Conserving imperiled species: a comparison of the IUCN Red List and U.S. Endangered Species Act

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.

Umbrella species in marine systems: using the endangered humphead wrasse to conserve coral reefs

“…As innovations occur in marine conservation and planning (Campagna et al 2007, Stelzenmuller et al 2013, we require accurate biological information on which to base new conservation strategies. While we aspire to manage optimally, acting before species or ecosystems are lost means we must manage using the levers we can pull, such as the CITES and the US Endangered Species Act (Harris 2012). Levers also exist where international, national, regional, and local entities are creating and modifying laws, rules, and customs for the management of fisheries and the conservation of ecosystems (Weeks et al 2014).…”

Genome scale assessment of a species translocation program

“…Although the IUCN is often regarded as the world's primary authority on the conservation status of species (Mrosovsky 1997), within the United States federal protections are not established until they are listed under the Endangered Species Act. For Bog Turtles, ESA listing came the following year (although only for the northern populations), but for most IUCNlisted species ESA listing has never followed (Harris et al 2011). Unfortunately, delayed prioritization and protections can leave managers with fewer conservation options with potentially greater uncertainty regarding their outcomes.…”

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

“…So, the assessment of biodiversity of Finland (Juslén et al, 2013), birds of Britain (Eaton et al, 2005) or Switzerland (Keller et al, 2005), butterflies of Flanders (Maes et al, 2012), re-assessment of 163 rare species of Asian countries (Millner-Gulland et al, 2006) did not provoke serious disagreements with IUCN schemes. On the contrary, comparison of the IUCN list with US Endangered species act (Harris et al, 2013) or with the red lists of Brazil, Colombia, China and the Philippines (Brito et al, 2010) revealed numerous mismatches. Analysis of not well studied invertebrates showed, that IUCN criteria are not applicable for them (Cardoso et al, 2012).…”