Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 96, Issue 10–11, pp 1159–1168

National “versus” global red lists of imperiled fishes: why the discord?

Article

Abstract

Countries develop “Red Lists” of their endangered freshwater fish species. At the same time, international bodies such as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) recognize fishes threatened at a global scale. A comparison between red listed fish species in 12 countries with their IUCN ranks showed that many of the species that appear on country lists are not recognized similarly by IUCN, and vice versa. Disagreement arises as a result of missing assessments, misapplication of data or protocols, focus on local vs. global status, emphasis on subspecies vs. species, acceptance of simple rarity as a metric of imperilment for marginal populations, failure or inability of countries to follow IUCN protocols, lack of communication, disagreement on the status of species, and legal wrangling, among others. Regardless, disagreement can be used to justify delaying action to protect species and undermines the credibility of those engaged in preservation efforts. These problems could be diminished via greater communication and respect between national and international entities, active conflict resolution, and creation of an IUCN category that recognizes species protected by national legislation via a “TH(N) (Nationally Threatened)” rank, regardless of adherence to IUCN protocols.

Keywords

Regional red lists National red lists Endangered species Species protection programs International Union for the Conservation of Nature Imperilment ranking 

References

  1. Brito D et al (2010) How similar are national red lists and the IUCN Red List? Biol Conserv 143:1154–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. CONABIO (Comision nacional para el conocimiento y uso de la biodiversidad) (2001) La Nom-059-SEMARNAT-2001 lista 185 especies de peces. www.conabio.gob.mx/conocimiento/ise/fichas/doctos/peces.html (updated 19 December 2008); Accessed 1 Feb 2009.
  3. Campos H et al (1998) Categorías de conservación de peces nativos de aguas continentales de Chile. Bol Museu Nac Hist Nat 47:101–122Google Scholar
  4. COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2010. www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct5/index_e.cfm
  5. de Grammont PC, Cuarón AD (2006) An evaluation of threatened species categorization systems used on the American continent. Conserv Biol 20:14–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. EPBC (Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation) (2008) EPBC Act List of Threatened Fauna. www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=fauna. Accessed 20 Sept 2009.
  7. ESA (Endangered Species Act) (2008) Listed animals. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/listedAnimals.jsp. Accessed 20 Sept 2009.
  8. Fund Bio (Fundação Biodiversitas) (2004) Lista nacional das espécies de invertebrados aquáticos e peixes ameaçados de extinção com categorias da IUCN. 2004 revised list (www.biodiversitas.org.br). Accessed 1 Feb 2009.
  9. Gärdenfors U, Hilton-Taylor C, Mace GM, Rodriguez JP (2001) The application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional levels. Conserv Biol 15:1206–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Helfman GS (2007) Fish conservation: a guide to understanding and restoring global aquatic biodiversity and fishery resources. Island Press, Washington D. C.Google Scholar
  11. J-IBIS (Japan Integrated Biodiversity Information System) (2009) Red List of Threatened Fishes of Japan. www.biodic.go.jp/english/rdb/rdb_f.html. Accessed 23 Sept 2009.
  12. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources) (2001) 2001 Categories & Criteria (version 3.1) www.iucnredlist.org/static/categories_criteria_3_1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Accessed 18 Sept 2009.
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. IUCN (2009a) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 15 Sept 2009.
  15. IUCN (2009b) A users' guide to the IUCN Red List web site. Version 1.0 (March 2009) (includes a “Video tutorial: how to search the Red List”; www.iucnredlist.org/news/notice#b5464). Accessed 22 Sept 2009.
  16. Jelks HL et al (2008) Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33(8):372–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krabbenhoft TJ, Rohde FC, Quattro JM (2008) Threatened fishes of the world: Fundulus waccamensis (Hubbs and Raney, 1946) (Fundulidae). Environ Biol Fish 84:173–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lamoreux J et al (2003) Value of the IUCN red list. Trends Ecol Evol 18:214–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leidy RA, Moyle PB (1997) Conservation status of the world’s fish fauna: an overview. In: Fiedler PL, Kareiva PM (eds) Conservation biology for the coming decade. Chapman & Hall, NY, pp 187–227Google Scholar
  20. Mace GM et al (2008) Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN's system for classifying threatened species. Conserv Biol 22:1424–1442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miller RM et al (2007) National threatened species listing based on IUCN Criteria and Regional Guidelines: current status and future perspectives. Conserv Biol 21:684–696PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. NatureServe (2009) NatureServe Explorer. An Online Encyclopedia of Life. www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm
  23. NRL (National Red Lists) (2010) www.nationalredlist.org/site.aspx
  24. NZDOC (New Zealand Dept of Conservation) (2007) Freshwater fish. www.doc.govt.nz/Conservation/001~Plants-and-Animals/006~Threatened-species/Freshwater-fish.asp. Accessed 15 Jan 2009
  25. Ocock J, Baasanjav G, Baillie JEM, Erbenebat M, Kottelat M, MendsaikhanB. Smith K (compilers and editors) (2006) Mongolian red list of fishes. Regional Red List Series Vol. 3. Zoological Society of London, London. (In English and Mongolian).Google Scholar
  26. Page LM, Burr BM (1991) A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  27. Patra MK, Acharjee SK, Chakraborty SK (2005) Conservation categories of siluroid fishes in North-East Sundarbans, India. Biodivers Conserv 14:1863–1876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pritt JJ, Frimpong EA (2010) Quantitative determination of rarity of freshwater fishes and implications for imperiled-species designations. Conserv Biol 24:1249–1258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Red Book of Russia (2001) Red Book of Russia: law acts. Official edition. State Committee of Russian Federation for Protection of Nature, Moscow.Google Scholar
  30. Rodriguez JP, Rojas-Suarez F (1995) Libro rojo de la fauna Venezolana. PROVITA and Fundación Polar, CaracasGoogle Scholar
  31. Rodriguez JP et al (2000) Local data are vital to worldwide conservation. Nature (London) 403:241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. SARA (Species At Risk Act) (2008) Schedule 1 (Subsections 2(1), 42(2) and 68(2)). List of wildlife species at risk. www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/schedules_e.cfm?id=1. Accessed 22 Sept 2009.
  33. SARA Registry (2009) Species at Risk Public Registry. www.sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/permit/viewPermit_e.cfm?id=623&type=1 Accessed 22 Sept 2009.
  34. Scott WB, Crossman EJ (1973) Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bull 184.Google Scholar
  35. Scharpf C (2000) Politics, science, and the fate of the Alabama sturgeon. American Currents 26(3):6–14. www.nanfa.org/articles/pdf/alabamasturgeon.pdf.Google Scholar
  36. Skelton PH (1987) South African Red Data Book. Fishes. South African National Scientific Programmes Report 137. Pretoria: Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.Google Scholar
  37. Vaughan R (1995) State of extinction: the case of the Alabama sturgeon and ways opponents to the E.S.A. thwart protection for rare species. Alabama Law Review 46 (2) [Winter 1995]: 569–640.Google Scholar
  38. Vidthayanon C (2005) Thailand red data: fishes. Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  39. Warren ML Jr et al (2000) Diversity, distribution, and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern United States. Fisheries 25(10):7–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. WCA (Wildlife and Countryside Act) (2008) Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) of 1981 (revised in 1998; see www.naturenet.net/law/wca.html). Accessed 15 Jan 2009.
  41. Wyns D (2002) "Coregonus hoyi" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Coregonus_hoyi.html. Accessed 21September 2009.
  42. Yuma M, Hosoya K, Yoshikazu N (1998) Distribution of the freshwater fishes of Japan: an historical overview. Environ Biol Fish 52:97–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zamin TJ.Baillie JEM, Miller RM, Rodriguez JP Ardid, Collen B. (2010) National red listing beyond the 2010 target. Conserv. Biol. published online 22 March 2010Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Odum School of EcologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations