Using comparative extinction risk analysis to prioritize the IUCN Red List reassessments of amphibians.

Assessing the extinction risk of species based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List (RL) is key to guiding conservation policies and reducing biodiversity loss. This process is resource demanding, however, and requires continuous updating, which becomes increasingly difficult as new species are added to the RL. Automatic methods, such as comparative analyses used to predict species RL category, can be an efficient alternative to keep assessments up to date.

Modelling the probability of meeting IUCN Red List criteria to support reassessments.

Comparative extinction risk analysis-which predicts species extinction risk from correlation with traits or geographical characteristics-has gained research attention as a promising tool to support extinction risk assessment in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. However, its uptake has been very limited so far, possibly because existing models only predict a species' Red List category, without indicating which Red List criteria may be triggered. This prevents such approaches to be integrated into Red List assessments.

A standard approach for including climate change responses in IUCN Red List assessments.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List is a central tool for extinction risk monitoring and influences global biodiversity policy and action. But, to be effective, it is crucial that it consistently accounts for each driver of extinction. Climate change is rapidly becoming a key extinction driver, but consideration of climate change information remains challenging for the IUCN.

Bridging the research-implementation gap in IUCN Red List assessments.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species is central in biodiversity conservation, but insufficient resources hamper its long-term growth, updating, and consistency. Models or automated calculations can alleviate those challenges by providing standardised estimates required for assessments, or prioritising species for (re-)assessments. However, while numerous scientific papers have proposed such methods, few have been integrated into assessment practice, highlighting a critical research-implementation gap.

Human activity is altering the world's zoogeographical regions.

Zoogeographical regions, or zooregions, are areas of the Earth defined by species pools that reflect ecological, historical and evolutionary processes acting over millions of years. Consequently, researchers have assumed that zooregions are robust and unlikely to change on a human timescale. However, the increasing number of human-mediated introductions and extinctions can challenge this assumption.

Biases in comparative analyses of extinction risk: mind the gap.

1. Comparative analyses are used to address the key question of what makes a species more prone to extinction by exploring the links between vulnerability and intrinsic species' traits and/or extrinsic factors. This approach requires comprehensive species data but information is rarely available for all species of interest.