Red List assessments of East African chameleons: a case study of why we need experts

Abstract The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species uses geographical distribution as a key criterion in assessing the conservation status of species. Accurate knowledge of a species’ distribution is therefore essential to ensure the correct categorization is applied. Here we compare the geographical distribution of 35 species of chameleons endemic to East Africa, using data from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and data compiled by a taxonomic expert. Data screening showed 99.9% of GBIF records used outdated taxonomy and 20% had no locality coordinates. Conversely the expert dataset used 100% up-to-date taxonomy and only seven records (3%) had no coordinates. Both datasets were used to generate range maps for each species, which were then used in preliminary Red List categorization. There was disparity in the categories of 10 species, with eight being assigned a lower threat category based on GBIF data compared with expert data, and the other two assigned a higher category. Our results suggest that before conducting desktop assessments of the threatened status of species, aggregated museum locality data should be vetted against current taxonomy and localities should be verified. We conclude that available online databases are not an adequate substitute for taxonomic experts in assessing the threatened status of species and that Red List assessments may be compromised unless this extra step of verification is carried out.

[1]  R. Halvorsen,et al.  A fine‐grained spatial prediction model for the red‐listed vascular plant Scorzonera humilis , 2011 .

[2]  R. W. Burn,et al.  Making Robust Policy Decisions Using Global Biodiversity Indicators , 2012, PloS one.

[3]  J. C. Serio‐Silva,et al.  Potential distribution of Mexican primates: modeling the ecological niche with the maximum entropy algorithm , 2011, Primates.

[4]  Arturo H. Ariño,et al.  Assessing the Primary Data Hosted by the Spanish Node of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) , 2013, PloS one.

[5]  Arturo H. Ariño,et al.  CONTENT ASSESSMENT OF THE PRIMARY BIODIVERSITY DATA PUBLISHED THROUGH GBIF NETWORK: STATUS, CHALLENGES AND POTENTIALS , 2013 .

[6]  Tim Newbold,et al.  Applications and limitations of museum data for conservation and ecology, with particular attention to species distribution models , 2010 .

[7]  Klaus Sattler,et al.  Principles and methods , 2011 .

[8]  N. Isaac,et al.  Mammals on the EDGE: Conservation Priorities Based on Threat and Phylogeny , 2007, PloS one.

[9]  H. Biggs,et al.  Testing for potential survey bias: the effect of roads, urban areas and nature reserves on a southern African mammal data set , 1998 .

[10]  R. May,et al.  Can We Name Earth's Species Before They Go Extinct? , 2013, Science.

[11]  Neil D. Burgess,et al.  Conservation and the botanist effect , 2011 .

[12]  Michael Hoffmann,et al.  The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. , 2006, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[13]  Malcolm J. Scoble.  NATURAL HISTORY COLLECTIONS DIGITIZATION: RATIONALE AND VALUE , 2010 .

[14]  Arturo H. Ariño.  APPROACHES TO ESTIMATING THE UNIVERSE OF NATURAL HISTORY COLLECTIONS DATA , 2010 .

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

[16]  W. Ponder,et al.  Evaluation of Museum Collection Data for Use in Biodiversity Assessment , 2001 .

[17]  B. Laenen,et al.  Inverted patterns of genetic diversity in continental and island populations of the heather Erica scoparia s.l. , 2012 .

[18]  A. Jarvis,et al.  Analysis of threats to South American flora and its implications for conservation , 2012 .

[19]  Luis Cayuela,et al.  taxonstand: An r package for species names standardisation in vegetation databases , 2012 .

[20]  S. Reddy,et al.  Geographical sampling bias and its implications for conservation priorities in Africa , 2003 .

[21]  H. Resit Akçakaya,et al.  Value of the IUCN Red List , 2003 .

[22]  Malcolm J. Scoble.  Rationale and Value of Natural History Collections Digitisation , 2010 .

[23]  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.

[24]  Carolyn L. Rose,et al.  Preserving natural science collections: chronicle of our environmental heritage , 1993 .

[25]  Bruce D. Patterson,et al.  The Status of the World's Land and Marine Mammals: Diversity, Threat, and Knowledge , 2008, Science.

[26]  Kate E. Jones,et al.  Global distribution and conservation of rare and threatened vertebrates , 2006, Nature.

[27]  Neil D. Burgess,et al.  Funding begets biodiversity , 2011 .

[28]  D. Roberts,et al.  How many herbarium specimens are needed to detect threatened species , 2011 .

[29]  Bradford A. Hawkins,et al.  Willing or unwilling to share primary biodiversity data: results and implications of an international survey , 2012 .

[30]  H. Resit Akçakaya,et al.  Toward monitoring global biodiversity , 2008 .

[31]  C. Tovar,et al.  Determining the ecological value of landscapes beyond protected areas , 2012 .

[32]  G. Colli,et al.  Sampling bias and the use of ecological niche modeling in conservation planning: a field evaluation in a biodiversity hotspot , 2010, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[33]  W. Foden,et al.  Red list of South African plants 2009. , 2009 .

[34]  Alan Paton,et al.  Defining a role for herbarium data in Red List assessments: a case study of Plectranthus from eastern and southern tropical Africa , 2003, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[35]  R. Kadmon,et al.  EFFECT OF ROADSIDE BIAS ON THE ACCURACY OF PREDICTIVE MAPS PRODUCED BY BIOCLIMATIC MODELS , 2004 .

[36]  Georgina M. Mace,et al.  Distorted Views of Biodiversity: Spatial and Temporal Bias in Species Occurrence Data , 2010, PLoS biology.

[37]  M. Faran,et al.  The value of georeferenced collection records for predicting patterns of mosquito species richness and endemism in the Neotropics , 2007 .

[38]  T. Brooks,et al.  Conservation planning and the IUCN Red List , 2008 .

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

[40]  G. Mace,et al.  The 2010 Biodiversity Indicators: Challenges for Science and Policy , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[41]  Amy,et al.  CONTENT ASSESSMENT OF THE PRIMARY BIODIVERSITY DATA PUBLISHED THROUGH GBIF NETWORK : STATUS , CHALLENGES AND POTENTIALS , 2013 .