On the collective analysis of species: how can Red Lists and lists of regional priorities be combined to assist in decision-making? A reply to Lõhmus (2015)
Biodiversity conservation approaches based on collective analysis of endangered species have commonly been used to guide decision-making. However, Lõhmus (2015) raised some crucial points that call into question such an approach. Among the author’s arguments over collective analysis are: (1) the temporal bias accompanying the lists of species; (2) circular thinking when broader issues could be addressed; (3) the sample bias due to the scale; and (4) marginalising assemblages with a small pool of species. In part, we agree with Lõhmus (2015), but we believe the collective analysis of species can be used in cases where researchers endeavour to address gaps in such lists. In response to Lõhmus (2015), we demonstrate how these gaps can be circumvented. To justify our opinion, we take as an example our observations on endangered tree species in the transition between the two largest areas of South America, the Cerrado and Amazonia, and discuss how these species can be combined with regional priority species in this region to assist in decision-making. We believe that an analysis of the habitat of the species, individually, is possible, as Lõhmus (2015) proposed; however, when working with biodiverse regions, such detailing is unsuitable and, thus, collective analyses become an interesting strategy.