Data Deficient birds on the IUCN Red List: What don’t we know and why does it matter?

By S. Butchart, Jeremy P. Bird. 2010

121 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/56322cb93fd53c1a80b38d0afb941a64ac1401c6

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecological Modeling

In Global and Planetary Change

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Unraveling the conservation status of Data Deficient species (2013, background): “Besides that, intrinsic biological traits of the group might induce to a true higher level of data deficiency, such as small body size, number of cryptic species, fossorial habits, and nocturnal activity, for example (Butchart and Bird, 2010).”
Amphibians over the edge: silent extinction risk of Data Deficient species (2014, background): “Attempts to address the status of DD vertebrates have been rare and largely restricted to birds at the global scale (Butchart & Bird, 2010), with just one recent study addressing local-scale amphibian status (Morais et al., 2013).”
The conservation status of the world's reptiles (2013, background): “…thus likely to fall within a threatened category in future based on additional data [although in other taxa, indications are that DD species will often fall into Least Concern categories (e.g., birds; Butchart and Bird, 2010) or remain largely Data Deficient (e.g., mammals; Collen et al., 2011)].”
Global raptor research and conservation priorities: Tropical raptors fall prey to knowledge gaps (2019, background): “Taken to the limits, a Critically Endangered spe‐ cies with zero publications has an RCPI of 1, whereas the Least Concern and most‐studied Common Barn owl has an RCPI of 0.1.”
Overcoming data deficiency in reptiles (2016, background): “Data Deficiency is higher than in birds (0.6%; Butchart and Bird, 2010) and mammals (15%; Schipper et al., 2008), but lower levels than in amphibians (25%; Stuart et al., 2004), Odonata (35%; Clausnitzer et al., 2009), and freshwater crabs (49%; Cumberlidge et al., 2009).”
Biases in the current knowledge of threat status in lizards, and bridging the ‘assessment gap’ (2016, unknown): “this study, Table 1), have higher levels of data deficiency compared to birds (0.6%; Butchart and Bird, 2010), and mammals (15%; Schipper et al.”