Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 12, Issue 7, pp 1537–1552 | Cite as

Defining a role for herbarium data in Red List assessments: a case study of Plectranthus from eastern and southern tropical Africa

Abstract

Red Lists are widely used to indicate species at risk of extinction. Specimen sheets in herbaria provide an important source of data relevant for Red List assessments. The aims of this paper are to establish which data can be sourced from specimen information to satisfy IUCN Red Data List criteria and to identify the specific criteria that can be used. Red List parameters are measured within a Geographical Information System (GIS), as this provides an objective and repeatable methodology which is less subjective than manual methods. Data used to explore this were gathered during the course of preparing a monograph on Plectranthus (Lamiaceae). Criteria relating to distribution (extent of occurrence, area of occupancy and fragmentation) and population profile (projected continuing decline and number of subpopulations) proved most suitable for assigning categories of threat. Estimates of mature individuals, generation length, population size, population reduction, extreme fluctuation and number of locations could not be derived from herbarium material without making inconsistent subjective decisions. In addition to comprehensively databased specimen information, extensive field knowledge is required to produce better estimates for assessing extinction risk. In order to enhance the usefulness of specimen information in the future, improvements in recording additional botanical data at the time of collection would be beneficial. Overall, herbaria provide a useful starting point for conservation-related work and can help to guide future work.

Conservation Geographical Information Systems Herbarium specimens IUCN Red List criteria Plectranthus 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akçakaya R. and Ferson S. 1999. RAMAS Red List Threatened Species Classifications Under Uncertainty. User Manual for Version 1.0, Applied Biomathematics, Setauket, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Botanic Gardens Conservation International 2000. The Gran Canaria Declaration: Calling for a Global Program for Plant Conservation. Botanic Gardens Conservation International, Richmond, California.Google Scholar
  3. Burgman M., Maslin B.R., Andrewartha D., Keatley M.R., Boek C. and McCarthy M. 2000. Inferring threat from scientific collections. In: Ferson S. and Burgman M. (eds), Quantitative Methods for Conservation Biology. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 7–26.Google Scholar
  4. ESRI 1996. ArcAtlas™: Our Earth. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California.Google Scholar
  5. ESRI 1997. World Agricultural Threat to the Environment. http://www.geographynetwork.com.Google Scholar
  6. ESRI 1999. Arcview GIS™.Google Scholar
  7. Gärdenfors U. 2001. Classifying threatened species at national versus global levels. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 511–516.Google Scholar
  8. Golding J.S. 2001. Southern African herbaria and Red Data Lists. Taxon 50: 593–602.Google Scholar
  9. Golding J.S. 2002. Southern African Plant Red Data Lists Southern African Botanical Diversity Network Report Series Number 14, Pretoria, South Africa..Google Scholar
  10. Golding J.S. and Smith P.P. 2001. A 13–point flora strategy to meet conservation challenges. Taxon 50: 475–478.Google Scholar
  11. Hilton-Taylor C. (Compiler) 2000. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  12. Holmgren P. 1990. Index Herbariorum. 8th edn. New York Botanical Garden, http://www.nybg.org/bsci/ih/.Google Scholar
  13. IUCN 1994. IUCN Red List Categories, prepared by the IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  14. IUCN Species Survival Commission 2000a. Habitat Types Authority File. http://www.redlist.org / habitat-types.html.Google Scholar
  15. IUCN Species Survival Commission 2000b. 2000 Red List of Threatened Species. http://www.redlist. org.Google Scholar
  16. IUCN Species Survival Commission 2001. IUCN Red List CategoriesVersion 3.1. http://194.158.18.4/intranet/DocLib/Docs/IUCN973.rtf.Google Scholar
  17. MacDougall A.S., Loo J.A., Clayden S.R., Goltz J.G. and Hinds H.R. 1998. Defining conservation priorities for plant taxa in southeastern New Brunswick, Canada using herbarium records. Biological Conservation 86: 325–338.Google Scholar
  18. McGarigal K., Marks B. and Holmes C. 2000. Fragstats: User Guidelines v. 3. Department of Natural Resources Conservation, University of Massachusetts, http://www.unix.oit.umass.edu/fragstat.Google Scholar
  19. Oldfield S., Lusty C. and McKinven A. 1998.World List of Threatened Trees.World Conservation Press, Cambridge, UK, http://www.wcmc.org.uk/trees/Background/intro.htm.Google Scholar
  20. Olson J.S. 1994. Global ecosystem framework – definitions. USGS EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Internal Report.Google Scholar
  21. Rempel R. 2000. Patch Analyst 2.2©& Patch Analyst Grid 2.1. Sustainable Forest Management Network (NCE) with support from the Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research. http:flash.lakeheadu.ca. / rrempel/patch/.Google Scholar
  22. Rapoport E.H. 1982. Areography: Geographical Strategies of Species. Pergamon Press, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Schatz G.E., Birkinshaw C., Lowry II P.P., Randriantafika F. and Ratovoson F. 2000. The Endemic Plant Families of Madagascar Project: Integrating Taxonomy and Conservation. In: Lourenço W.R. and Goodman S.M. (eds), Diversité et Endémisme à Madagascar. Mémoires de la Societé de Biogéophie, Paris.Google Scholar
  24. Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity 2002. Decisons adopted by the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its Sixth Meeting. The Hague, 7–19 April 2002. Global Strategy for Plant Conservation, pp.73–85. http://www.biodiv.org/doc/decisions/cop-06–dec-en.pdf.Google Scholar
  25. Ter Steege H., Jansen-Jacobs M.J. and Datadin V.K. 2000. Can botanical collections assist in a National Protected Area Strategy in Guyana? Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 215–240.Google Scholar
  26. United States Board on Geographic Name uses database 2003. http://gnpswww.nima.mil/geonames/GNSGoogle Scholar
  27. USGS-NASA Distributed Active Archive Center 2000. Global Land Cover Characteristics Datasets. http://edcdaac.usgs.gov/glcc/globdoc2–0.htm.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HerbariumRoyal Botanic GardensKew, RichmondUK

Personalised recommendations