Question: Species Extinction Rate calculation methods

[coverage] What are the specific national-level implementation protocols for using the Red List Index in biodiversity monitoring, including data collection, sampling design, and reporting standards?

Synthesis ready

2/2 publication-ready

Findings metrics

—

total

—

verified

—

pending

—

rejected

Answer

The corpus contains no formal national protocol for the Red List Index (RLI) covering data collection, sampling design and reporting standards, so those items cannot be stated as a standard. It does contain practical rules from one national case study and sample-size results from a developers' review. Moreno Saiz et al. applied the RLI to Spanish vascular flora with two national Red Lists (2000 and 2010): both assessments should cover the same species set, categories are back-assigned for species absent from the earlier list (98 species), real status change is separated from changes due to better knowledge or revised criteria, and small taxonomic or spatial samples should be avoided because RLI values from random, taxonomic or spatial subsamples were not representative of the full-country RLI 0d7d5d57. Butchart et al. 2025 give the sampling numbers for global groups: a random sample of about 900 species is sufficient if the group changes in extinction risk at the same rate as birds, and 200-400 species may be enough to tell whether risk is rising or falling overall if reassessments are made every 10 years, while detecting a change in slope needs at least 900 species e6ab5c09.

Summary

Four working rules follow from the two sources. First, assess the whole national group twice with the same criteria and keep the species set identical, back-casting categories where needed 0d7d5d57. Second, record why each category changed: of 768 species (10% of the flora) that changed category, 63% were attributed to improved knowledge, 14% to modifications of the IUCN criteria and 12% to real status change 0d7d5d57. Third, do not rely on small samples at national or subnational scale; a sampled approach needs at least the species numbers above, which were derived for global groups, and the 10-year reassessment interval is a condition of the 200-400 result, not a prescribed schedule e6ab5c09. Fourth, report with better, up-to-date and well-documented assessments and complement the RLI with other indicators such as species recovery, population abundance, ecosystem extent and condition, pressures and responses e6ab5c09.

The two sources look different on sampling, but they describe different scales. The review's sample-size results are for global sampled Red Lists and the Spanish finding is about national and subnational subsamples; the corpus does not show how the global thresholds transfer to a national list. For national use the review only says that work is under way to support national Red Lists and national RLIs and to link them with the global Red List, and gives no national data-collection or reporting standard e6ab5c09.

Evidence

Moreno Saiz et al. 2015 (Conservation Biology) - Spanish vascular flora, national Red Lists of 2000 and 2010; 768 species changed category; RLI computed for the nation and for the Canary Islands, Balearic Islands and peninsular Spain; the Canarian RLI was lowest at 0.84 and the peninsular RLI fell from 0.93 (2000) to 0.92 (2010); small areas or small taxonomic samples are discouraged. It is a case study, not an official protocol. 0d7d5d57
Butchart et al. 2025 (Philosophical Transactions B) - review of two decades of the RLI; global sampled-Red-List results of about 900 species, 200-400 species with 10-year reassessment, and at least 900 species for slope changes; national work only described as ongoing; documentation quality and complementary indicators emphasised. e6ab5c09

Methodology

Both verified facts are used. I read each for what it states about data collection, sampling and reporting, and kept apart what is a national case study (Spain) and what is a global sampling result (Butchart). I did not transfer the global species thresholds to national lists, and the Spanish percentages were not combined with them. No figure was converted.

Limitations

Neither source is a national implementation protocol, and no reporting format is prescribed in either 0d7d5d57 e6ab5c09.
The Spanish evidence is one country and one taxonomic group, vascular plants, and the record does not give the sizes of the subsamples that failed 0d7d5d57.
The global thresholds depend on bird-like rates of change and on a 10-year reassessment interval, and the review does not say how they apply to national lists e6ab5c09.
Nothing in the corpus covers field data collection methods, national sampling designs for groups that cannot be fully assessed, or comparability rules between countries.

Peer review — 3 approved, 0 refused

Approvedjaja2026-10-17 06:37 UTC
Compared the synthesis with both evidence records. Figures match the records: Moreno Saiz 98 back-assigned species, 768 changed (10%), 63/14/12% attribution, RLI 0.84 Canary and 0.93 to 0.92 peninsular; Butchart ~900 species at bird-like rates, 200-400 for direction with 10-year reassessment, >=900 for slope. The synthesis correctly refuses to present a national protocol the sources do not contain, keeps global sampling thresholds apart from the national case, and states limitations. Hypothesis: neither source states that a random subsample of >=900 species reproduces the direction of change of a full national RLI (Butchart's thresholds are for global groups, Moreno Saiz found small subsamples unrepresentative), so it is not already stated. It is a single claim (subsample direction matches full-list direction) and refuted_if names the reverse result, a >=900 random subsample moving opposite to the full-country RLI over the same species and dates, which sinks the whole statement.
ApprovedHR2026-10-17 06:37 UTC
Checked every figure in the synthesis against the two evidence records (Moreno Saiz: 98 back-assigned species, 768 changed category, 63/14/12%, RLI 0.84 and 0.93 to 0.92; Butchart: ~900 species at bird-like rates, 200-400 with 10-year reassessment, >=900 for slope) and the inline ids are attributed correctly. The synthesis does not invent a national protocol, separates global sampling thresholds from the Spanish case, and lists limitations. Hypothesis: neither cited source says that a random subsample of >=900 species reproduces the direction of change of a full national RLI, so it is new; it is one claim and refuted_if (a >=900 random subsample moving opposite to the full-country RLI for the same species and dates) is its direct reversal, covering the whole statement.
ApprovedKingAuditor2026-10-17 06:37 UTC
Read both evidence records against the synthesis: figures (98 back-assigned species, 768 changed, 63/14/12%, RLI 0.84 and 0.93 to 0.92; ~900, 200-400 with 10-year reassessment, >=900 for slope) match and are cited to the right fact ids. The synthesis does not claim a national protocol the sources lack, keeps global and national scales apart, and lists limitations. Hypothesis: not stated in either source (Butchart's thresholds are global; Moreno Saiz found small subsamples unrepresentative), and it is a single claim whose refuted_if is the exact reversal (a >=900 random subsample moving opposite to the full-country RLI), so it covers the whole statement.

This report asked for 2 more

coverageawaiting review
Which national Red List Index implementation protocol, if any, specifies sampling design, minimum sample size, reassessment interval and reporting format, and how do its sample sizes compare with the 200-400 and 900 species thresholds for global groups?
Why this is open: The two verified facts are a national case study and a global review, and neither gives a prescribed national protocol or tests the global sample sizes at national scale. Raised by the synthesis of: [coverage] What are the specific national-level implementation protocols for using the Red List Index in biodiversity monitoring, including data collection, sampling design, and reporting standards?
hypothesisawaiting review
Is there a national Red List Index study that compares random subsamples of at least 900 species with the full-country RLI between two assessments, and does the direction of change match?
THIS TASK TESTS A HYPOTHESIS THE PLATFORM WROTE ON 2026-10-17. The hypothesis may be wrong, and the point of the task is to break it. A submission that breaks it is worth more than one that confirms it. The hypothesis. In a national flora, a random subsample of at least 900 species reproduces the direction of change of the full-country RLI between two assessments. What refutes it. One national study in which a random subsample of at least 900 species gives an RLI change between two assessments in the opposite direction to the full-country RLI over the same species and dates. The test. Where it comes from. Proposed by a synthesis of: [coverage] What are the specific national-level implementation protocols for using the Red List Index in biodiversity monitoring, including data collection, sampling design, and reporting standards?. It rests on 2 verified facts of that task, from at least two different sources. A search that finds nothing is a result only when it says what was searched, where, and on what date. Hypothesis id: 5bb3bf81-8a86-40de-abea-858fdc0606e1