Protocols for listing threatened species can forecast extinction

Risk-ranking protocols are used widely to classify the conservation status of the world's species. Here we report on the first empirical assessment of their reliability by using a retrospective study of 18 pairs of bird and mammal species (one species extinct and the other extant) with eight different assessors. The performance of individual assessors varied substantially, but performance was improved by incorporating uncertainty in parameter estimates and consensus among the assessors. When this was done, the ranks from the protocols were consistent with the extinction outcome in 70-80% of pairs and there were mismatches in only 10-20% of cases. This performance was similar to the subjective judgements of the assessors after they had estimated the range and population parameters required by the protocols, and better than any single parameter. When used to inform subjective judgement, the protocols therefore offer a means of reducing unpredictable biases that may be associated with expert input and have the advantage of making the logic behind assessments explicit. We conclude that the protocols are useful for forecasting extinctions, although they are prone to some errors that have implications for conservation. Some level of error is to be expected, however, given the influence of chance on extinction. The performance of risk assessment protocols may be improved by providing training in the application of the protocols, incorporating uncertainty in parameter estimates and using consensus among multiple assessors, including some who are experts in the application of the protocols. Continued testing and refinement of the protocols may help to provide better absolute estimates of risk, particularly by re-evaluating how the protocols accommodate missing data.

[1]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[2]  M. Shaffer.  Minimum Population Sizes for Species Conservation , 1981 .

[3]  Max Henrion,et al.  Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis , 1990 .

[4]  Georgina M. Mace,et al.  Assessing Extinction Threats: Toward a Reevaluation of IUCN Threatened Species Categories , 1991 .

[5]  Lawrence L. Master,et al.  Assessing Threats and Setting Priorities for Conservation , 1991 .

[6]  D. Wilcove,et al.  What Exactly Is an Endangered Species? An Analysis of the U.S. Endangered Species List: 1985–1991 , 1993 .

[7]  Graeme Caughley,et al.  Conservation Biology in Theory and Practice , 1996 .

[8]  David A. Keith,et al.  An Evaluation and Modification of World Conservation Union Red List Criteria for Classification of Extinction Risk in Vascular Plants , 1998 .

[9]  Judith L. Anderson.  Embracing Uncertainty: The Interface of Bayesian Statistics and Cognitive Psychology , 1998 .

[10]  Terry Walshe,et al.  Uncertainty in Comparative Risk Analysis for Threatened Australian Plant Species , 1999 .

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

[12]  M. Burgman.  Population Viability Analysis for Bird Conservation: Prediction, Heuristics, Monitoring and Psychology , 2000 .

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

[14]  Barry W. Brook,et al.  Catastrophic extinctions follow deforestation in Singapore , 2003, Nature.

[15]  S. Andelman,et al.  A review of protocols for selecting species at risk in the context of US Forest Service viability assessments , 2004 .

[16]  Helen M. Regan,et al.  Comparing predictions of extinction risk using models and subjective judgement , 2004 .

[17]  Tracey J. Regan,et al.  Capturing expert knowledge for threatened species assessments: a case study using NatureServe conservation status ranks , 2004 .