Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 362

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measuring Terrestrial Area of Habitat (AOH) and Its Utility for the IUCN Red List

Open access
Brooks, Thomas M., Pimm, Stuart L., Akçakaya, H. Resit, Buchanan, Graeme M., Butchart, Stuart H.M., Foden, Wendy, Hilton-Taylor, Craig, Hoffmann, Michael, Jenkins, Clinton N., Joppa, Lucas, Li, Binbin V., Menon, Vivek, Ocampo-Peñuela, Natalia, Rondinini, Carlo·2019·Trends in Ecology & Evolution
DOI 10.1016/j.tree.2019.06.009
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species includes assessment of extinction risk for 98 512 species, plus documentation of their range, habitat, elevation, and other factors. These range, habitat and elevation data can be matched with terrestrial land cover and elevation datasets to map the species' area of habitat (AOH; also known as extent of suitable habitat; ESH). This differs from the two spatial metrics used for assessing extinction risk in the IUCN Red List criteria: extent of occurrence (EOO) and area of occupancy (AOO). AOH can guide conservation, for example, through targeting areas for field surveys, assessing proportions of species' habitat within protected areas, and monitoring habitat loss and fragmentation. We recommend that IUCN Red List assessments document AOH wherever practical.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tree.2019.06.009

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. Stuart, 2010, The barometer of life, Science, 328, 177, 10.1126/science.1188606 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Butchart, 2004, Measuring global trends in the status of biodiversity: Red List indices for birds, PLoS Biol., 2, 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020383 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Rodrigues, 2014, Spatially explicit trends in the global conservation status of vertebrates, PLoS One, 9, 10.1371/journal.pone.0113934 · DOI
  4. Ocampo-Peñuela, 2014, Setting practical conservation priorities for birds in the Western Andes of Colombia, Conserv. Biol., 28, 1260, 10.1111/cobi.12312 · DOI
  5. Ocampo-Peñuela, 2016, Incorporating explicit geospatial data shows more species at risk of extinction than the current Red List, Sci. Adv., 2, 10.1126/sciadv.1601367 · DOI
  6. Ramesh, 2017, IUCN greatly underestimates threat levels of endemic birds in the Western Ghats, Biol. Conserv., 210, 205, 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.019 · DOI
  7. Buchanan, 2008, Using remote sensing to inform conservation status assessment: estimates of recent deforestation rates on New Britain and the impacts upon endemic birds, Biol. Conserv., 141, 56, 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.08.023 · DOI
  8. Tracewski, 2016, Toward quantification of the impact of 21st-century deforestation on the extinction risk of terrestrial vertebrates, Conserv. Biol., 30, 1070, 10.1111/cobi.12715 · DOI
  9. Collen, 2016, Clarifying misconceptions of extinction risk assessment with the IUCN Red List, Biol. Lett., 12, 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0843 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Joppa, 2016, Impact of alternative metrics on estimates of extent of occurrence for extinction risk assessment, Conserv. Biol., 30, 362, 10.1111/cobi.12591 · DOI
  11. Keith, 2018, Scaling range sizes to threats for robust predictions of risks to biodiversity, Conserv. Biol., 32, 322, 10.1111/cobi.12988 · DOI
  12. Bartholomé, 2005, GLC2000: a new approach to global land cover mapping from Earth observation data, Int. J. Remote Sens., 26, 1959, 10.1080/01431160412331291297 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Beresford, 2011, Minding the protection gap: estimates of species’ range sizes and holes in the protected area network, Anim. Conserv., 14, 114, 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2011.00453.x · DOI
  14. Rondinini, 2011, Global habitat suitability models of terrestrial mammals, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond B, 366, 2633, 10.1098/rstb.2011.0113 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Li, 2016, Remotely sensed data informs Red List evaluations and conservation priorities in Southeast Asia, PLoS One, 11
  16. Beresford, 2011, Poor overlap between the distribution of protected areas and globally threatened birds in Africa, Anim. Conserv., 14, 99, 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00398.x · DOI
  17. Bird, 2011, Incorporating projected deforestation estimates into conservation priority-setting in Amazonia, Divers. Distrib., 18, 273, 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00843.x · DOI
  18. Buchanan, 2011, Identifying priority areas for conservation: a global assessment for forest-dependent birds, PLoS One, 6, 10.1371/journal.pone.0029080 · DOI
  19. Butchart, 2015, Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and global conservation area targets, Conserv. Lett., 8, 329, 10.1111/conl.12158 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Harris, 2008, Range size and extinction risk in forest birds, Conserv. Biol., 22, 163, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00798.x · DOI · Paper page
  21. Li, 2016, China’s endemic vertebrates sheltering under the protective umbrella of the giant panda, Conserv. Biol., 30, 329, 10.1111/cobi.12618 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Rondinini, 2005, Habitat suitability models and the shortfall in conservation planning for African vertebrates, Conserv. Biol., 19, 1488, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00204.x · DOI · Paper page
  23. Schnell, 2013, Quantitative analysis of forest fragmentation in the Atlantic Forest reveals more threatened bird species than the current Red List, PLoS One, 8, 10.1371/journal.pone.0065357 · DOI
  24. Visconti, 2016, Projecting global biodiversity indicators under future development scenarios, Conserv. Lett., 9, 5, 10.1111/conl.12159 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Ficetola, 2015, Habitat availability for amphibians and extinction threat: a global analysis, Divers. Distrib., 21, 302, 10.1111/ddi.12296 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Pimm, 2017, Unfulfilled promise of data-driven approaches: response to Peterson et al, Conserv. Biol., 31, 944, 10.1111/cobi.12928 · DOI
  27. Guillera-Arroita, 2015, Is my species distribution model fit for purpose? Matching data and models to applications, Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr., 24, 276, 10.1111/geb.12268 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Renner, 2015, Point process models for presence-only analysis, Methods Ecol. Evol., 6, 366, 10.1111/2041-210X.12352 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Evans, 2016, Towards process-based range modeling of many species, Trends Ecol. Evol., 31, 860, 10.1016/j.tree.2016.08.005 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Schank, 2017, Using a novel model approach to assess the distribution and conservation status of the endangered Baird’s tapir, Divers. Distrib., 23, 1459, 10.1111/ddi.12631 · DOI
  31. Rondinini, 2006, Tradeoffs in different types of species occurrence data for use in systematic conservation planning, Ecol. Lett., 9, 1136, 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00970.x · DOI · Paper page
  32. He, 2012, Area-based assessment of extinction risk, Ecology, 93, 974, 10.1890/11-1786.1 · DOI
  33. Butchart, 2007, Improvements to the Red List Index, PLoS One, 2, e140, 10.1371/journal.pone.0000140 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Pfeifer, 2017, Creation of forest edges has a global impact on forest vertebrates, Nature, 551, 187, 10.1038/nature24457 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Crooks, 2017, Quantification of habitat fragmentation reveals extinction risk in terrestrial mammals, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 114, 7635, 10.1073/pnas.1705769114 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Peterson, 2017, Assumption-versus data-based approaches to summarizing species’ ranges, Conserv. Biol., 32, 568, 10.1111/cobi.12801 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Miller, 2006, Extinction risk and conservation priorities, Science, 313, 441, 10.1126/science.313.5786.441a · doi:10.1126/science.313.5786.441a
  38. Rodrigues, 2006, The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation, Trends Ecol. Evol., 21, 71, 10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.010 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Bennun, 2018, The value of the IUCN Red List for business decision-making, Conserv. Lett., 11, 10.1111/conl.12353 · DOI

Cited by

See all 362

Metadata

Authors
Brooks, T. M., Pimm, S. L., Akçakaya, H. R., Buchanan, G. M., Butchart, S. H. M., Foden, W., Hilton-Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Jenkins, C. N., Joppa, L., Li, B. V., Menon, V., Ocampo-Peñuela, N., & Rondinini, C.
Venue
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-11
Volume
34
Issue
11
Pages
977-986
ISSN
0169-5347 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.tree.2019.06.009
OpenAlex
W2959994842
Cited by
362
References
5
FWCI
1.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring Terrestrial Area of Habitat (AOH) and Its Utility for the IUCN Red List. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.tree.2019.06.009
The paper
Brooks, T. M., Pimm, S. L., Akçakaya, H. R., Buchanan, G. M., Butchart, S. H. M., Foden, W., Hilton-Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Jenkins, C. N., Joppa, L., Li, B. V., Menon, V., Ocampo-Peñuela, N., & Rondinini, C. (2019). Measuring Terrestrial Area of Habitat (AOH) and Its Utility for the IUCN Red List. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.06.009

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.