Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Red List assessments of East African chameleons: a case study of why we need experts

  • Angelique Hjarding (a1), Krystal A. Tolley (a2) and Neil D. Burgess (a1)

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species uses geographical distribution as a key criterion in assessing the conservation status of species. Accurate knowledge of a species’ distribution is therefore essential to ensure the correct categorization is applied. Here we compare the geographical distribution of 35 species of chameleons endemic to East Africa, using data from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and data compiled by a taxonomic expert. Data screening showed 99.9% of GBIF records used outdated taxonomy and 20% had no locality coordinates. Conversely the expert dataset used 100% up-to-date taxonomy and only seven records (3%) had no coordinates. Both datasets were used to generate range maps for each species, which were then used in preliminary Red List categorization. There was disparity in the categories of 10 species, with eight being assigned a lower threat category based on GBIF data compared with expert data, and the other two assigned a higher category. Our results suggest that before conducting desktop assessments of the threatened status of species, aggregated museum locality data should be vetted against current taxonomy and localities should be verified. We conclude that available online databases are not an adequate substitute for taxonomic experts in assessing the threatened status of species and that Red List assessments may be compromised unless this extra step of verification is carried out.

Corresponding author
(Corresponding author) E-mail
Hide All
AhrendsA., BurgessN.D., GereauR.E., MarchantR., BullingM.T., LovettJ.C. et al. (2011a) Funding begets biodiversity. Diversity and Distributions, 17, 191200.
AhrendsA., RahbekC., BullingM.T., BurgessN.D., PlattsP.J., LovettJ.C. et al. (2011b) Conservation and the botanist effect. Biological Conservation, 144, 131140.
AriñoA.H. (2010) Approaches to estimating the universe of natural history collections data. Biodiversity Informatics, 7, 8192.
BaillieJ.E.M., CollenB., AminR., AkcakayaH.R., ButchartS.H.M., BrummittN. et al. (2008) Toward monitoring global biodiversity. Conservation Letters, 1, 1826.
BoakesE.H., McGowanP.J.K., FullerR.A., Chang-QingD., ClarkN.E., O'ConnorK. & MaceG.M. (2010) Distorted views of biodiversity: spatial and temporal bias in species occurrence data. PLoS Biology, 8(6), e1000385.
CayuelaL., Granzow-de la CerdaI., AlbuquerqueF.S. & GolicherD.J. (2012) taxonstand: An R package for species names standardisation in vegetation databases. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 3, 10781083.
ChapmanA.D. (2005) Principles and Methods of Data Cleaning—Primary Species and Species-Occurrence Data, version 1.0. Report for the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, Copenhagen. Http:// [accessed 22 April 2014].
ChapmanA.D. & WieczorekJ. (eds) (2006) Guide to Best Practices for Georeferencing. Global Biodiversity Information Facility, Copenhagen. Http:// [accessed 22 April 2014].
CostaG.C., NogueiraC., MachadoR.B. & ColliG.R. (2010) Sampling bias and the use of ecological niche modeling in conservation planning: a field evaluation in a biodiversity hotspot. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19, 883899.
CostelloM.J., MayR.M. & StorkN.E. (2013) Can we name Earth's species before they go extinct? Science, 339, 413416.
DésamoréA., LaenenB., González-ManceboJ.-M., Jaén MolinaR., BystriakovaN., Martinez-KlimovaE. et al. (2012) Inverted patterns of genetic diversity in continental and island populations of the heather Erica scoparia s.l. Journal of Biogeography, 39, 574584.
DuckworthW.D., GenowaysH.H. & RoseC.L. (1993) Preserving Natural Science Collections: Chronicle of Our Environmental Heritage. Heritage Preservation, Washington, DC, USA.
EdvardsenA., BakkestuenV. & HalvorsenR. (2011) A fine-grained spatial prediction model for the red-listed vascular plant Scorzonera humilis . Nordic Journal of Botany, 29, 495504.
FoleyD.H., WeitzmanA.L., MillerS.E., FaranM.E., RuedaL.M. & WilkersonR.C. (2008) The value of georeferenced collection records for predicting patterns of mosquito species richness and endemism in the Neotropics. Ecological Entomology, 33, 1223.
FreitagS., HobsonC., BiggsH.C. & van JaarsveldA.S. (1998) Testing for potential survey bias: the effect of roads, urban areas and nature reserves on a southern African mammal data set. Animal Conservation, 1, 119127.
GaijiS., ChavanV., AriñoA.H., OteguiJ., HobernD., SoodR. & RoblesE. (2013) Content assessment of the primary biodiversity data published through GBIF network: status, challenges and potentials. Biodiversity Informatics, 8, 94172.
GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility) (2014) Free and Open Access to Biodiversity Data. Http:// [accessed 21 April 2014].
GrenyerR., OrmeC.D.L., JacksonS.F., ThomasG.H., DaviesR.G., DaviesT.J. et al. (2006) Global distribution and conservation of rare and threatened vertebrates. Nature, 444, 9396.
HoffmannM., BrooksT.M., da FonsecaG.A.B., GasconC., HawkinsA.F.A., JamesR.E. et al. (2008) Conservation planning and the IUCN Red List. Endangered Species Research, 6, 113125.
HuangX., HawkinsB.A., LeiF., MillerG.L., FavretC., ZhangR. & QiaoG. (2012) Willing or unwilling to share primary biodiversity data: results and implications of an international survey. Conservation Letters, 5, 399406.
IsaacN.J.B., TurveyS.T., CollenB., WatermanC. & BaillieJ.E.M. (2007) Mammals on the EDGE: conservation priorities based on threat and phylogeny. PLoS ONE, 2(3), e296.
IUCN (2001) IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (version 3.1). IUCN Species Survival Commission, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK.
IUCN (2012) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species v. 2012.2. Http:// [accessed 28 March 2013].
IUCN Standards and Petitions Working Group (2008) Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 7.0. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Working Group of the IUCN SSC Biodiversity Assessments Sub-Committee in August 2008.
JennessJ. (2012) Repeating Shapes for ArcGIS. Http:// [accessed 21 April 2014].
KadmonR., FarberO. & DaninA. (2004) Effect of roadside bias on the accuracy of predictive maps produced by bioclimatic models. Ecological Applications, 14, 401413.
LamoreuxJ., AkçakayaH.R., BennunL., CollarN.J., BoitaniL., BrackettD. et al. (2003) Value of the IUCN Red List. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18, 214215.
MaceG.M. & BaillieJ.E.M. (2007) The 2010 biodiversity indicators: challenges for science and policy. Conservation Biology, 21, 14061413.
MaceG.M., CollarN.J., GastonK.J., Hilton-TaylorC., AkçakayaH.R., Leader-WilliamsN. et al. (2008) Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN's system for classifying threatened species. Conservation Biology, 22, 14241442.
MaceG.M. & LandeR. (1991) Assessing extinction threats: toward a reevaluation of IUCN threatened species categories. Conservation Biology, 5, 148157.
NewboldT. (2010) Applications and limitations of museum data for conservation and ecology, with particular attention to species distribution models. Progress in Physical Geography, 34, 322.
NicholsonE., CollenB., BarausseA., BlanchardJ.L., CostelloeB.T., SullivanK.M.E. et al. (2012) Making robust policy decisions using global biodiversity indicators. PLoS ONE, 7(7), e41128.
OteguiJ., AriñoA.H., EncinasM. & PandoF. (2013) Assessing the primary data hosted by the Spanish node of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). PLoS ONE, 8(1), e55144.
PonderW.F., CarterG.A., FlemonsP. & ChapmanR.R. (2001) Evaluation of museum collection data for use in biodiversity assessment. Conservation Biology, 15, 648657.
RaimondoD. (2009) Red List of South African Plants. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria, South Africa.
Ramirez-VillegasJ., JarvisA. & TouvalJ. (2012) Analysis of threats to South American flora and its implications for conservation. Journal for Nature Conservation, 20, 337348.
ReddyS. & DávalosL.M. (2003) Geographical sampling bias and its implications for conservation priorities in Africa. Journal of Biogeography, 30, 17191727.
RiversM.C., TaylorL., BrummittN.A., MeagherT.R., RobertsD.L. & Nic LughadhaE. (2011) How many herbarium specimens are needed to detect threatened species? Biological Conservation, 144, 25412547.
RodriguesA.S.L., PilgrimJ.D., LamoreuxJ.F., HoffmannM. & BrooksT.M. (2006) The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 21, 7176.
SchipperJ., ChansonJ.S., ChiozzaF., CoxN.A., HoffmannM., KatariyaV. et al. (2008) The status of the world's land and marine mammals: diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science, 322, 225230.
ScobleM.J. (2010) Natural history collections digitisation: rationale and value. Biodiversity Informatics, 7, 7780.
StuartS.N., ChansonJ.S., CoxN.A., YoungB.E., RodriguesA.S.L., FischmanD.L. & WallerR.W. (2004) Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science, 306, 17831786.
TilburyC.R. (2010) Chameleons of Africa: An Atlas. Including the Chameleons of Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt, Germany.
Tropicos (2014) Http:// [accessed 11 June 2014].
Vidal-GarcíaF. & Serio-SilvaJ.C. (2011) Potential distribution of Mexican primates: modeling the ecological niche with the maximum entropy algorithm. Primates, 52, 261270.
WillisF., MoatJ. & PatonA. (2003) Defining a role for herbarium data in Red List assessments: a case study of Plectranthus from eastern and southern tropical Africa. Biodiversity and Conservation, 12, 15371552.
WillisK.J., JeffersE.S., TovarC., LongP.R., CaithnessN., SmitM.G.D. et al. (2012) Determining the ecological value of landscapes beyond protected areas. Biological Conservation, 147, 312.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

  • ISSN: 0030-6053
  • EISSN: 1365-3008
  • URL: /core/journals/oryx
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 14
Total number of PDF views: 47 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 235 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 23rd October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.