Conservation Status as a Biodiversity Trend Indicator: Recommendations from a Decade of Listing Species at Risk in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Species conservation status is commonly used as a broad‐scale indicator of the state of biological diversity. To learn about its value for tracking trends, we examined provincial lists of terrestrial vertebrate species and subspecies at risk in British Columbia, Canada, for 1992 and 2002 to see whether changes in these lists reflected changes in the status of the taxa they represent. Examination of the case histories of individual species and subspecies showed that 65% of additions and deletions to the British Columbia Red List were the result of improvement in knowledge of species status, changes in assessment procedures, and refinements in taxonomy rather than actual changes in a species' status. Comparison to an alternate set of rank scores provided by NatureServe for taxa that appeared on both 1992 and 2002 British Columbia Red Lists revealed changes in status that were not reflected by movement from the list. Estimates of historical conservation status for species on the 1992 British Columbia Red List demonstrated ambiguity around the natural baseline with regard to tracking changes in list composition over time. We discourage the continued use of indicators based solely on conservation status as a means of tracking biodiversity. Instead we recommend advancing strategic indicators around species at risk based on long‐term monitoring data, deliberate and explicitly stated baselines, and consistent methods of conservation ranking.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".