Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

The pitfall-trap of species conservation priority setting

Abstract

To elucidate the factors underlying species conservation priority setting, we analysed the relationships among species’ structural complexity, scientific attention, threatened species listing, and conservation investments at different organisational levels, including global, European, national, and sub-national. Although the literature often highlights the need to consider criteria other than extinction risk status, our results show that an excessive use of Red lists still persists in the setting of conservation priorities. We found that organismal complexity, available scientific information, and species listing combine together to create a positive feed-back loop, in which more complex organisms have a larger proportion of threatened species in the Red lists and legal lists. This bias promotes research that is devoted to understanding conservation problems as well as more funds invested to solve them. We propose that a sort of pitfall-trap is currently constraining the species conservation priority setting, in which few species, mainly threatened and better-known species, tend to receive most of the funds and policy attention. To counteract this pitfall-trap, we highlight the need to increase scientific effort on lower taxa and expand Red lists to assess lesser-known taxonomic groups as well as the need to use other criteria for species conservation prioritisation.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Abbreviations

IUCN:

International Union for Conservation of Nature

NRLs:

National Red Lists

CR:

Critically endangered

EN:

Endangered

VU:

Vulnerable

NT:

Near threatened

LC:

Least concern

NCTS:

National Catalogue of Threatened Species

SHC:

Sensitive to habitat change

SI:

Of special interest

BD:

Birds Directive

HD:

Habitat Directive

References

  1. Anonymous (1990) Royal Decree 439/90, which regulates the National Catalogue of Threatened Species. BOE 82, pp 9468–9471

  2. Baillie JEM, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart SN (2004) 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: a global species assessment. IUCN, Gland

  3. Baillie JEM, Collen B, Amin R, Akçakaya HR, Butchart SHM, Brummit N, Meagher TR, Ram M, Hilton-Taylor C, Mace GM (2008) Toward monitoring global biodiversity. Conserv Lett 1:18–26

  4. Balmford A, Mace GM, Leader-Williams N (1996) Designing the ark: setting priorities for captive breeding. Conserv Biol 10:719–727

  5. Balmford A, Crane P, Dobson A, Green RE, Mace GM (2005) The 2010 challenge: data availability, information needs and extraterrestrial insights. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 360:221–228

  6. Becker CG, Loyola RL (2008) Extinction risk assessments at the population and species level: implications for amphibian conservation. Biodivers Conserv 17:2297–2304

  7. Brito D, Ambal RG, Brooks T, De Silva N, Foster M, Hao W, Hilton-Taylor C, Paglia A, Rodríguez JP, Rodríguez JV (2010) How similar are national red lists and the IUCN Red List? Biol Conserv 134:1154–1158

  8. Burgman M (2004) Expert frailties in conservation risk assessment and listing decisions. In: Hutchings P, Lunney D, Dickman C (eds) Threatened species legislation—is it just an act?. Royal Zoological Society of NSW, Mosman, pp 20–29

  9. Butchart SHM, Akçakaya HR, Chanson J, Baillie JEM, Collen B, Quader S, Turner WR, Amin R, Stuart SN, Hilton-Taylor C (2007) Improvements to the Red List Index. PLoS ONE 2:e140

  10. Clark JA, May RM (2002) Taxonomic bias in conservation research. Science 5579:191–192

  11. Cox NA, Temple HJ (2009) European Red List of Reptiles. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

  12. de Grammont PC, Cuarón AD (2006) An evaluation of threatened species categorization systems used on the American continent. Conserv Biol 20:14–27

  13. Doadrio I (2001) Atlas y Libro Rojo de los Peces Continentales de España. The Spanish Ministry of the Environment, Madrid

  14. Farrier D, Whelan R, Mooney C (2007) Threatened species listing as a trigger for conservation action. Environ Sci Policy 10:219–229

  15. Fazey I, Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2005) What do conservation biologists publish? Biol Conserv 124:63–73

  16. Gärdenfors U (2001) Classifying threatened species at the national versus global levels. Trends Ecol Evol 16:511–516

  17. Gärdenfors U, Hilton-Taylor C, Mace GM, Rodríguez JP (2001) The application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional levels. Conserv Biol 15:1206–1212

  18. Garnett S, Crowley G, Balmford A (2003) The costs and effectiveness of funding the conservation of Australian threatened birds. Bioscience 7:658–665

  19. Hoffmann M, Brooks TM, da Fonseca GAB, Gascon C, Hawkins AFA, James RE, Langhammer P, Mittermeier RA, Pilgrim JD, Rodrigues ASL, Silva JMC (2008) Conservation planning and the IUCN Red List. Endanger Species Res 6:113–125

  20. IUCN (2001) IUCN Red List categories and criteria: version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission, Gland

  21. IUCN (2009) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.1. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 31 Jan 2009

  22. Joseph LN, Maloney RF, Possingham HP (2009) Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol. Conserv Biol 23:328–338

  23. Keller V, Bollmann K (2004) From red lists to species of conservation concern. Conserv Biol 18:1636–1644

  24. Lamoreux J, Akçakaya HR, Bennun L, Collar N, Boitani L, Brackett D, Brautigam A, Brooks T, da Fonseca G, Mittermeier R, Rylands A, Gärdenfors U, Hilton-Taylor C, Mace G, Stein B, Stuart S (2003) Value of the IUCN Red List. Trends Ecol Evol 18:214–215

  25. Laycock H, Moran D, Smart J, Raffaelli D, White P (2009) Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of conservation: The UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Biol Conserv 142:3120–3127

  26. Liu J, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Luck GW (2003) Effects of households dynamics on resource consumption and biodiversity. Nature 421:530–533

  27. Mace GM, Kunin W (1994) Classifying threatened species: means and ends. Philos Trans Biol Sci 344:91–97

  28. Mace GM, Lande R (1991) Assessing extinction threats—toward a reevaluation of IUCN threatened species categories. Conserv Biol 5:148–157

  29. Mace GM, Collar NJ, Gaston KJ, Hilton-Taylor C, Akçakaya HR, Leader-Williams N, Milner-Gulland EJ, Stuart SN (2008) Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN’s system for classifying threatened species. Conserv Biol 22:1424–1442

  30. Martí R, Moral JC (2003) Atlas de las Aves Reproductoras de España. The Spanish Ministry of the Environment and Spanish Ornithologist Society, Madrid

  31. Martín-López B, Montes C, Benayas J (2007) The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 139:67–82

  32. Martín-López B, Montes C, Benayas J (2008) Economic valuation of biodiversity conservation: the meaning of numbers. Conserv Biol 22:624–635

  33. Martín-López B, Montes C, Ramírez L, Benayas J (2009) What drives policy decision-making related to species conservation? Biol Conserv 142:1370–1380

  34. McShane TO (2003) The devil in the detail of biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 17:1–3

  35. Metrick A, Weitzman ML (1996) Patterns of behavior in endangered species preservation. Land Econ 1:1–16

  36. Miller RM, Rodríguez JP, Aniskowicz-Fowler T, Bambaradeniya C, Boles R, Eaton M, Gärderfons U, Keller V, Molur S, Walker S, Pollock C (2007) National threatened species listing based on IUCN criteria and regional guidelines: current status and future perspectives. Conserv Biol 21:684–696

  37. Milner-Gulland EJ, Kreuzberg-Mukhina E, Grebot B, Ling S, Bykova E, Abdusalamov I, Bekenov A, Gärdenfors 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. Biodivers Conserv 15:1873–1886

  38. Moreno JC (2008) Lista Roja 2008 de la flora vascular española. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino, y Sociedad Española de Biología de la Conservación de Plantas, Madrid

  39. Moreno Saiz JC, Domínguez Lozano F, Sainz Ollero H (2003) Recent progress in conservation of threatened Spanish vascular flora: a critical review. Biol Conserv 113:419–431

  40. Morillo C, Gómez-Campo C (2000) Conservation in Spain 1980–2000. Biol Conserv 95:165–174

  41. Munton P (1987) Concepts of threat to the survival of species used in Red Data Books and similar compilations. In: Fitter R, Fitter M (eds) the road to extinction. IUCN, Gland, pp 72–111

  42. Palomo JL, Gisbert J, Blanco JC (2007) Atlas y Libro Rojo de los mamíferos terrestres de España. The Spanish Ministry of the Environment, Madrid

  43. Pereira HM, Cooper HD (2006) Towards the global monitoring of biodiversity change. Trends Ecol Evol 21:123–129

  44. Pleguezuelos M, Márquez R, Lizana M (2002) Atlas y Libro Rojo de los Anfibios y Reptiles de España. The Spanish Ministry of the Environment, Madrid

  45. Possingham HP, Andelman SJ, Burgman MA, Medellín RA, Master LL, Keith DA (2002) Limits to the use of threatened species lists. Trends Ecol Evol 11:503–507

  46. Proença VM, Pereira HM, Vicente L (2008) Organismal complexity is an indicator of species existence value. Front Ecol Environ 6:298–299

  47. Redford KH, Coppolillo P, Sanderson EW, Fonseca GAB, Groves C, Mace G, Maginnis S, Mittermeier R, Noss R, Olson D, Robinson JG, Vedder A, Wright W (2003) Mapping the conservation landscape. Conserv Biol 17:116–132

  48. Restani M, Marzluff JM (2002) Funding extinction? Biological needs and political realities in the allocation of resources to endangered species recovery. Bioscience 52:169–177

  49. Rodrigues ASL, Pilgrim JD, Lamoreux JF, Hoffman M, Brooks TM (2006) The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 21:71–76

  50. Rodríguez JP (2008) National Red Lists: the largest global market for IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Endanger Species Res 6:196–198

  51. Schmeller DS, Gruber B, Budrys E, Framsted E, Lengyel S, Henle K (2008) National responsibilities in European species conservation: a methodological review. Conserv Biol 22:593–601

  52. Seddon PJ, Soorae PS, Launay F (2005) Taxonomic bias in reintroduction projects. Anim Conserv 8:51–58

  53. Sergio C, Casas C, Brugués M, Cros M (1994) Lista vermelha dos briófitos da Península Ibérica. Instituto da Conservaçao da Natureza; Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal

  54. Sergio C, Brugués M, Cros RM, Casas C, García C (2006) The 2006 Red List and an updated checklist of bryophytes of the Iberian Peninsula (Portugal, Spain and Andorra). Lindbergia 31:109–125

  55. Shapiro SS, Wilk MB (1965) An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52:591–611

  56. Shogren JF, Tschirhart J, Anderson T, Ando AW, Beissinger SR, Brookshire D, Brown GM, Coursey D, Innes R, Meyer SM, Polasky S (1999) Why economics matters for endangered species protection. Conserv Biol 13:1257–1261

  57. Smith KG, Darwall WRT (2006) The status and distribution of freshwater fish endemic to the Mediterranean Basin. IUCN, Gland

  58. Temple HJ, Cox NA (2009) European Red List of Amphibians. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

  59. Temple HJ, Terry A (2007) The status and distribution of European mammals. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

  60. Trimble MJ, van Aarde RJ (2010) Species inequality in scientific study. Conserv Biol 24:886–890

  61. Verdú JR, Galante E (2005) Libro Rojo de los Invertebrados de España. Dirección General para la Biodiversidad, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Madrid

  62. Vié J-C, Hilton-Taylor C, Pollock CM, Ragle J, Smart J, Stuart SN, Tong R (2008) The IUCN Red List: a key conservation tool. In: Vié J-C, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart SN (eds) Wildlife in a changing world—an analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland, pp 1–13

  63. Von May R, Catenazzi A, Angulo A, Brown JL, Carrillo J, Chávez G, Córdova JH, Curo A, Delgado A, Enciso MA, Gutiérrez R, Lehr E, Martínez JL, Medina-Muller M, Miranda A, Neira DR, Ochoa JA, Quiroz AJ, Rodríguez DA, Rodríguez LO, Salas AW, Seimon A, Siu-Ting K, Suárez J, Torres C, Twomey E (2008) Current state of conservation knowledge on threatened amphibian species in Peru. Trop Conserv Sci 1:397–416

  64. Wilson JRU, Proches S, Braschler B, Dixon ES, Richardson DM (2007) The (bio)diversity of science reflects the interests of society. Front Ecol Environ 5:409–414

  65. Zamin TJ, Baillie JEM, Miller RM, Rodríguez JP, Ardid A, Collen B (2010) National Red Listing beyond the 2010 target. Conserv Biol 24:1012–1020

Download references

Acknowledgments

Comments from two anonymous reviewers have greatly helped in the revision of this paper.

Author information

Correspondence to Berta Martín-López.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 1281 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOC 164 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martín-López, B., González, J.A. & Montes, C. The pitfall-trap of species conservation priority setting. Biodivers Conserv 20, 663–682 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9973-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Bias in conservation
  • Conservation priorities
  • Threatened species
  • IUCN Red Lists
  • Conservation legislation
  • Multi-scale analysis
  • Threat status