Quantification of Extinction Risk: IUCN's System for Classifying Threatened Species

By Georgina M. Mace, N. Collar, Kevin J. Gaston, C. Hilton‐Taylor, H. Resit Akçakaya, N. Leader‐Williams, E. Milner‐Gulland, Simon N. Stuart. Conservation Biology, 2008

1,353 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7a1a454e6dce4a631dd2430b12611e0b634a46e5

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 Ecology

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Atlas of Brazilian Snakes: Verified Point-Locality Maps to Mitigate the Wallacean Shortfall in a Megadiverse Snake Fauna (2019, neutral): “However, our results also indicate the need to act quickly to preserve these newly detected biogeographical and biodiversity patterns, since narrow-ranged species are more prone to extinction than widespread ones (Mace et al., 2008; Staude et al., 2019).”
Using species distribution models to inform IUCN Red List assessments (2014, background): “The IUCN sets formal criteria for Red List assessments, based on a considerable body of population theory (Mace et al. 2008), to standardise them across diverse taxa (criteria A-E; IUCN 2013).”
Pragmatic population viability targets in a rapidly changing world (2010, neutral): “, 2007), albeit concomitant with extinction correlates such as habitat loss (Mace et al., 2008).”
Adapting the IUCN Red List criteria for invertebrates (2011, methodology): “Such a dramatic change could have undesirable consequences on the Red List’s long-term benefits (Mace et al., 2008).”
Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays (2013, background): “In addition, fisheries scientists have expressed concern that decline criteria designed for assessing the extinction risk of a highly productive species may be inappropriate for species with low productivity and less resilience (Musick, 1999a), although this was addressed with the use of generation ”
Fishing groupers towards extinction: a global assessment of threats and extinction risks in a billion dollar fishery (2013, background): “These criteria have been refined and improved through a broad consensus into the current version in use today (Version 3.1, available at http:// www.iucnredlist.org, accessed 14 November 2011; for a review of the development of these criteria, see Mace et al. 2008).”
Generation length for mammals (2013, methodology): “…List assessments, GL is used as a reference time-frame to assess a species extinction risk due to population reduction (criterion A), continuing decline of small populations over a definite time period (criterion C1; IUCN 2012b), calculated extinction probability (criterion E; Mace et al. 2008).”
Troubled waters: Threats and extinction risk of the sharks, rays and chimaeras of the Arabian Sea and adjacent waters (2018, background): “Categories are assigned objectively based on a number of criteria that indicate levels of extinction risk and include the following: rate of population declines (Criterion A), geographic range size and decline (Criterion B), small population size and decline (Criterion C), very small or restricted p”
A framework for assessing threats and benefits to species responding to climate change (2011, methodology): “IUCN Red Listing commonly classifies low density or localised species as threatened, based on distribution or popu- lation size criteria, in the absence of trend data (Mace et al. 2008), whereas the approach we have outlined requires either observed or projected trend data (preferably both).”
Socio‐economic impact classification of alien taxa (SEICAT) (2018, methodology): “This classification is analogous to the IUCN Red List and EICAT schemes (Mace et al. 2008; Blackburn et al. 2014, Hawkins et al. 2015).”
Prominent role of invasive species in avian biodiversity loss (2009, background): “Although the Red List has been criticized in its details, it remains the most complete, updated and comprehensive source for information on endangered and extinct birds (Butchart et al., 2004; Rodrigues et al., 2006; Mace et al., 2008).”