Out-of-date datasets hamper conservation of species close to extinction

Abstract

International databases and data aggregators on species conservation status are powerful tools supporting the efforts of conservation biologists and practitioners in reducing the loss of biodiversity. However, out-of-date information and poor interoperability of databases can hamper conservation of highly threatened species or in extreme cases can result in their removal from conservation frameworks.Lack of common standards for database updates, slow update timing and incongruencies among datasets result in confusing information that prevent proper conservation prioritisation and actions. A simple survey to update and solve incongruencies between the BGCI PlantSearch Database, the IUCN Red List and other datasets resulted in a change of status of sixteen plant species, including the "rehabilitation" of fourteen species thought to be extinct. Full TextThere are different ways a species previously thought to be extinct can be 'rehabilitated' or removed from the list of extinct taxa. First, it can be rediscovered in its native range as part of increased search efforts or simply by chance (1); second, it can be identi ed as a synonym with an extant species as a result of improved taxonomic knowledge (2); third it can be found alive in an ex situ facility, which allows for the species to be considered extinct in the wild (EW), according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Categories and Criteria (3).The latter two cases are seen as non-genuine status changes, though the consequences for rehabilitated species can be extremely important: while extinct species are excluded from conservation frameworks, rehabilitated species can be the subject of conservation management plans (4). Information on the conservation status of extinct, extinct in the wild and possibly extinct species should therefore be as accurate as possible to avoid weakening our conservation efforts or directing them to the wrong targets.Large databases such as the IUCN Species Information Service, PlantSearch, GBIF, etc. are very useful data aggregators providing important data for developing conservation programmes. However, most databases are characterised by a slow information turnover (e.g., red lists are revised every ten years; 3) or updates are made by reporting data from a source to another, with errors and inaccuracies that are often maintained over long periods (5, 6,7). Moreover, inconsistencies among data sources can produce incongruencies in a species' conservation status. For instance, in the IUCN Red List 2021, three species (Astragalus nitidi orus Jiménez Mun. & Pau, Euphrasia mendoncae Samp. = Euphrasia minima DC., Ornithogalum visianicum ex Vis.= Loncomelos visianicum (Tomm. ex Vis.) Speta) out of four listed as extinct for Europe are currently extant, according to recent updates (2). The abovementioned issues hamper our ability to plan and prioritise conservation actions (both in situ and ex situ). Species that were declared extinct or extinct in the wild or are very close to extinction are particularly affe...