Conserving imperiled species: a comparison of the IUCN Red List and U.S. Endangered Species Act
Correction(s) for this article
-
Corrigendum for Harris et al. 2011, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00205.x/abstract
- Volume 5Issue 2Conservation Letters
- pages: 157-157
- First Published online: April 9, 2012
J. Berton C. Harris
Environment Institute and School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorJ. Leighton Reid
Department of Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA
Search for more papers by this authorBrett R. Scheffers
Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117543, Singapore
Search for more papers by this authorThomas C. Wanger
Environment Institute and School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
Agroecology, Grisebachstr 6, University of Göttingen, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorNavjot S. Sodhi
Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117543, Singapore
Deceased
Search for more papers by this authorDamien A. Fordham
Environment Institute and School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorBarry W. Brook
Environment Institute and School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorJ. Berton C. Harris
Environment Institute and School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorJ. Leighton Reid
Department of Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA
Search for more papers by this authorBrett R. Scheffers
Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117543, Singapore
Search for more papers by this authorThomas C. Wanger
Environment Institute and School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
Agroecology, Grisebachstr 6, University of Göttingen, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorNavjot S. Sodhi
Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117543, Singapore
Deceased
Search for more papers by this authorDamien A. Fordham
Environment Institute and School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorBarry W. Brook
Environment Institute and School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorEditor: Phillip Levin
Abstract
The United States conserves imperiled species with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). No studies have evaluated the ESA's coverage of species on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, which is an accepted standard for imperiled species classification. We assessed the ESA's coverage of IUCN-listed birds, mammals, amphibians, gastropods, crustaceans, and insects, and studied the listing histories of three bird species and Pacific salmonids in more detail. We found that 40.3% of IUCN-listed U.S. birds are not listed by the ESA, and most other groups are underrecognized by >80%. Species with higher IUCN threat levels are more frequently recognized by the ESA. Our avian case studies highlight differences in the objectives, constraints, and listing protocols of the two institutions, and the salmonids example shows an alternative situation where agencies were effective in evaluating and listing multiple (related) species. Vague definitions of endangered and threatened, an inadequate ESA budget, and the existence of the warranted but precluded category likely contribute to the classification gap we observed.
Supporting Information
Table S1: Bird species listed as imperiled by the Endangered Species Act but not included on the IUCN Red List.
Figure S1: Pathways to be listed under the Endangered Species Act.
Figure S2: Bird extinctions by decade in the United States.
Figure S3: Case study species.
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| CONL_205_sm_suppmat.doc821.5 KB | Supporting info item |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
References
- American Bird Conservancy (ABC). (2008) Agency proposes listing two Hawaiian birds on brink of extinction under Endangered Species Act. http://www.abcbirdsorg/newsandreports/releases/080930html (visited Jan. 15, 2011).
- Ando, A.W. (1999) Waiting to be protected under the Endangered Species Act: the political economy of regulatory delay. J Law Econ 42, 29–60.
- Arroyo, T.P.F., Olson M.E., García-Mendoza A., Solano E. (2009) A GIS-based comparison of the Mexican national and IUCN methods for determining extinction risk. Conserv Biol 23, 1156–1166.
- BirdLife International (BLI). (2010) BirdLife International data zone. http://www.birdlife.org/datazone.html (visited Sep. 20, 2010).
- Bottrill, M.C., Joseph L.N., Carwardine J. et al . (2008) Is conservation triage just smart decision making? Trends Ecol Evol 23, 649–654.
- Chesser, R.T., Banks R.C., Barker F.K. et al . (2010) Fifty-first supplement to the American Ornithologists’ Union check-list of North American birds. Auk 127, 726–744.
- Davison, G.W.H., Ng P.K.L., Chew H.H. (2008) The Singapore Red Data Book: threatened plants and animals of Singapore. Nature Society (Singapore), Singapore .
- D’Elia, J., McCarthy S. (2010) Time horizons and extinction risk in endangered species categorization systems. BioScience 60, 751–758.
- de Grammont, P., Cuarón A. (2006) An evaluation of the threatened species categorization systems used on the American continent. Conserv Biol 20, 14–27.
- Dunn, J.L., Alderfer J., editors. (2006) National geographic guide to the birds of North America, 5th edition. National Geographic Society, Washington , D.C .
- Elphick, C.S., Roberts D.L., Reed J.M. (2010) Estimated dates of recent extinctions for North American and Hawaiian birds. Biol Conserv 143, 617–624.
- General Accounting Office (GAO). (1979) Endangered species: a controversial issue needing resolution. Report to the Congress of the United States, United States General Accounting Office, CED-79–65, Washington, D.C.
- Greenwald, D.N. (2009) Effects on species’ conservation of reinterpreting the phrase “significant portion of its range” in the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conserv Biol 23, 1374–1377.
- Greenwald, D.N., Suckling K.F., Taylor M. (2006) The listing record. Pages 51–67 in D.D. Goble, J.M. Scott, F.W. Davis, editors. The Endangered Species Act at thirty: renewing the conservation promise. Island Press, Washington , D.C .
- International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (2001) IUCN Red List categories and criteria. Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission, Gland , Switzerland and Cambridge , UK . http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/categories-and-criteria/2001-categories-criteria (visited Nov. 8, 2008).
- International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (2009) IUCN Red List of threatened species. Version 2009.2. World Conservation Union, Gland , Switzerland and Cambridge , UK . http://www.iucnredlist.org (visited Jul. 15, 2010).
- Laband, D.N., Nieswiadomy M. (2006) Factors affecting species’ risk of extinction: an empirical analysis of ESA and NatureServe listings. Contemporary Econ Pol 24, 160–171.
- Lamoreux, J., Akçakaya H.R., Bennun L. et al . (2003) Value of the IUCN Red List. Trends Ecol Evol 18, 214–215.
- Mace, G.M., Collar N.J., Gaston K.J. et al . (2008) Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN's system for classifying threatened species. Conserv Biol 22, 1424–1442.
- McMillan, M., Wilcove D.S. (1994) Gone but not forgotten: why have species protected by the Endangered Species Act become extinct? Endangered Species Update 11, 5–6.
- Miller, J.K., Scott J.M., Miller C.R., Waits L.P. (2002) The Endangered Species Act: dollars and sense? BioScience 52, 163–168.
- Miller, R.M., Rodríguez J.P., Aniskowicz-Fowler T. et al . (2007) National threatened species listing based on IUCN criteria and regional guidelines: current status and future perspectives. Conserv Biol 21, 684–696.
- NatureServe. (2005) NatureServe central databases. NatureServe, Arlington , VA .
- O’Grady, J.J., Burgman M.A., Keith D.A. et al . (2004) Correlations among extinction risks assessed by different systems of threatened species categorization. Conserv Biol 18, 1624–1635.
- Possingham, H.P., Andelman S.J., Burgman M.A., Medellín R.A., Master L.L., Keith D.A. (2002) Limits to the use of threatened species lists. Trends Ecol Evol 17, 503–507.
-
Pratt, H.D. (2005) The Hawaiian honeycreepers: Drepanidinae. Oxford University Press,
Oxford
,
UK
.
10.1093/oso/9780198546535.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Pyle, R.L. (2002) Checklist of the birds of Hawaii. Elepaio 62, 137–148.
- Regan, T.J., Burgman M.A., McCarthy M.A. et al . (2005) The consistency of extinction risk classification protocols. Conserv Biol 19, 1969–1977.
- Rodrigues, A.S.L., Pilgrim J.D., Lamoreux J.F., Hoffmann M., Brooks T.M. (2006) The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 21, 71–76.
- Rodríguez, J.P. (2008) National Red Lists: the largest global market for IUCN Red List categories and criteria. Endangered Species Res 6, 193–198.
- Schipper, J., Chanson J.S., Chiozza F. et al . (2008) The status of the world's land and marine mammals: diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science 322, 225–230.
- Schwartz, M.W. (2008) The performance of the Endangered Species Act. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 39, 279–299.
- Scott, J.M., Goble D.D., Svancara L.K., Pidgorna A. (2006) By the numbers. Pages 16–35 in D.D. Goble, J.M. Scott, F.W. David, editors. The Endangered Species Act at thirty: renewing the conservation promise. Island Press , Washington , D.C .
- Stokstad, E. (2005) What's wrong with the Endangered Species Act? Science 309, 2150–2152.
- Stokstad, E. (2007) Endangered Species Act: appointee ‘reshaped’ science, says report. Science 316, 37.
- Suckling, K.F., Slack R., Nowicki B. (2004) Extinction and the Endangered Species Act. Unpublished report, Center for Biological Diversity, San Francisco , CA .
- Taylor, M.F.J., Suckling K.F., Rachlinski J.J. (2005) The effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act: a quantitative analysis. BioScience 55, 360–367.
- Traill, L.W., Brook B.W., Frankham R.R., Bradshaw C.J.A. (2010) Pragmatic population viability targets in a rapidly changing world. Biol Conserv 143, 28–34.
- US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2006) 12-month finding on a petition to list the cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea) as threatened with critical habitat. Federal Register 71, 70717–70733.
- US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2009a) Listing a species as threatened or endangered. USFWS Endangered Species Program, Washington D.C . http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/listing.pdf (visited Jul. 15, 2010).
- US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2009b) Species information. USFWS Endangered Species Program, Washington , D.C . http://www.fws.gov/Endangered/wildlife.html (visited Dec. 2009).
- US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2011) Budget justifications and performance information, fiscal year 2012. U.S. Department of Interior, Washington , D.C .
- Western Governors Association (WGA). (2011) Sagegrouse and sagebrush conservation. Policy resolution 11–9. http://www.westgov.org/component/joomdoc/doc_download/1443--11-9 (visited Oct. 1, 2011).
- Wilcove, D.S., Master L.L. (2005) How many endangered species are there in the United States? Front Ecol Environ 3, 414–420.
- Wilcove, D.S., McMillan M., Winston K.C. (1993) What exactly is an endangered species? An analysis of the U.S. Endangered Species List: 1985–1991. Conserv Biol 7, 87–93.
- Zamin, T.J., Baillie J.E.M., Miller R.M., Rodríguez J.P., Ardid A., Collen B. (2010) National red listing beyond the 2010 target. Conserv Biol 24, 1012–1020.
