Access to scientific literature by the conservation community

Impact of Geographic Region on the COMMANDER-HF Trial

Despite the increasing number of species assessed for extinction risk by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (163,040 species as of 2024), only about 1 in 1,000 have been downlisted due to genuine population improvement. Although this rare conservation achievement has been widely celebrated in several recent cases, some other downlisting decisions have met with controversy. A primary role of the IUCN is to assess extinction risk. In this role, it must maintain its independence and not be influenced by the public outcry that may occur when a high‐profile species is downlisted, even if well‐established conservation programs may be disrupted or abandoned as a result. We explored the potential positive and negative consequences of downlisting for conservation efforts through case studies of the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca), red‐crowned crane (Grus japonensis), saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica), and black‐faced spoonbill (Platalea minor), which has recently been proposed for downlisting. Although downlisting can enable more effective use of limited resources, these cases highlight potential risks, including weakened legal backing, diversion of resources away from the species, and declining public and political support. The relatively unquestioned downlisting of the saiga antelope illustrates how early and inclusive engagement of local experts, assessors, donors, and other stakeholders can help ensure that decisions are effectively communicated and implemented without jeopardizing species recovery. The IUCN Green Status of Species assessment is a complementary tool to the IUCN Red List and offers a useful measure of conservation progress, which can help decision makers ensure that downlisting does not undermine long‐term conservation efforts.

In this study, based on phylogenetic diversity (PD), I develop a conservation strategy for Galliformes species around the world. A cladogram of 197 Galliformes species derived from a previous study was used for calculating PD metrics. Branch length is an important aspect of the phylogenetic information a tree can convey, but 2 traditionally-used metrics, the number of phylogenetic groups to which a taxon belongs (I) and the proportion that each taxon contributes to the total diversity of the group (W), are fully node-based and do not take branch length into account. Therefore, to measure PD more appropriately, I combined a branch-related metric, pendant edge (P), in addition to I and W. A final combined rank for Galliformes species was obtained by summing the ranks of the 3 metrics. My results showed that the 5% top priority species for conserving evolutionary potential were Galloperdix lunulata, Haematortyx sanguiniceps, Margaroperdix madagarensis, Syrmaticus soemmerringii, Coturnix pectoralis, Polyplectron napoleonis, Alectoris melanocephala, Xenoperdix udzungwensis, Afropavo congensis and Syrmaticus reevesii. The current species priority ranking based on pylogenetic diversity and the official International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) ranking of Galliformes species was significantly correlated when considering the 5 categories of IUCN (critical endangered, endangered, vulnerable, near threatened and least concern). This indicated the feasibility of introducing the PD index into the network of IUCN regional Red List assessment. The 5% top priority countries selected using the complementarity principle possessing diversified Galliformes genetic resources were China, Indonesia, Mexico, India, Colombia, Australia, Brazil, Angola, Congo and Japan (in descending order). China, Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil, India and Colombia are consistently selected among the 4 top priority sets of richness, rarity, endemicity and PD. This result indicated that the priority result from PD is highly congruent with conventional measures. Along with other conventional ecological attributes, the alternative conservation scenario based on PD is reasonable and can be adopted in systematic conservation planning.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a major public health burden in Europe, causing an increasing level of liver-related morbidity and mortality, characterized by several regional variations in the genotypes distribution.A comprehensive review of the literature from 2000 to 2015 was used to gather country-specific data on prevalence and genotype distribution of HCV infection in 33 European countries (about 80 % of the European population), grouped in three geographical areas (Western, Eastern and Central Europe), as defined by the Global Burden of Diseases project (GBD).The estimated prevalence of HCV in Europe is 1.7 % showing a decrease than previously reported (− 0.6 %) and accounting over 13 million of estimated cases. The lowest prevalence (0.9 %) is reported from Western Europe (except for some rural areas of Southern Italy and Greece) and the highest (3.1 %) from Central Europe, especially Romania and Russia. The average HCV viraemic rate is 72.4 %, with a population of almost 10 million of HCV RNA positive patients.Genotype distribution does not show high variability among the three macro-areas studied, ranging between 70.0 % (Central Europe), 68.1 % (Eastern Europe) and 55.1 % (Western Europe) for genotype 1, 29.0 % (Western Europe), 26.6 % (Eastern Europe) and 21.0 % (Central Europe) for genotype 3. Genotype 2 seems, instead, to have a major prevalence in the Western Europe (8.9 %), if compared to Eastern (4.3 %) or Central (3.2 %), whereas genotype 4 is present especially in Central and Western area (4.9 % and 5.8 %, respectively).Despite the eradication of transmission by blood products, HCV infection continues to be one of the leading blood-borne infections in Europe. The aim of this review is, therefore, to provide an update on the epidemiology of HCV infection across Europe, and to foster the discussion about eventual potential strategies to eradicate it.

No abstract available

Nowadays all over the world new protected areas are being created. In Ukraine this process is developed within European programs. During the years of independence many new protected areas were created. Large amount of them were included in so called Ukrainian ecological network that ought to be built in 2015. This network is connected with the European ecological network. The governmental reports show high level of the execution of the programs of developing of the protected areas. But in reality we can see that many of new protected areas do not have the determined limits. This results in dangerous human occupation of such lands. Businessmen understand that occupation will be impossible soon. And they think that such protected areas are proclaimed but yet not really exist. And most of Ukrainian courts agree with this. Recent research and publications analyses. Research of management of protected areas through legal means in Ukraine was made by many Ukrainian scientists (V.I. Andreytsev, A.P. Hetman, M.V. Shulga, P.F. Kulynich, A.M. Myroshnychenko and others). At the same time the scientists have not paid enough attention to the problem of defining the limits of protected areas which is now really a great legal problem in Ukraine. Paper objective is the legal problem of defining the limits of protected areas in Ukraine regarding to the sustainable land management. Paper main body. Generally, protected areas are understood to be those in which human occupation or at least the exploitation of resources is limited. The definition that has been widely accepted across regional and global frameworks has been provided by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in its categorization guidelines for protected areas. The definition is as follows: "A clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values." In Ukraine all protected areas consist of a «fund». Its name can be translated into English like «natural reserved fund». It includes areas of national and regional value. Protected areas are divided into categories. The most widespread are: nature reserve (most protected), national park, zakaznik (a type of protected area in Ukraine and some other former Soviet republics that meets World Conservation Union's (IUCN) category III, or more frequently category VI criteria). In Ukraine there are two types of land planning: 1) land management; 2) planning of development of territories which includes city planning. The limits of each land lot are determined by special documentation within the system of land management. The main type of documentation is the project of land management. This document is also made for protected area as a separate geographical space. According to the law the limits of each protected area are determined by the project. But very often we face the situation when there is no such project. The reasons are different. One of them is that many people are not interested in creation of a new protected area. The amendments to the law “About natural reserved fund of Ukraine” made in 2010 give the solution of this problem. Before the land management project is contained the limits are determined by project of creation of protected area. This document is contained before the proclamation of protected area. But lawyers often face the situation that appeared before 2010. Most of them think that the only evidence of existence of protected area is the land management project. They are so fascinated with this thing that many of them still even do not know about the project of creation of protected area. The author disagrees with them. On the basis of analysis of laws of Ukraine and many other court rulings he offers several new ways of definition of the limits of protected areas. Conclusions of the research. The main way to define the limits of protected areas is to make the project of land management. The additional way is to make the project of creation of protected area. If these documents do not exist other ways would be used: scientific justification, list of landowners, city planning documentation

Serengeti National Park, considered one of the most famous and significant wildlife reserves globally, where natural beauty and unparalleled scientific value converge, is experiencing a decline in habitat quality year after year. Despite the natural wealth within the Serengeti, various issues threaten wildlife species and habitats. These problems include the rapid growth of the human population, poverty, illegal hunting, and the drying up of the Mara River due to climate change. The international community has authorized the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to develop ideas for conservation efforts. The organization illustrates how biodiversity is fundamental in addressing some of the world’s most significant challenges, such as tackling climate change, achieving sustainable energy, improving human well-being, and building a green economy. The study aims to narrate the IUCN’s role in executing environmental protection processes, intending to ensure that environmental goals hold the same importance as social goals through sustainable development. This study employs a qualitative approach, utilizing provided facts to create a detailed account of an incident. Additionally, secondary data is incorporated, involving the use of existing information. The results indicate that, despite various actions taken by the IUCN, the organization has not maximally resolved issues in the Serengeti, and several problems are still ongoing.

As members of the team that was involved in the preparation of the ‘2007 Red List of Threatened Fauna and Flora of Sri Lanka’ (IUCN Sri Lanka & the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, 2007), we have paid careful attention to a recent article published by Bahir & Gabadage (2009) in the Journal of Threatened Taxa, which has attempted to judge or interpret the quality of this publication. After careful review of the article under reference, we have decided to submit a response in order to address erroneous interpretations and misleading statements contained therein, based on reasoned judgment or analysis. The 2007 Red List of Threatened Fauna and Flora of Sri Lanka will be referred to herein, as the 2007 National Red List. The 2007 National Red List was the result of a three-year collaborative project implemented by IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) in Sri Lanka and the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. This project, evaluated the conservation status of selected fauna and flora species in Sri Lanka using IUCN’s Global Red List Categories and Criteria, adapted to a regional level. The project was steered by the National Species Conservation Advisory Group (NSCAG) appointed by the Biodiversity Secretariat of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. As elaborated on page 11 of the 2007 National Red List, the project followed an extensive consultative process, involving a group of expert reviewers appointed by the Biodiversity Secretariat. These reviewers consisted of over 50 researchers, taxonomists and naturalists, within 11 taxonomic groups. It also consulted relevant stakeholders such as protected area managers, and non-governmental environmental organizations in the country. It is evident that Bahir & Gabadage (2009) have not read this section of the document as the statements made in the background as well as conclusions in their article have implied that appropriate specialists have not been consulted in the preparatory process of this national document. Ironically the first author, Mr. Mohomed Bahir was one of the appointed expert reviewers as can be seen from the list contained in page viii. Bahir & Gabadage (2009) have ignored facts, in their effort to point out errors in taxonomy, nomenclature, citations, and data, in the 2007 National Red List. We will address all of their unsubstantiated allegations, with relevant facts, in the following sections. The science of taxonomy is dynamic and fluid, continuously evolving and changing as new data emerges. Taxonomists often find themselves at odds with each other in changes relating to nomenclature. Therefore it is obvious that the taxonomic changes emerging after the publication of the 2007 National Red List could only be be addressed in its future revisions. Bahir & Gabadage (2009) have pointed out nomenclatural issues relating to the amphibians in the 2007 National Red List, without noting the fact that the document has chosen to adopt the list of threatened amphibians from the Global Amphibian Assessment (www.globalamphibians.org). The decision to adopt the threatened amphibians list from the Global Amphibian Assessment was taken in order to avoid duplication of efforts, a decision which was endorsed by the National Species Conservation Advisory Group (NSCAG) of Sri Lanka, as well as the expert reviewers, including the foremost amphibian taxonomists and researchers in the country. This fact is mentioned in the methodology section of the document (page 12). It is to be noted however, that the national list was further supplemented with evaluations of amphibian species described more recently from Sri Lanka (Meegaskumbura & Manamendra-Arachchi 2005; Fernando et al. 2007; Meegaskumubura et al. 2007). Bahir & Gabadage (2009) have further highlighted Cnemaspis tropidogaster (Boulenger 1885) as being OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOAD Date of publication (online): 26 April 2010 Date of publication (print): 26 April 2010 ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List Index (RLI) is used to measure trends in extinction risk of species over time. The development of 2 red lists for Spanish vascular flora during the past decade allowed us to apply the IUCN RLI to vascular plants in an area belonging to a global biodiversity hotspot. We used the Spanish Red Lists from 2000 and 2010 to assess changes in level of threat at a national scale and at the subnational scales of Canary Islands, Balearic Islands, and peninsular Spain. We assigned retrospective IUCN categories of threat to 98 species included in the Spanish Red List of 2010 but absent in the Spanish Red List of 2000. In addition, we tested the effect of different random and taxonomic and spatial Spanish samples on the overall RLI value. From 2000 to 2010, the IUCN categories of 768 species changed (10% of Spanish flora), mainly due to improved knowledge (63%), modifications in IUCN criteria (14%), and changes in threat status (12%). All measured national and subnational RLI values decreased during this period, indicating a general decline in the conservation status of the Spanish vascular flora. The Canarian RLI value (0.84) was the lowest, although the fastest deterioration in conservation status occurred on peninsular Spain (from 0.93 in 2000 to 0.92 in 2010). The RLI values based on subsamples of the Spanish Red List were not representative of RLI values for the entire country, which would discourage the use of small areas or small taxonomic samples to assess general trends in the endangerment of national biotas. The role of the RLI in monitoring of changes in biodiversity at the global and regional scales needs further reassessment because additional areas and taxa are necessary to determine whether the index is sufficiently sensitive for use in assessing temporal changes in species' risk of extinction.

Effective management of aquatic resources, wild and farmed, has implications for the livelihoods of dependent communities, food security, and ecosystem health. Good management requires information on the status of harvested species, yet many gaps remain in our understanding of these species and systems, in particular the lack of taxonomic resolution of harvested species. To assess these gaps we compared the occurrence of landed species (freshwater and marine) from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) global fisheries production database to those in the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List and the RAM Legacy Stock Assessment Database, some of the largest and most comprehensive global datasets of consumed aquatic species. We also quantified the level of resolution and trends in taxonomic reporting for all landed taxa in the FAO database. Of the 1,695 consumed aquatic species or groups in the FAO database considered in this analysis, a large portion (35%) are missing from both of the other two global datasets, either IUCN or RAM, used to monitor, manage, and protect aquatic resources. Only a small number of all fished taxa reported in FAO data (150 out of 1,695; 9%) have both a stock assessment in RAM and a conservation assessment in IUCN. Furthermore, 40% of wild caught landings are not reported to the species level, limiting our ability to effectively account for the environmental impacts of wild harvest. Landings of invertebrates (44%) and landings in Asia (>75%) accounted for the majority of harvest without species specific information in 2018. Assessing the overlap of species which are both farmed and fished to broadly map possible interactions – which can help or hinder wild populations - we found 296 species, accounting for 12% of total wild landings globally, and 103 countries and territories that have overlap in the species caught in the wild and produced through aquaculture. In all, our work highlights that while fisheries management is improving in many areas there remain key gaps in data resolution that are critical for fisheries assessments and conservation of aquatic systems into the future.

When developing a novel conservation assessment, tradeoffs between generality and precision, and between realism and simplicity, will inevitably need to be made. Engaging potential end-users during development can help developers navigate these tradeoffs to maximise uptake. End-user engagement can also produce feedback about external perceptions, allowing changes to be made prior to the final design. Here, we report on end-user consultations about the species recovery assessment method introduced by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which is a new component of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. This species recovery assessment was originally called the ‘Green List of Species.’ We conducted two types of end-user consultation over a two-year period—1) key informant interviews, and 2) technical consultations about the details of the assessment method, including identification of factors that increased the amount of time required to conduct an assessment. A main finding from the key informant interviews was that the name ‘Green List of Species’ was inappropriate for the assessment, given the potential for misunderstanding the scope of the assessment and potential confusion with the IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas. We therefore proposed the name ‘Green Status of Species', a suggestion accepted by IUCN. A repeated concern in key informant interviews was the perception that the species recovery assessments were complex, indicating a potential tradeoff between scientific rigour and simplicity. To address this concern, we used feedback from the technical consultations to identify assessment steps which were most in need of refinement, and implemented solutions and made recommendations to streamline those steps (e.g., we found that the number of spatial units used in an assessment was positively correlated with assessment time, and increased greatly when more than 15 spatial units were used). This process of end-user engagement makes it much more likely that the Green Status of Species will be used in conservation communication, monitoring, and decision-making—helping achieve the ultimate goal of biodiversity recovery.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list of ecosystems (RLE) has been adopted as a headline indicator for the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework, highlighting its global significance. Limestone areas in South Korean are biodiversity hotspots with a high proportion of rare and endemic species due to their unique environmental conditions; however, they face severe threats from continuous limestone mining. This study assessed the collapse risk of limestone vegetation ecosystems in Korea using the IUCN RLE spatial criteria (criterion B). Based on digital geological maps, we mapped the distribution of major limestone areas, focusing on Gangwon-do and Chungcheongbuk-do. We calculated the extent of occurrence (EOO; criterion B1) and area of occupancy (AOO; criterion B2). To enhance precision, the AOO assessment incorporated grid uncertainty analysis and the 1% threshold rule. The results showed that the total area of limestone regions was approximately 2,760.8 km<sup>2</sup>. The EOO was calculated as 11,030.36 km<sup>2</sup>, classifying the ecosystem as endangered (EN). Conversely, the AOO assessment resulted in 76 grids (7,600 km<sup>2</sup>) even under the most conservative scenario (considering uncertainty and the 1% rule), classifying it as least concern. Following IUCN guidelines to adopt the highest risk category, the final status of the limestone ecosystem was determined as EN. This restricted geographic distribution implies high vulnerability to external threats. These findings provide essential scientific evidence for establishing national conservation strategies and achieving the 30×30 protected area target.

Understanding the impacts of different threats on species is key to successful conservation interventions and policies. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) assesses threats to species, and the organization's Red List of Threatened Species is a key conservation tool. We quantified the degree to which threats in IUCN assessments for 3 vertebrate groups (birds, amphibians, and ray-finned fishes) were based on species-specific quantitative empirical data. To do this, for 2142 IUCN species assessments, all listed references were reviewed to determine whether they contained species-specific quantitative data linking a listed threat and the assessed species. Only 7.5% of listed threats across all taxa and categories were based on species-specific quantitative data. For species with at least one threat listed, only 12.5% of species had species-specific quantitative data underlying at least one threat. There were more data on threats for some taxa, and there was a trend toward having more information on threats that are generally considered less predictable, such as "invasive/problematic" species and climate change. Understanding how a lack of species-specific data may affect understanding of extinction processes is crucial for continued improvement of conservation outcomes.

Language diversity is under threat, with between a third to a half of all languages considered endangered, and predicted rates of loss equivalent to one language per month for the rest of the century. Rather than reviewing the extensive body of linguistic research on endangered languages, this review focuses specifically on the interdisciplinary transfer of methods developed in conservation biology, macroecology and macroevolution to the study of language endangerment and loss. While the causes of language endangerment and loss are different to those for species, studying patterns of diversity of species and languages involves similar analytical challenges, associated with testing hypotheses and identifying causal relationships. Solutions developed in biology can be adapted to illuminate patterns in language endangerment, such as statistical methods that explicitly model phylogenetic nonindependence, spatial autocorrelation and covariation between variables, which may otherwise derail the search for meaningful predictors of language endangerment. However, other tools from conservation biology may be much less use in understanding or predicting language endangerment, such as metrics based on International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) criteria, population viability analysis or niche modelling. This review highlights both the similarities and the differences in approaches to understanding the concurrent crises in loss of both linguistic diversity and biodiversity.

Language diversity is under threat, with between a third to a half of all languages considered endangered, and predicted rates of loss equivalent to one language per month for the rest of the century. Rather than reviewing the extensive body of linguistic research on endangered languages, this review focuses specifically on the interdisciplinary transfer of methods developed in conservation biology, macroecology and macroevolution to the study of language endangerment and loss. While the causes of language endangerment and loss are different to those for species, studying patterns of diversity of species and languages involves similar analytical challenges, associated with testing hypotheses and identifying causal relationships. Solutions developed in biology can be adapted to illuminate patterns in language endangerment, such as statistical methods that explicitly model phylogenetic nonindependence, spatial autocorrelation and covariation between variables, which may otherwise derail the search for meaningful predictors of language endangerment. However, other tools from conservation biology may be much less use in understanding or predicting language endangerment, such as metrics based on International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) criteria, population viability analysis or niche modelling. This review highlights both the similarities and the differences in approaches to understanding the concurrent crises in loss of both linguistic diversity and biodiversity.