Assessing the Threat Status of Ecological Communities

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.

[1]  B. Mackenzie,et al.  Native vegetation of southeast NSW: a revised classification and map for the coast and eastern tablelands , 2010 .

[2]  D. Keith The interpretation, assessment and conservation of ecological communities. , 2009 .

[3]  E J Milner-Gulland,et al.  Quantification of Extinction Risk: IUCN's System for Classifying Threatened Species , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[4]  Ben Collen,et al.  A Standard Lexicon for Biodiversity Conservation: Unified Classifications of Threats and Actions , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[5]  Randall J. Donohue,et al.  Vegetation information for improved natural resource management in Australia , 2007 .

[6]  Andrew Balmford,et al.  Getting the biodiversity intactness index right: the importance of habitat degradation data , 2006 .

[7]  R. Briers,et al.  Ecology: From Individuals to Ecosystems , 2006 .

[8]  Philip Gibbons,et al.  An overview of methods used to assess vegetation condition at the scale of the site , 2006 .

[9]  J. Balch,et al.  Assessing extinction risk in the absence of species-level data: quantitative criteria for terrestrial ecosystems , 2006, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[10]  William G. Lee,et al.  Recent loss of indigenous cover in New Zealand , 2006 .

[11]  D. Rutledge,et al.  New Zealand's remaining indigenous cover: recent changes and biodiversity protection needs , 2005 .

[12]  Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria , 2005 .

[13]  T. Ricketts,et al.  Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection , 2004 .

[14]  Mark A. Burgman,et al.  The habitat hectares approach to vegetation assessment: An evaluation and suggestions for improvement , 2004 .

[15]  J. Paal Rare and threatened plant communitiesof Estonia , 1998, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[16]  A. Ssymank,et al.  Proposal on a criteria system for a National Red Data Book of Biotopes , 1995, Landscape Ecology.

[17]  William L. Baker,et al.  The landscape ecology of large disturbances in the design and management of nature reserves , 1992, Landscape Ecology.

[18]  William E. Kunin,et al.  Scale Dependency of Rarity, Extinction Risk, and Conservation Priority , 2003 .

[19]  Robert Costanza,et al.  Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature , 2002, Science.

[20]  Lenore Fahrig,et al.  EFFECT OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION ON THE EXTINCTION THRESHOLD: A SYNTHESIS* , 2002 .

[21]  Helen M. Regan,et al.  A TAXONOMY AND TREATMENT OF UNCERTAINTY FOR ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION BIOLOGY , 2002 .

[22]  D. Moss,et al.  The Diversity of European Vegetation: an overview of phytosociological alliances and their relationships to EUNIS habitats , 2002 .

[23]  W. Keeton,et al.  Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example , 2002 .

[24]  Richard M. Cowling,et al.  The identification of Broad Habitat Units as biodiversity entities for systematic conservation planning in the Cape Floristic Region , 2001 .

[25]  Ladislav Mucina,et al.  Common data standards for recording relevés in field survey for vegetation classification. , 2000 .

[26]  G. Mace,et al.  Making Consistent IUCN Classifications under Uncertainty , 2000 .

[27]  David A. Keith,et al.  Sensitivity analyses of decision rules in World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List criteria using Australian plants , 2000 .

[28]  Taylor H. Ricketts,et al.  Terrestrial ecoregions of North America : a conservation assessment , 1999 .

[29]  V. English,et al.  Development and application of procedures to identify and conserve threatened ecological communities in the South-west Botanical Province of Western Australia , 1999 .

[30]  David A. Keith,et al.  Native vegetation of the South East Forests region, Eden, New South Wales , 1999 .

[31]  J. Kirkpatrick Nature Conservation and the Regional Forest Agreement Process , 1998 .

[32]  R. Noss,et al.  Ecosystems as conservation targets. , 1996, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[33]  Reed F. Noss,et al.  Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation , 1996, Restoration & Management Notes.

[34]  Mark V. Lomolino,et al.  Species Diversity in Space and Time. , 1996 .

[35]  Alan S. Weakley,et al.  International classification of ecological communities: terrestrial vegetation of the United States , 1995 .

[36]  Robert L. Pressey,et al.  Level of geographical subdivision and its effects on assessments of reserve coverage: a review of regional studies , 1994 .

[37]  H. Andrén,et al.  Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review , 1994 .

[38]  J. Franklin Preserving Biodiversity: Species, Ecosystems, or Landscapes? , 1993, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[39]  Mike P. Austin,et al.  Continuum Concept, Ordination Methods, and Niche Theory , 1985 .

[40]  R. Whittaker,et al.  Hierarchical Classification of Community Data , 1981 .

[41]  R. Whittaker Classification of Plant Communities , 1978, Classification of Plant Communities.

[42]  I. Hiscock Communities and Ecosystems , 1970, The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.

[43]  H. Gleason The individualistic concept of the plant association , 1926 .