\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T2A]{fontenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,polish,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{The global influence of the IUCN Red List can hinder species
conservation efforts}



\author[1]{Ruben Dario Palacio}%
\author[2]{María Abarca}%
\author[3]{Dolors Armenteras}%
\author[4]{Ulises Balza}%
\author[5,6]{Luke J. Dollar}%
\author[7]{Graden Z.L. Froese}%
\author[8,9]{Bryan P. Galligan}%
\author[10,11]{Anthony J. Giordano}%
\author[12]{Jonah Gula}%
\author[5]{Andrew P. Jacobson}%
\author[2]{Włodzimierz Jędrzejewski}%
\author[13]{Igor Khorozyan}%
\author[14,15]{Alicia Mastretta-Yanes}%
\author[1,16]{Juan Sebastián Moreno}%
\author[17]{Tutilo Mudumba}%
\author[18,19]{Eric D. Nana}%
\author[20]{Adrián Naveda-Rodríguez}%
\author[21,22,23]{Pablo J. Negret}%
\author[24]{Guillermo Ortuño Crespo}%
\author[25]{Filipe C. Serrano}%
\author[26,27]{José E. Serrano-Villavicencio}%
\author[28]{K. S. Gopi Sundar}%
\author[29]{Evert Thomas}%
\author[18]{D. A. Villar}%
\author[30]{Alice C. Hughes}%
\affil[1]{Fundación Ecotonos, Cra 72 No. 13A-56, Santiago de Cali, Colombia}%
\affil[2]{Centro de Ecología, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas (IVIC), Caracas 1020-A, Venezuela}%
\affil[3]{Departamento de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Bogotá. Cra. 30 # 45-03. Bogotá D.C. 111321, Colombia}%
\affil[4]{Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC-CONICET). Houssay 200. Ushuaia, Argentina}%
\affil[5]{Department of Environment and Sustainability, Catawba College, Salisbury, NC USA}%
\affil[6]{Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC USA}%
\affil[7]{Nsombou Abalghe-­Dzal Association (NADA), Makokou, Gabon}%
\affil[8]{Jesuit Justice and Ecology Network Africa, Nairobi, Kenya}%
\affil[9]{Department of Biology, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, I.L., U.S.A}%
\affil[10]{S.P.E.C.I.E.S. - The Society for the Preservation of Endangered Carnivores and their International Ecological Study, Ventura, CA 93006}%
\affil[11]{The Center for Human-Carnivore Coexistence, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80524 USA}%
\affil[12]{Centre for Functional Biodiversity, School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa}%
\affil[13]{Independent Consultant, Fuldaweg 14, Goettingen 37081, Germany.}%
\affil[14]{Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT), Crédito Constructor, Benito Juárez, Ciudad de México, Mexico.}%
\affil[15]{Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), Parques del Pedregal, Tlalpan, Ciudad de México, México.}%
\affil[16]{Departamento de Biología, Universidad del Valle, Calle 13 # 100-00, Cali, Colombia}%
\affil[17]{Department of Zoology, Entomology, and Fisheries Sciences, Makerere University Kampala, Uganda.}%
\affil[18]{Department of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, U. K.}%
\affil[19]{Institute of Agricultural Research for Development (IRAD), Cameroon}%
\affil[20]{Wildlife Conservation Society, Ecuador Program. Quito, Ecuador.}%
\affil[21]{The University of Queensland, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Qld 4072, Australia}%
\affil[22]{The University of Queensland, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, Qld 4072, Australia}%
\affil[23]{University of Bern, Wyss Academy for Nature, Centre for Development and Environment, Institute of Geography, Bern, Switzerland}%
\affil[24]{IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas High Seas Specialist Group}%
\affil[25]{Departamento de Ecologia, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil}%
\affil[26]{Departamento de Mastozoología, Museo de Historia Natural de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Peru.}%
\affil[27]{Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil}%
\affil[28]{Seva Mandir, Old Fatehpura, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India, 313001}%
\affil[29]{Bioversity International, Lima, Peru.}%
\affil[30]{School of Biological Sciences, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 24, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species is an extinction risk assessment
tool that has guided species conservation over the last five decades.
However, as wildlife scientists and conservationists, we argue that its
influence on the global conservation agenda can hinder effective species
conservation efforts. Here, we review the limitations of the Red List
and its misuse in priority setting, which can overlook local and
regional contexts. This can result in improper allocation of
conservation resources, especially in the Global South, where financial
resources are limited. In particular, funds directed towards red-listed
species may fail to address a broader range of conservation priorities.
We also contend that extinction risk is insufficient for guiding
conservation efforts and recommend broadening conservation planning and
decision-making beyond reliance on the Red List.~Thus, for a more
inclusive and decentralized approach, we summarize guidelines for
guiding species conservation at appropriate ecological, spatial, and
taxonomic scales. Finally, we encourage more collaborative efforts and
stakeholder engagement for the setting of conservation priorities and
efficient funding allocation.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


\section*{Introduction}

{\label{349933}}

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
(\href{https://www.iucnredlist.org/}{https://www.iucnredlist.org}),
hereafter the ``Red List'', is an extinction risk assessment tool that
has informed and catalyzed species conservation for over five decades
~\hyperref[csl:1]{(Betts et al. 2020)}. The Red List has been instrumental in improving
species conservation status and guiding their
recovery~\hyperref[csl:2]{(Hoffmann et al. 2010}; \hyperref[csl:3]{Grace et al. 2021)} while playing a major role in
decision-making, policy implementation, planning, funding, and
research~\hyperref[csl:4]{(Rodrigues et al. 2006}; \hyperref[csl:1]{Betts et al. 2020}; \hyperref[csl:5]{Hoffmann et al. 2008)}. The Red List aims to compile the best
possible information on the conservation and threat status of species,
in a laudable effort to become the ``barometer of
life''~\hyperref[csl:6]{(Stuart et al. 2010)}. However, Red List assessments cover a very
small fraction of life on Earth. At present, only 150,000 species have
been assessed~\hyperref[csl:7]{({IUCN} 2023)}, making less than 10\% of about 2
million described species~\hyperref[csl:8]{(Bánki et al. 2023)}. This percentage dwindles
dramatically when considering recent estimates of global biodiversity,
with the number of animal species exceeding 50 million alone
\hyperref[csl:9]{(Li \& Wiens 2023)}.

The Red List has categorized 42,100 species as
threatened~\hyperref[csl:7]{({IUCN} 2023)}, yet over a million species are
potentially facing extinction based on conservative
estimates~~\hyperref[csl:10]{({IPBES} 2019)}. This number could be much larger given
that undescribed species can have a higher extinction
risk~\hyperref[csl:11]{(Liu et al. 2022)}. Furthermore, some assessed species could
already be threatened, but reassessments have not been undertaken, which
are recommended every 10 years~\hyperref[csl:12]{({IUCN} 2016)}.~ For instance, in
the marine realm, over 40\% of top-fished species have outdated
assessments~\hyperref[csl:13]{(Miqueleiz et al. 2022)}. Overall, 28\% of assessments have
already been declared outdated ~\hyperref[csl:7]{({IUCN} 2023)}, potentially
undermining the long-term use of the Red List \hyperref[csl:14]{(Rondinini et al. 2014)}.~~

Thus, while the Red List has undoubtedly been a major undertaking, we
argue that as a standalone tool, it cannot provide an accurate, timely,
and repeated assessment of the world's threatened species. Furthermore,
we assert that relying solely on the Red List is not sufficient for
guiding conservation efforts, despite its influence on conservation
planning and decision-making. Hence, in this review, we delve into (a)
rethinking the role of the IUCN Red List (b) the methodological
drawbacks of the Red List (c) the limitations of the Red List categories
and criteria (d) shortcomings of the assessment process, (e)
recommendations for assessing extinction risk beyond the Red List and
(f) guidelines to broaden species conservation and the setting of
conservation priorities.

\section*{Rethinking the role of the IUCN Red
List}

{\label{413386}}

The Red List underpins some of the most influential conservation
mechanisms and initiatives at the global scale, such as the
identification and designation of Key Biodiversity
Areas~\hyperref[csl:15]{({{KBA~Standards~and~Appeals~Committee}} 2022)}. Notably, the Red List index is the headline
indicator for the species component of Goal A in the Kunming-Montreal
Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF) of the Convention of Biological
Diversity (\url{https://www.cbd.int/gbf/}). This influence on the global
conservation agenda can lead to downstream consequences such as the
selection of conservation priorities, even though it was not explicitly
designed to do so~\hyperref[csl:16]{({IUCN} 2012}; \hyperref[csl:17]{{{IUCN~Standards~and~Petitions~Committee}} 2022}; \hyperref[csl:18]{Mace et al. 2008)}.

The conservation prioritizations driven by the Red List are often
realized through funding allocation from governments, NGOs, and other
global stakeholders~\hyperref[csl:19]{(Wilson et al. 2009)}, where funds are directed to
species based on their threat status on the Red
List~\hyperref[csl:20]{(Miller et al. 2013}; \hyperref[csl:1]{Betts et al. 2020)}. For instance, major organizations such as the
Rainforest Trust or the Mohamed Bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund
typically give priority to species listed as Critically Endangered (CR)
or Endangered (EN). Furthermore, newer initiatives, such as the EDGE
Protected and Conserved Area Fund and the Indianapolis Zoo Saving
Species Challenge, also require target species to be listed in
threatened categories of the Red List. Other funders, such as the North
American Pangolin Consortium Grant, require endorsements from IUCN
Specialist Groups.

Although well intended, such international funding can direct
conservation actions that erase local context and conflict with those
identified by regional experts~~\hyperref[csl:21]{(Melick et al. 2012}; \hyperref[csl:22]{Isbell et al. 2023)}, overlooking or
undermining more pressing conservation efforts based on localized
assessments~\hyperref[csl:23]{(McShane 2003}; \hyperref[csl:24]{Smith et al. 2009)}. This is particularly concerning in the
Global South, where financial resources are limited. In contrast, the
Red List has less influence on prioritization in high-income economies
such as North America and Europe \hyperref[csl:25]{(Lim et al. 2023)}, where conservation
strategies such as the US Endangered Species Act and the EU Birds and
Habitats Directives are designed, implemented, and funded internally.

Given this context, threatened species on the Red List, particularly
charismatic ones, attract more funding and scientific attention than
non-threatened species~\hyperref[csl:26]{(Trimble \& Van Aarde 2010}; \hyperref[csl:27]{Smith et al. 2012}; \hyperref[csl:28]{Brambilla et al. 2013)}. Consequently, conservation
efforts and research have mainly targeted a few selected species on the
Red List~\hyperref[csl:29]{(Martín-López et al. 2011)}. This creates a cycle of underfunding for
many species~\hyperref[csl:30]{(Hochkirch et al. 2021)} and prevents actions to support their
persistence or recovery. We acknowledge that conserving threatened
species on the Red List could benefit co-occurring organisms and their
habitats \hyperref[csl:31]{(Cox et al. 2022)}. However, it is important to carefully
evaluate and justify their use as ``umbrella'' species rather than
assuming it~\hyperref[csl:32]{(Roberge \& Angelstam 2004}; \hyperref[csl:33]{Seddon \& Leech 2008}; \hyperref[csl:34]{Wang et al. 2021)}. In addition, less charismatic species
or those perceived as uncharismatic, such as invertebrates or parasitic
species, should also be considered for conservation efforts given their
key roles in ecosystem functioning~\hyperref[csl:35]{(Eisenhauer et al. 2019}; \hyperref[csl:36]{Carlson et al. 2020}; \hyperref[csl:37]{Hughes et al. 2021)}.

Overreliance on the Red List to select conservation priorities can also
lead to misuse or exploitation~\hyperref[csl:38]{(Campbell 2012)}. This can occur by
elevating the threat status of a species~\hyperref[csl:39]{(Godfrey \& Godley 2008)}, opposing
downlistings to maintain funds~\hyperref[csl:40]{(Mallon \& Jackson 2017)}, or elevating
populations and subspecies to the species level, where they are placed
in threatened categories \hyperref[csl:41]{(Thomson et al. 2021)}. Such situations can create
a sense of urgency and fundraising opportunities due to the
``high-profile'' status of the Red List, which would be mitigated if
species conservation was less dependent on a single system of threat
categorization~\hyperref[csl:42]{(Soberon \& Medellín 2007)}.

In summary, the global influence of the Red List and its misuse in
decision-making~\hyperref[csl:43]{(Lunney 2017}; \hyperref[csl:44]{Possingham et al. 2002)} can constitute a priority-setting
`pitfall trap'~\hyperref[csl:29]{(Martín-López et al. 2011)} in which funds and other resources
are disproportionately allocated to a small number of species that have
been assessed, are threatened, and are charismatic. This is exacerbated
by the globalization of conservation~\hyperref[csl:45]{(Chapin 2004}; \hyperref[csl:46]{Rodriguez et al. 2007)}, the
concentration of power in centralized authorities, and the dominance of
conservation priorities set by high-income economies and large
conservation organizations~\hyperref[csl:47]{(Wyborn \& Evans 2021)}.

\section*{Methodological drawbacks of the IUCN Red
List}

{\label{643739}}

We are not the first to express concerns about the Red List
~\hyperref[csl:48]{(Master 1991}; \hyperref[csl:49]{Mrosovsky 1997}; \hyperref[csl:50]{Webb \& Carrillo 2000}; \hyperref[csl:42]{Soberon \& Medellín 2007}; \hyperref[csl:51]{Keith 2009}; \hyperref[csl:38]{Campbell 2012}; \hyperref[csl:52]{Lovari 2020)} with controversies arising from inaccurate
assessment of different species, including high-profile examples such as
sea turtles~\hyperref[csl:53]{(Mrosovsky 2003}; \hyperref[csl:39]{Godfrey \& Godley 2008}; \hyperref[csl:38]{Campbell 2012)} and primates~\hyperref[csl:54]{(Nijman 2004}; \hyperref[csl:41]{Thomson et al. 2021)}.

The Red List was designed as a quantitative system to evaluate the
relative risk of species extinction~\hyperref[csl:18]{(Mace et al. 2008)}. However,
species assessments are often based on expert opinion, which may be
biased or subjective~\hyperref[csl:51]{(Keith 2009}; \hyperref[csl:55]{Hayward et al. 2015}; \hyperref[csl:56]{de Oliveira Caetano et al. 2022)}. For instance, a recent study
revealed that the threat categories of stork species (family Ciconiidae)
were based on unfounded assumptions regarding their ecology and natural
history and not scientific evidence~\hyperref[csl:57]{(Gula et al. 2023)}. The utility of
the Red List has also been questioned for entire groups of organisms,
such as invertebrates~\hyperref[csl:58]{(Cardoso et al. 2011)}, which constitute the majority
of animal species on Earth~\hyperref[csl:8]{(Bánki et al. 2023)}. In fact, the Red List is
currently biased towards terrestrial vertebrates, the first group of
species that was evaluated~\hyperref[csl:18]{(Mace et al. 2008)}. This group has over 90\%
of described species assessed, in contrast to only 2\% of invertebrates,
0.5\% of fungi and protists, and 15\% of plants, although some groups,
such as gymnosperms, have almost complete
assessments~\hyperref[csl:7]{({IUCN} 2023)}.

Even within groups of species that have been more comprehensively
assessed, Red List assessments can also underestimate the number of
threatened species and current extinction rates~\hyperref[csl:59]{(Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016}; \hyperref[csl:60]{Ramesh et al. 2017}; \hyperref[csl:61]{Stévart et al. 2019}; \hyperref[csl:62]{Cowie et al. 2022}; \hyperref[csl:63]{Régnier et al. 2009}; \hyperref[csl:56]{de Oliveira Caetano et al. 2022}; \hyperref[csl:64]{Peng et al. 2023)}. In
addition, one in six species on the Red List is listed as Data Deficient
(DD), and half of them could be threatened~\hyperref[csl:65]{(Borgelt et al. 2022)}. These DD
species are frequently neglected in conservation efforts, and have been
recommended for reassessment~\hyperref[csl:66]{(Cazalis et al. 2023)}. For many species,
assessments of specific threats have been
inconsistent~\hyperref[csl:67]{(Branco et al. 2021}; \hyperref[csl:57]{Gula et al. 2023)}, or may not be adequately
captured~\hyperref[csl:68]{(Sonter et al. 2022)}. This can lead to unreliable analysis of
the conservation status of many taxonomic groups. An illustrative
example is the production of global maps of species
threats~\hyperref[csl:69]{(Harfoot et al. 2021)}. These maps have limited conservation
value~\hyperref[csl:70]{(Tulloch et al. 2015)} because they do not consider local context and
knowledge \hyperref[csl:47]{(Wyborn \& Evans 2021)}.

An important concern over the Red List is its focus on evaluating the
global risk of species extinction, where only 2\% of the assessments are
from subspecies, varieties, and populations ~\hyperref[csl:7]{({IUCN} 2023)}. This
can discourage actions to halt local population declines and known
regional extirpations~\hyperref[csl:71]{(Palacio et al. 2020)}, stressing the need for
extinction risk assessments below the species level~\hyperref[csl:72]{(Thakur et al. 2018)},
which has also been recognized by the population target (maintaining
populations of at least 500 individuals) within the KM-GBF. In addition,
33\% of species placed in non-threatened categories of the Red List have
been found to be declining in abundance \hyperref[csl:73]{(Finn et al. 2023)}.

The Red List can overlook population losses for non-threatened and
widespread species where extinction rates may vary
regionally~\hyperref[csl:74]{(Jędrzejewski et al. 2017)}. For example, the Andean condor
(\emph{Vultur gryphus}) was uplisted from Near Threatened (NT) to
Vulnerable (VU) in 2020, despite decades of extirpations in its northern
range ~\hyperref[csl:75]{(Restrepo-Cardona et al. 2022)}. ~Furthermore, in the Andes, over a quarter
of subspecies could be at risk of extinction~\hyperref[csl:76]{(Palacio \& Clark 2023)}. ~In
Africa, the Marabou Stork (\emph{Leptoptilos crumenifer}) remains a
common species through the East and South, but appears to be on the
verge of extinction in West Africa, a fact that was overlooked until
recently~\hyperref[csl:77]{(Gula \& Barlow 2022)}. In the marine realm, wide-ranging species
such as tunas and billfishes often experience range contractions before
abundance is reduced to extinction risk thresholds \hyperref[csl:78]{(Worm \& Tittensor 2011}; \hyperref[csl:79]{Burgess et al. 2017)}.

In essence, the global conservation status of common species on the Red
List can remain unchanged despite strong declines in abundance, possibly
delaying action until they are close to extinction. In conservationist
Rosalie Edge's words: ``\emph{The time to protect a species is while it
is still common. The way to prevent the extinction of a species is never
to let it become rare}''~\hyperref[csl:80]{({Emergency Conservation Committee} 1934)}.

\section*{Limitations of the IUCN Red List Categories and
Criteria}

{\label{127100}}

The current categories and criteria (version 3.1) were established more
than 20 years ago \hyperref[csl:16]{({IUCN} 2012)} and methodological revisions have
been suggested \hyperref[csl:81]{(Cazalis et al. 2022)}. At present, the Red List clearly
needs to utilize new technologies, data availability, and modern
quantitative methods that were not available when its categorization
system was first developed.

Criterion B {[}Geographic Range{]} is the most commonly used criterion
for classifying species into threatened categories~\hyperref[csl:82]{(Marsh et al. 2023)},
which requires updating. This criterion employs simple spatial metrics
that indirectly calculate species range sizes~\hyperref[csl:83]{(Gaston \& Fuller 2009)} and is
poorly correlated with species risk of extinction ~\hyperref[csl:82]{(Marsh et al. 2023)}.
In contrast, contemporary methods, such as species distribution
models~\hyperref[csl:84]{(Peterson et al. 2018)} and GIS approaches~\hyperref[csl:85]{(Palacio et al. 2021}; \hyperref[csl:86]{Hughes et al. 2021)} allow
the direct estimation of the species' Extent of Suitable Habitat (ESH),
also called Area of Habitat (AOH). The AOH is a more informative metric
for assessing extinction risk~\hyperref[csl:87]{(Brooks et al. 2019)}, and remote sensing
technologies permit the evaluation of its trend over time, quality, or
degradation \hyperref[csl:88]{(Jacobson et al. 2019)}.

Similarly, criteria A, C, and D are based on population parameters
~\hyperref[csl:16]{({IUCN} 2012)}, which are typically not estimated using
standardized methods~\hyperref[csl:51]{(Keith 2009)}. Consequently, the reported
abundances and population trends for some species are often
``guesstimates''~\hyperref[csl:40]{(Mallon \& Jackson 2017)} and can be
misleading~\hyperref[csl:89]{(Fox et al. 2019}; \hyperref[csl:90]{Wilson et al. 2011)}. In the oceans, criterion A {[}Population
size reduction{]} is only of limited value for assessing the level of
depletion and exploitation rate of fish stocks and could benefit from
integrating new parameters from fisheries sources~\hyperref[csl:91]{(Millar \& Dickey-Collas 2018}; \hyperref[csl:13]{Miqueleiz et al. 2022)}.
The quantitative criterion E encourages population viability analyses
and can indicate species' probability of extinction. However, to date,
it has only been used for four species~\hyperref[csl:7]{({IUCN} 2023)} and should be
more broadly applied~\hyperref[csl:81]{(Cazalis et al. 2022)}. Additionally, we suggest
incorporating effective population size whenever possible
\hyperref[csl:92]{(Schmidt et al. 2023)}, which is also a headline indicator within the
Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.~

In addition to the issues with each criterion, the categories and
criteria do not account for simultaneously operating
threats~\hyperref[csl:93]{(Greenville et al. 2021)}, which may vary across species ranges,
populations, and habitat levels~\hyperref[csl:94]{(Santini et al. 2019)}. Also, critical
factors such as landscape connectivity, genetic diversity, and
population adaptation to different niches are not explicitly considered
in the Red List~\hyperref[csl:95]{(Pilot et al. 2006}; \hyperref[csl:96]{Willoughby et al. 2015}; \hyperref[csl:97]{Breiner et al. 2017}; \hyperref[csl:92]{Schmidt et al. 2023)}, even though they are critical for
species and population persistence~\hyperref[csl:98]{(Lindborg \& Eriksson 2004}; \hyperref[csl:99]{Lorenzana et al. 2020)}. Hence, the Red
List is currently insufficient to inform species-specific decisions on
protecting populations and their genetic diversity~\hyperref[csl:92]{(Schmidt et al. 2023)}.

\section*{Shortcomings of the red listing
process}

{\label{813383}}

Beyond the limitations of the Red List categories and criteria, the
assessment process has several shortcomings. It is heavily reliant on a
few Red List assessors, where the expert selection process is run
through invitations that might favor academic networks with similar
biases and exclude conservationists and other local
professionals~\hyperref[csl:100]{(Tomasini 2018)}. Critically, many assessors require
more time, expertise, and funding to complete thorough assessments.
Assessors are almost entirely volunteers and lack funding; thus, a more
standardized process likely requires increased recognition and support,
as authoring Red List assessments is secondary to grants and scientific
publications. Within this context, it is challenging to reflect regional
or local threats to species survival. In fact, integrating local data
into Red List assessments is a long overdue process
~\hyperref[csl:101]{(Rodríguez et al. 2000)}. We suggest the red listing process should seek
knowledge sources in non-English languages~\hyperref[csl:102]{(Chowdhury et al. 2022)}, gray
literature~\hyperref[csl:103]{(Haddaway \& Bayliss 2015)}, and citizen science databases, among
other streams of knowledge. Such sources can be essential repositories
of context-dependent information, and may increase the effectiveness of
conservation interventions~\hyperref[csl:104]{(Amano et al. 2021)} and species recovery
\hyperref[csl:105]{(Hu et al. 2019)}.

Furthermore, we believe that it is crucial for the Red List to address
systemic barriers to participation and
decision-making~\hyperref[csl:106]{(Soares \& {et al.} 2023)}. The assessment process requires
wider consultations and should improve its alignment with local
realities~\hyperref[csl:100]{(Tomasini 2018)}. This will require the support of regional
initiatives for assessments~\hyperref[csl:107]{(Bachman et al. 2019)}, increasing equal
collaboration with experts~\hyperref[csl:108]{(Armenteras 2021)}, strengthening national
and regional capacities for conservation~\hyperref[csl:109]{(Zhang et al. 2023)}, and
communicating with researchers and partner networks \hyperref[csl:110]{(Böhm et al. 2022}; \hyperref[csl:66]{Cazalis et al. 2023)}
to enhance the integration and coordination among conservation
stakeholders \hyperref[csl:111]{(Echeverri et al. 2023)}.~ This likely involves diversifying how
information is incorporated using a broader user base, more inclusive
modes of review, and at a faster pace.~ A successful example of this
approach is the recently implemented Brazilian biodiversity extinction
risk assessment system (SALVE; \url{https://salve.icmbio.gov.br}), which
periodically opens public consultation with Brazilian citizens and
non-assessor scientists to contribute to the assessment of extinction
risk of national species, resulting in a steady stream of online curated
evaluation data in which each contributor is credited.

Fortunately, for some species assessments, the Red List has successfully
used improved assessment processes with broad participation, which
should be adopted more widely. For instance, the leopard (\emph{Panthera
pardus}) and the Persian leopard (P\emph{. p. tulliana}) have been
assessed with range-wide cooperation of scientists and experts under the
umbrella of the IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group~\hyperref[csl:112]{(Breitenmoser et al. 2022)}. We
also commend the Species Conservation Cycle
(Assess-Plan-Act-Network-Communicate) initiated by the IUCN
\hyperref[csl:113]{(Rodríguez et al. 2022)}, the Reverse the Red program to mobilize national
networks and empower communities, and the Centers for Species Survival
(CSS) to allow investments in conservation to reach teams of local
experts and professionals.

\section*{Extinction risk beyond the IUCN Red
List}

{\label{496782}}

Even if the Red List is substantially improved, we posit that a single
standard of extinction risk assessment cannot be effectively implemented
for all taxa, especially those with complex life cycles, such as various
groups of plants and invertebrates~\hyperref[csl:58]{(Cardoso et al. 2011}; \hyperref[csl:114]{Knapp 2011}; \hyperref[csl:115]{Bergamini et al. 2019)}. Instead, we
believe that it is paramount to consider specific approaches to analyze
the extinction risk of different groups of organisms at appropriate
ecological, spatial, and taxonomic scales~\hyperref[csl:116]{(Anderson \& Maldonado-Ocampo 2011}; \hyperref[csl:117]{Ennen et al. 2020}; \hyperref[csl:118]{Rodríguez-Caro et al. 2023)}. For
instance, reconciling fisheries status with extinction risk remains a
challenge in the oceans. While previous studies have shown alignment
between the IUCN Red List and fisheries status indicators of
commercially exploited species~\hyperref[csl:119]{(Davies \& Baum 2012)}, inconsistencies
remain prevalent across commercially targeted marine species, and
diminish the importance of using other available resources (e.g., the
FishBase Vulnerability Index; \hyperref[csl:13]{(Miqueleiz et al. 2022)}).

Extinction risk assessments should be conducted using a combination of
variables and integrative approaches of multiple
factors~\hyperref[csl:120]{(Button \& Borzée 2021)}, preferably with statistical modeling
frameworks~\hyperref[csl:121]{(Pollock et al. 2020)}. For instance, spatially explicit
assessments based on the exposure and sensitivity to local threats have
effectively assessed the conservation status of tree
species~\hyperref[csl:122]{(Fremout et al. 2020}; \hyperref[csl:123]{Ceccarelli et al. 2022}; \hyperref[csl:124]{Gaisberger et al. 2022)}, and can be modified for wider use. We
recommend that extinction risk assessments should include multiple
dimensions of biodiversity~\hyperref[csl:125]{(Brum et al. 2017)}, ~such as functional
traits~\hyperref[csl:126]{(Griffith et al. 2023)}, regional habitat
threats~\hyperref[csl:127]{(Tanalgo et al. 2022)}, evolutionary distinctiveness
~\hyperref[csl:128]{(Isaac et al. 2007}; \hyperref[csl:129]{Gumbs et al. 2023)}and current genetic diversity \hyperref[csl:92]{(Schmidt et al. 2023)}.
Furthermore, it is imperative to explicitly account for climate change
impacts that have thus far been proven difficult to incorporate into the
Red List~\hyperref[csl:130]{(Akçakaya et al. 2006}; \hyperref[csl:64]{Peng et al. 2023}; \hyperref[csl:131]{Trull et al. 2017)}.

Nevertheless, for most species, the paucity of data may not allow a
thorough assessment of their risk of extinction. In this case, it is
critical to acknowledge data gaps and limitations, as inaccurate
assurance of confidence can also hamper conservation efforts and
decision-making. Thus, we suggest that it is critical that assessments
make their reasoning more transparent and express levels of confidence
in a way similar to IPBES assessments. Critically, extinction risk alone
should not be used to guide conservation efforts, as it does not account
for species' ecological functions~\hyperref[csl:132]{(Brodie et al. 2018)} or their relative
ecological importance~\hyperref[csl:133]{(Natsukawa \& Sergio 2022)}. Rather, conservation efforts
should be a part of a comprehensive priority-setting
process~\hyperref[csl:134]{(Collen et al. 2016}; \hyperref[csl:135]{Miller et al. 2006)}. Hence, biological and social considerations
need to be considered for conservation practice whenever possible
\hyperref[csl:136]{(Shi et al. 2005)}, such as culturally important species
\hyperref[csl:137]{(Reyes-García et al. 2023)}, resource allocation, logistical and financial
trade-offs, and the potential for success \hyperref[csl:138]{(Joseph et al. 2009)}.

\section*{Broadening species conservation
efforts}

{\label{440734}}

Biodiversity conservation is governed by a plurality of
values~\hyperref[csl:139]{({IPBES} 2022)}. These values, as well as the power-laden
processes that legitimize them, should be openly addressed for effective
conservation efforts~\hyperref[csl:140]{(Shackleton et al. 2023}; \hyperref[csl:141]{Beck et al. 2021)}. Thus, the influence of the Red
List on the global agenda precludes alternative viewpoints, cultures,
regional intricacies, and human communities that will ultimately achieve
on-the-ground species protection. Moreover, even if the Red List can be
applied at national and regional scales~\hyperref[csl:142]{(Brito et al. 2010)}, it risks
limiting conservation effectiveness if adopted uncritically,~ for
example, by overlooking nationally endemic species~\hyperref[csl:143]{(Kraus et al. 2023)}
categorized as Least Concern (LC).~

Thus, instead of top-down approaches, we suggest broadening species
conservation efforts, where planning and decision-making are rooted in
local contexts and integrated across spatial scales~\hyperref[csl:144]{(Chaplin-Kramer et al. 2022)}.
Furthermore, it is imperative to incorporate and center the expertise,
voices, and perspectives of diverse conservationists, indigenous
peoples, and local communities across geographies, including the Global
South, in decision-making~\hyperref[csl:145]{(Ocampo-Ariza et al. 2023)}. Recognizing local
knowledge, both traditional and scientific~\hyperref[csl:146]{(Braga-Pereira et al. 2022)}, is also
key to developing meaningful indicators of conservation priorities
adapted to local and regional realities. For example, a
land--sea--people management plan for the Haida Gwaii archipelago in
Canada was developed by a multicultural working group consisting of
indigenous leaders of the Haida Nation, government agencies, and
academics, responding to technically rigorous indicators consistent with
the political and cultural values of the Haida Nation and the
socio-ecological complexity of the local context \hyperref[csl:147]{(Muhl et al. 2022)}.~

More inclusive processes, such as the Haida Gwaii management plan, could
help to diversify governance~\hyperref[csl:148]{(Vierros et al. 2020}; \hyperref[csl:149]{Spalding et al. 2023)}, while also meeting the
criteria of international agreements such as the Kunming-Montreal Global
Biodiversity Framework. The species component aims to halt human-induced
extinctions of ``known threatened species'' (i.e., those listed as
threatened in the Red List) and to reduce extinction risk tenfold. While
commendable, the Red List as a sole indicator might preclude an
effective gauge of progress for preventing species
extinctions~\hyperref[csl:37]{(Hughes et al. 2021)} and highlights the need for more
efficient biodiversity monitoring \hyperref[csl:150]{(Gonzalez et al. 2023)}.

Furthermore, we also call attention to maintaining an appropriate
balance of priorities between conservation measures, scientific
research, and monitoring~\hyperref[csl:151]{(Buxton et al. 2021)}. Arguably, more resources
are needed to adequately monitor the population trends and threats for
most species ~\hyperref[csl:150]{(Gonzalez et al. 2023)}. For wide-ranging, migratory, and
marine species, region-wide, transboundary efforts that involve data
collection and biodiversity assessment at the population level are
required~\hyperref[csl:152]{(Roberson et al. 2021}; \hyperref[csl:153]{Dunn et al. 2019)}. We suggest that increased collaboration,
synergies~\hyperref[csl:154]{(Oberhauser et al. 2017)}, and bottom-up approaches
\hyperref[csl:47]{(Wyborn \& Evans 2021)} are needed to allow the participation of all relevant
stakeholders, mobilize resources and funding more effectively, and
provide more diverse criteria to assay priorities for species
conservation across scales.~~\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.00\columnwidth]{figures/mass/box-1-1}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section*{Concluding Remarks}

{\label{829077}}

The Red List has demonstrated a positive impact on the conservation of
threatened species, and we are not advocating its removal. Rather, we
argue that it should be understood as ``a'' and not ``the'' tool for
evaluating species extinction risk~\hyperref[csl:155]{(Vié et al. 2008}; \hyperref[csl:1]{Betts et al. 2020)}. Other systems for
quantifying extinction risk have been proposed
(e.g.,~\hyperref[csl:156]{(Baumsteiger \& Moyle 2017)}), some might be more appropriate in different
jurisdictions \hyperref[csl:42]{(Soberon \& Medellín 2007)}, and others are already in place, such
as the New Zealand Threat Classification System categories
(\url{https://nztcs.org.nz}). Importantly, new developments in assessing
extinction risk should incorporate better quantitative methods to make
use of the wealth of biodiversity data sources and methodological
advances whenever possible.

~Even if correctly assessed, extinction risk itself or lists of
threatened species are insufficient for guiding conservation
efforts~\hyperref[csl:44]{(Possingham et al. 2002}; \hyperref[csl:43]{Lunney 2017}; \hyperref[csl:157]{Virtanen \& Moilanen 2023)}. Additional considerations including social,
biological, and ecological factors should be considered when seeking
solutions, making decisions, and planning conservation activities.
Therefore, it is crucial for governments, funding agencies, NGOs, and
decision-makers to broaden perspectives when setting conservation
priorities, rather than relying solely on extinction risk
categorizations.~

As a way forward, we propose shifting from globally threatened species
as a major funding requirement. Instead, we suggest conducting
priority-setting exercises with the cooperation and involvement of
local, regional, national experts and stakeholders to decide on the
financing of species conservation projects. This will foster more
collaboration and participation to ensure resources are allocated where
they matter the most, in the places where direct conservation actions
are actually implemented.

\section*{Acknowledgements}

{\label{687807}}

We thank Jedediah Brodie, Stephanie Dloniak, Nick Isaac, Isabella Mandl,
Gretchen Walters, Florian J. Weise and Scott Zona for their comments on
the earlier versions of this manuscript.

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\section*{References}\sloppy
\phantomsection
\label{csl:130}Akçakaya, H.R., Butchart, S.H.M., Mace, G.M., Stuart, S.N. \& Hilton-Taylor, C. (2006). {Use and misuse of the {IUCN} {Red} {List} {Criteria} in projecting climate change impacts on biodiversity}. \textit{Global Change Biology}, 12, 2037–2043.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:104}Amano, T., Berdejo-Espinola, V., Christie, A.P., Willott, K., Akasaka, M., Báldi, A., Berthinussen, A., Bertolino, S., Bladon, A.J., Chen, M., Choi, C.-Y., Kharrat, M.B.D., Oliveira, L.G.de, Farhat, P., Golivets, M., Aranzamendi, N.H., Jantke, K., Kajzer-Bonk, J., Aytekin, M.Ç.K., Khorozyan, I., Kito, K., Konno, K., Lin, D.-L., Littlewood, N., Liu, Y., Liu, Y., Loretto, M.-C., Marconi, V., Martin, P.A., Morgan, W.H., Narváez-Gómez, J.P., Negret, P.J., Nourani, E., Quintero, J.M.O., Ockendon, N., Oh, R.R.Y., Petrovan, S.O., Piovezan-Borges, A.C., Pollet, I.L., Ramos, D.L., Segovia, A.L.R., Rivera-Villanueva, A.N., Rocha, R., Rouyer, M.-M., Sainsbury, K.A., Schuster, R., Schwab, D., Şekercioğlu, Ç.H., Seo, H.-M., Shackelford, G., Shinoda, Y., Smith, R.K., Tao, S.-dar, Tsai, M.-shan, Tyler, E.H.M., Vajna, F., Valdebenito, J.O., Vozykova, S., Waryszak, P., Zamora-Gutierrez, V., Zenni, R.D., Zhou, W. \& Sutherland, W.J. (2021). {Tapping into non-{English}-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity}. \textit{PLOS Biology}, 19, e3001296.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:116}Anderson, E.P. \& Maldonado-Ocampo, J.A. (2011). {A {Regional} {Perspective} on the {Diversity} and {Conservation} of {Tropical} {Andean} {Fishes}}. \textit{Conservation Biology}, 25, 30–39.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:108}Armenteras, D. (2021). {Guidelines for healthy global scientific collaborations}. \textit{Nature Ecology \& Evolution}, 5, 1193–1194.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:107}Bachman, S.P., Field, R., Reader, T., Raimondo, D., Donaldson, J., Schatz, G.E. \& Lughadha, E.N. (2019). {Progress challenges and opportunities for Red Listing}. \textit{Biological Conservation}, 234, 45–55.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:156}Baumsteiger, J. \& Moyle, P.B. (2017). {Assessing {Extinction}}. \textit{BioScience}, 67, 357–366.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:141}Beck, J.M., Elliott, K.C., Booher, C.R., Renn, K.A. \& Montgomery, R.A. (2021). {The application of reflexivity for conservation science}. \textit{Biological Conservation}, 262, 109322.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:115}Bergamini, A., Bisang, I., Hodgetts, N., Lockhart, N., Rooy, J.van \& Hallingbäck, T. (2019). {Recommendations for the use of critical terms when applying {IUCN} red-listing criteria to bryophytes}. \textit{Lindbergia}, 2019, 1–6.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:1}Betts, J., Young, R.P., Hilton-Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Rodríguez, J.P., Stuart, S.N. \& Milner-Gulland, E. (2020). {A framework for evaluating the impact of the {IUCN} {Red} {List} of threatened species}. \textit{Conservation Biology}, 34, 632–643.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:65}Borgelt, J., Dorber, M., Høiberg, M.A. \& Verones, F. (2022). {More than half of data deficient species predicted to be threatened by extinction}. \textit{Communications Biology}, 5, 1–9.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:146}Braga-Pereira, F., Morcatty, T.Q., El Bizri, H.R., Tavares, A.S., Mere-Roncal, C., González-Crespo, C., Bertsch, C., Rodriguez, C.R., Bardales-Alvites, C., Mühlen, E.M. von, Bernárdez-Rodríguez, G.F., Paim, F.P., Tamayo, J.S., Valsecchi, J., Gonçalves, J., Torres-Oyarce, L., Lemos, L.P., Mattos Vieira, M.A.R. de, Bowler, M., Gilmore, M.P., Perez, N.C.A., Nóbrega Alves, R.R. da, Peres, C.A., E. Pérez-Peña, P. \& Mayor, P. (2022). {Congruence of local ecological knowledge ({LEK})-based methods and line-transect surveys in estimating wildlife abundance in tropical forests}. \textit{Methods in Ecology and Evolution}, 13, 743–756.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:28}Brambilla, M., Gustin, M. \& Celada, C. (2013). {Species appeal predicts conservation status}. \textit{Biological Conservation}, 160, 209–213.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:67}Branco, P., Segurado, P., Costa, M.J., Teixeira, A., Santos, J.M., Ferreira, M.T. \& Duarte, G. (2021). {Knowledge {Gaps} in the {Definition} of {Threats} for the {Red} {List} {Assessment} of {European} {Freshwater}-{Dependent} {Fish} {Species}}. \textit{Biology}, 10, 680.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:97}Breiner, F.T., Guisan, A., Nobis, M.P. \& Bergamini, A. (2017). {Including environmental niche information to improve {IUCN} {Red} {List} assessments}. \textit{Diversity and Distributions}, 23, 484–495.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:112}Breitenmoser, U., Breitenmoser-Würsten, C., Brouwer, E. \& Lanz, T. (2022). {Range-wide cooperation for the conservation of the {Persian} leopard – an introduction. {Cat} {News} {Special} {Issue} : 1-3}.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:142}Brito, D., Ambal, R.G., Brooks, T., Silva, N.D., Foster, M., Hao, W., Hilton-Taylor, C., Paglia, A., Rodríguez, J.P. \& Rodríguez, J.V. (2010). {How similar are national red lists and the {IUCN} {Red} {List}?}. \textit{Biological Conservation}, 143, 1154–1158.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:132}Brodie, J.F., Redford, K.H. \& Doak, D.F. (2018). {Ecological {Function} {Analysis}: {Incorporating} {Species} {Roles} into {Conservation}}. \textit{Trends in Ecology \& Evolution}, 33, 840–850.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:87}Brooks, T.M., Pimm, S.L., Akçakaya, H.R., Buchanan, G.M., Butchart, S.H.M., Foden, W., Hilton-Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Jenkins, C.N., Joppa, L., Li, B.V., Menon, V., Ocampo-Peñuela, N. \& Rondinini, C. (2019). {Measuring {Terrestrial} {Area} of {Habitat} ({AOH}) and {Its} {Utility} for the {IUCN} {Red} {List}}. \textit{Trends in Ecology \& Evolution}.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:125}Brum, F.T., Graham, C.H., Costa, G.C., Hedges, S.B., Penone, C., Radeloff, V.C., Rondinini, C., Loyola, R. \& Davidson, A.D. (2017). {Global priorities for conservation across multiple dimensions of mammalian diversity}. \textit{Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, 114, 7641–7646.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:79}Burgess, M.G., Costello, C., Fredston-Hermann, A., Pinsky, M.L., Gaines, S.D., Tilman, D. \& Polasky, S. (2017). {Range contraction enables harvesting to extinction}. \textit{Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, 114, 3945–3950.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:120}Button, S. \& Borzée, A. (2021). {An integrative synthesis to global amphibian conservation priorities}. \textit{Global Change Biology}, 27, 4516–4529.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:151}Buxton, R.T., Nyboer, E.A., Pigeon, K.E., Raby, G.D., Rytwinski, T., Gallagher, A.J., Schuster, R., Lin, H.-Y., Fahrig, L., Bennett, J.R., Cooke, S.J. \& Roche, D.G. (2021). {Avoiding wasted research resources in conservation science}. \textit{Conservation Science and Practice}, 3.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:8}Bánki, O., Roskov, Y., Döring, M., Ower, G., Hernández Robles, D.R., Plata Corredor, C.A., Stjernegaard Jeppesen, T., Örn, A., Vandepitte, L., Hobern, D., Schalk, P., DeWalt, R.E., Ma, K., Miller, J., Orrell, T., Aalbu, R., Abbot, J., Adlard, R., Adriaenssens, E.M. \& {et al.}. (2023). {Catalogue of {Life} {Checklist} ({Version} 2023-08-17). {Catalogue} of {Life}. \url{https://doi.org/10.48580/dft7}.}

\phantomsection
\label{csl:110}Böhm, M., Waldien, D.L., Setliff, G.P., Abenis, K.O., Aguirre, L.F., Akite, P., Alviola, M.S., Alviola, P.A., Aramayo Bejarano, J.L., Badon, J.A.T., Barrion-Dupo, A.L.A., Brodie, G., Cabras, A., Canteiro, C., Danoff-Burg, J.A., De Chavez, E.R.C., Duya, M.R.M., Eusebio, O.L., Fauzi, N., Glass, Z.J., Grabowski, N.E., Guerra Serrudo, J.F., Henriques, S.S., Horton, B.M., Jayaraj, V.K., Kaplin, B.A., Keller, S.M., Ledezma Arias, M.J., Lit, J., Lucañas, C.C., Medina, M.N.D., Meyer, M.D., Miladin, J., Mourad, A., Mueller, G.M., Narayan, S.S., Naredo, J.C.B., Osborne-Naikatini, T., Rasalan, J.B., Rashni, B., Musila, S., Suganthi, A., Thomas-Moko, N., Torrejos, C.B., Wallace, J.R., Waqa-Sakiti, H. \& Yap, S. (2022). {Catalyzing {Red} {List} {Assessments} of {Underrepresented} {Taxa} through {Partner} {Networks} and {Student} {Engagement}}. \textit{Diversity}, 14, 723.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:38}Campbell, L.M. (2012). {Seeing {Red}: {Inside} the {Science} and {Politics} of the {IUCN} {Red} {List}}. \textit{Conservation and Society}, 10, 367–380.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:58}Cardoso, P., Borges, P.A.V., Triantis, K.A., Ferrández, M.A. \& Martín, J.L. (2011). {Adapting the {IUCN} {Red} {List} criteria for invertebrates}. \textit{Biological Conservation}, 144, 2432–2440.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:36}Carlson, C.J., Hopkins, S., Bell, K.C., Doña, J., Godfrey, S.S., Kwak, M.L., Lafferty, K.D., Moir, M.L., Speer, K.A., Strona, G., Torchin, M. \& Wood, C.L. (2020). {A global parasite conservation plan}. \textit{Biological Conservation}, 250, 108596.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:81}Cazalis, V., Marco, M.D., Butchart, S.H.M., Akçakaya, H.R., González-Suárez, M., Meyer, C., Clausnitzer, V., Böhm, M., Zizka, A., Cardoso, P., Schipper, A.M., Bachman, S.P., Young, B.E., Hoffmann, M., Benítez-López, A., Lucas, P.M., Pettorelli, N., Patoine, G., Pacifici, M., Jörger-Hickfang, T., Brooks, T.M., Rondinini, C., Hill, S.L.L., Visconti, P. \& Santini, L. (2022). {Bridging the research-implementation gap in {IUCN} {Red} {List} assessments}. \textit{Trends in Ecology \& Evolution}, 37, 359–370.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:66}Cazalis, V., Santini, L., Lucas, P.M., González-Suárez, M., Hoffmann, M., Benítez-López, A., Pacifici, M., Schipper, A.M., Böhm, M., Zizka, A., Clausnitzer, V., Meyer, C., Jung, M., Butchart, S.H.M., Cardoso, P., Mancini, G., Reşit Akçakaya, H., Young, B.E., Patoine, G. \& Di Marco, M. (2023). {Prioritizing the reassessment of data deficient species on the {IUCN} {Red} {List}}. \textit{Conservation Biology}, n/a.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:123}Ceccarelli, V., Ekué, M., Fremout, T., Gaisberger, H., Kettle, C., Taedoumg, H., Wouters, H., Vanuytrecht, E., De Ridder, K. \& Thomas, E. (2022). {Vulnerability mapping of 100 priority tree species in {Central} {Africa} to guide conservation and restoration efforts}. \textit{Biological Conservation}, 270, 109554.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:45}Chapin, M. (2004). {A challenge to conservationists}. \textit{World Watch Magazine}, 17, 17–31.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:144}Chaplin-Kramer, R., Brauman, K.A., Cavender-Bares, J., Díaz, S., Duarte, G.T., Enquist, B.J., Garibaldi, L.A., Geldmann, J., Halpern, B.S., Hertel, T.W., Khoury, C.K., Krieger, J.M., Lavorel, S., Mueller, T., Neugarten, R.A., Pinto-Ledezma, J., Polasky, S., Purvis, A., Reyes-García, V., Roehrdanz, P.R., Shannon, L.J., Shaw, M.R., Strassburg, B.B.N., Tylianakis, J.M., Verburg, P.H., Visconti, P. \& Zafra-Calvo, N. (2022). {Conservation needs to integrate knowledge across scales}. \textit{Nature Ecology \& Evolution}, 6, 118–119.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:102}Chowdhury, S., Gonzalez, K., Aytekin, M.Ç.K., Baek, S.-Y., Bełcik, M., Bertolino, S., Duijns, S., Han, Y., Jantke, K., Katayose, R., Lin, M.-M., Nourani, E., Ramos, D.L., Rouyer, M.-M., Sidemo-Holm, W., Vozykova, S., Zamora-Gutierrez, V. \& Amano, T. (2022). {Growth of non-{English}-language literature on biodiversity conservation}. \textit{Conservation Biology}, 36, e13883.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:134}Collen, B., Dulvy, N.K., Gaston, K.J., Gärdenfors, U., Keith, D.A., Punt, A.E., Regan, H.M., Böhm, M., Hedges, S., Seddon, M., Butchart, S.H.M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Bachman, S.P. \& Akçakaya, H.R. (2016). {Clarifying misconceptions of extinction risk assessment with the {IUCN} {Red} {List}}. \textit{Biology Letters}, 12, 20150843.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:62}Cowie, R.H., Bouchet, P. \& Fontaine, B. (2022). {The {Sixth} {Mass} {Extinction}: fact, fiction or speculation?}. \textit{Biological Reviews}, 97, 640–663.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:31}Cox, N., Young, B.E., Bowles, P., Fernandez, M., Marin, J., Rapacciuolo, G., Böhm, M., Brooks, T.M., Hedges, S.B., Hilton-Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Jenkins, R.K.B., Tognelli, M.F., Alexander, G.J., Allison, A., Ananjeva, N.B., Auliya, M., Avila, L.J., Chapple, D.G., Cisneros-Heredia, D.F., Cogger, H.G., Colli, G.R., Silva, A. de, Eisemberg, C.C., Els, J., Fong G., A., Grant, T.D., Hitchmough, R.A., Iskandar, D.T., Kidera, N., Martins, M., Meiri, S., Mitchell, N.J., Molur, S., Nogueira, C.de C., Ortiz, J.C., Penner, J., Rhodin, A.G.J., Rivas, G.A., Rödel, M.-O., Roll, U., Sanders, K.L., Santos-Barrera, G., Shea, G.M., Spawls, S., Stuart, B.L., Tolley, K.A., Trape, J.-F., Vidal, M.A., Wagner, P., Wallace, B.P. \& Xie, Y. (2022). {A global reptile assessment highlights shared conservation needs of tetrapods}. \textit{Nature}, 605, 285–290.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:119}Davies, T.D. \& Baum, J.K. (2012). {Extinction {Risk} and {Overfishing}: {Reconciling} {Conservation} and {Fisheries} {Perspectives} on the {Status} of {Marine} {Fishes}}. \textit{Scientific Reports}, 2, 561.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:153}Dunn, D.C., Harrison, A.-L., Curtice, C., DeLand, S., Donnelly, B., Fujioka, E., Heywood, E., Kot, C.Y., Poulin, S., Whitten, M., {\AA}kesson, S., Alberini, A., Appeltans, W., Arcos, J.M., Bailey, H., Ballance, L.T., Block, B., Blondin, H., Boustany, A.M., Brenner, J., Catry, P., Cejudo, D., Cleary, J., Corkeron, P., Costa, D.P., Coyne, M., Crespo, G.O., Davies, T.E., Dias, M.P., Douvere, F., Ferretti, F., Formia, A., Freestone, D., Friedlaender, A.S., Frisch-Nwakanma, H., Froj{\'{a}}n, C.B., Gjerde, K.M., Glowka, L., Godley, B.J., Gonzalez-Solis, J., Granadeiro, J.P., Gunn, V., Hashimoto, Y., Hawkes, L.M., Hays, G.C., Hazin, C., Jimenez, J., Johnson, D.E., Luschi, P., Maxwell, S.M., McClellan, C., Modest, M., Sciara, G.N. di, Palacio, A.H., Palacios, D.M., Pauly, A., Rayner, M., Rees, A.F., Salazar, E.R., Secor, D., Sequeira, A.M.M., Spalding, M., Spina, F., Parijs, S.V., Wallace, B., Varo-Cruz, N., Virtue, M., Weimerskirch, H., Wilson, L., Woodward, B. \& Halpin, P.N. (2019). {The importance of migratory connectivity for global ocean policy}. \textit{Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences}, 286, 20191472.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:111}Echeverri, A., Furumo, P.R., Moss, S., Figot Kuthy, A.G., García Aguirre, D., Mandle, L., Valencia, I.D., Ruckelshaus, M., Daily, G.C. \& Lambin, E.F. (2023). {Colombian biodiversity is governed by a rich and diverse policy mix}. \textit{Nature Ecology \& Evolution}, 7, 382–392.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:35}Eisenhauer, N., Bonn, A. \& A. Guerra, C. (2019). {Recognizing the quiet extinction of invertebrates}. \textit{Nature Communications}, 10, 50.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:117}Ennen, J.R., Agha, M., Sweat, S.C., Matamoros, W.A., Lovich, J.E., Rhodin, A.G.J., Iverson, J.B. \& Hoagstrom, C.W. (2020). {Turtle biogeography: {Global} regionalization and conservation priorities}. \textit{Biological Conservation}, 241, 108323.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:73}Finn, C., Grattarola, F. \& Pincheira-Donoso, D. (2023). {More losers than winners: investigating {Anthropocene} defaunation through the diversity of population trends}. \textit{Biological Reviews}, n/a.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:89}Fox, R., Harrower, C.A., Bell, J.R., Shortall, C.R., Middlebrook, I. \& Wilson, R.J. (2019). {Insect population trends and the {IUCN} {Red} {List} process}. \textit{Journal of Insect Conservation}, 23, 269–278.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:122}Fremout, T., Thomas, E., Gaisberger, H., Van Meerbeek, K., Muenchow, J., Briers, S., Gutierrez-Miranda, C.E., Marcelo-Peña, J.L., Kindt, R., Atkinson, R., Cabrera, O., Espinosa, C.I., Aguirre-Mendoza, Z. \& Muys, B. (2020). {Mapping tree species vulnerability to multiple threats as a guide to restoration and conservation of tropical dry forests}. \textit{Global Change Biology}, 26, 3552–3568.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:124}Gaisberger, H., Fremout, T., Kettle, C.J., Vinceti, B., Kemalasari, D., Kanchanarak, T., Thomas, E., Serra-Diaz, J.M., Svenning, J.-C., Slik, F., Eiadthong, W., Palanisamy, K., Ravikanth, G., Bodos, V., Sang, J., Warrier, R.R., Wee, A.K.S., Elloran, C., Ramos, L.T., Henry, M., Hossain, M.A., Theilade, I., Laegaard, S., Bandara, K.M.A., Weerasinghe, D.P., Changtragoon, S., Yuskianti, V., Wilkie, P., Nghia, N.H., Elliott, S., Pakkad, G., Tiansawat, P., Maycock, C., Bounithiphonh, C., Mohamed, R., Nazre, M., Siddiqui, B.N., Lee, S.-L., Lee, C.-T., Zakaria, N.F., Hartvig, I., Lehmann, L., David, D.B.D., Lillesø, J.-P.B., Phourin, C., Yongqi, Z., Ping, H., Volkaert, H.A., Graudal, L., Hamidi, A., Thea, S., Sreng, S., Boshier, D., Tolentino Jr., E., Ratnam, W., Aung, M.M., Galante, M., Isa, S.F.M., Dung, N.Q., Hoa, T.T., Le, T.C., Miah, M.D., Zuhry, A.L.M., Alawathugoda, D., Azman, A., Pushpakumara, G., Sumedi, N., Siregar, I.Z., Nak, H.K., Linsky, J., Barstow, M., Koh, L.P. \& Jalonen, R. (2022). {Tropical and subtropical {Asia}'s valued tree species under threat}. \textit{Conservation Biology}, 36, e13873.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:83}Gaston, K.J. \& Fuller, R.A. (2009). {The sizes of species' geographic ranges}. \textit{Journal of Applied Ecology}, 46, 1–9.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:39}Godfrey, M. \& Godley, B. (2008). {Seeing past the red: flawed {IUCN} global listings for sea turtles}. \textit{Endangered Species Research}, 6, 155–159.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:150}Gonzalez, A., Vihervaara, P., Balvanera, P., Bates, A.E., Bayraktarov, E., Bellingham, P.J., Bruder, A., Campbell, J., Catchen, M.D., Cavender-Bares, J., Chase, J., Coops, N., Costello, M.J., Dornelas, M., Dubois, G., Duffy, E.J., Eggermont, H., Fernandez, N., Ferrier, S., Geller, G.N., Gill, M., Gravel, D., Guerra, C.A., Guralnick, R., Harfoot, M., Hirsch, T., Hoban, S., Hughes, A.C., Hunter, M.E., Isbell, F., Jetz, W., Juergens, N., Kissling, W.D., Krug, C.B., Le Bras, Y., Leung, B., Londoño-Murcia, M.C., Lord, J.-M., Loreau, M., Luers, A., Ma, K., MacDonald, A.J., McGeoch, M., Millette, K.L., Molnar, Z., Mori, A.S., Muller-Karger, F.E., Muraoka, H., Navarro, L., Newbold, T., Niamir, A., Obura, D., O’Connor, M., Paganini, M., Pereira, H., Poisot, T., Pollock, L.J., Purvis, A., Radulovici, A., Rocchini, D., Schaepman, M., Schaepman-Strub, G., Schmeller, D.S., Schmiedel, U., Schneider, F.D., Shakya, M.M., Skidmore, A., Skowno, A.L., Takeuchi, Y., Tuanmu, M.-N., Turak, E., Turner, W., Urban, M.C., Urbina-Cardona, N., Valbuena, R., Havre, B. van \& Wright, E. (2023). {A global biodiversity observing system to unite monitoring and guide action}. \textit{Nature Ecology \& Evolution}, 1–5.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:3}Grace, M.K., Ak{\c{c}}akaya, H.R., Bennett, E.L., Brooks, T.M., Heath, A., Hedges, S., Hilton-Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Hochkirch, A., Jenkins, R., Keith, D.A., Long, B., Mallon, D.P., Meijaard, E., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Rodriguez, J.P., Stephenson, P.J., Stuart, S.N., Young, R.P., Acebes, P., Alfaro-Shigueto, J., Alvarez-Clare, S., Andriantsimanarilafy, R.R., Arbetman, M., Azat, C., Bacchetta, G., Badola, R., Barcelos, L.M.D., Barreiros, J.P., Basak, S., Berger, D.J., Bhattacharyya, S., Bino, G., Borges, P.A.V., Boughton, R.K., Brockmann, H.J., Buckley, H.L., Burfield, I.J., Burton, J., Camacho-Badani, T., Cano-Alonso, L.S., Carmichael, R.H., Carrero, C., Carroll, J.P., Catsadorakis, G., Chapple, D.G., Chapron, G., Chowdhury, G.W., Claassens, L., Cogoni, D., Constantine, R., Craig, C.A., Cunningham, A.A., Dahal, N., Daltry, J.C., Das, G.C., Dasgupta, N., Davey, A., Davies, K., Develey, P., Elangovan, V., Fairclough, D., Febbraro, M.D., Fenu, G., Fernandes, F.M., Fernandez, E.P., Finucci, B., Földesi, R., Foley, C.M., Ford, M., Forstner, M.R.J., Garc{\'{\i}}a, N., Garcia-Sandoval, R., Gardner, P.C., Garibay-Orijel, R., Gatan-Balbas, M., Gauto, I., Ghazi, M.G.U., Godfrey, S.S., Gollock, M., Gonz{\'{a}}lez, B.A., Grant, T.D., Gray, T., Gregory, A.J., Grunsven, R.H.A. van, Gryzenhout, M., Guernsey, N.C., Gupta, G., Hagen, C., Hagen, C.A., Hall, M.B., Hallerman, E., Hare, K., Hart, T., Hartdegen, R., Harvey-Brown, Y., Hatfield, R., Hawke, T., Hermes, C., Hitchmough, R., Hoffmann, P.M., Howarth, C., Hudson, M.A., Hussain, S.A., Huveneers, C., Jacques, H., Jorgensen, D., Katdare, S., Katsis, L.K.D., Kaul, R., Kaunda-Arara, B., Keith-Diagne, L., Kraus, D.T., Lima, T.M. de, Lindeman, K., Linsky, J., Louis, E., Loy, A., Lughadha, E.N., Mangel, J.C., Marinari, P.E., Martin, G.M., Martinelli, G., McGowan, P.J.K., McInnes, A., Mendes, E.T.B., Millard, M.J., Mirande, C., Money, D., Monks, J.M., Morales, C.L., Mumu, N.N., Negrao, R., Nguyen, A.H., Niloy, M.N.H., Norbury, G.L., Nordmeyer, C., Norris, D., O{\textquotesingle}Brien, M., Oda, G.A., Orsenigo, S., Outerbridge, M.E., Pasachnik, S., P{\'{e}}rez-Jim{\'{e}}nez, J.C., Pike, C., Pilkington, F., Plumb, G., Cassia Quitete Portela, R. de, Prohaska, A., Quintana, M.G., Rakotondrasoa, E.F., Ranglack, D.H., Rankou, H., Rawat, A.P., Reardon, J.T., Rheingantz, M.L., Richter, S.C., Rivers, M.C., Rogers, L.R., Rosa, P. da, Rose, P., Royer, E., Ryan, C., Mitcheson, Y.J.S. de, Salmon, L., Salvador, C.H., Samways, M.J., Sanjuan, T., Santos, A.S. dos, Sasaki, H., Schutz, E., Scott, H.A., Scott, R.M., Serena, F., Sharma, S.P., Shuey, J.A., Silva, C.J.P., Simaika, J.P., Smith, D.R., Spaet, J.L.Y., Sultana, S., Talukdar, B.K., Tatayah, V., Thomas, P., Tringali, A., Trinh-Dinh, H., Tuboi, C., Usmani, A.A., Vasco-Palacios, A.M., Vi{\'{e}}, J.-C., Virens, E., Walker, A., Wallace, B., Waller, L.J., Wang, H., Wearn, O.R., Weerd, M. van, Weigmann, S., Willcox, D., Woinarski, J., Yong, J.W.H. \& Young, S. (2021). {Testing a global standard for quantifying species recovery and assessing conservation impact}. \textit{Conservation Biology}, 35, 1833–1849.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:93}Greenville, A.C., Newsome, T.M., Wardle, G.M., Dickman, C.R., Ripple, W.J. \& Murray, B.R. (2021). {Simultaneously operating threats cannot predict extinction risk}. \textit{Conservation Letters}, 14, e12758.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:126}Griffith, P., Lang, J.W., Turvey, S.T. \& Gumbs, R. (2023). {Using functional traits to identify conservation priorities for the world's crocodylians}. \textit{Functional Ecology}, 37, 112–124.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:77}Gula, J. \& Barlow, C. (2022). {Decline of the marabou stork ({Leptoptilos} crumenifer) in {West} {Africa} and the need for immediate conservation action}. \textit{African Journal of Ecology}, 61.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:57}Gula, J., Sundar, K.S.G., Willows-Munro, S. \& Downs, C.T. (2023). {The state of stork research globally: {A} systematic review}. \textit{Biological Conservation}, 280, 109969.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:129}Gumbs, R., Gray, C.L., Böhm, M., Burfield, I.J., Couchman, O.R., Faith, D.P., Forest, F., Hoffmann, M., Isaac, N.J.B., Jetz, W., Mace, G.M., Mooers, A.O., Safi, K., Scott, O., Steel, M., Tucker, C.M., Pearse, W.D., Owen, N.R. \& Rosindell, J. (2023). {The {EDGE2} protocol: {Advancing} the prioritisation of {Evolutionarily} {Distinct} and {Globally} {Endangered} species for practical conservation action}. \textit{PLOS Biology}, 21, e3001991.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:103}Haddaway, N.R. \& Bayliss, H.R. (2015). {Shades of grey: Two forms of grey literature important for reviews in conservation}. \textit{Biological Conservation}, 191, 827–829.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:69}Harfoot, M.B.J., Johnston, A., Balmford, A., Burgess, N.D., Butchart, S.H.M., Dias, M.P., Hazin, C., Hilton-Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Isaac, N.J.B., Iversen, L.L., Outhwaite, C.L., Visconti, P. \& Geldmann, J. (2021). {Using the {IUCN} {Red} {List} to map threats to terrestrial vertebrates at global scale}. \textit{Nature Ecology \& Evolution}, 5, 1510–1519.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:55}Hayward, M., Child, M., Kerley, G., Lindsey, P., Somers, M. \& Burns, B. (2015). {Ambiguity in guideline definitions introduces assessor bias and influences consistency in {IUCN} {Red} {List} status assessments}. \textit{Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution}, 3.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:30}Hochkirch, A., Samways, M.J., Gerlach, J., Böhm, M., Williams, P., Cardoso, P., Cumberlidge, N., Stephenson, P.J., Seddon, M.B., Clausnitzer, V., Borges, P.A.V., Mueller, G.M., Pearce-Kelly, P., Raimondo, D.C., Danielczak, A. \& Dijkstra, K.-D.B. (2021). {A strategy for the next decade to address data deficiency in neglected biodiversity}. \textit{Conservation Biology}, 35, 502–509.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:5}Hoffmann, M., Brooks, T.M., Fonseca, G.A.B. da, Gascon, C., Hawkins, A.F.A., James, R.E., Langhammer, P., Mittermeier, R.A., Pilgrim, J.D., Rodrigues, A.S.L. \& Silva, J.M.C. (2008). {Conservation planning and the {IUCN} Red List}. \textit{Endangered Species Research}, 6, 113–125.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:2}Hoffmann, M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Angulo, A., Böhm, M., Brooks, T.M., Butchart, S.H.M., Carpenter, K.E., Chanson, J., Collen, B., Cox, N.A., Darwall, W.R.T., Dulvy, N.K., Harrison, L.R., Katariya, V., Pollock, C.M., Quader, S., Richman, N.I., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Tognelli, M.F., Vi{\'{e}}, J.-C., Aguiar, J.M., Allen, D.J., Allen, G.R., Amori, G., Ananjeva, N.B., Andreone, F., Andrew, P., Ortiz, A.L.A., Baillie, J.E.M., Baldi, R., Bell, B.D., Biju, S.D., Bird, J.P., Black-Decima, P., Blanc, J.J., Bola{\~{n}}os, F., Bolivar-G., W., Burfield, I.J., Burton, J.A., Capper, D.R., Castro, F., Catullo, G., Cavanagh, R.D., Channing, A., Chao, N.L., Chenery, A.M., Chiozza, F., Clausnitzer, V., Collar, N.J., Collett, L.C., Collette, B.B., Fernandez, C.F.C., Craig, M.T., Crosby, M.J., Cumberlidge, N., Cuttelod, A., Derocher, A.E., Diesmos, A.C., Donaldson, J.S., Duckworth, J.W., Dutson, G., Dutta, S.K., Emslie, R.H., Farjon, A., Fowler, S., Freyhof, J., Garshelis, D.L., Gerlach, J., Gower, D.J., Grant, T.D., Hammerson, G.A., Harris, R.B., Heaney, L.R., Hedges, S.B., Hero, J.-M., Hughes, B., Hussain, S.A., M., J.I., Inger, R.F., Ishii, N., Iskandar, D.T., Jenkins, R.K.B., Kaneko, Y., Kottelat, M., Kovacs, K.M., Kuzmin, S.L., Marca, E.L., Lamoreux, J.F., Lau, M.W.N., Lavilla, E.O., Leus, K., Lewison, R.L., Lichtenstein, G., Livingstone, S.R., Lukoschek, V., Mallon, D.P., McGowan, P.J.K., McIvor, A., Moehlman, P.D., Molur, S., Alonso, A.M., Musick, J.A., Nowell, K., Nussbaum, R.A., Olech, W., Orlov, N.L., Papenfuss, T.J., Parra-Olea, G., Perrin, W.F., Polidoro, B.A., Pourkazemi, M., Racey, P.A., Ragle, J.S., Ram, M., Rathbun, G., Reynolds, R.P., Rhodin, A.G.J., Richards, S.J., Rodr{\'{\i}}guez, L.O., Ron, S.R., Rondinini, C., Rylands, A.B., Mitcheson, Y.S. de, Sanciangco, J.C., Sanders, K.L., Santos-Barrera, G., Schipper, J., Self-Sullivan, C., Shi, Y., Shoemaker, A., Short, F.T., Sillero-Zubiri, C., Silvano, D.L., Smith, K.G., Smith, A.T., Snoeks, J., Stattersfield, A.J., Symes, A.J., Taber, A.B., Talukdar, B.K., Temple, H.J., Timmins, R., Tobias, J.A., Tsytsulina, K., Tweddle, D., Ubeda, C., Valenti, S.V., Dijk, P.P. van, Veiga, L.M., Veloso, A., Wege, D.C., Wilkinson, M., Williamson, E.A., Xie, F., Young, B.E., Ak{\c{c}}akaya, H.R., Bennun, L., Blackburn, T.M., Boitani, L., Dublin, H.T., Fonseca, G.A.B. da, Gascon, C., Lacher, T.E., Mace, G.M., Mainka, S.A., McNeely, J.A., Mittermeier, R.A., Reid, G.M.G., Rodriguez, J.P., Rosenberg, A.A., Samways, M.J., Smart, J., Stein, B.A. \& Stuart, S.N. (2010). {The Impact of Conservation on the Status of the World's Vertebrates}. \textit{Science}, 330, 1503–1509.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:105}Hu, Y., Luo, Z., Chapman, C.A., Pimm, S.L., Turvey, S.T., Lawes, M.J., Peres, C.A., Lee, T.M. \& Fan, P. (2019). {Regional scientific research benefits threatened-species conservation}. \textit{National Science Review}, 6, 1076–1079.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:86}Hughes, A.C., Orr, M.C., Yang, Q. \& Qiao, H. (2021). {Effectively and accurately mapping global biodiversity patterns for different regions and taxa}. \textit{Global Ecology and Biogeography}, 30, 1375–1388.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:37}Hughes, A.C., Qiao, H. \& Orr, M.C. (2021). {Extinction {Targets} {Are} {Not} {SMART} ({Specific}, {Measurable}, {Ambitious}, {Realistic}, and {Time} {Bound})}. \textit{BioScience}, 71, 115–118.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:128}Isaac, N.J.B., Turvey, S.T., Collen, B., Waterman, C. \& Baillie, J.E.M. (2007). {Mammals on the {EDGE}: {Conservation} {Priorities} {Based} on {Threat} and {Phylogeny}}. \textit{PLOS ONE}, 2, e296.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:22}Isbell, F., Balvanera, P., Mori, A.S., He, J.S., Bullock, J.M., Regmi, G.R., Seabloom, E.W., Ferrier, S., Sala, O.E., Guerrero‐Ramírez, N.R., Tavella, J., Larkin, D.J., Schmid, B., Outhwaite, C.L., Pramual, P., Borer, E.T., Loreau, M., Omotoriogun, T.C., Obura, D.O., Anderson, M., Portales‐Reyes, C., Kirkman, K., Vergara, P.M., Clark, A.T., Komatsu, K.J., Petchey, O.L., Weiskopf, S.R., Williams, L.J., Collins, S.L., Eisenhauer, N., Trisos, C.H., Renard, D., Wright, A.J., Tripathi, P., Cowles, J., Byrnes, J.E., Reich, P.B., Purvis, A., Sharip, Z., O’Connor, M.I., Kazanski, C.E., Haddad, N.M., Soto, E.H., Dee, L.E., Díaz, S., Zirbel, C.R., Avolio, M.L., Wang, S., Ma, Z., Liang, J., Farah, H.C., Johnson, J.A., Miller, B.W., Hautier, Y., Smith, M.D., Knops, J.M., Myers, B.J., Harmáčková, Z.V., Cortés, J., Harfoot, M.B., Gonzalez, A., Newbold, T., Oehri, J., Mazón, M., Dobbs, C. \& Palmer, M.S. (2023). {Expert perspectives on global biodiversity loss and its drivers and impacts on people}. \textit{Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment}, 21, 94–103.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:88}Jacobson, A.P., Riggio, J., M. Tait, A. \& E. M. Baillie, J. (2019). {Global areas of low human impact (‘{Low} {Impact} {Areas}’) and fragmentation of the natural world}. \textit{Scientific Reports}, 9, 14179.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:138}Joseph, L.N., Maloney, R.F. \& Possingham, H.P. (2009). {Optimal {Allocation} of {Resources} among {Threatened} {Species}: a {Project} {Prioritization} {Protocol}}. \textit{Conservation Biology}, 23, 328–338.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:74}Jędrzejewski, W., Boede, E.O., Abarca, M., Sánchez-Mercado, A., Ferrer-Paris, J.R., Lampo, M., Velásquez, G., Carreño, R., Viloria, Á.L., Hoogesteijn, R., Robinson, H.S., Stachowicz, I., Cerda, H., Weisz, M.del M., Barros, T.R., Rivas, G.A., Borges, G., Molinari, J., Lew, D., Takiff, H. \& Schmidt, K. (2017). {Predicting carnivore distribution and extirpation rate based on human impacts and productivity factors; assessment of the state of jaguar ({Panthera} onca) in {Venezuela}}. \textit{Biological Conservation}, 206, 132–142.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:51}Keith, D. (2009). {Red listing: deciding which species are at risk}. \textit{Significance}, 6, 100–104.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:114}Knapp, S. (2011). {Rarity, {Species} {Richness}, and the {Threat} of {Extinction}—{Are} {Plants} the {Same} as {Animals}?}. \textit{PLOS Biology}, 9, e1001067.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:143}Kraus, D., Enns, A., Hebb, A., Murphy, S., Drake, D.A.R. \& Bennett, B. (2023). {Prioritizing nationally endemic species for conservation}. \textit{Conservation Science and Practice}, 5, e12845.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:9}Li, X. \& Wiens, J.J. (2023). {Estimating Global Biodiversity: The Role of Cryptic Insect Species}. \textit{Systematic Biology}, 72, 391–403.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:25}Lim, D.Y.H., Starnes, T. \& Plumptre, A.J. (2023). {Global priorities for biodiversity conservation in the {United} {Kingdom}}. \textit{Biological Conservation}, 277, 109798.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:98}Lindborg, R. \& Eriksson, O. (2004). {Historical {Landscape} {Connectivity} {Affects} {Present} {Plant} {Species} {Diversity}}. \textit{Ecology}, 85, 1840–1845.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:11}Liu, J., Slik, F., Zheng, S. \& Lindenmayer, D.B. (2022). {Undescribed species have higher extinction risk than known species}. \textit{Conservation Letters}, 15, e12876.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:99}Lorenzana, G., Heidtmann, L., Haag, T., Ramalho, E., Dias, G., Hrbek, T., Farias, I. \& Eizirik, E. (2020). {Large-scale assessment of genetic diversity and population connectivity of {Amazonian} jaguars ({Panthera} onca) provides a baseline for their conservation and monitoring in fragmented landscapes}. \textit{Biological Conservation}, 242, 108417.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:52}Lovari, S. (2020). {My reasons for leaving {IUCN}. {Caprinae} news. {Newsletter} of the {IUCN}/{SSC} {Caprinae} {Specialist} {Group}}.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:43}Lunney, D. (2017). {A dangerous idea in action: the hegemony of endangered species legislation and how it hinders biodiversity conservation}. \textit{Australian Zoologist}, 38, 289–307.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:18}Mace, G.M., Collar, N.J., Gaston, K.J., Hilton-Taylor, C., AkçAkaya, H.R., Leader-Williams, N., Milner-Gulland, E.J. \& Stuart, S.N. (2008). {Quantification of {Extinction} {Risk}: {IUCN}'s {System} for {Classifying} {Threatened} {Species}}. \textit{Conservation Biology}, 22, 1424–1442.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:40}Mallon, D.P. \& Jackson, R.M. (2017). {A downlist is not a demotion: {Red} {List} status and reality}. \textit{Oryx}, 51, 605–609.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:82}Marsh, C.J., Syfert, M.M., Aletrari, E., Gavish, Y., Kunin, W.E. \& Brummitt, N. (2023). {The effect of sampling effort and methodology on range size estimates of poorly-recorded species for {IUCN} {Red} {List} assessments}. \textit{Biodiversity and Conservation}, 32, 1105–1123.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:29}Martín-López, B., González, J.A. \& Montes, C. (2011). {The pitfall-trap of species conservation priority setting}. \textit{Biodiversity and Conservation}, 20, 663–682.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:48}Master, L.L. (1991). {Assessing {Threats} and {Setting} {Priorities} for {Conservation}}. \textit{Conservation Biology}, 5, 559–563.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:23}McShane, T.O. (2003). {The {Devil} in the {Detail} of {Biodiversity} {Conservation}}. \textit{Conservation Biology}, 17, 1–3.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:21}Melick, D.R., Kinch, J.P. \& Govan, H. (2012). {How {Global} {Biodiversity} {Targets} {Risk} {Becoming} {Counterproductive}: {The} {Case} of {Papua} {New} {Guinea}}. \textit{Conservation and Society}, 10, 344–353.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:91}Millar, S. \& Dickey-Collas, M. (2018). {Report on {IUCN} assessments and fisheries management approaches. {ICES} {CM} 2018/{ACOM}:60. 109 pp. \url{https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4676}.}

\phantomsection
\label{csl:20}Miller, D.C., Agrawal, A. \& Roberts, J.T. (2013). {Biodiversity, {Governance}, and the {Allocation} of {International} {Aid} for {Conservation}}. \textit{Conservation Letters}, 6, 12–20.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:135}Miller, R.M., Rodríguez, J.P., Aniskowicz-Fowler, T., Bambaradeniya, C., Boles, R., Eaton, M.A., Gärdenfors, U., Keller, V., Molur, S., Walker, S. \& Pollock, C. (2006). {Extinction {Risk} and {Conservation} {Priorities}}. \textit{Science}, 313, 441–441.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:13}Miqueleiz, I., Miranda, R., Ariño, A.H. \& Ojea, E. (2022). {Conservation-{Status} {Gaps} for {Marine} {Top}-{Fished} {Commercial} {Species}}. \textit{Fishes}, 7, 2.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:49}Mrosovsky, N. (1997). {{IUCN}'s credibility critically endangered}. \textit{Nature}, 389, 436–436.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:53}Mrosovsky, N. (2003). {Predicting extinction: fundamental flaws in {IUCN}’s {Red} {List} system, exemplified by the case of sea turtles. \url{http://members.seaturtle.org/mrosovsky/}.}

\phantomsection
\label{csl:147}Muhl, E.K., Armitage, D., Silver, J., Swerdfager, T. \& Thorpe, H. (2022). {Indicators are Relational: Navigating Knowledge and Power in the Development and Implementation of Coastal-Marine Indicators}. \textit{Environmental Management}, 70, 448–463.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:133}Natsukawa, H. \& Sergio, F. (2022). {Top predators as biodiversity indicators: A meta-analysis}. \textit{Ecology Letters}, 25, 2062–2075.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:54}Nijman, V. (2004). {Conservation of the {Javan} gibbon {Hylobates} moloch: {Population} estimates, local extinctions, and conservation priorities}. \textit{The Raffles bulletin of zoology}, 52, 271–280.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:154}Oberhauser, K., Wiederholt, R., Diffendorfer, J.E., Semmens, D., Ries, L., Thogmartin, W.E., Lopez-Hoffman, L. \& Semmens, B. (2017). {A trans-national monarch butterfly population model and implications for regional conservation priorities}. \textit{Ecological Entomology}, 42, 51–60.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:145}Ocampo-Ariza, C., Toledo-Hernández, M., Librán-Embid, F., Armenteras, D., Vansynghel, J., Raveloaritiana, E., Arimond, I., Angulo-Rubiano, A., Tscharntke, T., Ramírez-Castañeda, V., Wurz, A., Marcacci, G., Anders, M., Urbina-Cardona, J.N., Vos, A. de, Devy, S., Westphal, C., Toomey, A., {Sheherazade}, Chirango, Y. \& Maas, B. (2023). {Global {South} leadership towards inclusive tropical ecology and conservation}. \textit{Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation}.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:59}Ocampo-Peñuela, N., Jenkins, C.N., Vijay, V., Li, B.V. \& Pimm, S.L. (2016). {Incorporating explicit geospatial data shows more species at risk of extinction than the current {Red} {List}}. \textit{Science Advances}, 2, e1601367–e1601367.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:76}Palacio, R.D. \& Clark, J.S. (2023). {Incorporating intraspecific variation into species responses reveals both their resilience and vulnerability to future climate change}. \textit{Ecography}, 2023, e06769.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:71}Palacio, R.D., Kattan, G.H. \& Pimm, S.L. (2020). {Bird extirpations and community dynamics in an {Andean} cloud forest over 100 years of land‐use change}. \textit{Conservation Biology}, 34, 677–687.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:85}Palacio, R.D., Negret, P.J., Velásquez-Tibatá, J. \& Jacobson, A.P. (2021). {A data-driven geospatial workflow to map species distributions for conservation assessments}. \textit{Diversity and Distributions}, 27, 2559–2570.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:64}Peng, S., Shrestha, N., Luo, Y., Li, Y., Cai, H., Qin, H., Ma, K. \& Wang, Z. (2023). {Incorporating global change reveals extinction risk beyond the current {Red} {List}}. \textit{Current Biology}, 0.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:84}Peterson, A.T., Navarro-Sigüenza, A.G. \& Gordillo, A. (2018). {Assumption-versus data-based approaches to summarizing species’ ranges}. \textit{Conservation Biology}, 32, 568–575.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:95}Pilot, M., Jedrzejewski, W., Branicki, W., Sidorovich, V.E., Jedrzejewska, B., Stachura, K. \& Funk, S.M. (2006). {Ecological factors influence population genetic structure of {European} grey wolves}. \textit{Molecular Ecology}, 15, 4533–4553.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:121}Pollock, L.J., O’Connor, L.M.J., Mokany, K., Rosauer, D.F., Talluto, M.V. \& Thuiller, W. (2020). {Protecting {Biodiversity} (in {All} {Its} {Complexity}): {New} {Models} and {Methods}}. \textit{Trends in Ecology \& Evolution}, 35, 1119–1128.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:44}Possingham, H.P., Andelman, S.J., Burgman, M.A., Medellı́n Rodrigo A, Master, L.L. \& Keith, D.A. (2002). {Limits to the use of threatened species lists}. \textit{Trends in Ecology \& Evolution}, 17, 503–507.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:60}Ramesh, V., Gopalakrishna, T., Barve, S. \& Melnick, D.J. (2017). {{IUCN} greatly underestimates threat levels of endemic birds in the {Western} {Ghats}}. \textit{Biological Conservation}, 210, 205–221.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:75}Restrepo-Cardona, J.S., Parrado, M.A., Vargas, F.H., Kohn, S., Sáenz-Jiménez, F., Potaufeu, Y. \& Narváez, F. (2022). {Anthropogenic threats to the {Vulnerable} {Andean} {Condor} in northern {South} {America}}. \textit{PLOS ONE}, 17, e0278331.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:137}Reyes-García, V., Cámara-Leret, R., Halpern, B.S., O’Hara, C., Renard, D., Zafra-Calvo, N. \& Díaz, S. (2023). {Biocultural vulnerability exposes threats of culturally important species}. \textit{Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, 120, e2217303120.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:32}Roberge, J.-M. \& Angelstam, P. (2004). {Usefulness of the {Umbrella} {Species} {Concept} as a {Conservation} {Tool}}. \textit{Conservation Biology}, 18, 76–85.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:152}Roberson, L.A., Beyer, H.L., O’Hara, C., Watson, J.E.M., Dunn, D.C., Halpern, B.S., Klein, C.J., Frazier, M.R., Kuempel, C.D., Williams, B., Grantham, H.S., Montgomery, J.C., Kark, S. \& Runting, R.K. (2021). {Multinational coordination required for conservation of over 90\% of marine species}. \textit{Global Change Biology}, 27, 6206–6216.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:4}Rodrigues, A.S.L., Pilgrim, J.D., Lamoreux, J.F., Hoffmann, M. \& Brooks, T.M. (2006). {The value of the {IUCN} {Red} {List} for conservation}. \textit{Trends in Ecology \& Evolution}, 21, 71–76.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:46}Rodriguez, J.P., Taber, A.B., Daszak, P., Sukumar, R., Valladares-Padua, C., Padua, S., Aguirre, L.F., Medellin, R.A., Acosta, M., Aguirre, A.A., Bonacic, C., Bordino, P., Bruschini, J., Buchori, D., Gonzalez, S., Mathew, T., Mendez, M., Mugica, L., Pacheco, L.F., Dobson, A.P. \& Pearl, M. (2007). {Globalization of {Conservation}: {A} {View} from the {South}}. \textit{Science}, 317, 755–756.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:113}Rodríguez, J., Sucre, B., Mileham, K., Sanchez-Mercado, A., Andrade, N., Simmy, B., Croukamp, C., Falcato, J., García-Borboroglu, P., Gonzalez, S., González-Ciccia, P., González-Maya, J., Kemp, L., Kusrini, M., Lopez-Gallego, C., Luz, S., Menon, V., Moehlman, P., Raimondo, D. \& Xie, Y. (2022). {Addressing the {Biodiversity} {Paradox}: {Mismatch} between the {Co}-{Occurrence} of {Biological} {Diversity} and the {Human}, {Financial} and {Institutional} {Resources} to {Address} {Its} {Decline}}. \textit{Diversity}, 14, 708.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:101}Rodríguez, J.P., Ashenfelter, G., Rojas-Suárez, F., García Fernández, J.J., Suárez, L. \& Dobson, A.P. (2000). {Local data are vital to worldwide conservation}. \textit{Nature}, 403, 241–241.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:118}Rodríguez-Caro, R.C., Graciá, E., Blomberg, S.P., Cayuela, H., Grace, M., Carmona, C.P., Pérez-Mendoza, H.A., Giménez, A. \& Salguero-Gómez, R. (2023). {Anthropogenic impacts on threatened species erode functional diversity in chelonians and crocodilians}. \textit{Nature Communications}, 14, 1542.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:14}Rondinini, C., Di Marco, M., Visconti, P., Butchart, S.H.M. \& Boitani, L. (2014). {Update or {Outdate}: {Long}-{Term} {Viability} of the {IUCN} {Red} {List}}. \textit{Conservation Letters}, 7, 126–130.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:63}Régnier, C., Fontaine, B. \& Bouchet, P. (2009). {Not {Knowing}, {Not} {Recording}, {Not} {Listing}: {Numerous} {Unnoticed} {Mollusk} {Extinctions}}. \textit{Conservation Biology}, 23, 1214–1221.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:94}Santini, L., Butchart, S.H.M., Rondinini, C., Benítez-López, A., Hilbers, J.P., Schipper, A.M., Cengic, M., Tobias, J.A. \& Huijbregts, M.A.J. (2019). {Applying habitat and population-density models to land-cover time series to inform {IUCN} {Red} {List} assessments}. \textit{Conservation Biology}, 33, 1084–1093.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:92}Schmidt, C., Hoban, S., Hunter, M., Paz-Vinas, I. \& Garroway, C.J. (2023). {Genetic diversity and {IUCN} {Red} {List} status}. \textit{Conservation Biology}, 37, e14064.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:33}Seddon, P.J. \& Leech, T. (2008). {Conservation short cut, or long and winding road? {A} critique of umbrella species criteria}. \textit{Oryx}, 42, 240–245.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:140}Shackleton, R., Walters, G., Bluwstein, J., Houria, D., Fritz, L., Micheaux, F., Loloum, T., Nguyen, V., Sithole, S., Andriamahefazafy, M. \& Kull, C. (2023). {Navigating power in conservation}. \textit{Conservation Science and Practice}.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:136}Shi, H., Singh, A., Kant, S., Zhu, Z. \& Waller, E. (2005). {Integrating {Habitat} {Status}, {Human} {Population} {Pressure}, and {Protection} {Status} into {Biodiversity} {Conservation} {Priority} {Setting}}. \textit{Conservation Biology}, 19, 1273–1285.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:27}Smith, R.J., Veríssimo, D., Isaac, N.J.B. \& Jones, K.E. (2012). {Identifying {Cinderella} species: uncovering mammals with conservation flagship appeal}. \textit{Conservation Letters}, 5, 205–212.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:24}Smith, R.J., Veríssimo, D., Leader-Williams, N., Cowling, R.M. \& Knight, A.T. (2009). {Let the locals lead}. \textit{Nature}, 462, 280–281.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:106}Soares, L. \& {et al.}. (2023). {Neotropical ornithology: {Reckoning} with historical assumptions, removing systemic barriers, and reimagining the future}. \textit{Ornithological Applications}, duac046.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:42}Soberon, J. \& Medellín, R.A. (2007). {Categorization {Systems} of {Threatened} {Species}}. \textit{Conservation Biology}, 21, 1366–1367.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:68}Sonter, L.J., Lloyd, T.J., Kearney, S.G., Di Marco, M., O'Bryan, C.J., Valenta, R.K. \& Watson, J.E.M. (2022). {Conservation implications and opportunities of mining activities for terrestrial mammal habitat}. \textit{Conservation Science and Practice}, 4, e12806.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:149}Spalding, A.K., Grorud-Colvert, K., Allison, E.H., Amon, D.J., Collin, R., Vos, A. de, Friedlander, A.M., Johnson, S.M., Mayorga, J., Paris, C.B., Scott, C., Suman, D.O., Cisneros-Montemayor, A.M., Estradivari, Giron-Nava, A., Gurney, G.G., Harris, J.M., Hicks, C., Mangubhai, S., Micheli, F., Naggea, J., Obura, D., Palacios-Abrantes, J., Pouponneau, A. \& Thurber, R.V. (2023). {Engaging the tropical majority to make ocean governance and science more equitable and effective}. \textit{npj Ocean Sustainability}, 2, 1–4.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:6}Stuart, S.N., Wilson, E.O., McNeely, J.A., Mittermeier, R.A. \& Rodr{\'{\i}}guez, J.P. (2010). {The Barometer of Life}. \textit{Science}, 328, 177–177.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:61}Stévart, T., Dauby, G., Lowry, P.P., Blach-Overgaard, A., Droissart, V., Harris, D.J., Mackinder, B.A., Schatz, G.E., Sonké, B., Sosef, M.S.M., Svenning, J.-C., Wieringa, J.J. \& Couvreur, T.L.P. (2019). {A third of the tropical {African} flora is potentially threatened with extinction}. \textit{Science Advances}, 5, eaax9444.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:127}Tanalgo, K.C., Oliveira, H.F.M. \& Hughes, A.C. (2022). {Mapping global conservation priorities and habitat vulnerabilities for cave-dwelling bats in a changing world}. \textit{Science of The Total Environment}, 843, 156909.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:72}Thakur, M., Schättin, E.W. \& McShea, W.J. (2018). {Globally common, locally rare: revisiting disregarded genetic diversity for conservation planning of widespread species}. \textit{Biodiversity and Conservation}, 27, 3031–3035.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:41}Thomson, S.A., Thiele, K., Conix, S., Christidis, L., Costello, M.J., Hobern, D., Nikolaeva, S., Pyle, R.L., Dijk, P.P. van, Weaver, H., Zachos, F.E., Zhang, Z.-Q. \& Garnett, S.T. (2021). {Towards a global list of accepted species {II}. {Consequences} of inadequate taxonomic list governance}. \textit{Organisms Diversity \& Evolution}, 21, 623–630.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:100}Tomasini, S. (2018). {Unpacking the Red List: Use (and Misuse?) of Expertise Knowledge, and Power}. \textit{Conservation and Society}, 16, 505.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:26}Trimble, M.J. \& Van Aarde, R.J. (2010). {Species {Inequality} in {Scientific} {Study}}. \textit{Conservation Biology}, 24, 886–890.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:131}Trull, N., Böhm, M. \& Carr, J. (2017). {Patterns and {Biases} of {Climate} {Change} {Threats} in the {IUCN} {Red} {List}}. \textit{Conservation Biology}, 32.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:70}Tulloch, V.J.D., Tulloch, A.I.T., Visconti, P., Halpern, B.S., Watson, J.E.M., Evans, M.C., Auerbach, N.A., Barnes, M., Beger, M., Chadès, I., Giakoumi, S., McDonald-Madden, E., Murray, N.J., Ringma, J. \& Possingham, H.P. (2015). {Why do we map threats? {Linking} threat mapping with actions to make better conservation decisions}. \textit{Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment}, 13, 91–99.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:148}Vierros, M.K., Harrison, A.-L., Sloat, M.R., Crespo, G.O., Moore, J.W., Dunn, D.C., Ota, Y., Cisneros-Montemayor, A.M., Shillinger, G.L., Watson, T.K. \& Govan, H. (2020). {Considering {Indigenous} {Peoples} and local communities in governance of the global ocean commons}. \textit{Marine Policy}, 119, 104039.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:157}Virtanen, E.A. \& Moilanen, A. (2023). {High focus on threatened species and habitats may undermine biodiversity conservation: {Evidence} from the northern {Baltic} {Sea}}. \textit{Diversity and Distributions}, 29, 979–985.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:155}Vié, J.-C., Hilton-Taylor, C., Pollock, C., Ragle, J., Smart, J., Stuart, S.N. \& Tong, R. (2008). {The {IUCN} {Red} {List}: a key conservation tool. {The} 2008 {Review} of {The} {IUCN} {Red} {List} of {Threatened} {Species}. {IUCN} {Gland}, {Switzerland}.}.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:34}Wang, F., Winkler, J., Viña, A., McShea, W.J., Li, S., Connor, T., Zhao, Z., Wang, D., Yang, H., Tang, Y., Zhang, J. \& Liu, J. (2021). {The hidden risk of using umbrella species as conservation surrogates: {A} spatio-temporal approach}. \textit{Biological Conservation}, 253, 108913.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:50}Webb, G. \& Carrillo, E. (2000). {Risk of extinction and categories of endangerment: {Perspectives} from long-lived reptiles}. \textit{Population Ecology}, 42, 11–17.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:96}Willoughby, J.R., Sundaram, M., Wijayawardena, B.K., Kimble, S.J.A., Ji, Y., Fernandez, N.B., Antonides, J.D., Lamb, M.C., Marra, N.J. \& DeWoody, J.A. (2015). {The reduction of genetic diversity in threatened vertebrates and new recommendations regarding {IUCN} conservation rankings}. \textit{Biological Conservation}, 191, 495–503.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:90}Wilson, H.B., Kendall, B.E. \& Possingham, H.P. (2011). {Variability in {Population} {Abundance} and the {Classification} of {Extinction} {Risk}}. \textit{Conservation Biology}, 25, 747–757.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:19}Wilson, K.A., Carwardine, J. \& Possingham, H.P. (2009). {Setting {Conservation} {Priorities}}. \textit{Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences}, 1162, 237–264.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:78}Worm, B. \& Tittensor, D.P. (2011). {Range contraction in large pelagic predators}. \textit{Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, 108, 11942–11947.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:47}Wyborn, C. \& Evans, M.C. (2021). {Conservation needs to break free from global priority mapping}. \textit{Nature Ecology \& Evolution}, 5, 1322–1324.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:109}Zhang, L., Yang, L., Chapman, C.A., Peres, C.A., Lee, T.M. \& Fan, P.-F. (2023). {Growing disparity in global conservation research capacity and its impact on biodiversity conservation}. \textit{One Earth}, 6, 147–157.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:56}Oliveira Caetano, G.H. de, Chapple, D.G., Grenyer, R., Raz, T., Rosenblatt, J., Tingley, R., Böhm, M., Meiri, S. \& Roll, U. (2022). {Automated assessment reveals that the extinction risk of reptiles is widely underestimated across space and phylogeny}. \textit{PLOS Biology}, 20, e3001544.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:80}{Emergency Conservation Committee}. (1934). {Report for the calendar year 1933. {New} {York}: {Emergency} {Conservation} {Committee}.}.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:10}{IPBES}. (2019). {Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the {Intergovernmental} {Science}-{Policy} {Platform} on {Biodiversity} and {Ecosystem} {Service}}.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:139}{IPBES}. (2022). \textit{{Methodological {Assessment} {Report} on the {Diverse} {Values} and {Valuation} of {Nature} of the {Intergovernmental} {Science}-{Policy} {Platform} on {Biodiversity} and {Ecosystem} {Services}}}. Bonn, Germany.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:7}{IUCN}. (2023). {The {IUCN} {Red} {List} of {Threatened} {Species}. {Version} 2022-2. \url{https://www.iucnredlist.org.} {Accessed} on [16 {February} 2023].}.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:12}{IUCN}. (2016). {Rules of {Procedure} for {IUCN} {Red} {List} {Assessments} 2017–2020.{Version} 3.0. {Approved} by the {IUCN} {SSC} {Steering} {Committee} in {September} 2016. {Downloadable} from: \url{http://cmsdocs.s3.amazonaws.com/keydocuments/{Rules}\_of\_Procedure\_for\_Red\_List\_2017-2020.pdf}.}

\phantomsection
\label{csl:16}{IUCN}. (2012). \textit{{{IUCN} {Red} {List} categories and criteria, version 3.1, second edition}}. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.

\phantomsection
\label{csl:17}{{IUCN~Standards~and~Petitions~Committee}}. (2022). {Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 15.1. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Committee. Downloadable from \url{http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf}.}

\phantomsection
\label{csl:15}{{KBA~Standards~and~Appeals~Committee}}. (2022). {Guidelines for using a {Global} {Standard} for the {Identification} of {Key} {Biodiversity} {Areas}. {Version} 1.2. {Prepared} by the {KBA} {Standards} and {Appeals} {Committee} of the {IUCN} {Species} {Survival} {Commission} and {IUCN} {World} {Commission} on {Protected} {Areas}.}.

\end{document}

