Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 199–205

The listing and de-listing of invertebrate species for conservation in Australia

  • T.R. New
  • D.P.A. Sands
Article

Abstract

Formal listing of species for protection is a responsible action in conferring conservation priority, and must be undertaken as objectively as possible, and redundant entries that distract from priority need be removed. Diverse groups, such as invertebrates, pose problems for listing because criteria of ‘rarity’ and ‘threat’ are often confounded. Species de-listed as a result of recovery action are a special category, in which conservation investment has been made; the principle of recognising these as ‘rehabilitated species’ with a formal duty of aftercare is discussed. Although the paper focuses on invertebrates in Australia, the principles have wider relevance in species-level conservation focus.

Conservation management Legal protection Protected species Recovery 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akcakaya H.R. and Ferson S. 1994. RAMAS Redlist. Threatened species classifications under uncertainty. Version 1.0. Applied Mathematics. Setauket, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Bean M.J. 1996. Creating policy on species diversity. In: Czaro R.C. and Johnston D.W. (eds), Biodiversity in Managed Landscapes, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 689-697.Google Scholar
  3. Bouchet P., Falkner G. and Seddon M.B. 1999. Lists of protected land and freshwater molluscs in the Bern Convention and European Habitats Directive: Are they relevant to conservation? Biol. Conserv. 90: 21-31.Google Scholar
  4. Doremus H. 1997. Listing decisions under the Endangered Species Act: Why better science isn't always better policy. Washington Univ. Law Quart. 75: 1029-1153.Google Scholar
  5. Doremus H. 2000. Delisting endangered species: An aspirational goal, not a realistic expectation. Environ. Law Reporter 30: 10434-10454.Google Scholar
  6. Doremus H. and Pagel J.E. 2001. Why listing may be forever: perspectives on delisting under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conserv. Biol. 15: 1258-1268.Google Scholar
  7. Gigon A., Langenauer R., Meier C. and Nievergelt B. 2000. Blue lists of threatened species with stabilised or increasing abundance; a new instrument for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 14: 402-413.Google Scholar
  8. Given D.R. and Norton D.A. 1993. A multivariate approach to assessing threat and for priority setting in threatened species conservation. Biol. Conserv. 64: 57-66.Google Scholar
  9. Haslett J.R. 1998. Suggested Additions to the invertebrate species listed in appendix 2 of the Bern Convention. Council for Europe, Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  10. Hill L. and Michaelis F.B. 1988. Conservation of Insects and Related Wildlife. Occasional paper no 13, Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra.Google Scholar
  11. Hutchings P.A. and Ponder W.F. 1999. Workshop: Criteria for assessing and conserving threatened invertebrates. In: Ponder W.and Lunney D.(eds),TheOther99%.TheConservationand Biodiversity of Invertebrates. Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, pp. 297-315.Google Scholar
  12. IUCN, 1994. IUCN Red List Categories. IUCN, Gland.Google Scholar
  13. Millsapp B.A., Gore J.A., Runde D.E. and Cerulen S.I. 1990. Setting priorities for the conservation of fish and wildlife species in Florida. Wildlife Monogr. 111: 1-57.Google Scholar
  14. New T.R. 1999a. Limits to species focusing in insect conservation. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 92: 853-860.Google Scholar
  15. New T.R. 1999b. Entomology and nature conservation. Eur. J. Entomol. 96: 11-17.Google Scholar
  16. New T.R. and Sands D.P.A. 2002. Narrow range endemicity and conservation status: interpretations for Australian butterflies. Invert. Syst. 16: 665-670.Google Scholar
  17. Palmer M.A., Hodgetts N.G., Wigginton M.J., Ing B. and Stewart N.F. 1997. The application to the British flora of the World Conservation Union's revised red list criteria and the significance of red lists for species conservation. Biol. Conserv. 82: 219-226.Google Scholar
  18. Ponder W.F., Hutchings P.A. and Chapman R. 2002. Overview of the Conservation of Australian Marine Invertebrates. A report for Environment Australia. www.ea.gov.au/coasts/ species/index.html.Google Scholar
  19. Sands D.P.A. 1999. Conservation status of Lepidoptera: assessment, threatening processes and recovery actions. In: Ponder W. and Lunney D. (eds), The Other 99%. The Conservation and Biodiversity of Invertebrates. Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, pp. 382-387.Google Scholar
  20. Sands D.P.A. and New T.R. 2002. The Action Plan for Australian Butterflies. Environment Australia, Canberra.Google Scholar
  21. Scott G.A.M., Entwisle T.J., May T.W. and Stevens G.N. 1997. A conservation overview of Australian non-Marine Lichens, Bryophytes, Algae and Fungi. Wildlife Australia, Canberra.Google Scholar
  22. Sikes D.S. and Raithel C.J. 2002. A review of hypotheses of decline of the endangered American burying beetle (Silphidae: Nicrophorus americanus Olivier). J. Ins. Conserv. 6: 103-113.Google Scholar
  23. van Swaay C. and Warren M.S. 1999. Red Data Book of European Butterflies (Rhopalocera). Nature and Environment series no 99, Council for Europe, Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  24. Yen A.L. and Butcher R.J. 1997. An Overview of the Conservation of Non-Marine Invertebrates in Australia. Environment Australia, Canberra.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • T.R. New
    • 1
  • D.P.A. Sands
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyLa Trobe UniversityAustralia
  2. 2.CSIRO EntomologyIndooroopillyAustralia

Personalised recommendations