Browsing by Subject "conservation status"

Sort by: Order: Results:

Now showing items 1-3 of 3
  • Hochkirch, Axel; Samways, Michael J.; Gerlach, Justin; Bohm, Monika; Williams, Paul; Cardoso, Pedro; Cumberlidge, Neil; Stephenson, P. J.; Seddon, Mary B.; Clausnitzer, Viola; Borges, Paulo A.; Mueller, Gregory M.; Pearce-Kelly, Paul; Raimondo, Domitilla C.; Danielczak, Anja; Dijkstra, Klaas-Douwe B. (2021)
    Measuring progress toward international biodiversity targets requires robust information on the conservation status of species, which the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species provides. However, data and capacity are lacking for most hyperdiverse groups, such as invertebrates, plants, and fungi, particularly in megadiverse or high-endemism regions. Conservation policies and biodiversity strategies aimed at halting biodiversity loss by 2020 need to be adapted to tackle these information shortfalls after 2020. We devised an 8-point strategy to close existing data gaps by reviving explorative field research on the distribution, abundance, and ecology of species; linking taxonomic research more closely with conservation; improving global biodiversity databases by making the submission of spatially explicit data mandatory for scientific publications; developing a global spatial database on threats to biodiversity to facilitate IUCN Red List assessments; automating preassessments by integrating distribution data and spatial threat data; building capacity in taxonomy, ecology, and biodiversity monitoring in countries with high species richness or endemism; creating species monitoring programs for lesser-known taxa; and developing sufficient funding mechanisms to reduce reliance on voluntary efforts. Implementing these strategies in the post-2020 biodiversity framework will help to overcome the lack of capacity and data regarding the conservation status of biodiversity. This will require a collaborative effort among scientists, policy makers, and conservation practitioners.
  • Rivers, Malin; Beech, Emily; Bazos, Ioannis; Bogunić, Faruk; Buira, Antoni; Caković, Danka; Carapeto, André; Carta, Angelino; Cornier, Bruno; Fenu, Giuseppe; Fernandes, Francisco; Fraga i Arguimbau, Pere; Garcia Murillo, Pablo; Lepší, Martin; Matevski, Vlado; Medina, Félix; Menezes de Sequeira, Miguel; Meyer, Norbert; Mikoláš, Vlastimil; Montagnani, Chiara; Monteiro-Henriques, Tiago; Naranjo Suárez, José; Orsenigo, Simone; Petrova, Antoaneta; Reyes-Betancort, Alfredo; Rich, Tim; Salvesen, Per Harald; Santana López, Isabel; Scholz, Stephan; Sennikov, Alexander; Shuka, Lulëzim; Silva, Luís Filipe; Thomas, Philip; Troia, Angelo; Villar, José Luis; Allen, David (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), 2019)
    IUCN Red List of Threatened Species – Regional Assessment
    The European Red List is a review of the status of European species according to IUCN regional Red Listing guidelines. It identifies those species that are threatened with extinction at the regional level – in order that appropriate conservation action can be taken to improve their status. This publication summarises results for all Europe’s native species of tree (454 species), of which 265 species (over 58%) are endemic to continental Europe, with 56% (252 species) endemic to the 28 EU Member States. Of these, 168 (42%) of the species are threatened with extinction at the European level, however, for 57 species (nearly 13%) there was insufficient information to assign a conservation status, and are therefore classified as Data Deficient, and in need of further research. The main threat to tree species in Europe has been identified as invasive or problematic species, impacting 38% of tree species, followed by deforestation and wood harvesting, and urban development (both affecting 20% of tree species). For threatened species, livestock farming, land abandonment, changes in forest and woodland management, and other ecosystem modifications such as fire are the major threats, impacting the survival of trees.
  • Rokkanen, Susanna (Helsingin yliopisto, 2019)
    Biodiversity is declining across the globe. The IUCN Red List, which is often used to measure species’ risk to go extinct, is showing alarming biodiversity declines both globally and within Finland. The most commonly used tool for biodiversity conservation is the establishment of protected areas. The Conference of Parties (COP) of the international treaty for biodiversity conservation (The Convention on Biological Diversity), has set a target to expand the international protected area network to cover 17% of the terrestrial area of the world. However, the designation of protected areas carries costs in terms of both land-use and money. Relatively little is known about what protected areas can achieve at the species level, and only limited evidence exists that links the establishment of protected areas to an improved conservation status of species. The lack of knowledge is because protected area establishment and its effects are often hard to study due to inadequate data. In this thesis, I created a framework to study the link between the increase in protected areas and protected area investment in relation to the conservation status change of one taxonomic group, the breeding birds in Finland. I first investigated the general trend in conservation status of Finnish birds using the Red List Index 2015. I then studied the effect of increasing the protected area on Finnish bird species’ range and the monetary investment on protected areas on bird species’ range in comparison to change in their IUCN Red List assessments. The timeframe of the study was 1996-2010 for protected area establishment and 2010-2015 for bird species’ conservation status change. My results show that the conservation status of birds in Finland is considerably worse than before, with Red List Index being 0.779. This is approximately 9.2% decline from the Red List Index in 2010. The species that gained more protected area on their range during 1996-2010 did not fare better in terms of conservation status than the birds that gained less protected area on their range on the same period. This is possibly because the threshold where the protected areas would cover the species’ range sufficiently to enable the conservation of the whole population is still not reached even for species with the higher protection levels. Also, the species that had higher estimated monetary investment on the protected areas on their range did not acquire better conservation status development than the species on whose range there was less estimated monetary investment. The expansion of the Finnish protected area network in 1996-2010 did not help to change the negative trend of Finnish birds in 2010-2015. The species that gained more protection in terms of land or monetary investment during this period, were not showing better results than the species that gained less protection. These results hint that the protected areas in Finland are not effective in terms of bird conservation. This does not mean, however, that we can claim that they are ineffective in all aspects, as we don’t know what would have been the situation if there were no protected areas established at all. There are also several other factors that affect the conservation status development of birds in Finland. These include degradation of matrix habitats, hunting and climate change, which might all overrun the possible positive effects of the protected areas and protected area investment.