The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Using Red List Indices to measure progress towards the 2010 target and beyond
Open accessAbstract
The World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List is widely recognized as the most authoritative and objective system for classifying species by their risk of extinction. Red List Indices (RLIs) illustrate the relative rate at which a particular set of species change in overall threat status (i.e. projected relative extinction-risk), based on population and range size and trends as quantified by Red List categories. RLIs can be calculated for any representative set of species that has been fully assessed at least twice. They are based on the number of species in each Red List category, and the number changing categories between assessments as a result of genuine improvement or deterioration in status. RLIs show a fairly coarse level of resolution, but for fully assessed taxonomic groups they are highly representative, being based on information from a high proportion of species worldwide. The RLI for the world's birds shows that that their overall threat status has deteriorated steadily during the years 1988–2004 in all biogeographic realms and ecosystems. A preliminary RLI for amphibians for 1980–2004 shows similar rates of decline. RLIs are in development for other groups. In addition, a sampled index is being developed, based on a stratified sample of species from all major taxonomic groups, realms and ecosystems. This will provide extinction-risk trends that are more representative of all biodiversity.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
The Loss of Species: Mangrove Extinction Risk and Geographic Areas of Global Concern
Polidoro, B. A., Carpenter, K. E., Collins, L., Duke, N. C., Ellison, A. M., Ellison, J. C., Farnsworth, E. J., Fernando, E. S., Kathiresan, K., Koedam, N. E., et al. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010095 · Cited by 1,505
Assemblage Time Series Reveal Biodiversity Change but Not Systematic Loss
Dornelas, M., Gotelli, N. J., McGill, B., Shimadzu, H., Moyes, F., Sievers, C., & Magurran, A. E. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1248484 · Cited by 1,412
A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets
Tittensor, D. P., Walpole, M., Hill, S. L. L., Boyce, D. G., Britten, G. L., Burgess, N. D., Butchart, S. H. M., Leadley, P. W., Regan, E. C., Alkemade, R., et al. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1257484 · Cited by 1,227
Self-citationThe value of the IUCN Red List for conservation
RODRIGUES, A., PILGRIM, J., LAMOREUX, J., HOFFMANN, M., & BROOKS, T. (2006) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.010 · Cited by 1,238
Distorted Views of Biodiversity: Spatial and Temporal Bias in Species Occurrence Data
Boakes, E. H., McGowan, P. J. K., Fuller, R. A., Chang-qing, D., Clark, N. E., O'Connor, K., & Mace, G. M. (2010) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000385 · Cited by 824
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Butchart, S. H. M., Stattersfield, A. J., Baillie, J., Bennun, L. A., Stuart, S. N., Akçakaya, H. R., Hilton-Taylor, C., & Mace, G. M.
- Venue
- Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2005-02-28
- Volume
- 360
- Issue
- 1454
- Pages
- 255-268
- ISSN
- 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-2970
- OpenAlex
- W2167135078
- Cited by
- 287
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Using Red List Indices to measure progress towards the 2010 target and beyond. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rstb.2004.1583
- The paper
- Butchart, S. H. M., Stattersfield, A. J., Baillie, J., Bennun, L. A., Stuart, S. N., Akçakaya, H. R., Hilton-Taylor, C., & Mace, G. M. (2005). Using Red List Indices to measure progress towards the 2010 target and beyond. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1583
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.