A comparison of North American avian conservation priority ranking systems Original Research Article

The need to prioritize species based on their perceived endangerment has led to the development of systems for categorizing and assessing their degree of vulnerability. Systems with divergent biological and geographical scopes can result in conflicting lists of high-priority species, potentially confusing conservationists and hampering the efficient allocation of resources. To assess conservation priorities for North American birds, we compare three priority-setting systems; those of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), NatureServe, and Partners in Flight (PIF). We found highest correspondence among the three systems in the highest and lowest categories of the respective systems with lower levels of correspondence in intermediate categories. We suggest that this is because the systems, while using different formulations of criteria, are based on the major factors known to be correlated with extinction risk. The few examples of species listed as a high conservation priority by one group but not one or both of the others appear to be the result of differences in availability or interpretation of data. Better communication and collaboration among those responsible for compiling the priority lists for each system is needed.