Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of ecosystems categories and criteria

doi:10.2305/iucn.ch.2016.rle.1.en

Cited by 40 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 138 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We then determined the distribution of Arctic vegetation types within protected areas using previously existing 2050 vegetation scenarios 39 . Furthermore, we assessed the risk of collapse of the vegetation types following the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems criteria for the baseline and the future 40 . Lastly, to inform conservation efforts, we located potential refugia for the vegetation types that had been identified as threatened.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Will Current Protected Areas Harbour Refugia for Threatened Arctic Vegetation Types until 2050?

Schaepman‐Strub

Plekhanova

Oehri

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Arctic vegetation types provide food and shelter for fauna, support livelihoods of Northern peoples, and are tightly linked to climate, permafrost soils, lakes, rivers, and the ocean through carbon, energy, water, and nutrient fluxes. Despite its significant role, a comprehensive understanding of climate change effects on Arctic vegetation is lacking. We compare the 2003 baseline with existing 2050 predictions of circumpolar Arctic vegetation type distributions and demonstrate that abundant vegetation types with a proclivity for expansion contribute most to current protected areas. Applying IUCN criteria, we categorize five out of the eight assessed vegetation types as threatened by 2050. Our analyses show that current protected areas are insufficient for the mitigation of climate-imposed threats to these Arctic vegetation types. Therefore, we located potential climate change refugia, areas where vegetation may remain unchanged, at least until 2050, providing the highest potential for safe-guarding threatened vegetation types. Our study provides an essential first step to assessing vegetation type vulnerability in the Arctic, but is based on predictions covering only 46% of Arctic land-scapes. The co-development of new protective measures by policymakers and indigenous peoples at a pan-Arctic scale requires more robust and spatially complete vegetation predictions. This is essential as increasing pressures from resource exploration and rapid infrastructure development complicate the road to a sustainable development of the rapidly thawing and greening Arctic.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Will Current Protected Areas Harbour Refugia for Threatened Arctic Vegetation Types until 2050?

Schaepman‐Strub

Plekhanova

Oehri

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…268FC by definition assumes that at some initial point in time, all forests were intact core ecosystems 269 with 100% condition, thus providing the information needed to assess two of the sub-criteria D2a 270 and D3. For D2a, we presume the rates of change of core vs. edges determine the fraction of the 271 extent of the ecosystem affected since 2000; and these are projected to 2050 using the proportional 272 annual rate of decline (PRD;Rodríguez et al 2015). For D3, we assessed the proportional rates of 273 decline over the actual annual rates of decline (ARD) in mean FC by ecosystem which were modelled 274 using the changes from 1850-2016, with the assumption that in 1850, all forest ecosystems were 275 core intact forest with maximum potential biomass(Figure 3).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For D3, we assessed the proportional rates of 273 decline over the actual annual rates of decline (ARD) in mean FC by ecosystem which were modelled 274 using the changes from 1850-2016, with the assumption that in 1850, all forest ecosystems were 275 core intact forest with maximum potential biomass(Figure 3). 276 277 The correlation between forest condition estimated in 2015, and the assumed 100% condition in 278 1850, can be calculated using either ARD or PRD (adapted fromRodríguez et al, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An area with a time period of high positive anomalies (higher NBR 239 than historical mean) followed by subsequently larger negative anomalies, will have an overall high 240 negative accumulated anomaly. 241 estimate the risk of collapse of each of the 64 Congo Basin ecosystem types, we used the IUCN 243Red List of Ecosystem criteria A2b, B1 and B2 and D(Bland et al, 2015). The Red List of Ecosystems is 244 a rule-based protocol that utilises information on spatial change, range size, and biotic and abiotic 245 variables for each ecosystem to identify ecosystems are corded according to most at risk of 246 ecosystem collapse.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…or identifying core and edge (N. M.Haddad et al, 2015; Riitters et al, 456 2015), FC provides a continuous index which can be applied in a more flexible manner for 457 conservation planning and assessment of ecosystem intactness. In particular in the Congo basin, FC 458 quantifies many forests which happen to fall outside the IFL definition yet are the locations of 459 essential corridors, valuable great ape habitat, or are identified as Key Biodiversity Areas (application of FC into Criterion D of the IUCN Red List enables us to assess the disruption of 465 biotic processes over a large region, assessing both spatial extent of impact and the severity, which 466 could be otherwise difficult to measure or estimate, for example biotic processes related to species 467 richness, trophic diversity (see supplementary material ofBland et al, 2015). We found that we 468would have under-estimated ecosystem risk by assigning the Red List category based only on the 469 geographic extent and area of occupancy by applying criterion A and B only.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Forest condition in the Congo Basin for the assessment of ecosystem conservation status

Shapiro

Grantham

Aguilar-Amuchastegui

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

14Measuring forest degradation is important for understanding and designing measures to protect 15 biodiversity and the capacity of forests to deliver ecosystem services. Conservation planning, 16 particularly the prioritization of management interventions for forests, is often lacking spatial data on 17 ecological condition, and it is often overlooked within decision-making processes. Existing methods 18for assessing forest degradation via proxies or binary measures (i.e. intact or not) cannot adequately 19consider the important variations of ecological condition. Direct methods to measure degradation 20 (e.g. through remote sensing) require extensive training data, calibration and validation, and may be 21 too sensitive to small-scale or short-term changes which may not be related to degradation. We 22 developed a metric termed Forest Condition (FC) which aims to measure the degree of forest 23 degradation, incorporating temporal history of forest change over a large spatial extent. We 24 parameterized this metric based on estimated changes in above ground biomass in the context of 25 forest fragmentation over time to estimate a continuous measure of forest degradation for Congo 26Basin countries. We estimate that just less than 70% of Congo Basin forests remain fully intact. FC 27 was validated by direct remote sensing measurements from Landsat imagery for DRC. Results 28 showed that FC was significantly positively correlated with forest canopy cover, gap area per hectare, 29and magnitude of temporal change in Normalized Burn Ratio. We tested the ability of FC to 30 distinguish primary and secondary degradation and deforestation and found significant differences in 31 gap area and spectral anomalies to validate our theoretical model. We used the IUCN Red List of 32Ecosystems criteria to demonstrate the value of applying forest degradation to assess the risk of 33 ecosystem collapse. Based on this assessment, we found that without including FC in the assessment 34 of biotic disruption, 12 ecosystems could not have a threat status assigned, and a further 9 35 ecosystems would have a lower threat status. Our overall assessment of ecosystems found 36 approximately half of forest of Congo Basin ecosystem types which cover over 20% of all forest area 37 are threatened including 4 ecosystems (<1% of total area) which are critically engendered. FC is a 38 transferrable and scalable assessment to support forest monitoring, planning, and management. 39

show abstract

Important Plant Areas: revised selection criteria for a global approach to plant conservation

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the severe threats to plant habitats and high levels of extinction risk for plant species in many parts of the world, plant conservation priorities are often poorly represented in national and global frameworks because of a lack of data in an accessible and consistent format to inform conservation decision making. The Important Plant Areas (IPAs) criteria system offers a pragmatic yet scientifically rigorous means of delivering these datasets, enabling informed national-or regional-scale conservation prioritisation, and contributing significantly towards global prioritisation systems including the International Union for Conservation of Nature Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) Standard. In this paper, we review the IPA rationale and progress on IPA identification to date, including the perceived limitations of the process and how these may be overcome. We then present a revised set of criteria for use globally, developed through the combined experiences of IPA -017-1336-6 identification over the past decade and a half and through a recent global consultation process. An overview of how the revised IPA criteria can work alongside the newly published KBA Standard is also provided. IPA criteria are based around a sound, scientific, global framework which acknowledges the practical problems of gathering plant and habitat data in many regions of the world, and recognises the role of peer reviewed expert opinion in the selection process. National and sub-national engagement in IPA identification is essential, providing a primary route towards long term conservation of key sites for plant diversity. The IPA criteria can be applied to the conservation of all organism groups within the plant and fungal kingdoms.

show abstract

Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of ecosystems categories and criteria

Cited by 40 publications

References 138 publications

Will Current Protected Areas Harbour Refugia for Threatened Arctic Vegetation Types until 2050?

Will Current Protected Areas Harbour Refugia for Threatened Arctic Vegetation Types until 2050?

Forest condition in the Congo Basin for the assessment of ecosystem conservation status

Important Plant Areas: revised selection criteria for a global approach to plant conservation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About