Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 19, Issue 7, pp 2071–2085 | Cite as

Subpopulations, locations and fragmentation: applying IUCN red list criteria to herbarium specimen data

  • Malin C. Rivers
  • Steven P. Bachman
  • Thomas R. Meagher
  • Eimear Nic Lughadha
  • Neil A. Brummitt
Original Paper

Abstract

Despite the ecological and economic importance of plants, the majority of plant species and their conservation status are still poorly known. Based on the limited knowledge we have of many plant species, especially those in the tropics, the use of GIS techniques can give us estimates of the degree of population subdivision to be used in conservation assessments of extinction risk. This paper evaluates how best to use the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria to produce effective and consistent estimates of subpopulation structure based on specimen data available in the herbaria around the world. We assessed population structure through GIS-based analysis of the geographic distribution of collections, using herbarium specimen data for 11 species of Delonix sensu lato. We used four methods: grid adjacency, circular buffer, Rapoport’s mean propinquity and alpha hull, to quantify population structure according to the terms used in the IUCN Red List: numbers of subpopulations and locations, and degree of fragmentation. Based on our findings, we recommend using the circular buffer method, as it is not dependent on collection density and allows points to be added, subtracted and/or moved without altering the buffer placement. The ideal radius of the buffer is debatable; however when dispersal characteristics of the species are unknown then a sliding scale, such as the 1/10th maximum inter-point distance, is the preferred choice, as it is species-specific and not sensitive to collection density. Such quantitative measures of population structure provide a rigorous means of applying IUCN criteria to a wide range of plant species that hitherto were inaccessible to IUCN classification.

Keywords

Extinction risk Fragmentation GIS Herbarium specimens IUCN red list Leguminosae Location Madagascar Subpopulation 

References

  1. Beyer HL (2004) Hawth’s Analysis Tools for ArcGIS 3.26. Available at http://www.spatialecology.com/htools
  2. Burgman MA, Fox JC (2003) Bias in species range estimates from minimum convex polygons: implications for conservation and options for improved planning. Anim Conserv 6:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Callmander MW, Schatz GE, Lowry PP II et al (2007) Identification of priority areas for plant conservation in Madagascar using Red List criteria: rare and threatened Pandanaceae indicate sites in need of protection. Oryx 41:168–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Du Puy DJ, Phillipson P, Rabevohitra R (1995) The genus Delonix (Leguminosae: Caesalpinioideae: Caesalpinieae) in Madagascar. Kew Bull 50:445–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Du Puy DJ, Labat J-N, Rabevohitra R, Villiers J-F, Bosser J, Moat J (2002) The Leguminosae of Madagascar. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UKGoogle Scholar
  6. Edelsbrunner H, Kirkpatrick D, Seidel R (1983) On the shape of a set of points in the plane. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 29:551–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ESRI (2006) Spatial Analyst 9.2 Copyright ©1999-2006. ESRI IncGoogle Scholar
  8. Gaston KJ, Fuller RA (2009) The sizes of species’ geographic ranges. J Appl Ecol 46:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Good T, Zjhra M, Kremen C (2006) Addressing data deficiency in classifying extinction risk: a case study of a radiation of Bignoniaceae from Madagascar. Conserv Biol 20:1099–1110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hartley S, Kunin WE (2003) Scale dependency of rarity, extinction risk, and conservation priority. Conserv Biol 17:1559–1570Google Scholar
  11. Haston EM, Lewis GP, Hawkins JA (2005) A phylogenetic reappraisal of the Peltophorum group (Caesalpinieae: Leguminosae) based on the chloroplast trnL-F, rbcL and rps16 sequence data. Am J Bot 92:1359–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hernandez PA, Graham CH, Master LL, Albert DL (2006) The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods. Ecography 29:773–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. IUCN (1994) IUCN Red List Categories: Version 2.3. Prepared by the IUCN species survival commission. IUCN, Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  14. IUCN (2001) IUCN Red List Categories: Version 3.1. Prepared by the IUCN species survival commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. IUCN (2009) 2009 IUCN Red List of threatened species. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed Mar 2010
  16. IUCN Standards and Petitions Working Group (2008) Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria Version 7.0. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Working Group of the IUCN SSC Biodiversity Assessments Sub-Committee in August 2008. Accessed from http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/RedList/RedListGuidelines.pdf
  17. Moat J (2007) Conservation assessment tools extension for ArcView 3.x, version 1.2. GIS Unit, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK. Available at: http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/gis/cats
  18. Moat J (2008) Conservation assessment tools extension for ArcGIS. GIS Unit, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UKGoogle Scholar
  19. Nic Lughadha E, Baillie J, Barthlott W et al (2005) Measuring the fate of plant diversity: towards a foundation for future monitoring and opportunities for urgent action. Philos Trans R Soc B 360:359–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rapoport EH (1982) Areography: geographical strategies of species. Fundacion Bariloche, Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Schatz GE (2000) The endemic plant families of Madagascar project: integrating taxonomy and conservation. In: Lourenco R, Goodman S (eds) Diversity and endemism in Madagascar. Memoires de la Societe de Biogeographie, Paris, pp 11–24Google Scholar
  22. Thiers B (2009) [continuously updated]. Index Herbariorum: a global directory of public herbaria and associated staff. New York Botanical Garden’s Virtual Herbarium. http://sweetgum.nybg.org/ih/
  23. UNEP (2002) (United Nations Environment Programme) Global strategy for plant conservation. COP Decision VI/9, CBD Secretariat, Montreal. www.cdb.int/decisions/cop6/?m=COP-06&id=7183&lg=0
  24. Waples RS, Gaggiotti O (2006) What is a population? An empirical evaluation of some genetic methods for identifying the number of gene pools and their degree of connectivity. Mol Ecol 15:1419–1439CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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. Biodivers Conserv 12:1537–1552CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Malin C. Rivers
    • 1
    • 2
  • Steven P. Bachman
    • 1
  • Thomas R. Meagher
    • 2
  • Eimear Nic Lughadha
    • 1
  • Neil A. Brummitt
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Royal Botanic GardensKew, RichmondUK
  2. 2.Centre for Evolution, Genes & Genomics, School of BiologyUniversity of St AndrewsSt Andrews, FifeUK
  3. 3.Department of BotanyNatural History MuseumLondonUK

Personalised recommendations