Standardized classification methods that use quantifiable risk metrics are critical for evaluating extinction threats because they increase objectivity, consistency, and transparency of listing decisions. Yet, in the United States, neither federal nor state agencies use standardized methods for listing species for legal protection, which could put listing decisions at odds with the magnitude of the risk. Here, we use a recently developed set of quantitative risk metrics for California herpetofauna as a case study to highlight discrepancies in listing decisions made without standardized methods. We also illustrate how combining such quantitative metrics with classification tree analysis can be used to increase the transparency of previous listing decisions by identifying the criteria that have inherently been given the most weight. We find that federally-listed herpetofauna in California score significantly higher on the risk metric spectrum than those not federally-listed, but that state-listed species do not score any higher than those not state-listed. Classification trees detected state endemism as the most important predictor of listing status at the state level, and distribution trend (decline in a species' range size) and population trend (decline in a species' abundance at localized sites) as the most important predictors at the federal level. With this case study, we emphasize the need for governing bodies to adopt standardized methods for assessing conservation risk that utilize quantitative criteria. We demonstrate how such methods allow decision-makers to: 1) identify the criteria that have inherently been given the most weight in determining listing status, thus increasing the transparency of previous listing decisions and 2) produce an unbiased comparison of conservation threat across all species to promote consistency, efficiency, and effectiveness of the listing process. Article impact statement: Using standardized, quantitative methods to assess extinction risk can improve listing decisions by increasing consistency and transparency This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

中文翻译：

---

使用标准化方法来改善灭绝——风险分类

使用可量化风险指标的标准化分类方法对于评估灭绝威胁至关重要，因为它们提高了上市决策的客观性、一致性和透明度。然而，在美国，联邦和州机构都没有使用标准化方法将物种列入法律保护名单，这可能会使列入名单的决定与风险的大小不一致。在这里，我们使用最近开发的一组加州爬行动物定量风险指标作为案例研究，以突出在没有标准化方法的情况下做出的上市决定的差异。我们还说明了如何将此类量化指标与分类树分析相结合，通过确定固有权重最大的标准来提高先前上市决策的透明度。我们发现，加利福尼亚州列入联邦名单的爬行动物在风险指标范围内的得分明显高于未列入联邦名单的物种，但州名单物种的得分并不高于未列入州名单的物种。分类树检测到州特有现象是州级列表状态的最重要预测因子，分布趋势（物种范围大小的下降）和种群趋势（局部地点的物种丰度下降）是最重要的预测因子联邦层面。在这个案例研究中，我们强调管理机构需要采用标准化的方法来评估利用定量标准的保护风险。我们展示了这些方法如何使决策者能够：1) 确定在确定列入状态时固有的最重要的标准，从而提高以前列入决定的透明度，以及 2) 对所有物种的保护威胁进行无偏见的比较，以促进列入的一致性、效率和有效性过程。文章影响声明：使用标准化、量化的方法来评估灭绝风险可以通过提高一致性和透明度来改进上市决策 本文受版权保护。版权所有。评估灭绝风险的定量方法可以通过提高一致性和透明度来改善上市决策 本文受版权保护。版权所有。评估灭绝风险的定量方法可以通过提高一致性和透明度来改善上市决策 本文受版权保护。版权所有。