Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30653250›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2019

Applying habitat and population-density models to land-cover time series to inform IUCN Red List assessments.

Luca Santini, Stuart H M Butchart, Carlo Rondinini, Ana Benítez-López, Jelle P Hilbers, Aafke M Schipper, Mirza Cengic, Joseph A Tobias, Mark A J Huijbregts

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Cryptic species conservation: a review.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Using comparative extinction risk analysis to prioritize the IUCN Red List reassessments of amphibians.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Evidence-based guidelines for automated conservation assessments of plant species.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2023
    Article
  10. Integrating habitat-masked range maps with quantifications of prevalence to estimate area of occupancy in IUCN assessments.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2023
    Article
  11. Time-lagged effects of habitat fragmentation on terrestrial mammals in Madagascar.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Translating habitat class to land cover to map area of habitat of terrestrial vertebrates.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Global abundance estimates for 9,700 bird species.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  19. Combined effects of land use and hunting on distributions of tropical mammals.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2020
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Luca SantiniDepartment of Environmental Science, Institute for Wetland and Water Research, Faculty of Science, Radboud University, P.O. Box 9010, NL-6500 GL, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5418-3688
Stuart H M ButchartBirdLife international, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB23QZ, U.K.
Carlo RondininiDepartment of Biology and Biotechnologies, Sapienza Università di Roma, Viale dell'Università 32, 00185, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6617-018X
Ana Benítez-LópezDepartment of Environmental Science, Institute for Wetland and Water Research, Faculty of Science, Radboud University, P.O. Box 9010, NL-6500 GL, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6432-1837
Jelle P HilbersPBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, P.O. Box 30314, 2500 GH, The Hague, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9401-589X
Aafke M SchipperDepartment of Environmental Science, Institute for Wetland and Water Research, Faculty of Science, Radboud University, P.O. Box 9010, NL-6500 GL, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5667-0893
Mirza CengicDepartment of Environmental Science, Institute for Wetland and Water Research, Faculty of Science, Radboud University, P.O. Box 9010, NL-6500 GL, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4588-8974
Joseph A TobiasDepartment of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Silwood Park, Buckhurst Road, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 7PY, U.K.ORCID 0000-0003-2429-6179
Mark A J HuijbregtsDepartment of Environmental Science, Institute for Wetland and Water Research, Faculty of Science, Radboud University, P.O. Box 9010, NL-6500 GL, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7037-680X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Red List categories and criteria are the most widely used framework for assessing the relative extinction risk of species. The criteria are based on quantitative thresholds relating to the size, trends, and structure of species' distributions and populations. However, data on these parameters are sparse and uncertain for many species and unavailable for others, potentially leading to their misclassification or classification as data deficient. We devised an approach that combines data on land-cover change, species-specific habitat preferences, population abundance, and dispersal distance to estimate key parameters (extent of occurrence, maximum area of occupancy, population size and trend, and degree of fragmentation) and hence predict IUCN Red List categories for species. We applied our approach to nonpelagic birds and terrestrial mammals globally (∼15,000 species). The predicted categories were fairly consistent with published IUCN Red List assessments, but more optimistic overall. We predicted 4.2% of species (467 birds and 143 mammals) to be more threatened than currently assessed and 20.2% of data deficient species (10 birds and 114 mammals) to be at risk of extinction. Incorporating the habitat fragmentation subcriterion reduced these predictions 1.5-2.3% and 6.4-14.9% (depending on the quantitative definition of fragmentation) for threatened and data deficient species, respectively, highlighting the need for improved guidance for IUCN Red List assessors on the application of this aspect of the IUCN Red List criteria. Our approach complements traditional methods of estimating parameters for IUCN Red List assessments. Furthermore, it readily provides an early-warning system to identify species potentially warranting changes in their extinction-risk category based on periodic updates of land-cover information. Given our method relies on optimistic assumptions about species distribution and abundance, all species predicted to be more at risk than currently evaluated should be prioritized for reassessment.

Indexed as

Endangered SpeciesExtinction, BiologicalAnimalsConservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemPopulation Densityavesbirdsconservaciónconservationdata deficient speciesespecies con deficiencia de datosextinction riskmamíferosmammalsremote sensingriesgo de extinciónteledetección保护哺乳动物数据缺乏的物种灭绝风险遥感鸟类

Identifiers

PMID30653250
PMCPMC6767507

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.