624 B. Gurung et al.
bias and incorporate a wide range of data. The utilization of three tools (GeoCAT, red and ConR), each with unique fea- tures, can help to support field investigations, and in our study the estimated extents of occurrence and areas of occupancy (Table 2) were consistent across all tools. ConR seems to be the most useful of the three tools be-
cause it computes the number of geographical locations in which a species is present. This could be a key determinant of the conservation status of a species because it may indi- cate the level of habitat fragmentation, which may in turn highlight threats facing a particular species. For example, the latest data on B. colvilei revealed a high abundance in Bhutan (Table 1) that we could not ascertain through our field studies, highlighting the importance of field surveys in this region. At the same time, it is important to exercise caution when using open-source databases for conservation assessments as intensified anthropogenic stresses and cli- mate change may cause a decline in species occurrences, af- fecting the results of assessments. In cross-checking records with herbarium specimens, we found instances of mis- labelled specimens. Making automated assessments with mislabelled records could lead to incorrect conclusions, as evidenced by the evaluation of B. delavayi as Endangered rather than Critically Endangered. Automated assessments may not be as reliable as other
methods, however, as they do not consider the number of individuals in a population or specific threats. Field surveys are generally considered the most accurate method for as- sessing extinction risk (Nic Lughadha et al., 2018) as they provide detailed information on species’ distribution, popu- lation sizes and threats. Anthropogenic activities such as road construction related to the national or local prioritiza- tion of development works and population growth must be considered when prioritizing conservation intervention. Our field surveys of B. sessilifolia revealed it is facing a sig- nificant risk because its habitat is being fragmented by roads and damaged by mudslides. Similarly, our surveys indicated concern regarding the status of B. yunnanensis, with its lim- ited distribution and a decline in the quality of its habitat resulting in it being catalogued as a Plant Species with an Extremely Small Population. Our field surveys revealed sig- nificant threats to these species, highlighting the conserva- tion challenges they face, including habitat degradation, fragmentation and loss, and the negative impacts of an- thropogenic activities. However, field surveys can be costly in terms of time and resources, making it difficult to survey large numbers of species. Although automated assessments are recommended for
a preliminary evaluation of conservation status (Zizka et al., 2021), our comparison of methods revealed their limited ef- fectiveness for our focal species. Automated assessments are particularly suitable for species with a wide range of distri- bution records (Palacio et al., 2021) and for which there are
constraints on field surveys, as in the case of B. colvilei in Bhutan and India. We acknowledge, however, that the pau- city of accurate distribution data and taxonomic ambiguity could limit the effectiveness of automated assessment (Mackay-Smith & Roberts, 2019). Our findings revealed significant issues with digitized in- formation, including identification of errors (e.g. the treat- ment of B. delavayi and B. heliophila as the same species) and lack of up to date information (e.g. the Fugong popula- tion of B. sessilifolia recorded in 2010 that had disappeared by 2015), which may have adversely affected the outcomes of our automated assessments (AuBuchon-Elder et al., 2023). We recommend increasing the digitalization of informa- tion for occurrence records, implementing cleaning and filtering processes and establishing user-friendly platforms for data feedback and integration into data repositories such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Only with field exploration and the collection of first-hand data can we fill gaps in the knowledge of species distributions (Nic Lughadha et al., 2018). In our case study, field surveys provided the most ac-
curate information for evaluating conservation status, particularly for range-restricted species, because they provided direct and informative data, which is essential when other data are limited or unavailable. Our study there- fore highlights the importance of making assessments using data from field surveys when information on a species is limited or unavailable. Because the Himalayan region is home tomany endemic
species, a multifaceted approach combining multiple sources of accurate information can contribute to a more comprehensive and reliable species conservation plan than any one approach alone. We recommend first conducting a preliminary assessment using automated assessment methods and then carrying out field surveys for validation and detailed analysis. Our study also highlights the need for further research
on the ecology and conservation biology of threatened spe- cies. This could include studies of conservation genetics, responses to different environmental stressors, and inter- actions with other species, such as pollination biology. (Chen et al., 2012; Ollerton, 2017; Coates et al., 2018; Nonić & Šijačić-Nikolić, 2019). In addition, scientifically sound conservation efforts are needed to protect such species and their habitats, including the identification of threats, habitat restoration, in situ or ex situ conservation (or both) and public education and outreach (Ma et al., 2013; Volis, 2016; Chen & Sun, 2018). Many plant species face serious threats in the Himalayan region, and targeted and comprehensive conservation measures are required. Over- all, our study emphasizes the need for a more integrated conservation approach to address the constraints currently hampering species conservation in this region.
Oryx, 2024, 58(5), 618–626 © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605323001503
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140
