Journal of Natural Environment

The Role of Geographic Range Metrics in Determining National Threat Status of Species; A Case Study of Anatidae in Iran

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Abstract

Geographic range metrics, important predictors of extinction risk, are commonly used in international and national red listing processes. Criterion B of IUCN Red List is based on these metrics, especially the Extent of Occurrence (EOO) and the Area of Occupancy (AOO). Inconsistencies in interpreting the two metrics and methods for calculating them have caused criterion B to be the most commonly misused among the Red List criteria. With an aim to introduce a nationally practical and repeatable method for calculating EOO and AOO, in this study these metrics were calculated for Anatidae in Iran. For calculating EOOs, distribution ranges were considered without exclusion of discontinuities and areas of unsuitable habitat. For calculating AOOs, since the scale of the present distribution maps (cell size of 25 km) differed from the IUCN reference scale (cell size of 2 km), scale correction factors (C) were used to determine AOOs in the reference scale. Of the 29 non-breeding and 14 breeding species we assessed, three breeding species have the potential to be classified under threatened categories based on EOO while 27 non-breeding and 14 breeding species have the potential to belong to threatened categories based on AOO. The methods used in this study clearly showed the differences in definition and purpose of EOO and AOO. Considering the scarcity of population data on wildlife species in Iran, which hampers the use of other Red List criteria, calculating EOOs and AOOs and assessing species based on criterion B can make the preparation of national red lists practicable.

Keywords

 
 
Bachman, S., Moat, J., Hill, A.W., de la Torre, J. , Scott, B., 2011. Supporting Red List threat assessments with GeoCAT: geospatial conservation assessment tool. In: Smith V, Penev L (Eds) e-Infrastructures for data publishing in biodiversity science. ZooKeys 150: 117–126.
Clubbe, C., Pollard, B., Smith-Abbott, J., Walker, R. , Woodfield, N., 2003. Acacia anegadensis. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2..www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 27 November 2012.
Eaton, M.A., Gregory, R.D., Noble, D.G., Robinson, J.A., Hughes, J., Procter, D., Brown, A.F. , Gibbons, D.W., 2005. Regional IUCN Red Listing: the Process as Applied to Birds in the United Kingdom. Conservation Biology 19: 1557–1570.
ESRI INC, 2008. ArcGIS 9.3. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands.
Gaston, K.J. , Fuller, R.A., 2009. The sizes of species’ geographic ranges. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 1-9.
IUCN. 2001. IUCN Red List categories and criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. ii+30 pp
IUCN. 2003. Guidelines for application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional levels. Version 3.0. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. ii+26 pp
IUCN. 2011. Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List categories and criteria. Version 9.0. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. Available from http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf.
Joseph, L.N. , Possingham, H.P., 2008. Grid-based monitoring methods for detecting population declines: Sensitivity to spatial scale and consequences of scale correction. Biological Conservation 141: 1868-1875.
Kaboli, M., Aliabadian, M., Tohidifar, M., Hashemi, A. , Roselaar, C.S., 2012. Atlas of Birds of Iran. Tehran, Iran: Iran Department of Environment.
Keller, V., Zbienden, N., Schmid, H. , Volet, B., 2005. A Case Study in Applying the IUCN Regional Guidelines for National Red Lists and Justifications for their Modification. Conservation Biology 19: 1827-1834.
Marino, J. , Sillero-Zubiri, C., 2011. Canis simensis. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 27 November 2012.
Milner-Gulland, E.J., Kreuzberg-Mukhina, E., Grebot, B., Ling, S., Bykova, E., Abdusalamov, I., Bekenov, A., GÃrdenfors, U., Hilton-Taylor, C., Salnikov, V. , Stogova, L., 2006. Application of IUCN Red Listing Criteria at the Regional and National Levels: A Case Study from Central Asia. Biodiversity and Conservation 15: 1873-1886.
Moat, J. 2007. Conservation Assessment Tools Extension for ArcView 3.x, Version 1.0. GIS Unit. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Available from http://www.kew.org/gis/projects/cats
Purvis, A., Gittleman, J.L., Cowlishaw, G. , Mace, G.M., 2000. Predicting extinction risk in declining species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 267: 1947-1952.
Rivers, M., Bachman, S., Meagher, T., Nic Lughadha, E. , Brummitt, N., 2010. Subpopulations, locations and fragmentation: applying IUCN red list criteria to herbarium specimen data. Biodiversity and Conservation 19: 2071-2085.
Rivers, M.C., Taylor, L., Brummitt, N.A., Meagher, T.R., Roberts, D.L. , Lughadha, E.N., 2011. How many herbarium specimens are needed to detect threatened species? Biological Conservation 144: 2541-2547.
Sadovy, Y., 2003. Polyprion americanus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 27 November 2012.
Scott, D.A. , Rose, P.M., 1996. Atlas of Anatidae populations in Africa and western Eurasia. Wageningen: Wetlands International.
Willis, F., Moat, J. , Paton, A., 2003. Defining a role for herbarium data in Red List assessments: a case study of Plectranthus from eastern and southern tropical Africa. Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 1537-1552.
 
 
Journal of Natural Environment
Volume 68, Issue 2 - Serial Number 2
September 2015
Pages 293-303