Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 611–614 | Cite as

On the collective analysis of species: how can Red Lists and lists of regional priorities be combined to assist in decision-making? A reply to Lõhmus (2015)

  • Everton A. Maciel
  • Pedro V. Eisenlohr
Letter to the Editor

Biodiversity conservation approaches based on collective analysis of endangered species have commonly been used to guide decision-making. However, Lõhmus (2015) raised some crucial points that call into question such an approach. Among the author’s arguments over collective analysis are: (1) the temporal bias accompanying the lists of species; (2) circular thinking when broader issues could be addressed; (3) the sample bias due to the scale; and (4) marginalising assemblages with a small pool of species. In part, we agree with Lõhmus (2015), but we believe the collective analysis of species can be used in cases where researchers endeavour to address gaps in such lists. In response to Lõhmus (2015), we demonstrate how these gaps can be circumvented. To justify our opinion, we take as an example our observations on endangered tree species in the transition between the two largest areas of South America, the Cerrado and Amazonia, and discuss how these species can be combined with...


Endangered Species Model Community Priority Species Regional Priority IUCN Classification 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



CAPES granted the first author a Master Scholarship.


  1. Akçakaya HR, Ferson S, Burgman MA, Keith DA, Mace GM, Todd CR (2000) Making consistent IUCN classifications under uncertainty. Conserv Biol 14:1001–1013. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99125.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brito D (2010) Overcoming the Linnean shortfall: data deficiency and biological survey priorities. Basic Appl Ecol 11:709–713. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2010.09.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Diniz-Filho J, Loyola R, Raia P, Mooers A, Bini L (2013) Darwinian shortfalls in biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 28:689–695. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.09.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Françoso R, Brandão R, de Campos Nogueira C, Salmona Y, Machado R, Colli G (2015) Habitat loss and the effectiveness of protected areas in the Cerrado biodiversity hotspot. Nat Conserv 13:35–40. doi: 10.1016/j.ncon.2015.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gauthier P, Debussche M, Thompson J (2010) Regional priority setting for rare species based on a method combining three criteria. Biol Conserv 143:1501–1509. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.03.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gauthier P, Foulon Y, Jupille O, Thompson J (2013) Quantifying habitat vulnerability to assess species priorities for conservation management. Biol Conserv 158:321–325. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.08.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. IUCN (2015) IUCN Red List of threatened species: version 2015:2. Accessed 03 Sept 2015
  8. Kricsfalusy V, Trevisan N (2014) Prioritizing regionally rare plant species for conservation using herbarium data. Biodivers Conserv 23:39–61. doi: 10.1007/s10531-013-0583-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lima R, Mori D, Pitta G, Melito M, Bello C, Magnago L et al (2015) How much do we know about the endangered Atlantic Forest? Reviewing nearly 70 years of information on tree community surveys. Biodivers Conserv 24:2135–2148. doi: 10.1007/s10531-015-0953-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lõhmus A (2015) Collective analyses on “red-listed species” may have limited value for conservation ecology. Biodivers Conserv 1–3:3151–3153. doi: 10.1007/s10531-015-1000-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Margules C, Pressey R (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253. doi: 10.1038/35012251 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Mehlman D, Rosenberg K, Wells J, Robertson B (2004) A comparison of North American avian conservation priority ranking systems. Biol Conserv 120:383–390. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.03.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Myers N (1997) Rarity. Biodivers Conserv 6:1317–1320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schmeller D, Bernd G, Budrys E, Framsted EL, Henle K (2008) National responsibilities in european species conservation: a metodological review. Conserv Biol 22:593–601. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00961.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Xu H, Wu J, Liu Y, Ding H, Zhang M, Wu Y (2008) Biodiversity congruence and conservation strategies: a national test. Bioscience 58:632–639. doi: 10.1641/B580710 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia e ConservaçãoUniversidade do Estado de Mato Grosso - UNEMATNova XavantinaBrazil
  2. 2.Laboratório de Ecologia/CETAMUniversidade do Estado de Mato Grosso - UNEMATAlta FlorestaBrazil

Personalised recommendations