Effectiveness of “Тhe IUCN red list of threatened species” application on a regional scale: current state of the “Red Data books” of Russia

Igor Popov; Anastasia Fadeeva; Elena Palenova; George Shamilishvily; Kirill Gorin; Andrey Burdo; Evgenia Melchakova; Yulia Trofimova; Viktor Sukristik; Nadezhda Morova; Ksenia Kroo; Yulia Kirillova

doi:10.21638/11701/spbu03.2017.107

Authors

Igor Popov Department for Applied Ecology, Faculty of Biology, Saint Petersburg State University, Universitetskaya nab., 7–9, Saint Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2564-3294
Anastasia Fadeeva Department for Applied Ecology, Faculty of Biology, Saint Petersburg State University, Universitetskaya nab., 7–9, Saint Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation
Elena Palenova Faculty of Journalism, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Mokhovaya Str., 9, Moscow, 125009, Russian Federation https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2857-8790
George Shamilishvily Department for Applied Ecology, Faculty of Biology, Saint Petersburg State University, Universitetskaya nab., 7–9, Saint Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2183-7630
Kirill Gorin Department for Applied Ecology, Faculty of Biology, Saint Petersburg State University, Universitetskaya nab., 7–9, Saint Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation
Andrey Burdo Department for Applied Ecology, Faculty of Biology, Saint Petersburg State University, Universitetskaya nab., 7–9, Saint Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation
Evgenia Melchakova Department of Monitoring of the Forest Genetic Resources, “Center of Forest Protection in the Leningrad Area”, Institutskiy Pr., 21 M, Saint Petersburg, 194021, Russian Federation https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6004-5337
Yulia Trofimova Department for Applied Ecology, Faculty of Biology, Saint Petersburg State University, Universitetskaya nab., 7–9, Saint Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation
Viktor Sukristik Department for Applied Ecology, Faculty of Biology, Saint Petersburg State University, Universitetskaya nab., 7–9, Saint Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4753-9527
Nadezhda Morova Department for Applied Ecology, Faculty of Biology, Saint Petersburg State University, Universitetskaya nab., 7–9, Saint Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6380-5496
Ksenia Kroo Department for Applied Ecology, Faculty of Biology, Saint Petersburg State University, Universitetskaya nab., 7–9, Saint Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation
Yulia Kirillova Department for Applied Ecology, Faculty of Biology, Saint Petersburg State University, Universitetskaya nab., 7–9, Saint Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0699-8751

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu03.2017.107

Abstract

Nowadays at least 140 Red Data books or lists are used in Russia. They reflect threatened species of various subdivisions of Russia in addition to all-Russian Red Data book. None of them uses criteria for the species assessment of the modern version of the IUCN list. Non-threatened species had not been included in the Russian red books. Most of species listed in the all-Russian Red Data book (77 %) has not yet been assessed for the IUCN red list. These particularities indicate on the necessity of gap-analysis in the planning of the following work on the IUCN red list keeping. It should focus first of all on revealing of the most urgent objectives, but not on the simple increase of species assessments. Now more than a half of species of “Тhe IUCN red list of threatened species” are not threatened ones, that is why its title does not reflect its contents.

Keywords:

Red Data book, red list, methodology

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Brito, D., Ambal, R. G., Brooks, T., De Silva, N., Foster, M., Hao, W., Hilton-Taylor, C., Paglia, A., Rodríguez, J. P., Rodríguez, J. V. 2010. How similar are national red lists and the IUCN Red List? Biological Conservation 143:1154–1158.

Cardoso, P., Borges, P. A. V., Triantis, K. A., Ferrández, M. A., Martín, J. L. 2012. The underrepresentation and misrepresentation of invertebrates in the IUCN Red List. Biological Conservation 149:147–148.

Eaton, M. A., Gregory, R. D., Noble, D. G., Robinson, J. A., Hughes, J., Procter, D., Brown, A. F., Gibbons, D. W. 2005. Regional IUCN Red Listing: the Process as Applied to Birds in the United Kingdom. Conservation Biology 19 (5):1557–1570.

Editorial, 2008. The Red List still matters. Nature 455, 7214:707–708.

Harris, J. B. C., Reid, J. L., Scheffers, B. R., Wanger, T. C., Sodhi, N. S., Fordham, D. A., Brook, B. W. 2013. Conserving imperiled species: a comparison of the IUCN Red List and U. S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation Letters 5:64–72.

Helfman, G. S. 2013. National “versus” global red lists of imperiled fishes: why the discord? Environ. Biol. Fish 96:1159–1168.

IUCN. 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN. Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

IUCN. 2003. Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels: Version 3.0. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge.

Juslén, A., Hyvärinen, E., Virtanen, L. K. 2013. Application of the Red-List Index at a National Level for Multiple Species Groups. Conservation Biology 27, 2:398–406.

Keller, V., Zbinden, N., Schmid, H., Volet, B. 2005. A Case Study in Applying the IUCN Regional Guidelines for National Red Lists and Justifications for their Modification. Conservation Biology 19 (6):1827–1834.

Kovalyov, D., Popov, I. 2011. Annual cycle of the pond bat (Myotis dasycneme) spatial distribution and abundance in Saint Petersburg and Leningrad region. Trans. Karelian centre RAS, 68–81 (In Russian with English summary).

Maes, D., Vanreusel, W., Jacobs, I., Berwaerts, K., Van Dyck, H. 2012. Applying IUCN Red List criteria at a small regional level: A test case with butterflies in Flanders (north Belgium). Biological Conservation 145:258–266.

Millner-Gulland, E. J., Kreuzberg-Mukhina, E., Grebot, B., Ling, S., Bykova, E., Abdusalamov, I., Bekenov, A., Rdenfors, U. G. A., Hilton-Taylor, C., Salnikov, V., Stogova, L. 2006. Application of IUCN red listing criteria at the regional and national levels: a case study from Central Asia. Biodiversity and Conservation 15:1873–1886.

Mrosovsky, N. 1997. IUCN’s credibility critically endangered. Nature 389, 2, 436.

Popov, I. 2012. K faune letichikh myshey Novgorodskoy oblasti. In: Polevoy sezon 2011. Veliky Novgorod; 65–68. (In Russian. “On the bats of Novgorodskaya oblast”).

Popov, I. Yu., Ostrovsky, A. N. 2014. Survival and extinction of the southern populations of freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera in Russia (Leningradskaya and Novgorodskaya oblast). Hydrobiologia 735 (1):161–177.

Popov, I. 2015. Impact of deforestation on pearl mussel habitats in the Russian section of the Baltic Sea basin. Limnologica 50:84–91.

Popov, I., Starikov, D. 2015. Recent northward expansion of breeding Black-tailed Godwits Limosa limosa in NW Russia. Wader Studies 122 (3):173–183.

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 in Ecology & Evolution 17 (11):503–507.

Rondinini, C., Di Marco, M., Visconti, P., Butchart, S. H. M., Boitani, L. 2013. Update or outdate: long-term viability of the IUCN Red List. Conservation Letters 7 (2):126–130.

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 in Ecology and Evolution 21 (2):71–76.

Vié, J.-C., Hilton-Taylor, C., Pollock, C., Ragle, J., Smart, J., Stuart, S. N., Tong, R. 2008. The IUCN Red List: a key conservation tool. In: J.‑C. Vié, C. Hilton-Taylor and S. N. Stuart (eds). The 2008 Review of The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species; 1–14. IUCN Gland, Switzerland.