Classifying threatened species at national versus global levels

By U. Gärdenfors. 2001

193 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Insect Science, Nature and Landscape Conservation, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/06421ed962ce77919863d6e1a4379b2c9636cd46

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Insect Science

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

In Plant Science

Citations in the corpus

Designatable Units for Status Assessment of Endangered Species (2005, background): “Contrarily, conservation status is determined based on ecological data, including information on habitat and population trends and threats, according to criteria grounded, for instance, in time-to-extinction models (Mace & Lande 1991; Gärdenfors 2001).”
Mammal Conservation in Brazil (2005, background): “First, the IUCN list is global—a species threatened regionally is not necessarily threatened globally (Gärdenfors 2001).”
The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. (2006, methodology): “[ 34 ]), even though many of these have a history pre-dating the Red List itself.”
The Tropical Biodiversity Data Gap: Addressing Disparity in Global Monitoring (2008, background): “National level conservation assessment National and regional level conservation assessments may help deliver information more compatible to local-level conservation planning [23] and provide one option to assess progress towards CBD targets at a national level.”
When can we trust population trends? A method for quantifying the effects of sampling interval and duration (2019, background): “…(Rodrigues et al. , 2006), many national threatened species ranking systems (e.g. NESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, 2018; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2018) and can convey to policy makers the state of nature globally, regionally and locally (Gärdenfors, 2001; Collen et al. , 2009).”
A new method to set conservation priorities in biodiversity hotspots (2011, background): “Because of these limitations, several countries have tried to adapt IUCN criteria to local requirements (Miller et al. 2007; Rana and Samant 2010): a regional (Gärdenfors et al. 2001) and national (Gärdenfors 2001) approach is therefore needed.”
Wildlife in a Politically Divided World: Insularism Inflates Estimates of Brown Bear Abundance (2016, background): “Although global assessments motivated the design of IUCN Red List categories and criteria, there is often interest in applying them for regional, national, or local assessments, in part, because many conservation actions are taken at the subglobal level (Gärdenfors 2001; Milner-Gulland et al. 2006).”
ENDEMICS–AREA RELATIONSHIPS: THE INFLUENCE OF SPECIES DOMINANCE AND SPATIAL AGGREGATION (2003, methodology): “The need to investigate the effect of spatial scale on risk assessments in a set of geographically nested areas is becoming widely recognized (Gärdenfors 2001).”
Evaluating costs for the in vitro propagation and preservation of endangered plants (2011, background): “If approximately 10% of the plant species in the world are endangered (Gardenfors 2001; Maunder et al. 2004), this would suggest, as a rough estimation, that 10% of recalcitrant rainforest species, or between 2,000 and 3,000 species, might be endangered in that habitat.”
From Red Lists to Species of Conservation Concern (2004, background): “This is not necessarily equivalent to a need for conservation action or for the setting of national conservation priorities (Gärdenfors 2001; Gärdenfors et al. 2001; Possingham et al. 2002).”
Defining a role for herbarium data in Red List assessments: a case study of Plectranthus from eastern and southern tropical Africa (2003, methodology): “Gardenfors (2001) implemented a 2 grid size of 5 3 5 km (25 km ), except for species suspected to be CR, where a grid 2 size of 2 3 2 km (4 km ) was adopted. There are two problems with this method. First, a species must be assumed to be EN before any analysis is carried out, introducing further unc”
Unraveling the conservation status of Data Deficient species (2013, methodology): “In this context, red lists are important tools used to help in decision making both at the global level (Gärdenfors, 2001; Possingham et al., 2002; Rodrigues et al., 2006), and at the regional/national levels (Brito et al., 2010; IUCN, 2010).”
Threatened and endemic species: are they good indicators of patterns of biodiversity on a national scale? (2002, background): “…paucity of national scale studies of the wider effectiveness of networks chosen on the basis of threatened or endemic species is particularly problematic, because the concepts of threat and of endemism do not necessarily translate readily from the global to the national scale (Gärdenfors 2001).”