Cited by 97Species Distribution and Climate ChangeAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFish Ecology and Management Studies

Detecting Extinction Risk from Climate Change by IUCN Red List Criteria

Open access
KEITH, DAVID A., MAHONY, MICHAEL, HINES, HARRY, ELITH, JANE, REGAN, TRACEY J., BAUMGARTNER, JOHN B., HUNTER, DAVID, HEARD, GEOFFREY W. +9 more·2014·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Anthropogenic climate change is a key threat to global biodiversity. To inform strategic actions aimed at conserving biodiversity as climate changes, conservation planners need early warning of the risks faced by different species. The IUCN Red List criteria for threatened species are widely acknowledged as useful risk assessment tools for informing conservation under constraints imposed by limited data. However, doubts have been expressed about the ability of the criteria to detect risks imposed by potentially slow‐acting threats such as climate change, particularly because criteria addressing rates of population decline are assessed over time scales as short as 10 years. We used spatially explicit stochastic population models and dynamic species distribution models projected to future climates to determine how long before extinction a species would become eligible for listing as threatened based on the IUCN Red List criteria. We focused on a short‐lived frog species (Assa darlingtoni) chosen specifically to represent potential weaknesses in the criteria to allow detailed consideration of the analytical issues and to develop an approach for wider application. The criteria were more sensitive to climate change than previously anticipated; lead times between initial listing in a threatened category and predicted extinction varied from 40 to 80 years, depending on data availability. We attributed this sensitivity primarily to the ensemble properties of the criteria that assess contrasting symptoms of extinction risk. Nevertheless, we recommend the robustness of the criteria warrants further investigation across species with contrasting life histories and patterns of decline. The adequacy of these lead times for early warning depends on practicalities of environmental policy and management, bureaucratic or political inertia, and the anticipated species response times to management actions. Detección del Riesgo de Extinción a partir del Cambio Climático por medio del Criterio de la Lista Roja de la UICNKeith et al.

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 · 10.1111/cobi.12234

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Research indicates that Red List categories based on projected climate-change extinction risk are more reliable than earlier believed.

    “Finally, studies have shown Red List categorizations reflecting projected extinction risk from climate change to be more robust than was previously thought 6 .”

    From Biodiversity: The ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers (2016) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Introduction (page not supplied) describes earlier doubts about whether Red List criteria can detect climate-change extinction risk. The Factors influencing performance section reports that assessments for later in the twenty-first century were robust to missing data, but the study examined one amphibian species and cautions that early detection can depend on assessing criterion E. The claim overgeneralizes that qualified finding to Red List categorizations broadly. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [31]31. Parry, M. L., O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  2. [41]41. Tyler, M.J. 1985. Reproductive modes in Australian Amphibia. Pages 265-67 in G. Grigg, R. Shine and H. Ehmann, editors. Biology of Australasian Frogs and Reptiles, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Sydney.
  3. [47]47. Keith, D. A., Mahony, M., Hines, H., Elith, J., Regan, T. J., Baumgartner, J. B., Hunter, D., Heard, G. W., Mitchell, N. J., Parris, K. M., Penman, T., Scheele, B., Simpson, C. C., Tingley, R., Tracy, C. R., West, M. & Akcakaya, H. R. (2014). Detecting Extinction Risk from Climate Change by IUCN Red List Criteria. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 28 (3), pp.810-819. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12234. Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/52664

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
KEITH, D. A., MAHONY, M., HINES, H., ELITH, J., REGAN, T. J., BAUMGARTNER, J. B., HUNTER, D., HEARD, G. W., MITCHELL, N. J., PARRIS, K. M., PENMAN, T., SCHEELE, B., SIMPSON, C. C., TINGLEY, R., TRACY, C. R., WEST, M., & AKÇAKAYA, H. R.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
  • Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service Brisbane Qld 4000 Australia
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • NSW Office of Environment & Heritage (AU)
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
  • University of Wollongong (AU)
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • California State University, Fullerton (US)
  • Department of Ecology and Evolution Stony Brook University Stony Brook NY 11794 U.S.A.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-02-11
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
810-819
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W2157406002
Cited by
97
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 5
FWCI
7.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Conservation Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Australian Research Council (LP0989537)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Amphibian and Reptile Biology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
Keywords
IUCN Red List criteria, extinction risk, climate change, threatened species assessment, population decline (ecology), stochastic population models, amphibian conservation, conservation policy
MeSH terms
Animals, Anura, Australia, Conservation of Natural Resources, Risk Assessment, Biodiversity, Extinction, Biological, Endangered Species, Climate Change, Environmental Policy

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