Macdonald S, Moore H, Marsh J, McCormack RB, Michael D, Mitchell N, Newell D, Raadik TA, Tingley R (2022) Rapid assessment of the biodiversity impacts of the 2019–2020 Australian megafires to guide urgent management intervention and recovery and lessons for other regions. Diversity and Distributions 28, 571-591.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Levin MO, Meek JB, Boom B, Kross SM, Eskew EA (2022) Using publicly available data to conduct rapid assessments of extinction risk. Conservation Science and Practice 4, e12628.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Mace GM, Collar NJ, Gaston KJ, Hilton-Taylor C, Akçakaya HR, Leader-Williams N, Milner-Gulland EJ, Stuart SN (2008) Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN’s system for classifying threatened species. Conservation Biology 22, 1424-1442.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Natural and Cultural Heritage Division (2015) Guidelines for natural values surveys – Terrestrial development proposals. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania.

Nic Lughadha E, Walker BE, Canteiro C, Chadburn H, Davis AP, Hargreaves S, Lucas EJ, Schuiteman A, Williams E, Bachman SP, Baines D, Barker A, Budden AP, Carretero J, Clarkson JJ, Roberts A, Rivers MC (2019) The use and misuse of herbarium specimens in evaluating plant extinction risks. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 374, 20170402.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

NRET (2021a) Tasmania reserve estate area as at 30 June 2021. Available at https://nre.tas.gov.au/conservation/development-planning-conservation-assessment/planning-tools/tasmanian-reserve-estate-spatial-layer

NRET (2021b) Listing statements, notesheets and recovery plans. (Tasmanian Government Department of Natural Resources) Available at https://nre.tas.gov.au/conservation/threatened-species-and-communities

NRET (2021c) Natural values atlas database. Data extracted 30 July 2021. Tasmanian Government Department of Natural Resources, Hobart, Tasmania.

Orsenigo S, Montagnani C, Fenu G, Gargano D, Peruzzi L, Abeli T, Alessandrini A, Bacchetta G, Bartolucci F, Bovio M, Brullo C, Brullo S, Carta A, Castello M, Cogoni D, Conti F, Domina G, Foggi B, Gennai M, Gigante D, Iberite M, Lasen C, Magrini S, Perrino EV, Prosser F, Santangelo A, Selvaggi A, Stinca A, Vagge I, Villani M, Wagensommer RP, Wilhalm T, Tartaglini N, Duprè E, Blasi C, Rossi G (2018) Red Listing plants under full national responsibility: extinction risk and threats in the vascular flora endemic to Italy. Biological Conservation 224, 213-222.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Planchuelo G, von Der Lippe M, Kowarik I (2019) Untangling the role of urban ecosystems as habitats for endangered plant species. Landscape and Urban Planning 189, 320-334.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

R Core Team (2021) ‘R: a language and environment for statistical computing.’ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Viena, Austria)

Reid J, Hill R, Brown M, Hovenden M (1999) ‘Vegetation of Tasmania.’ (Australian Biological Resources Study)

Robertson MP, Cumming GS, Erasmus BFN (2010) Getting the most out of atlas data. Diversity and Distributions 16, 363-375.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Rondinini C, Di Marco M, Visconti P, Butchart SHM, Boitani L (2013) Update or outdate: long-term viability of the IUCN Red List. Conservation Letters 7, 126-130.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Senate Committee (2013) Effectiveness of threatened species and ecological communities’ protection in Australia. Commonwealth of Australia.

Silcock JL, Fensham RJ (2018) Using evidence of decline and extinction risk to identify priority regions, habitats and threats for plant conservation in Australia. Australian Journal of Botany 66, 541-555.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Silcock JL, Healy AJ, Fensham RJ (2015) Lost in time and space: re-assessment of conservation status in an arid-zone flora through targeted field survey. Australian Journal of Botany 62, 674-688.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Silcock JL, Field AR, Walsh NG, Fensham RJ (2020) To name those lost: assessing extinction likelihood in the Australian vascular flora. Oryx 54, 167-177.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Troudet J, Grandcolas P, Blin A, Vignes-Lebbe R, Legendre F (2017) Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences. Scientific Reports 7, 9132.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

TSSC (2016) Carex tasmanica (Curly sedge) listing advice. Australian Government Threatened Species Scientific Committee, Canberra, Australia.

Walsh JC, Watson JEM, 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.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Watson JEM, Evans MC, Carwardine J, Fuller RA, Joseph LN, Segan DB, Taylor MFJ, Fensham RJ, Possingham HP (2011) The capacity of Australia’s protected-area system to represent threatened species. Conservation Biology 25, 324-332.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |