Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 619

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 150 of the 150 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Scientific Foundations for an IUCN Red List of Ecosystems

Open access
Keith, David A., Rodríguez, Jon Paul, Rodríguez-Clark, Kathryn M., Nicholson, Emily, Aapala, Kaisu, Alonso, Alfonso, Asmussen, Marianne, Bachman, Steven, Basset, Alberto, Barrow, Edmund G., Benson, John S., Bishop, Melanie J., Bonifacio, Ronald, Brooks, Thomas M., Burgman, Mark A., Comer, Patrick, Comín, Francisco A., Essl, Franz, Faber-Langendoen, Don, Fairweather, Peter G., Holdaway, Robert J., Jennings, Michael, Kingsford, Richard T., Lester, Rebecca E., Nally, Ralph Mac, McCarthy, Michael A., Moat, Justin, Oliveira-Miranda, María A., Pisanu, Phil, Poulin, Brigitte, Regan, Tracey J., Riecken, Uwe, Spalding, Mark D., Zambrano-Martínez, Sergio·2013·PLoS ONE

Abstract

An understanding of risks to biodiversity is needed for planning action to slow current rates of decline and secure ecosystem services for future human use. Although the IUCN Red List criteria provide an effective assessment protocol for species, a standard global assessment of risks to higher levels of biodiversity is currently limited. In 2008, IUCN initiated development of risk assessment criteria to support a global Red List of ecosystems. We present a new conceptual model for ecosystem risk assessment founded on a synthesis of relevant ecological theories. To support the model, we review key elements of ecosystem definition and introduce the concept of ecosystem collapse, an analogue of species extinction. The model identifies four distributional and functional symptoms of ecosystem risk as a basis for assessment criteria: A) rates of decline in ecosystem distribution; B) restricted distributions with continuing declines or threats; C) rates of environmental (abiotic) degradation; and D) rates of disruption to biotic processes. A fifth criterion, E) quantitative estimates of the risk of ecosystem collapse, enables integrated assessment of multiple processes and provides a conceptual anchor for the other criteria. We present the theoretical rationale for the construction and interpretation of each criterion. The assessment protocol and threat categories mirror those of the IUCN Red List of species. A trial of the protocol on terrestrial, subterranean, freshwater and marine ecosystems from around the world shows that its concepts are workable and its outcomes are robust, that required data are available, and that results are consistent with assessments carried out by local experts and authorities. The new protocol provides a consistent, practical and theoretically grounded framework for establishing a systematic Red List of the world's ecosystems. This will complement the Red List of species and strengthen global capacity to report on and monitor the status of 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0062111

Cites

150 of 150 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 150 references

Cited by

See all 619

Metadata

Authors
Keith, D. A., Rodríguez, J. P., Rodríguez-Clark, K. M., Nicholson, E., Aapala, K., Alonso, A., Asmussen, M., Bachman, S., Basset, A., Barrow, E. G., Benson, J. S., Bishop, M. J., Bonifacio, R., Brooks, T. M., Burgman, M. A., Comer, P., Comín, F. A., Essl, F., Faber-Langendoen, D., Fairweather, P. G., Holdaway, R. J., Jennings, M., Kingsford, R. T., Lester, R. E., Nally, R. M., McCarthy, M. A., Moat, J., Oliveira-Miranda, M. A., Pisanu, P., Poulin, B., Regan, T. J., Riecken, U., Spalding, M. D., & Zambrano-Martínez, S.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2013-05-08
Volume
8
Issue
5
Pages
e62111
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1972186280
Cited by
619
References
150
FWCI
41.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Scientific Foundations for an IUCN Red List of Ecosystems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0062111
The paper
Keith, D. A., Rodríguez, J. P., Rodríguez-Clark, K. M., Nicholson, E., Aapala, K., Alonso, A., Asmussen, M., Bachman, S., Basset, A., Barrow, E. G., Benson, J. S., Bishop, M. J., Bonifacio, R., Brooks, T. M., Burgman, M. A., Comer, P., Comín, F. A., Essl, F., Faber-Langendoen, D., . . . Zambrano-Martínez, S. (2013). Scientific Foundations for an IUCN Red List of Ecosystems. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062111

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.