Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 259

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantifying species recovery and conservation success to develop an IUCN Green List of Species

Open access
Akçakaya, H. Resit, Bennett, Elizabeth L., Brooks, Thomas M., Grace, Molly K., Heath, Anna, Hedges, Simon, Hilton‐Taylor, Craig, Hoffmann, Michael, Keith, David A., Long, Barney, Mallon, David P., Meijaard, Erik, Milner‐Gulland, E.J., Rodrigues, Ana S.L., Rodriguez, Jon Paul, Stephenson, P.J., Stuart, Simon N., Young, Richard P.·2018·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Stopping declines in biodiversity is critically important, but it is only a first step toward achieving more ambitious conservation goals. The absence of an objective and practical definition of species recovery that is applicable across taxonomic groups leads to inconsistent targets in recovery plans and frustrates reporting and maximization of conservation impact. We devised a framework for comprehensively assessing species recovery and conservation success. We propose a definition of a fully recovered species that emphasizes viability, ecological functionality, and representation; and use counterfactual approaches to quantify degree of recovery. This allowed us to calculate a set of 4 conservation metrics that demonstrate impacts of conservation efforts to date (conservation legacy); identify dependence of a species on conservation actions (conservation dependence); quantify expected gains resulting from conservation action in the medium term (conservation gain); and specify requirements to achieve maximum plausible recovery over the long term (recovery potential). These metrics can incentivize the establishment and achievement of ambitious conservation targets. We illustrate their use by applying the framework to a vertebrate, an invertebrate, and a woody and an herbaceous plant. Our approach is a preliminary framework for an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Green List of Species, which was mandated by a resolution of IUCN members in 2012. Although there are several challenges in applying our proposed framework to a wide range of species, we believe its further development, implementation, and integration with the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species will help catalyze a positive and ambitious vision for conservation that will drive sustained conservation action.

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 · 10.1111/cobi.13112

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 259

Metadata

Authors
Akçakaya, H. R., Bennett, E. L., Brooks, T. M., Grace, M. K., Heath, A., Hedges, S., Hilton‐Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Keith, D. A., Long, B., Mallon, D. P., Meijaard, E., Milner‐Gulland, E. J., Rodrigues, A. S. L., Rodriguez, J. P., Stephenson, P. J., Stuart, S. N., & Young, R. P.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-04-18
Volume
32
Issue
5
Pages
1128-1138
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W2791612366
Cited by
259
References
4
FWCI
47.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Quantifying species recovery and conservation success to develop an IUCN Green List of Species. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/cobi.13112
The paper
Akçakaya, H. R., Bennett, E. L., Brooks, T. M., Grace, M. K., Heath, A., Hedges, S., Hilton‐Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Keith, D. A., Long, B., Mallon, D. P., Meijaard, E., Milner‐Gulland, E. J., Rodrigues, A. S. L., Rodriguez, J. P., Stephenson, P. J., Stuart, S. N., & Young, R. P. (2018). Quantifying species recovery and conservation success to develop an IUCN Green List of Species. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13112

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.