1

SAFE Index: An Assessment Tool to Determine Threatened Species Recovery Akanksha Singh CONSERVATION BIOLOGY

NOVEMBER 17th,2011

A new algorithm developed by researchers at the University of Adelaide

and James Cook University reveals that some endangered species might not be worth protecting. As summarized in a recent Scientific American news article, the foundation of the study was based on the assertion that there are a limited set of resources and conservation efforts are limited by the number of skilled people and money. As a proposed resolution to this predicament, the usage of Species Ability to Forestall Extinction Index, or the SAFE index was suggested. The SAFE index takes current and minimum viable population sizes into account to determine if it is too costly to save a species from extinction. The index in tandem with the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, would redirect efforts to species that more likely to overcome extinction rather than use resources and efforts on those determined to inevitably go extinct. The study was conducted analyzing 95 mammals, 20% of whom are endangered and of those, 10% at the tipping point, defined as being on the verge of the point of no return. Though the news story gave a good overall summary of the research paper, it failed to mention certain key points that would have helped in fully grasping the message of the research article. Major key concepts that explain the technicalities behind the formulation of the theory have been glossed over or misinterpreted and as a consequence, they lead to a skewed understanding the authors arguments. The first major discrepancy is the definition and purpose of the SAFE index. The article suggests the index is defined by the tipping point by placing heavy emphasis on the 5000 individuals without explaining it in context. It cited the example of Sumatran rhinos having a higher SAFE index score than their Java counterparts based solely on the notion that Sumatran rhinos having a population above 5000 individuals. Instead, a more accurate presentation of the information would have been to explain the number in context. The research paper defines the SAFE index to be the distance a population is (in terms of abundance) from its minimum viable population (MVP) or smallest possible biological population size at which it can exist without facing extinction (from natural disasters or

demographic, environmental, or genetic stochasticity) (Flather et. al 2011). The determination of which species has better prognosis not based on the population size being fixated around 5000 individuals, but it is rather explained by how far away it is from the ideal population size to be able to recover. The article also alluded to the notion that the index was a tool in determining if a species is too costly to save from extinction. This is another major misinterpretation .Though it can be deduced from the SAFE index what species would benefit the most from conservation efforts due to limited resources, the index doesnt explicitly state which species are too costly and which arent. Instead, the index provides a score to assess and compare species with each other to determine which have a better prognosis of recovery from being threatened. Negative SAFE indices indicate that a species is below the threshold MVP target of 5000 individuals (eg if N = 4000, then SAFE index = 0.1), whereas positive SAFE indices indicate the species is above that threshold (eg if N = 6000, then SAFE index = 0.08) (Clements et. al 2011). Based on these scores and referring to the IUCN Red List, the conservation efforts can be maximized by acting on species with promising recovery. Lastly, the major aspect which the article completely failed to acknowledge was the purpose of this research. The purpose was to devise a new, more accurate measure (when compared to other measures such as percent range loss) to forecasting success of species recovery. As a result, it is suggested that certain species possessing very little probability of persisting should be left to their own devices and conservation efforts should focus on those species that will show recovery. The reoccurring theme of the article was to question how our efforts should be best allocated by posing this question: If we exhaust we all of our efforts on species that, according to the index, will perish anyways, are we doing a disservice in neglecting those species less threatened that can be helped to recover?

I think the topic is something that is very relevant in a world where resources and finances are limited. The research paper presents an argument that has no clear cut answer, but the information presented as such, tempts the reader to consider if we should help only those who will benefit the most.

References Clements RG, Bradshaw CJA, Brook BW and Laurance WF (2011). The SAFE index: using a threshold population target to measure relative species threat. FRONTIERS

IN ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT 9: 521-525. Curtis H. Flather, Gregory D. Hayward, Steven R. Beissinger, Philip A. Stephens, A general target for MVPs: unsupported and unnecessary, Trends in Ecology & Issue 12, December 2011, Pages 620-622, ISSN 0169-5347,

Evolution, Volume 26,

10.1016/j.tree.2011.09.014. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534711002746)

J o h n R . P l a t t . ( 2 0 11 , A p r i l , 2 3 ) . Australian mathematicians say some endangered species not worth saving. S c i e n t i f i c A m e r i c a n . R e t r i e v e d f ro m

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinctioncountdown/2011/04/14/australianmathemati ci ans-say-some-endangered-species-not-worth-saving/