| Data Set Citation |
Burgman M and Regan T.
.
Main causes for discrepancies in species classifications.
KNB Data Registry:
urn:lsid:knb.ecoinformatics.org:bowdish:254:13
(http://knb.ecoinformatics.org/knb/metacat/bowdish.254.13/nceas).
|
| Data Tables, Images, and Other Entities: |
| Data Table: | IUCNRedList.csv
(View Metadata
|
Download File  )
|
| Data Table: | HeritageMethod.txt
(View Metadata
|
Download File )
|
| Data Table: | MillsapMethod.txt
(View Metadata
|
Download File )
|
| Data Set Owner(s): |
|
Organization: | National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis |
|
|
Organization: | NCEAS 2290 : Burgman: ExtinctionRisk |
|
|
Individual: | Mark Burgman |
|
Organization: | University of Melbourne |
|
Email Address:
|
|
|
|
Individual: | Tracey Regan |
|
Organization: | The University of Melbourne |
|
Email Address:
|
|
|
| Abstract: |
| |
| Decisions about species conservation status have critical implications for allocation of public and private funding, land use planning decisions, and regulatory actions. A broad range of methods are used to classify species conservation status at a variety of geographic scales (e.g., local, national, international). Different methods produce very different results, yet there is no rationale or benchmark for judging their adequacy or appropriateness. Existing systems also are incomplete because they lack rules that allow decisions to be made when the data are uncertain. These tables were part of a NCEAS working group's analysis of these classification methods. The three classifications protocols that these tables look at are: The IUCN Red List criteria, The Heritage method and the Millsap method. They use 18 different assessors that interpret the same data and look at the main causes for discrepancies in species classifications. These tables are part of Tracey Jane Regan's thesis titled, "Evaluation Methods for Estimating Extinction Risk" that was submitted to the School of Botany, January 2004. Tracy was a member of the NCEAS working group titled "Developing and testing methods for classifying species conservation status and estimating risk". |
|
| Keywords: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Habitat Conservation Plan
|
|
| Access Control: |
| Auth System: | knb |
| Order: | denyFirst |
| Access Rules: |
ALLOW:
|
|
ALLOW:
|
[read]
[write]
[changePermission]
| uid=nceasadmin,o=NCEAS,dc=ecoinformatics,dc=org
|
|
|
| Contact: |
|
Individual: | Mark Burgman |
|
Organization: | University of Melbourne |
|
Email Address:
|
|
|
|
Individual: | Tracey Regan |
|
Organization: | The University of Melbourne |
|
Email Address:
|
|
|
| Methods Info: |
| Step 1: |
|
|
Description:
|
| Methods Used |
The three classifications protocols that these tables look at are: The IUCN Red List criteria, The Heritage method and the Millsap method. They use 18 different assessors that interpret the same data and look at the main causes for discrepancies in species classifications.
|
|
| Step 2: |
|
|
Description:
|
| Species and Assessors |
Thirteen species were chosen to represent a broad spectrum of taxonomic groups and life histories, including vascular plants, birds, invertebrates, mammals, a reptile and a fish. In several cases only an isolated portion of the species total range was considered in the assessment. These include Sp3: Keeled snail; Sp6: Grass tree; Sp7: Florida scrub-jay and Sp12: Desert tortoise. A total of 18 assessors took part in the experiment. Each assessor estimated the parameters for all of the species for each of the three classification protocols. All assessors were ecologists. Their expertise ranged from those who regularly use the classification protocols to assess species, to assessors who were experts with the individual species, and those who had a working knowledge of the protocols and could apply them to data sets. In all cases, the participants had sufficient knowledge that they could do the tasks credibly if they were employed by a government agency.
|
|
|
|
|
