Mammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Science, ul. Waszkiewicza 1, 17-230 Białowieza, Poland.
Conserv Biol. 2009 Dec;23(6):1568-76. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01260.x. Epub 2009 Jun 8.
Thorough evaluation has made the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List the most widely used and accepted authority on the conservation status of biodiversity. Although the system used to determine risk of extinction is rigorously and objectively applied, the list of threatening processes affecting a species is far more subjectively determined and has not had adequate review. I reviewed the threats listed in the IUCN Red List for randomly selected groups within the three most threatened orders of mammals: Artiodactyla, Carnivora, and Primates. These groups are taxonomically related and often ecologically similar, so I expected they would suffer relatively similar threats. Hominoid primates and all other terrestrial fauna faced similar threats, except for bovine artiodactyls and large, predatory carnivores, which faced significantly different threats. Although the status of bovines and hominoids and the number of threats affecting them were correlated, this was not the case for large carnivores. Most notable, however, was the great variation in the threats affecting individual members of each group. For example, the endangered European bison (Bison bonasus) has no threatening processes listed for it, and the lion (Panthera leo) is the only large predator listed as threatened with extinction by civil war. Some threatening processes appear spurious for the conservation of the species, whereas other seemingly important factors are not recorded as threats. The subjective nature of listing threatening processes, via expert opinion, results in substantial biases that may be allayed by independent peer review, use of technical manuals, consensus among multiple assessors, incorporation of probability modeling via decision-tree analysis, and adequate coordination among evaluators. The primary focus should be on species-level threats rather than population-level threats because the IUCN Red List is a global assessment and smaller-scale threats are more appropriate for national status assessments. Until conservationists agree on the threats affecting species and their relative importance, conservation action and success will be hampered by scattering scarce resources too widely and often by implementing conflicting strategies.
深入评估使国际自然保护联盟 (IUCN) 红色名录成为生物多样性保护状况最广泛使用和接受的权威。尽管用于确定灭绝风险的系统是严格和客观应用的，但影响物种的威胁过程清单则更多地是主观确定的，并且没有进行充分的审查。我随机选择了哺乳动物中受威胁程度最高的三个目（偶蹄目、食肉目和灵长目）中的一些群体，审查了 IUCN 红色名录中列出的威胁。这些群体在分类学上是相关的，通常在生态上也是相似的，因此我预计它们会遭受相对相似的威胁。人科灵长类动物和所有其他陆生动物面临着相似的威胁，除了牛科偶蹄类动物和大型掠食性食肉动物，它们面临着明显不同的威胁。尽管牛科动物和人科动物的地位以及影响它们的威胁数量相关，但大型食肉动物的情况并非如此。最值得注意的是，每个群体的个别成员所受到的威胁存在很大差异。例如，濒危的欧洲野牛（Bison bonasus）没有列出任何威胁它的过程，而狮子（Panthera leo）是唯一一种因内战而被列为濒危灭绝的大型掠食者。一些威胁过程似乎对物种的保护是荒谬的，而其他看似重要的因素则没有被记录为威胁。通过专家意见列出威胁过程的主观性导致了很大的偏见，可以通过独立的同行评审、使用技术手册、多个评估人员的共识、通过决策树分析纳入概率建模以及评估人员之间的充分协调来缓解这些偏见。主要重点应该放在物种层面的威胁上，而不是种群层面的威胁，因为 IUCN 红色名录是全球评估，较小规模的威胁更适合国家地位评估。在保护主义者就影响物种及其相对重要性的威胁达成一致之前，保护行动和成功将受到阻碍，因为稀缺资源过于分散，而且往往实施相互冲突的战略。
