Elimination of the difference between these databases will provide a more accurate evaluation and interpretation.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aimed to compare the IUCN and The National Biodiversity (Noah's Ark) Data of plant and terrestrial animals (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Another possible reason is that as a result of researchers' taxonomic studies, some species are combined or separated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Elimination of the difference between these databases will provide a more accurate evaluation and interpretation.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:IUCN Red List · The National Biodiversity (Noah's Ark) Database · Red List Categories
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the IUCN and The National Biodiversity (Noah's Ark) Data of plant and terrestrial animals (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish). When the number of plant taxa is compared, it is seen that the difference between the two databases is very high. The main reason for this difference is that the plant species are not thoroughly evaluated in the IUCN. Also, there are differences in animal species. One possible reason is that marine species have not been evaluated in Noah's Ark Database. Another possible reason is that as a result of researchers' taxonomic studies, some species are combined or separated. Elimination of the difference between these databases will provide a more accurate evaluation and interpretation.
Biler, L., Bikriç, S. (2020). Comparison of the IUCN and the National Biodiversity (Noah's Ark) Database. Sakarya University Journal of Science, Volume: 24 Issue: 6. https://doi.org/10.16984/saufenbilder.707791
J.-C. Vié, C. Hilton-Taylor, C. Pollock, J. Ragle, J. Smart, S. N. Stuart, and R. Tong, “The IUCN Red List: a key conservation tool” The 2008 Review of The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN Gland, Switzerland. 2008.
P. C. De Grammont and A. D. Cuarón, “An evaluation of threatened species categorization systems used on the American continent” Conservation Biology vol. 20, no: 1, pp. 14-27, 2006.
J. Lamoreux, H. R. Akçakaya, L. Bennun, N. J. Collar, L. Boitani, D. Brackett, A. Brautigam, T. M. Brooks, G. A. B. Fonseca, and R. A. Mittermeier, “Value of the IUCN Red List” Trends in Ecology & Evolution vol. 18, pp. 214-215, 2003.
G. M. Mace, N. J. Collar, K. J. Gaston, C. Hilton Taylor, H. R. Akçakaya, N. Leader-Williams, E. J. Milner-Gulland, and S. N. Stuart, “Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN’s system for classifying threatened species” Conservation Biology vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1424-1442, 2008.
A. S. L. Rodrigues, J. D. Pilgrim, J. F. Lamoreux, M. Hoffmann, and T. M. Brooks, “The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 21, no: 2, pp. 71-76, 2006.
Anonymous, “Biyolojik Çeşitlilik 2018 Yılı Envanter Raporu” T.C. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı Doğa Koruma ve Milli Parklar Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara, 2008.