Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Does the IUCN Red-Listing ‘Criteria B’ do justice for smaller aquatic plants? A case study from Sri Lankan Aponogetons

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The IUCN Red List of threatened species is recognised as the accepted standard for species global extinction risk worldwide, and the criteria led down for evaluation are considered as one of the best methods to evaluate extinction risk of species at the global and regional levels.The IUCN’s Red List categories are given more emphasis in determining the conservation status of species and for prioritizing conservation strategies upon these threatened species. The guidelines for evaluation are laid down comprehensively to minimize errors and to maintain consistency of Red List assessments across taxa. However in some cases, it seems that the assessments based on current IUCN criteria do not accurately reflect the real extinction risk of some taxonomic groups. This is not owing to the quality or quantity of the data produced, but rather to some methodological artifacts that affects certain groups of taxa. In this paper we discuss such an event considering an aquatic plant group; genus Aponogeton; from Sri Lanka. All the known Sri Lankan Aponogeton species have been evaluated under the Criteria B adhering to the given IUCN guidelines and the results suggest that such smaller aquatic plants with high habitat specificity are at a disadvantage when securing their conservation statuses, and thereby lose the protection they deserve through legislations. This study emphasises the obligation of much comprehensive evaluation criteria to estimate the AOO in different plant categories.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abeli T, Gentili R, Rossi G, Bedini G, Bruno F (2009) Can the IUCN criteria be effectively applied to peripheral isolated plant populations. Biodivers Conserv 18:3877–3890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9685-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashton MS, Gunatilleke S, de Zoysa N, Dassanayake MD, Gunatilleke N, Wijesundera S (1997) A field guide to the common trees and shrubs of Sri Lanka. Wildlife heritage trust publications (pvt.) Limited, Colombo

    Google Scholar 

  • De Grammont PC, Cuarón AD (2006) An evaluation of threatened species categorization systems used on the American continent. Conserv Biol 20:14–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00352.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Silva MA, Deshaprema KMS, Manamperi JPJ (2016) Aponogetonkannangarae, a new species of Aponogeton (Aponogetonaceae) from Rakwana hills, Sri Lanka. Phytotaxa 272(2):220–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ESRI (2017) ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.4. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunawardana J (2005) Kekatiya; the untold story. The Island newspaper. http://cea.nsf.ac.lk/handle/1/14564. Accessed 29 March 2019

  • IUCN (2001) IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland

    Google Scholar 

  • IUCN (2012) IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1, 2nd edn. IUCN, Gland

    Google Scholar 

  • IUCN (2017) Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 13. Prepared by the Standards and petitions. IUCN, Gland

    Google Scholar 

  • Keith AD (1998) An evaluation and modification of World Conservation Union Red List Criteria for classification of extinction risk in vascular plants. Conserv Biol 12:1076–1090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotagama S, Bambaradeniya C (2006) an overview of the wetlands of Sri Lanka and their conservation significance. In: National Wetland Directory of Sri Lanka. IUCN Sri Lanka and the Central Environmental Authority, Colombo, Sri Lanka

  • Mace GM, Collar NJ, Gaston KJ, Hilton-Taylor C, Akakaya HR, Leader-Williams N, Milner-Gulland EJ, Stuart SN (2008) Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN’s system for classifying threatened species. Conserv Biol 22:1424–1442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manawaduge CG, Yakandawala D (2018) Morphometrics and taxonomic update to the Sri Lankan Aponogetonaceae. Phytotaxa 365(3):201–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manawaduge CG, Yakandawala D, Les DH (2016) Morphometric analysis reveals a new species of Aponogeton (Aponogetonaceae) in Sri Lanka. Phytotaxa 275(3):243–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittermeier RA, Turner WR, Larsen FW, Brooks TM, Gascon C (2011) Global biodiversity conservation: the critical role of hotspots. In: Zachos F, Habel J (eds) Biodiversity Hotspots. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • MOE (2012) The National Red List 2012 of Sri Lanka; conservation status of the fauna and flora. Ministry of Environment, Colombo

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons ECM (2016) Why IUCN should replace “Data Deficient” conservation status with a precautionary “Assume Threatened” status—a cetacean case study. Front Mar Sci 3:193. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petitions Subcommittee. Downloadable from http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf

  • Rodrigues ASL, Pilgrim JD, Lamoreux JF, Hoffmann M, Brooks TM (2006) The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 21(2):71–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Bruggen HWE (1985) Monograph of the genus Aponogeton (Aponogetonaceae). Bibl Bot 137:14–26

    Google Scholar 

  • van Bruggen HWE (1987) Aponogetonaceae. In: Dassanayake MD, Fosberg FR (eds) A revised hand book to the flora of Ceylon, vol VI. Amerind Publishing, New Delhi, pp 3–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Yakandawala D (2012) Present status of fresh water aquatic flora in Sri Lanka. In: Weerakoon DK, Wijesundara S (eds) The National Red List 2012 of Sri Lanka; Conservation Status of the Fauna and Flora. Ministry of Environment, Colombo, pp 186–196

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Financial assistance provided by the University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka (University Research Grant RG/2014/38/S to DY) is gratefully acknowledged. Authors wish to thank The Department of Wildlife Conservation of Sri Lanka for granting permission for the field visits, National Herbarium, Royal Botanical Gardens, Peradeniya and Dr. Menaka Ariyarathne and U. B. Priyadharshana for their assistance in the field. First author would also like to acknowladge her current institute; Queensland University of Technology, Queensland, Australia; and her current supervisor; Assoc. Prof. Susan Fuller.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chapa G. Manawaduge.

Additional information

Communicated by Daniel Sanchez Mata.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article belongs to the Topical Collection: Biodiversity protection and reserves.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Manawaduge, C.G., Yakandawala, D. & Yakandawala, K. Does the IUCN Red-Listing ‘Criteria B’ do justice for smaller aquatic plants? A case study from Sri Lankan Aponogetons. Biodivers Conserv 29, 115–127 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01873-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01873-x

Keywords

Navigation