Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Application of the IUCN Red Listing system to setting species targets for conservation planning purposes

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Biodiversity targets, or estimates of the quantities of biodiversity features that should be conserved in a region, are fundamental to systematic conservation planning. We propose that targets for species should be based on the quantitative thresholds developed for the Vulnerable category of the IUCN Red List system, thereby avoiding future listings of species in an IUCN Red List threat category or an increase in the extinction risk, or ultimate extinction, of species already listed as threatened. Examples of this approach are presented for case studies from South Africa, including threatened taxa listed under the IUCN Red List criteria of A to D, a species listed as Near Threatened, a species of conservation concern due to its rarity, and one species in need of recovery. The method gives rise to multiple representation targets, an improvement on the often used single representation targets that are inadequate for long term maintenance of biodiversity or the arbitrary multiple representation and percentage targets that are sometimes adopted. Through the implementation of the resulting conservation plan, these targets will ensure that the conservation status of threatened species do not worsen over time by qualifying for higher categories of threat and may actually improve their conservation status by eliminating the threat of habitat loss and stabilizing population declines. The positive attributes ascribed to the IUCN Red List system, and therefore to the species targets arising from this approach, are important when justifying decisions that limit land uses known to be detrimental to biodiversity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CR:

Critically Endangered

EN:

Endangered

VU:

Vulnerable

NT:

Near Threatened

LC:

Least Concern

References

  • Armstrong AJ (2001) Conservation status of herpetofauna endemic to Kwazulu-Natal. Afr J Herpetol 50:79–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong AJ (2002) Insects and the determination of priority areas for biodiversity conservation in KwaZulu-Natal province, South Africa. Afr Entomol 10:11–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgman MA, Possingham HP, Lynch AJJ et al (2001) A method for setting the size of plant conservation target areas. Conserv Biol 15:603–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabeza M, Moilanen A (2001) Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evol 16:242–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cabeza M, Moilanen A (2003) Site-selection algorithms and habitat loss. Conserv Biol 17:1402–1413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cousins SAO, Lavorel S, Davies I (2003) Modeling the effects of landscape pattern and grazing regimes on the persistence of plant species with high conservation value in grasslands in south-eastern Sweden. Landsc Ecol 18:315–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coverdale B, Daly B, Friedmann Y et al (eds) (2006) Oribi antelope (Ourebia ourebi) population and habitat viability assessment workshop report. Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN)/CBSG Southern Africa, Endangered Wildlife Trust, Johannesburg

  • Craib C (1996) Kniphofia typhoides: a spectacular species from South Africa’s grasslands. Herbertia 51:48–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Everett PS (1991) The ecology and status of oribi in Natal. M.Sc. thesis, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg

  • Everett PS, Perrin MR, Rowe-Rowe DT (1991) Responses by oribi to different range management practices in Natal. S Afr J Wildl Res 21:114–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrier S, Pressey RL, Barrett TW (2000) A new predictor of the irreplaceability of areas for achieving a conservation goal, its application to real-world planning, and a research agenda for further refinement. Biol Conserv 93:303–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann Y, Daly B (2004) Red data book of the mammals of South Africa: a conservation assessment. CBSG Southern Africa, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN), Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa

  • Hamer M (2006) Doratogonus hoffmani. In: IUCN 2009. IUCN Red List of threatened species, version 2009.2. www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed Feb 2010

  • Herbert DG (2004) Trachycystis clifdeni. In: IUCN 2009. IUCN Red List of threatened species, version 2009.2. www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed Feb 2010

  • IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) (2001) IUCN Red List categories and criteria, version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK

  • Lopez JE, Pfister CA (2001) Local population dynamics in metapopulation models: implications for conservation. Conserv Biol 15:1700–1709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loyola RD, Kubota U, da Fonseca GAB et al (2009) Key Neotropical ecoregions for conservation of terrestrial vertebrates. Biodivers Conserv 18:2017–2031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mace GM, Collar NJ, Gaston KJ et al (2008) Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN’s system for classifying threatened species. Conserv Biol 22:1424–1442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Magill RE, Russell GE, Morris JW et al (1983) PRECIS, the botanical research institute herbarium data bank. Bothalia 14:481–495

    Google Scholar 

  • Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meynard CN, Howell CA, Quinn JF (2009) Comparing alternative systematic conservation planning strategies against a politically driven conservation plan. Biodivers Conserv 18:3061–3083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neel MC, Cummings MP (2003) Genetic consequences of ecological reserve design guidelines: an empirical investigation. Conserv Genet 4:427–439

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1987) From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: a look at the nature conservancy. Biol Conserv 41:11–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver MDN, Short NRM, Hanks J (1978) Population ecology of oribi, grey rhebuck and mountain reedbuck in Highmoor State Forest Land, Natal. S Afr J Wildl Res 8:95–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfab MF (2002) An integrative approach for the conservation and management of South Africa’s floristic diversity at the provincial level. Biodivers Conserv 11:1195–1204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfab MF, Victor JE (2002) Threatened plants of Gauteng, South Africa. S Afr J Bot 68:370–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfab MF, Witkowski ETF (1999) Fire survival of the critically endangered succulent, Euphorbia clivicola R.A. Dyer—fire-avoider or fire-tolerant? Afr J Ecol 37:249–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey RL, Cowling RM, Rouget M (2003) Formulating conservation targets for biodiversity pattern and process in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Biol Conserv 112:99–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raimondo D, von Staden L, Foden W et al (eds) (2009) Red List of South African plants. Strelitzia 25. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Rebelo A (1991) Protea Atlas Manual: instruction booklet to the Protea Atlas Project. National Botanical Institute, Kirstenbosch

    Google Scholar 

  • Rondinini C, Stuart S, Boitani L (2005) Habitat suitability models and the shortfall in conservation planning for African vertebrates. Conserv Biol 19:1488–1497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe-Rowe DT (1982) Ecology of some mammals in relation to conservation management in Giant’s Castle Game Reserve. Ph.D. thesis, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg

  • Rowe-Rowe DT, Scotcher JSB (1986) Ecological carrying capacity of the Natal Drakensberg for wild ungulates. S Afr J Wildl Res 16:12–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford MC, Powrie LW, Midgley GF (2003) ACKDAT: a digital spatial database of distributions of South African plant species and species assemblages. S Afr J Bot 69:99–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar S, Sánchez-Cordero V, Londono MC et al (2009) Systematic conservation assessment for the Mesoamerica, Chocó, and Tropical Andes biodiversity hotspots: a preliminary analysis. Biodivers Conserv 18:1793–1828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Teeffelen AJA, Cabeza M, Moilanen A (2006) Connectivity, probabilities and persistence: comparing reserve selection strategies. Biodivers Conserv 15:899–919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vazquez L-B, Rodríguez P, Arita HT (2008) Conservation planning in a subdivided world. Biodivers Conserv 17:1367–1377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Victor JE, Keith M (2004) The Orange List: a safety net for biodiversity in South Africa. S Afr J Sci 100:139–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiersma YF, Nudds TD (2006) Conservation targets for viable species assemblages in Canada: are percentage targets appropriate? Biodivers Conserv 15:4555–4567

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank B. Escott for doing the GIS work for the oribi model and all those involved in collecting field data for the species included in this paper, especially L. Mills for the many years of dedicated field work in Gauteng province.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michèle F. Pfab.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pfab, M.F., Victor, J.E. & Armstrong, A.J. Application of the IUCN Red Listing system to setting species targets for conservation planning purposes. Biodivers Conserv 20, 1001–1012 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0009-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0009-0

Keywords

Navigation