7 Conclusions
10. Red Lists should be regarded as just one way to help guide invertebrate conservation and we should use these lists as far as possible while recog-
nizing their limitations, especially when applied to less known taxa in less known regions of the world. Priority Species lists are developed from Red Lists to perform a rather different function: to address urgent conservation problems following massive habitat degradation during the twentieth cen- tury. Although species and habitat loss still remain high, conservationists will continue to use the latter to prioritize their efforts.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following for funding surveys and action pro- grammes: Council of Europe, Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries. Dutch Butterfly Conservation and Butterfly Conservation (UK) (European Red Lists and Prime Butterfly Areas);
Countryside Council for Wales, English Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage (Action for Butterflies and Moths programmes); the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Wildlife Trusts, Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, and Butterfly Conservation (UK) (Action for Invertebrates Programme); and the Environment Agency, RSPB, and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (review of invertebrates in the UK BAP).
References
Asher, J., Warren, M., Fox, R., Harding, P., Jeffcoate, G. and Jeffcoate, S. (2001) The Millennium Atlas of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bowen, C.P. (ed.) (2003) Proceedings of the Second Pan-European Conference on Saproxylic Beetles; Held at Royal Holloway, University of London, June 2002. People’s Trust for Endangered Species, London.
Bratton, J. (ed.) (1991) British Red Data Books.
3: Invertebrates other than Insects. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough, UK.
Butchart, S.H.M., Stattersfield, A.J., Baillie, J., Bennun, L.A., Stuart, S.N., Akçakaya, H.R., Hilton-Taylor, C. and Mace, G.M. (2005) Using Red List Indices to measure prog- ress towards the 2010 target and beyond.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B – Biological Sciences 360, 255–268.
Conrad, K.F., Woiwod, I.P., Parsons, M.S., Fox, R. and Warren, M.S. (2004) Long-term popu- lation trends in widespread British moths.
Journal of Insect Conservation 8, 119–136.
Conrad, K.F., Warren, M.S., Fox, R., Parsons, M.S. and Woiwod, I.P. (2006) Rapid declines of common, widespread British moths pro- vide evidence of a potential insect biodi- versity crisis. Biological Conservation 132, 279–291.
Department of the Environment (1994) Biodiversity: The UK Action Plan. HMSO, London.
Department of the Environment (1995) Biodiversity: The Steering Group Report.
HMSO, London.
Dunn, R.R. (2005) Modern insect extinc- tions, the neglected majority. Conservation Biology 19, 1030–1036.
Eaton, M.A., Gregory, R.D., Noble, D.G., Robinson, J.A., Hughes, J., Procter, D., Brown, A.F. and Gibbons, D.W. (2005) Regional IUCN Red Listing: the process as applied to birds in the United Kingdom. Conservation Biology 19, 1557–1570.
Fitter, R. and Fitter, M. (eds) (1987) The Road to Extinction. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Fox, R., Spalding, A., Tunmore, M. and Parsons, M. (2005) Planning a new national macro-
moth recording schemes. British Journal of Entomology and Natural History 18, 26–36.
Fry, R. and Lonsdale, D. (1991) Habitat Conservation for Insects: A Neglected Green Issue. Amateur Entolomogist’s Society, Middlesex, UK.
Godfrey, A. (2003) A review of the invertebrate interest of coarse woody debris in England.
English Nature Research Reports 513.
English Nature, Peterborough, UK.
Gregory, R.D., van Strien, A., Vorisek, P., Gmelig Meyling, A.W., Noble, D.G., Foppen, R.P.B. and Gibbons, D.W. (2005) Developing indicators for European birds.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B – Biological Sciences 360, 269–288.
Grootaert, P., Pollet, M. and Maes, D. (2001) A Red Data Book of empidid flies of Flanders (northern Belgium) (Diptera, Empididae S.l.): Constraints and possible use in nature conservation. Journal of Insect Conservation 5, 117–129.
Hawksworth, D.L. (ed.) (2001) The Changing Wildlife of Great Britain and Ireland. Taylor
& Francis, London.
Hilton-Taylor, C. (2000) 2000 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge.
IUCN (1994) IUCN Red List Categories.
Prepared by the IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN (2001) IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge.
IUCN (2003) Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels: Version 3.0. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge.
IUCN (2004) The 2004 IUCN Red List of threat- ened species: summary statistics. Available at: www.redlist.org/info/table/table1
IUCN (2005) Guidelines for the use of IUCN Red List categories and crit eria, April 2005. Available at: www.iucn.
org/themes/ssc/red-lists
Keller, V., Zbinden, N., Schmid, H. and Volet, B. (2005) A case study in applying the IUCN Regional Guidelines for National Red Lists and justifications for their modification.
Conservation Biology 19, 1827–1834.
Middlebrook, I. (2000) Action for Invertebrates.
Biodiversity News 12, 3.
Middlebrook, I. (2002) Action for invertebrates – a progress report. Biodiversity News 20, 8.
Middlebrook, I. (2005) Action for invertebrates – a progress report. Biodiversity News 32, 12–13.
Nature Conservancy Council (1989) Guidelines for the Selection of Biological Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough, UK.
New, T.R. and Sands, D.P.A. (2004) Management of threatened insect species in Australia, with particular reference to but- terflies. Australian Journal of Entomology 43, 258–270.
Parmesan, C. (2003) Butterflies as bioindica- tors for climate change effects. In: Boggs, C.L., Watt, W.B. and Ehrlich, P.R. (eds) Butterflies – Ecology and Evolution taking Flight. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 541–560.
Regan, T.J., Burgman, M.A., McCarthy, M.A., Master, L.L., Keith, D.A., Mace, G.M. and Andelman, S.J. (2005) The consistency of extinction risk classification protocols.
Conservation Biology 19, 1969–1977.
Samways, M.J. (2005) Insect Diversity Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Shirt, D.B. (ed.) (1987) British Red Data Books, 2: Insects. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough, UK.
Smith, M.N. (2003) National Stag Beetle Survey 2002. People’s Trust for Endangered Species, London.
Sutherland, W.J. (2000) The Conservation Handbook: Research, Management and Policy. Blackwell Science, Cambridge.
Thomas, C.D. and Abery, J.C.G. (1995) Estimating rates of butterfly decline from distribution maps: the effect of scale.
Biological Conservation 73, 59–65.
Thomas, J.A. (1991) Rare species conserva- tion: butterfly case studies. In: Spellerburg, I.F., Goldsmith, F.B. and Morris, M.G. (eds)
The Scientific Management of Temperate Communities for Conservation. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp. 149–98.
Thomas, J.A. (2005) Monitoring change in the abundance and distribution of insects using butterflies and other indicator groups.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B – Biological Sciences 360, 339–357.
Thomas, J.A. and Morris, M.G. (1994) Patterns, mechanisms and rates of extinc- tion among invertebrates in the UK. Phil- osophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B – Biological Sciences 344, 47–54.
Thomas, J.A., Telfer, M.G., Roy, D.B., Preston, C., Greenwood, J.J.D., Asher, J., Fox, R., Clarke, R.T. and Lawton, J.H. (2004) Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 303, 1879–1881.
van Helsdingen, P.J., Willemse, L. and Speight, M.C.D. (1996) Background Information on Invertebrates of the Habitats Directive and Bern Convention, Part I – Crustacea, Coleoptera and Lepidoptera. Nature and Environment Series No. 79, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France.
van Swaay, C.A.M. and Warren, M.S. (1999) Red Data Book of European Butterflies (Rhopalocera). Nature and Environment No. 99, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France.
van Swaay, C.A.M. and Warren, M.S. (2003) Prime Butterfly Areas in Europe: Priority Sites for Conservation. National Reference Centre for Agriculture, Nature and Fisheries, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
van Swaay, C.A.M. and Warren, M.S. (2006) Prime butterfly areas in Europe: prior- ity sites for conservation. Journal of Insect Conservation, 10(1), 5–11.
van Swaay, C.A.M., Warren, M.S. and Lois, G.
(2006) Biotope use and trends of European butterflies. Journal of Insect Conservation 10, 189–209.
Warren, M.S. (2002) Species recovery work on butterflies and moths: an overview. In:
Stone, D., Tither, J. and Lacey, P. (eds) Species Recovery Programme: Proceedings of 10th Anniversary Conference, 2001. English Nature, Peterborough, UK, pp. 25–30.
Warren, M.S. and van Swaay, C. (2005) Red Data Book of European butterflies – a pragmatic approach to target conservation action. In: Procter, D. and Harding, P.T. (eds) Red Lists for Invertebrates: Their Application at Different Spatial Scales. Report no. 367, Proceedings of INCardiff 2003. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK, pp. 61–70.
Warren, M.S., Barnett, L.K., Gibbons, D.W. and Avery, M.I. (1997) Assessing national con- servation priorities: an improved red list of British butterflies. Biological Conservation 82, 317–328.
Warren, M.S., Hill, J.K., Thomas, J.A., Asher, J., Fox, R., Huntley, B., Roy, D.B., Telfer,
M.G., Jeffcoate, S., Harding, P., Jeffcoate, G., Willis, S.G., Greatorex-Davies, J.N., Moss, D. and Thomas, C.D. (2001) Rapid responses of British butterflies to oppos- ing forces of climate and habitat change.
Nature 414, 65–69.
Wells, S.M., Pyle, R.M. and Collins, N.M.
(1983) The IUCN Invertebrate Red Data Book. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Wynne, G., Avery, M., Campbell, L., Gubbay, S., Hawkswell, S., Juniper, T., King, M., Newbery, P., Smart, J., Steel, C., Stones, T., Stubbs, A., Taylor, J., Tydeman, C. and Wynde, R.
(1995) Biodiversity Challenge, Part 2. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Sandy, Bedfordshire, UK.
1 Introduction
As long as there is a will for conservation and the resources for it, whatever these are (cash, volunteers, legacies, government-assisted schemes), there will be controversy about the direction conservation should take. Currently, there are three prominent issues vying for choice: (i) the species versus ‘habitat’
approach; (ii) the ‘habitat’ (= patch) versus entire landscape approach; and (iii) the single (= rare) species versus multispecies approach. Some choices, as the focus of attention, have already become redundant. For instance, the single patch (i.e. habitat) versus the multiple patch issue (i.e. single large or several small – SLOSS) has largely been resolved within metapopulation models and empirical findings in favour of multiple integrated patchworks (McCarthy and Lindenmayer, 1999; Ovaskainen, 2002; McCarthy et al., 2005).
Other choices or ploys fall within the compass of the three issues identified above (e.g. use of indicator taxa; the role of landscape heterogeneity; bias of attention to specialists or rare species versus generalists; resources for change; uniformitarianism versus catastrophism in management). Each of these issues has some independence. After all, there is a big difference between conserving for single versus multiple entities. But, perhaps what has not been realized with any degree of clarity is just how these different approaches are closely tied up with one another. They all depend on how habitat is envisaged and defined. To illustrate this, a useful starting point is to consider the difference between species and ‘habitat’ approaches in conservation, based largely on the work carried out on butterflies.