Effectiveness of “Тhe IUCN red list of threatened species” application on a regional scale: current state of the “Red Data books” of Russia

Popov, Igor; Fadeeva, Anastasia; Palenova, Elena; Shamilishvily, George; Gorin, K. V.; Burdo, Andrey; Melchakova, Evgenia; Trofimova, Yulia; Sukristik, Viktor; Morova, Nadezhda; Kroo, Ksenia; Kirillova, Yulia

doi:10.21638/11701/spbu03.2017.107

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, they are also a primary concern in wildlife conservation. For many common species on Red List, the occurrence data for distribution assessments and population estimates are still lacking (Ocampo-Peñuela et al, 2016;Popov et al, 2017;Roberts et al, 2016) become more affordable and feasible (Cordero et al, 2020); the body of related data is growing. For example, a recently deployed widespread infrared camera monitoring network in China has contributed to national species distribution data (Li, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, they are also a primary concern in wildlife conservation. For many common species on Red List, the occurrence data for distribution assessments and population estimates are still lacking (Ocampo‐Peñuela et al, 2016; Popov et al, 2017; Roberts et al, 2016). To date, there are 17,878 species assessed by IUCN classified as “Data Deficient”, although comprising only 17.8% of all assessed species (IUCN, 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The need for IUCN species distribution update—The case from takin (Budorcas taxicolor) in Southwest China

Guan

Owens

Yang

et al. 2022

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Species distributions are one of the fundamental factors needed for understanding and conserving wildlife. While the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species is the primary applied reference for biodiversity conservation, limitations in data availability and analyses of the distributions of some species may limit accurate threat classification assessments and conservation recommendations. Improving the accuracy of species distributions in light of growing data and analytical methods is a key step to increasing the efficacy of the Red List. In this study, we reassessed the distribution of takin (Budorcas taxicolor tibetana), a large ungulate in Sichuan Province, southwest China, classified by the IUCN as vulnerable. Using species distribution models and reported habitat requirements, we updated the takin distribution map. Our updated distribution range in the study area (79,449 km2) was 61.31% of the current distribution range (CDR) on the IUCN Red List. This reduction was in large part due to the inclusion in the CDR of substantial areas of lowland plains, high human disturbance, and non‐forest habitat, which provide no suitable habitat for takin. According to our results, suitable takin habitat covered 18.97% of the CDR, suggesting a substantially overestimated distribution. However, there are high proportions of habitat (40%) still covered by the nature reserve network, indicating the importance of protected areas (PAs) in the conservation threaten species. We recommend that experts apply the basic approach presented herein to update the Red List distributions for more species to increase the accuracy of assessments and resulting conservation applications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, they are also a primary concern in wildlife conservation. For many common species on Red List, the occurrence data for distribution assessments and population estimates are still lacking (Ocampo‐Peñuela et al, 2016; Popov et al, 2017; Roberts et al, 2016). To date, there are 17,878 species assessed by IUCN classified as “Data Deficient”, although comprising only 17.8% of all assessed species (IUCN, 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The need for IUCN species distribution update—The case from takin (Budorcas taxicolor) in Southwest China

Guan

Owens

Yang

et al. 2022

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Здесь уместно отметить, что выполненный анализ в очередной раз выявил существенные различия Красного списка МСОП и Красной книги России, так же как и необходимость их совершенствования. Эти два документа между собой очень мало связаны [24], и не совсем ясно, какой эффективнее в природоохранном смысле. Одни виды считаются редкими в России, а в Красном списке МСОП они таковыми не считаются, хотя на территории России располагается значительная часть их ареала, или наоборот -некоторые виды в России считаются обычными или даже охотничьими, а согласно Красному списку МСОП они внушают опасения.…”

Section: методыunclassified

Уязвимые Виды Позвоночных Животных Нижне-Cвирского Заповедника

Попов¹,

Стариков²

2022

Biosfera

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Establishment of protected areas is one of the most effective measures for the environment protection. The reserves, i.e. the areas where any human activity is not allowed, are especially effective. It is expected that they would become shelters for the threatened species. One of such areas is Nizhne-Svirsky Reserve at the eastern shore of Lake Ladoga. It was established in 1980, and since then no intervention in natural processes has been taking place there. Thirty-five threatened species of vertebrate animals have been registered in the reserve: 33 species of birds and two species of mammals. These species are either listed in the Red Book of Russia, or are considered as threatened or near-threatened in the Red List of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). At the water borders of the reserve, salmon and whitefish migrate, their local populations being rated as protected in Russia. Most of registered threatened animals stay in the reserve for shorts periods during migrations or visit it occasionally. Only 8–10 species live in it relatively constantly. The small number of vulnerable species under protected conditions indicates that the creation of reserves may not be sufficient to solve the problem of their conservation. Generalization of data related to threatened animals of the Nizhne-Svirsky Reserve reveals significant contradictions between the Red Book of Russia and the IUCN Red List: some species are considered threatened in Russia but not in the IUCN Red List, although a significant part of their range is located in Russia; or vice versa: some species in Russia are considered common or even game species, whereas according to the IUCN Red List, they raise concern. In the present case, the first option often relates to raptors, whereas the second one to waders and ducks.

show abstract

“…Enclave and semi-enclave countries (Monaco, San Marino, and Vatican City), non-independent countries (Andorra), North African and South Caucasian countries, as well as the Outermost Regions and Overseas Countries and Territories of European countries were excluded. Russia is not considered in Accepted manuscript 6 this review, due to the lack of a national Red List for spiders and the difficulty of comparing the numerous (at least 140) regional non-IUCN Red Data Books (Popov et al, 2017).…”

Section: Data Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spider conservation in Europe: a review

Milano

Blick

Cardoso

et al. 2021

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite their ecological importance and diversity, spiders (Arachnida: Araneae) are underrepresented in conservation policies in comparison to other groups. We review all extant conservation tools focusing on spiders in Europe, highlighting general patterns, limitations, gaps, and future directions. We assembled a comprehensive online database reporting all available information concerning the legal protection and conservation status of 4,154 spider species. Existing international legislation has limited coverage, with only one species listed in the Bern Convention and EU Habitats Directive. At the national and subnational levels, 178 species are formally mentioned in the legislation of 19 European countries. Moreover, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) includes assessments for 301 species worldwide, 164 of these threatened and eight native to Europe.In addition, spiders are mentioned in Regional Red Lists and Red Books in 28 out of 42 European countries considered in this review. Northern and Central European countries have the highest percentage of species assessed at the regional level in Red Lists and Red Books. The Mediterranean basin has the highest spider diversities in Europe but conservation efforts are lacking, both in terms of assessments and national or subnational legislation. Among European species, Dolomedes plantarius, Argyroneta aquatica and Eresus kollari are the most frequently mentioned in European conservation measures, possibly due to their ecological traits and their strict association with declining habitats.Considering the current threats to spiders in Europe, the protection of large areas of suitable habitat should be considered as the most effective approach to spider conservation.

show abstract

Effectiveness of “Тhe IUCN red list of threatened species” application on a regional scale: current state of the “Red Data books” of Russia

Cited by 8 publications

References 15 publications

The need for IUCN species distribution update—The case from takin (Budorcas taxicolor) in Southwest China

The need for IUCN species distribution update—The case from takin (Budorcas taxicolor) in Southwest China

Уязвимые Виды Позвоночных Животных Нижне-Cвирского Заповедника

Spider conservation in Europe: a review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About