Prioritising natural heritage: Evaluating distribution, threats, and conservation needs of species recovery targets in Vietnam

Prioritising natural heritage: Evaluating distribution, threats, and conservation needs of species recovery targets in Vietnam | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Prioritising natural heritage: Evaluating distribution, threats, and conservation needs of species recovery targets in Vietnam Russell J. Gray, Eva Gazagne, Andrew Tilker, Thong Van Pham, Bao Tran Quang This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5747485/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 29 Sep, 2025 Read the published version in Biodiversity and Conservation → Version 1 posted 8 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Our study addresses the urgent need to identify and prioritise threatened species in Vietnam for conservation and recovery. With a focus on Vulnerable, Endangered, and Critically Endangered species with high levels of endemicity (> 50% of their global range occurs in Vietnam), we conducted a comprehensive analysis of key species for conservation prioritisation, IUCN Green Status Assessment, and recovery strategies within the Vietnamese landscape. By integrating data on provincial hotspots and protected areas as key conservation sites, we established a robust framework to assess key species richness, threats, and conservation needs. We identified 203 key species across 12 taxonomic classes, establishing a viable list of wildlife recovery priorities. Habitat loss and exploitation were identified as primary threats to key species; alarmingly, only 38% of these key species had > 50% of their range within protected areas, emphasizing urgent conservation needs that extend beyond current protected area boundaries. Our findings hold significance for guiding conservation strategies, resource allocation, and policy decisions in relation to Vietnam's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) and inform measurable species prioritisation goals under Target 4 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). By pinpointing species and regions that require immediate attention, our study provides essential guidance for policymakers, conservationists, and resource managers/donors. Acting on these insights will enhance the effectiveness of conservation efforts and ensure the long-term sustainability of wildlife as a vital natural heritage. Conservation prioritisation Threatened species Recovery Vietnam Biodiversity Protected areas Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 INTRODUCTION Vietnam is recognized as a biodiversity hotspot, distinguished by its vast and varied ecosystems that span 14 Global Terrestrial Ecoregions (Dinerstein et al., 2017 ; Myers et al., 2000 ; Trod et al., 2020 ). The country’s rich biodiversity is a consequence of its unique geographic boundary, encompassing a variety of ecosystems along its latitude gradient, and evolutionary history, resulting in significant areas of endemism (Sterling & Hurley, 2005 ). Prominent examples include the extensive limestone karst formations and the northern and central Annamite mountains, which are critical habitats for many species that are found nowhere else on Earth (Krupnick & Kress, 2003 ; Sterling et al., 2006 ; Trod et al., 2020 ). Despite its high levels of species richness and endemism, Vietnam's biodiversity is under severe and continuous threat. Rapid economic development, which has driven a significant decline in poverty rates from 60% in 1993 to 10% in 2016, has also led to extensive habitat loss and environmental degradation (Trod et al., 2020 ). Concurrently, the globalization of markets and growth of the middle class in Southeast Asia and China have escalated the demand for wildlife products, fueling a pervasive and unsustainable trade in wildlife (Sandalj et al., 2016 ; Van Song, 2008 ; Nijman, 2010 ; Brown, 2017 ). This demand extends beyond consumable wildlife products to include the pet trade, often resulting in the displacement of species from their natural habitats (Lockwood et al., 2019 ). Vietnam has become a significant hub for both local consumption and international export of wildlife products (Sandalj et al., 2016 ; Van Song, 2008 ). The expansion of road networks into remote areas and the use of wire snares have dramatically increased hunting pressures, leading to widespread defaunation across both protected and unprotected areas (Gray et al., 2018 ; Harrison et al., 2016 ; Wilkie et al., 2011 ). The use of wire snares is especially prevalent across the country, with millions of snares estimated to occur within its protected areas (Gray & Belecky, 2020 ). The devastating impacts of these pressures are evident in the recent extirpation of iconic species such as the Javan rhinoceros ( Rhinoceros sondaicus annamiticus ) and probable extirpation of the tiger ( Panthera tigris corbetti ), with Critically Endangered species like the saola ( Pseudoryx nghetinhensis ), large-antlered muntjac ( Muntiacus vuquangensis ), and Yangtze giant softshell turtle ( Rafetus swinhoei ) also facing imminent extinction (Brook et al., 2014 ; Johnson et al., 2016 ; Gray et al., 2018 ; Timmins et al, 2016 ; Timmins et al, 2020 ). In response to these challenges, the Vietnamese government has developed and updated its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), first proposed in 2013 and subsequently revised in 2022. This comprehensive framework aims to safeguard the nation’s biodiversity at multiple levels—from genetic to landscape scales, and focusing on habitat connectivity and restoration (. The updated NBSAP sets ambitious targets, including zero extinctions, the preservation of over 100,000 genetic resources, and improved conservation status for rare, and migratory species. Additionally, it seeks to enhance the overall effectiveness of conservation efforts for endangered species through increased protection and management measures (Le and Trinh, 2022 ). Despite these plans, there remain significant challenges in implementation due to issues such as inadequate funding, lack of coordination, insufficient execution of conservation actions, and a critical lack of direction regarding priority localities, landscapes, and species to begin these efforts. These shortcomings have resulted in limited progress towards achieving the goals set out in the national strategies (Le and Trinh, 2022 ). The objective of this study was to support the ongoing efforts to update and provide direction for Vietnam's NBSAP and to contribute to the formulation of measurable goals under Target 4 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Target 4 emphasizes preventing extinctions, reducing extinction risk, and promoting the recovery of threatened species. Our analysis therefore focuses on identifying threatened (Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered) species within Vietnam that are at immediate risk of global extinction without targeted conservation efforts; we prioritize species with considerable endemicity (more than 50% of their global range within the country), considering them as "key species" for targeted conservation efforts and assessment under the IUCN Green Status of Species. We further examine their spatial distributions, assess associated threats, and proposed conservation needs. Additionally, we aim to identify critical provinces and protected areas as focal points for enhancing conservation efforts and optimizing resource allocation. This approach is intended to ensure that Vietnam’s conservation strategies are both effective and sustainable in the long term. Moreover, the methodology developed in this study can be adapted and applied to other countries or regions facing similar biodiversity conservation challenges, providing a versatile framework to plan species recovery and allocate limited conservation resources more efficiently. METHODS Data acquisition We used two primary open-source datasets from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and Protected Planet for this study (Table 1 ). All initial threatened species data were collected from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2023) by using the advanced query function and the following criteria: Land Regions = Viet Nam; Red List Category = VU - Vulnerable, EN - Endangered, CR - Critically Endangered; and Taxonomy = Kingdom - Animalia. The query Search Summary and Range data - Polygons (SHP) were then downloaded. The raw dataset contained a total of 629 species occurring in the country. Protected areas of Vietnam were accessed through the Protected Planet database (UNEP-WCMC, 2024 ) via the wdpar package in R (Hanson, 2022 ). The initial import of data was cleaned using the wdpa_clean function, which removes UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, corrects projection issues, and validates the polygons. We further removed duplicate protected areas, RAMSAR, World Heritage Sites, and Cultural/Historic sites that overlapped with existing National Parks and Nature Reserves. Since the focus of this study was inland and terrestrial species, we omitted all Marine Protected Areas. The final dataset contained 129 National Parks (NP) and Nature Reserves (NR). It should be noted that these protected area data were last updated in 2015 for Vietnam and some protected area boundaries have been modified and others established since this time. However, the vast majority of the shapefiles are correct and accounted for within the Protected Planet dataset. Table 1 Data sources used in the analysis of threatened species with high levels of endemicity in Vietnam, their threats, and conservation needs. Data Description Use Citation IUCN Red List csv data Spreadsheet data for Species taxonomy, status, threats, and conservation needs. Associated data was joined by species name to their distribution shapefiles for geospatial analyses, and statistical analyses IUCN (2023) IUCN Red List spatial data Species range data (SHP) polygons Joined with IUCN Redlist csv data for geospatial analyses and overlapping with protected area data IUCN (2023) Protected areas of Vietnam Protected area (SHP) polygons Overlap analysis with species range shapefiles, threat, and conservation needs data to inform priority sites UNEP-WCMC ( 2024 ). Data cleaning & Processing Species endemicity data subset All species range polygons were first masked to Vietnam’s country boundaries, and the area in square kilometres was calculated for both the total range and the subset overlapping with Vietnam. The percentage of each species’ global range within Vietnam was then computed by dividing the Vietnam administrative boundary area by the total range polygon area. Species whose ranges constituted less than 50% of their overall distribution within Vietnam (< 0.5) were subsequently excluded from the dataset. This process resulted in a final dataset comprising 203 threatened species predominantly endemic to Vietnam. Threat and conservation needs data Threats and conservation needs were first aggregated into high-level typologies (8 categories each), condensing the more detailed IUCN Red List-defined categories from the raw data (Table 2 ). Some species were associated with multiple threat categories, while others had only one. Initially, 142 species (75% of the dataset) were assigned conservation needs categories, which were further refined by excluding geographic-specific categories such as “Sub-national level”, “National Level”, and “Global”. After this refinement, relevant conservation needs data remained for 146 species (72% of the dataset). Species without any associated conservation needs were excluded from subsequent geospatial analyses aimed at addressing specific conservation needs. Once cleaned, the threat and conservation need data were joined to the range data by shared species name. Subsets were then created for each threat and conservation category to facilitate later geospatial analytics, ensuring that species lacking specific categories were automatically filtered out from the analysis. Table 2 Threats and Conservation Needs defined by the IUCN Red List assessment criteria grouped into simplified categories. Simplified Category IUCN Categories Threats Habitat Alteration and Agriculture Agro-industry farming; Agro-industry grazing, ranching, or farming; Habitat shifting & alteration; Industrial aquaculture; Mining & quarrying; Other ecosystem modifications; Recreational activities; Shifting agriculture; Small-holder farming; Small-holder grazing, ranching, or farming; Small-holder plantations Water exploitation Abstraction of surface water (domestic use); Abstraction of surface water (unknown use); Abstraction of surface water (agricultural use); Small dams; Large dams; Dams (size unknown) Infrastructure/Development Roads & railroads; Tourism & recreation areas; Utility & service lines; War, civil unrest & military exercises; Work & other activities; Commercial & industrial areas; Renewable energy; Roads & railroads Pollution Garbage & solid waste; Herbicides and pesticides; Nutrient loads; Oil spills; Sewage; Run-off; Seepage from mining Climate Change Increase in fire frequency/intensity Exploitation Intentional use (species is the target); Intentional use: (large scale) [harvest]; Intentional use: (subsistence/small scale) [harvest]; Persecution/control; Unintentional effects (species is not the target); Unintentional effects: (large scale) [harvest]; Unintentional effects: (subsistence/small scale) [harvest] Unknown Motivation Unknown/Unrecorded; Scale Unknown/Unrecorded; Type Unknown/Unrecorded Erosion Soil erosion, sedimentation Conservation Needs Education, Awareness & Training Awareness & communications, Training, Formal education Habitat Restoration Habitat & natural process restoration Harvest/Trade Management Harvest management, Trade management Invasive Species Mitigation Invasive/problematic species control Livelihood Development Linked enterprises & livelihood alternatives, Conservation payments Policies and Regulations Policies and regulations Site Protection Site/area protection, Resource & habitat protection, Site/area management Species Recovery Species recovery, Captive breeding/artificial propagation, Reintroduction Geospatial Analysis All analyses were conducted in R statistical software (R Core Team, 2023 ). We used tidyverse for data manipulation (v1.3.0; Wickham et al., 2019 ); raster, terra , and sf packages were used for geospatial analysis (Hijmans, 2024a , b ; Pebesma and Bivand, 2023 ); ggplot2 and ggspatial packages were used for plotting static maps (Dunnington, 2023 ; Wickham, 2016 ). We assessed average values of cells across the provincial level and concentrated further to average across protected areas to identify provincial and protected area hotspots. Therefore, highest averages in protected areas may not reflect the highest averages at a provincial level, since the coverage is smaller. This enables a highlight both of fine-scale and large scale importance. High-endemicity threatened species hotspots We first mapped high-endemicity threatened-species hotspots following data cleaning, retaining only threatened species > 50% of their global range in Vietnam. A multipolygon shapefile containing all species was processed using a loop function. Each species’ range polygon was rasterized at a 1 km x 1 km resolution, with grid cells inside the range counted as 1 and those outside as NA; all NA cells were then removed. Successive iterations rasterized each species and overlaid it on previous rasters, summing overlapping areas. The final raster represented cumulative species overlaps. Provincial and protected area averages were calculated from these rasters to identify areas of conservation interest. Threats and conservation needs hotspots Rasterization of category subsets followed a similar process to the threatened-species hotspot analysis, generating separate rasters for each of the eight threats and conservation need categories. Cell counts were centred and converted to percentage values (0-100) to indicate intensity of threats and conservation needs across spatial scales. Provincial and protected area averages were calculated for each category to pinpoint priority areas. Key Endemic Species & Protected Areas Species range polygons were overlapped with Vietnam’s protected area polygons to assess overlap percentages. Key species to prioritize within existing protected areas were identified as those where more than 50% of their global range occurs within Vietnam’s protected areas, indicating the immediate ability to address their conservation and restoration needs. However, given that a significant portion of key species ranges fell outside protected areas, we mapped the distribution and richness of unprotected species with less than 50% of their range within protected areas. This analysis categorized species in low, medium, and high richness categories to highlight geographical patterns and identify areas where establishing future protected areas could be prioritized. Additionally, we created a subset for the highest richness category (> 10 species) and calculated the total area within each encompassing Vietnamese province to set clear provincial-level priorities for establishing more protected areas. Statistical Analyses Summary statistics for species range, IUCN Red List status, threats, and conservation needs were calculated as proportions of the class taxonomic level. We reported the number of species in each class affected by the various threat categories, and the number of species which fell under various conservation needs categories. Where necessary, we used threshold values of > 50% to highlight species and protected areas of importance. RESULTS Highly-endemicity threatened species hotspots Among the 629 threatened animal species assessed by the IUCN Red List with ranges intersecting Vietnam, 203 species (32%) were identified as highly-endemic, with > 50% of their global range occurring primarily within Vietnam (Fig. 1 . A ). Three classes – Amphibia, Insecta and Reptilia – exhibited the highest numbers of highly-endemic species in Vietnam (56, 42, and 41 species, respectively), while Collembola, Arachnida, Gastropoda, and Diplopoda had the fewest (3, 2, 2, and 1 species, respectively). Notably, class Reptilia had the highest number of Critically Endangered key species (n = 9), whereas Amphibia had the most Endangered species (n = 35) and Vulnerable species (n = 21) (Fig. 1 . B ). The predominant threat category criteria (defined by IUCN Red List assessment criteria A-E) across taxa was B (restricted range; 64%), although specific threat criteria varied. For Actinopterygii (inland freshwater fish), Bivalvia, and Mammalia, the most frequent threat criteria was A (population reduction; 40%, 62%, and 62% respectively); for Amphibia (98%), Arachnida (100%), Aves (50%), Collembola (67%), Insecta (40%), and Reptilia (48%) the most frequent criteria was B (restricted range); for Diplopoda (myriapods) and Malacostraca (inland crustaceans), the most frequent criteria was D (restricted populations, 100% and 86% respectively). Key species had distributions across Vietnam with a complete absence in most southern provinces (Fig. 1 . C ). The highest richness (> 20 species) was shown to occur in Bac Kan and Cao Bang provinces (north), Kon Tum and Quang Nam provinces (central), and Dak Lak, Lam Dong, and Khanh Hoa provinces (south). Key Species and Site Protection Of the identified key endemic species,175 out of 203 (86%) had ranges within protected areas of Vietnam. However, only 37 out of these 175 (38%) had more than 50% of their range within protected areas (Table 3 ). Specifically, only 21 out of 56 amphibian species (34%), 1 out of 10 bird species (10%), 3 out of 42 insects species (7%), 2 out of 13 mammal species (15%), and 10 out of 41 reptile species (24%) had the majority of their endemic range within Vietnam’s protected areas. There were no species of fish (Actinoptergyii), arachnid (Arachnida), bivalves (Bivalvia), springtails (Collembola), myriapods (Diplopoda), snails (Gastropoda), or crustaceans (Malacostraca) with the majority of their range occurring in protected areas. Table 3 Percentage of species with > 50% (majority) of their distribution occurring in Protected Areas (PA) in Vietnam (VNM) Class Species Red List Category Area in VNM (km 2 ) Area in PA (km 2 ) % Protected AMPHIBIA Kalophrynus honbaensis Vulnerable 11.31 11.31 100 Leptobrachella botsfordi Critically Endangered 15.21 15.21 100 Leptobrachella rowleyae Critically Endangered 24.96 24.96 100 Leptobrachella pallida Endangered 57.63 57.21 99.28 Raorchestes gryllus Vulnerable 2226.27 2129.17 95.64 Leptobrachella applebyi Endangered 144.77 137.77 95.16 Rhacophorus helenae Endangered 718.36 642.3 89.41 Megophrys gerti Endangered 2271.75 1760.4 77.49 Kurixalus viridescens Endangered 446.97 323.48 72.37 Gracixalus lumarius Endangered 154.17 109.8 71.22 Nanohyla pulchella Endangered 1303.79 830.6 63.71 Theloderma nebulosum Endangered 710.47 450.68 63.43 Leptobrachella ardens Endangered 258.98 163.95 63.31 Philautus catbaensis Endangered 139.21 86 61.78 Leptobrachella bidoupensis Critically Endangered 24.66 15.11 61.26 Leptobrachella firthi Endangered 1683.19 1009.11 59.95 Leptobrachium ngoclinhense Endangered 276.96 162.51 58.68 Rhacophorus calcaneus Endangered 2085.44 1115.7 53.5 Nanohyla arboricola Vulnerable 2860.61 1493.65 52.21 Leptobrachella maculosa Endangered 173.44 88.25 50.88 Hylarana montivaga Endangered 1848.28 932.93 50.48 AVES Trochalopteron yersini Endangered 721.97 458.39 63.49 INSECTA Gynacantha cattienensis Endangered 43.01 30.98 72.03 Chlorogomphus canhvang Endangered 421.57 253.74 60.19 Euphaea cyanopogon Endangered 569.32 312.36 54.87 MAMMALIA Trachypithecus poliocephalus Critically Endangered 100.56 85.69 85.22 Murina harpioloides Endangered 640.68 401.97 62.74 REPTILIA Leiolepis ngovantrii Vulnerable 117.49 117.49 100 Cyrtodactylus takouensis Critically Endangered 13.61 13.18 96.82 Goniurosaurus huuliensis Critically Endangered 29.8 26.19 87.88 Gekko takouensis Vulnerable 20.1 17.55 87.29 Cyrtodactylus phuquocensis Endangered 318.46 258.52 81.18 Cyrtodactylus caovansungi Endangered 339.52 250.37 73.74 Goniurosaurus catbaensis Endangered 152.19 98.44 64.68 Cyrtodactylus badenensis Vulnerable 16.93 10.78 63.69 Cyrtodactylus thuongae Vulnerable 20.04 12.09 60.33 Cyrtodactylus nigriocularis Critically Endangered 15.13 9.01 59.53 We found that 166 out of 203 species (82%) fall into each of three delineations of unprotected key species distributions (Fig. 2 . A ). Notably, there appear to be unprotected connection points of key species range between protected areas in south central, central, and northern regions of Vietnam (Fig. 2 . B ). Lam Dong, Gia Lai, and Kon Tum are the provinces encompassing the highest richness categories (Fig. 2 . C. ). The results show the distribution of various classes across three levels of abundance: low (1–5 species overlap), medium (5–10 species overlap), and high (> 10 species overlap). In Actinopterygii, the distribution is equal across all levels (33.3%). Amphibia has a similar distribution pattern with 31.5% low, 37.1% medium, and 31.5% high. In Aves, medium and high levels each have 36%, with low at 28%. For Bivalvia, the medium and high levels are slightly higher (34.2%) than the low level (31.6%). Arachnida and Collembola are exclusively in the low level (100%). Diplopoda has only low level (100%). Gastropods are equally split between low and medium (50%). Insecta shows a more even spread with 31.3% low, 36.5% medium, and 32.3% high. Malacostraca has the highest percentage in the low level (46.2%), followed by medium (30.8%) and high (23.1%). Mammalia is evenly distributed across all levels (33.3%). Reptilia shows a higher percentage in the low level (44.1%), followed by medium (30.9%) and high (25%). Threats The threats to key species in Vietnam were diverse, with habitat alteration and agricultural activities (i.e., habitat loss) (32%) and exploitation (25%) being the most severe. These were followed by “unknown” threats (17%), infrastructure and development (16%), pollution (4%), climate change (2%), erosion (2%), and water exploitation (2%) (Fig. 2 ). At the class taxonomic level, significant variations in major threats were observed. For Actinopterygii (inland freshwater fishes), infrastructure and development were the primary threats (26%). For Gastropods, both erosion and infrastructure and development were equally the largest threats (29%). Insecta faced largely unknown threats (52%). More notably, habitat alteration and agriculture were the most severe threats for Amphibia (39%), Arachnida (50%), Aves (39%), Bivalvia (38%), Collembola (66%), Diplopoda (50%), Malacostraca (40%), Mammalia (32%), and Reptilia (41%). Finally, exploitation was also a major threat next to habitat alteration for most classes except for Arachnida, Collembola, and Diplopoda. In terms of geospatial areas of interest, the highest threat of climate change on key species was concentrated in a small area, mostly in Lao Cai Province (12% avg. intensity), and more specifically in Hoang Lien National Park (49% avg. intensity). Development threats were most prominent in Quang Nam (49% avg. intensity), and Kon Tum (46% avg. intensity), and more specifically in Ngoc Linh Nature Reserve (77%). Erosion threats were highest in Quang Ngai and Da Nang provinces (52%-55% avg. intensity), but with a more localized threat in Bach Ma National Park of Thua Thien Hue (68% avg. intensity). Wildlife exploitation was widespread, but highest in Lam Dong (45% avg. intensity), with high concentrations of key species in Bidoup-Nui Ba National Park (69% avg. intensity). Habitat alteration and agricultural threats were also prominent in key species of Lam Dong province (47% avg. intensity), again highest in Bidoup-Nui Ba (73% avg. intensity). Pollution threats were most prominent in Dong Nai province (40% avg. intensity however, concentrations of key species affected by pollution were most prominent in Huu Lien Nature Reserve of Lang Son province (64% avg. intensity). Unknown threats, mainly affecting insects, spanned across central and northern Vietnam, however the highest concentrations of key species decline due to unknown threats were in Kon Tum province (44% avg. intensity) and Xuan Son National Park of Phu Tho province (68% avg. intensity). Finally, water exploitation threats were widespread, but primarily affecting Da Nang (74% avg. intensity), particularly in Ba Na - Nui Chua Nature Reserve (95% avg. intensity). Conservation Needs The most critical conservation needs for key species across Vietnam were strengthened site protection (59%), education and awareness (13%), harvest and trade management (11%), species recovery (7%), targeted policy and regulations (4%), habitat restoration (3%), livelihood development (2.6%), and invasive species mitigation (0.4%). At the class taxonomic level (Fig. 3 . A ), the predominant conservation action needed for Actinopterygii (55%), Amphibia (89%), Arachnida (66%), Aves (56%), Bivalvia (64%), Collembola (60%), Diplopoda (100%), Gastropoda (100%), Insecta (75%), Malacostracta (60%), and Reptilia (48%) was site protection. For Mammalia, the primary conservation needs were equally divided between site protection (27%) and education, awareness, and training (27%). On a geospatial scale (Fig. 3 . B ), Kon Tum and Lam Dong exhibited the highest need for Education, Awareness, and Training (avg. intensity = 60% for both), although more concentrated in Ngoc Linh Nature Reserve and Kon Ka Kinh National Park of Gia Lai province (avg. intensity = 86% for both). Habitat restoration needs were concentrated in Da Nang (avg. intensity = 99%), with Son Tra peninsula, Ngu Hanh Son, and Cu Lao Cham (Quang Nam) showing the highest restoration needs (avg. intensity = 100%). Harvest and trade management needs were more prevalent in Lam Dong (avg. intensity = 61%), though more finely concentrated in Kon Chu Rang of Gia Lai province (avg. intensity = 82%). Invasive species management needs were also most significant across Da Nang (avg. intensity = 98%), affecting 100% of key species in the Son Tra peninsula, Ngu Hanh Son, and Cu Lao Cham protected areas (avg. intensity = 100%). Livelihood development needs were also prominent in Da Nang (avg. intensity = 57%), with concentrated areas in Ba Na - Nui Chua (Da Nang), and Krong Trai (Phu Yen) protected areas as well as specifically in Nui Thanh (Quang Nam) (avg. intensity = 64%, 58%, and 52%, respectively). Policy and regulation development was most needed by key species in Thai Nguyen province (avg. intensity = 60%), with highest intensity observed at smaller scales, such as in Ke Go Nature Reserve of Ha Tinh province (avg. intensity = 79%). Species recovery priorities were highest in Lam Dong province (avg. intensity = 46%), particularly in Bidoup-Nui Ba National Park (avg. intensity = 71%). Finally, site protection was required for the majority of key species in Thua Thien Hue province (avg. intensity = 64%) overall, but with more focused need in Kon Chu Rang Nature Reserve (Gia Lai) (avg. intensity = 80%). DISCUSSION The Importance of Highly Endemic Species in Conservation As a result of its rich tropical biodiversity and latitudinal gradient of ecoregions, Vietnam encompasses highly endemic species, which offers a unique opportunity for effective, conservation efforts to safeguard the country’s unique natural heritage. Vietnam’s highly-endemic species are particularly vulnerable to extinction due to their limited ranges and susceptibility to local threats. Prioritizing these species for national conservation actions is essential to prevent their global extinction. Targeting endemic species for conservation is both strategic and practical, as national policies can address their needs directly without the complexities of international coordination. For example, key species primarily found within protected areas (see Table 3 ) can benefit greatly from focused conservation efforts due to existing legal protections and available resources allocated to the natural spaces in which they occur. Our study identified 203 threatened key species predominantly found within Vietnam, across 12 taxonomic classes. Amphibians, insects, and reptiles were the most threatened groups, with 56, 42, and 41 key species, respectively. Notably, only 38% of these key species inhabit protected areas, highlighting the urgent need for conservation measures in unprotected habitats. The primary threats include habitat alteration due to agricultural expansion and direct wildlife exploitation. Thus, site protection and effective management of harvest and trade are critical conservation actions. The rapid conversion of landscapes for agriculture and insufficient regulation and enforcement of wildlife exploitation exacerbates these issues (Phan et al., 2021 ; Van Song, 2003; World Bank, 2008 ; Wyatt and Cao, 2015 ). Priority Areas for Conservation in Vietnam Conservation efforts in Vietnam should focus on regions with high concentrations of key species and threats, such as the Lâm Viên Plateau and central provinces like Da Nang, Thua Thien Hue, and Quang Nam. Protected areas, including Bach Ma, Ngoc Linh (Quang Nam), and Ba Na - Nui Chua, are critical as they face multiple threats and require urgent conservation action. High levels of endemicity in Bac Kan and Lam Dong provinces, particularly in Bidoup-Nui Ba National Park and Nam Xuan Lac Species Habitat Conservation Area (SHCA), underscore the importance of these sites in safeguarding Vietnam's unique species. Existing studies have already highlighted the significance of these regions (Stattersfield et al., 1998 ; Bain and Hurley, 2011 ; Baltzer et al., 2001 ; Sterling et al., 2006 ). The patterns of abundance in key species with less than 50% of their range in protected areas reflect potential vulnerabilities to conservation efforts. Classes such as Arachnida, Collembola, and Diplopoda show complete confinement to low abundance areas, suggesting limited distribution and potentially higher risk if these small ranges fall outside protected zones. Conversely, classes like Actinopterygii, Amphibia, Mammalia, and Bivalvia display an even distribution across all abundance levels, indicating that while parts of their ranges might overlap with protected areas, significant portions do not, potentially leaving a considerable number of species unprotected. The relatively higher abundance in medium and high levels for some classes (e.g., Insecta and Aves) implies that these species might still be vulnerable to habitat loss and other anthropogenic pressures outside protected areas. Our findings highlight the need for expanding protected areas or enhancing connectivity between them to encompass a greater range of habitats and species distributions, thereby improving the effectiveness of conservation strategies and reducing extinction risks. Vietnam's varied landscapes, including the Annamite mountain in central and northern Vietnam, encompass considerably high levels of endemism due to their unique ecological conditions and historical climatic and geological barriers. Isolated islands like Con Dao and Cat Ba also contribute to this endemism by providing environments where species have evolved in isolation. Ongoing surveys are likely to reveal more endemic species, many of which remain Data Deficient or undescribed (Nesi et al., 2023 ; Sterling et al., 2006 ). This makes the discovery (through genetic delineation as well as observation) and ecological study of these species a critical component of Vietnam's conservation strategy. Study Caveats & Limitations Our study utilises the IUCN Red List assessment system to identify species and sites for conservation action, a method that is locally relevant and adaptable to various administrative boundaries (Rodrigues et al., 2006 ). However, while the IUCN Red List is a valuable tool for assessing extinction risks and recommending conservation actions, it has limitations. The spatial data used may not accurately reflect species distribution, especially for cryptic or rare taxa. Moreover, given high levels of exploitation and defaunation in Vietnamese forests (Tilker et al, 2019 ) – including protected areas – some range maps are likely to be overly generous in their depiction of current species ranges in Vietnam; this is likely to be especially true for large mammals and birds whose populations have declined precipitously across the country as a result of the so-called “snaring crisis” in Vietnam (Gray et al, 2021 ; Tilker et al, 2024). The wider issue around spatial data from the Red List This is compounded by issues like sampling bias and varying quality of data across different regions and taxonomic groups (Butchart et al., 2009; de Castro et al., 2014; Garner et al., 2020 ; Schmidt et al., 2023 ; Marsh et al., 2023 ). Nonetheless, the Red List remains the international standard for measuring and adapting species threat levels. For amphibians and reptiles, many species presumed to be micro-endemics might have broader distributions that remain undocumented or Data Deficient due to insufficient research (Stenger, et al. 2023 ). Moreover, areas with high endemism like the coastal dry forests near Nha Trang may not appear in our analysis due to a lack of biodiversity surveys. These gaps highlight the need for continuous biodiversity monitoring and repeated assessments every 5–10 years as Red List data is updated. These potential gaps in range data and variability of taxonomic representation underscore the importance of basic biodiversity inventory surveys in Vietnam, particularly for under-studied taxa such as invertebrates. One additional significant observation is the complete absence of key species ranges in the 13 southern provinces of Vietnam. This could be due to data gaps, limitations in IUCN range maps, or to unique ecological characteristics of the Tonle Sap peat and freshwater swamp forest ecoregion, which is primarily located in Cambodia (Dinerstein et al., 2017 ). Thus, endemic species in the Mekong watershed are more likely to have most of their range encompassed by Cambodia rather than Vietnam. With all of these factors considered, including the fact that there may be some missing protected areas from the Protected Planet database as Vietnam was last updated in 2015, and given the fact that IUCN range shapefiles continue to update with knowledge of species distributions and some species may have over-optimistic ranges (inherent Type I errors), we believe the strength in our analyses and results are in the fact that they can be automated through the use of the Protected Planet and IUCN Red List databases and continually improved with updates to the databases themselves. This allows for a more standardized method of targeted analysis of highly endemic species priorities at a national scale for any country. Recommendations for Wildlife Recovery Prioritization in Vietnam Aligning with Vietnam's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) the “National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan to 2030 with a vision to 2050” and the Global Species Action Plan (GSAP) under the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) Target 4, our study underscore the importance of preserving Vietnam's natural heritage, particularly its highly-endemic species. Our findings provide critical insights into which species require conservation efforts, where these efforts should be targeted, and what specific conservation activities should be prioritized. The NBSAPs play a critical role in guiding national conservation priorities and actions, which are essential for meeting global biodiversity targets set by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). However, these strategies require expert input to enhance their effectiveness in spatial planning and species prioritization. Our analysis offers specific metrics to quantity and direct conservation efforts, providing guidance for national strategies. We further recommend for these key species to be consider for listing in wildlife conservation-related policies (e.g. Decree 06/2019/ND-CP and Decree 84/2021/ND-CP) as an additional category to “rare and precious species” called Natural Heritage Species (Loài Di sản Thiên nhiên; LDS) to add emphasis of their national conservation importance and protect them from any and all forms of over-exploitation to maintain their continuity in Vietnam. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other conservation entities should focus on preserving species with stable populations and restoring those experiencing declines. Structured and strategic conservation planning is essential, especially in regions with minimal NGO presence. Biodiversity-rich areas such as the central and southern Annamites and the Langbian Plateau require targeted efforts to ensure effective species protection and habitat management. Our analyses suggest that population recovery can benefit significantly from effective site protection and anti-poaching efforts. In some cases, reintroduction or population supplementation from ex-situ populations established through conservation breeding programs may be necessary. Our analysis also highlights the potential for protected area planning in Vietnam, and may inform considerations of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) for the country. The current gap in protected area coverage and the opportunistic, non-systematic approach to protected area establishment call for a more strategic framework. A major component of Vietnam’s current NBSAP is to protect and restore ecosystems, enhancing their integrity and connectivity. By using spatial analyses like ours, central ministries involved in protected area and biodiversity corridor planning can identify critical areas for expansion and prioritise the connectivity of under-represented ecosystems, such as karst habitats, dry coastal forest ecosystem in the south, and other areas with an abundance of unprotected endemic wildlife. Furthermore, the species identified in our study serve as a critical starting point for prioritising IUCN Green Status assessments in Vietnam. Given their high levels of endemism and significant conservation needs, these species are prime candidates for Green Status evaluations, which go beyond the traditional focus on extinction risk to include metrics of recovery and conservation success (Akçakaya et al, 2018 ). The IUCN Green Status of Species provides a scoring system that assesses a species' current state, historical decline, and the impact of past and present conservation actions on its recovery. It quantifies a species' recovery potential through four metrics: Species Recovery Score, Conservation Legacy Score, Conservation Gain Score, and Recovery Potential Score. Unlike traditional Red List assessments focused solely on extinction risk, the Green Status establishes a score of recovery and conservation success (Grace et al. 2021 ). Implementing these assessments will enhance the quality of geospatial analysis, establishing more precise and comprehensive targets for both current and future species distributions and conservation needs. CONCLUSION Vietnam's rich biodiversity, especially its high levels of endemism, provides a critical focus for national conservation efforts. Our study identified 203 threatened key species with high endemicity in Vietnam, emphasising the need for urgent conservation actions, particularly in regions with significant biodiversity but lacking adequate protection. Prioritising endemic species is essential to prevent their global extinction, and our findings highlight the necessity for more strategic conservation planning. This includes extending protected areas to cover underrepresented ecosystems and high-biodiversity regions like the Lâm Viên Plateau and central provinces. Such efforts will safeguard critical habitats and address threats such as habitat alteration and wildlife exploitation, aligning conservation efforts with Vietnam’s NBSAP and developmental goals. Integrating IUCN Green Status assessments into Vietnam’s conservation framework will add a beneficial dimension to understanding and enhancing species recovery and resilience. The Green Status's scoring system evaluates not only extinction risk but also the success of conservation actions and potential for future recovery. Our study offers a robust method for setting detailed geospatial targets for current and potential species distributions and addressing their conservation needs. By aligning with the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) and the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), Vietnam can develop more precise and effective strategies, ensuring the long-term sustainability and resilience of its unique biodiversity. The methodologies and insights from this research can serve as a model for other countries seeking to enhance their own conservation efforts, promoting global biodiversity and sustainability. Declarations CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors declare no competing interests FUNDING SOURCES This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors Author Contribution RJG conceptualized the study, collected and analysed the data, and made the figures; RJG, EG, PVT, LTB, and AT conducted literature review, wrote the first draft, and provided edits and commentary. Acknowledgement We would like to thank Jennifer Luedtke Swandby for providing comments and recommendations regarding Vietnam’s NBSAP and the GBF. DATA AVAILABILITY All data generated during this study are fully available without restriction. The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article and its supplementary materials. Any additional data files related to this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. References Akçakaya, H.R., Bennett, E.L., Brooks, T.M., Grace, M.K., Heath, A., Hedges, S., Hilton‐Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Keith, D.A., Long, B. Mallon, D., Meijaard, E., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Rodriguez, J.P., Stephenson, P.J., Stuart, S.N., & Young, R. P. (2018). Quantifying species recovery and conservation success to develop an IUCN Green List of Species. Conservation Biology , 32 (5), 1128-1138. Bain, R. H., & Hurley, M. M. (2011). A biogeographic synthesis of the amphibians and reptiles of Indochina. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 2011(360), 1-138. DOI: 10.1206/360.1 Baltzer, M., N.T. Dao, and R.G. Shore. 2001. Towards a vision of biodiversity conservation in the forests for the lower Mekong ecoregion complex. Vol. 1: Main Report. Hanoi: WWF Indochina, 109 pp. Belecky, M. & Gray, T.N.E. (2020). Silence of the Snares: Southeast Asia’s Snaring Crisis, WWF International. Borgelt, J., Dorber, M., Høiberg, M. A., & Verones, F. (2022). More than half of data deficient species predicted to be threatened by extinction. Communications Biology, 5(1), 679. DOI: 10.1038/s42003-022-03706-y Brook, S. M., Dudley, N., Mahood, S. P., Polet, G., Williams, A. C., Duckworth, J. W., ... & Long, B. (2014). Lessons learned from the loss of a flagship: The extinction of the Javan rhinoceros Rhinoceros sondaicus annamiticus from Vietnam. Biological Conservation, 174, 21-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.03.014 DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.03.014 Brown, V. F. (2017). The extinction market: Wildlife trafficking and how to counter it . Oxford University Press. Butchart, S. H., & Bird, J. P. (2010). Data Deficient birds on the IUCN Red List: What don’t we know and why does it matter?. Biological Conservation, 143(1), 239-247. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.10.008 de Castro Pena, J. C., Kamino, L. H. Y., Rodrigues, M., Mariano-Neto, E., & de Siqueira, M. F. (2014). Assessing the conservation status of species with limited available data and disjunct distribution. Biological Conservation, 170, 130-136. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.021 Dinerstein, E., Olson, D., Joshi, A., Vynne, C., Burgess, N. D., Wikramanayake, E., ... & Saleem, M. (2017). An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. BioScience , 67(6), 534-545; ecoregions2017.appspot.com DOI: 10.1093/biosci/bix014 Dunnington, D. (2023). ggspatial: Spatial Data Framework for ggplot2. https://paleolimbot.github.io/ggspatial/, https://github.com/paleolimbot/ggspatial Fick, S.E. and R.J. Hijmans, 2020. WorldClim 2: new 1km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology 37 (12): 4302-4315. DOI: 10.1002/joc.5086 Garner, B. A., Hoban, S., & Luikart, G. (2020). IUCN Red List and the value of integrating genetics. Conservation Genetics, 21(5), 795-801. DOI: 10.1007/s10592-020-01305-5 Grace, M. K., Bennett, E. L., Akçakaya, H. R., Hilton-Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Jenkins, R., ... & Long, B. (2021). IUCN launches Green Status of Species: A new standard for species recovery. Oryx, 55(5), 651-652. DOI: 10.1017/S003060532100047X Gray, T. N., Hughes, A. C., Laurance, W. F., Long, B., Lynam, A. J., O’Kelly, H., ... & Wilkinson, N. M. (2018). The wildlife snaring crisis: an insidious and pervasive threat to biodiversity in Southeast Asia. Biodiversity and conservation, 27, 1031-1037. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-017-1450-5 Gray, T.N., Belecky, M., O’Kelly, H.J., Rao, M., Roberts, O., Tilker, A., Signs, M. & Yoganand, K. (2021). Understanding and solving the South-East Asian snaring crisis. The Ecological Citizen , 4 , 129-141. Hanson, J. O. (2022). Wdpar: Interface to the world database on protected areas. Journal of Open Source Software , 7 (78), 4594. DOI: 10.21105/joss.04594 Harfoot, M. B., Johnston, A., Balmford, A., Burgess, N. D., Butchart, S. H., Dias, M. P., ... & Geldmann, J. (2021). Using the IUCN Red List to map threats to terrestrial vertebrates at global scale. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(11), 1510-1519. DOI: 10.1038/s41559-021-01542-9 Harrison, R. D., Sreekar, R., Brodie, J. F., Brook, S., Luskin, M., O'Kelly, H., ... & Velho, N. (2016). Impacts of hunting on tropical forests in Southeast Asia. Conservation Biology, 30(5), 972-981. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12785 Hayward, M. W. (2011). Using the IUCN Red List to determine effective conservation strategies. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20, 2563-2573. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-011-0091-z Hijmans, R. (2024a). raster: Geographic Data Analysis and Modeling. R package version 3.6-27, https://rspatial.org/raster. Hijmans, R. (2024b). terra: Spatial Data Analysis. R package version 1.7-71, https://rspatial.org/terra. IUCN Redlist (IUCN). (2023). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2023-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed on [14 February 2024]. Johnson, A., Goodrich, J., Hansel, T., Rasphone, A., Saypanya, S., Vongkhamheng, C., & Strindberg, S. (2016). To protect or neglect? Design, monitoring, and evaluation of a law enforcement strategy to recover small populations of wild tigers and their prey. Biological Conservation, 202, 99-109. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.018 Krupnick, G. A., & Kress, W. J. (2003). Hotspots and ecoregions: A test of conservation priorities using taxonomic data. Biodiversity & Conservation, 12, 2237-2253. DOI: 10.1023/A%3A1024582529645 Le, D. M., & Trinh, D. H. (2022). Activity: Technical support to develop a conservation program for endangered, precious and rare animal prioritized for protection in Vietnam until 2030, with a vision toward 2050 (Vietnamese). Lockwood, J. L., Welbourne, D. J., Romagosa, C. M., Cassey, P., Mandrak, N. E., Strecker, A., Leung, B., Stringham, O. C., Udell, B., & Episcopio‐Sturgeon, D. J. (2019). When pets become pests: The role of the exotic pet trade in producing invasive vertebrate animals. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment , 17 (6), 323–330. DOI: 10.1002/fee.2059 Marsh, C. J., Syfert, M. M., Aletrari, E., Gavish, Y., Kunin, W. E., & Brummitt, N. (2023). The effect of sampling effort and methodology on range size estimates of poorly-recorded species for IUCN Red List assessments. Biodiversity and Conservation, 32(3), 1105-1123. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-022-02461-7 Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. (2013). Vietnam National Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, Vision to 2030. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/vn/vn-nbsap-v3-en.pdf Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853–858. DOI: 10.1038/35002501 Nesi, P., Luiselli, L. M., & Vignoli, L. (2023). “Heaven” of Data Deficient Species: The Conservation Status of the Endemic Amphibian Fauna of Vietnam. Diversity , 15 (7), 872. DOI: 10.3390/d15070872 Nijman, V. (2010). An overview of international wildlife trade from Southeast Asia. Biodiversity and conservation, 19(4), 1101-1114. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-009-9758-4 Pebesma, E., & Bivand, R. (2023). Spatial Data Science: With Applications in R. Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429459016 Phan, D. C., Trung, T. H., Truong, V. T., Sasagawa, T., Vu, T. P. T., Bui, D. T., ... & Nasahara, K. N. (2021). First comprehensive quantification of annual land use/cover from 1990 to 2020 across mainland Vietnam. Scientific reports, 11(1), 9979. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-88571-w R Core Team (2023). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. . Rodrigues, A. S., Pilgrim, J. D., Lamoreux, J. F., Hoffmann, M., & Brooks, T. M. (2006). The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends in ecology & evolution, 21(2), 71-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.010 Sandalj, M., Treydte, A. C., & Ziegler, S. (2016). Is wild meat luxury? Quantifying wild meat demand and availability in Hue, Vietnam. Biological Conservation, 194, 105-112. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.12.018 Schmidt, C., Hoban, S., Hunter, M., Paz‐Vinas, I., & Garroway, C. J. (2023). Genetic diversity and IUCN Red List status. Conservation Biology, 37(4), e14064. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14064 Sinovas, P., Alexiou, I., Roberts, O., Holden, J., Chantha, N., & Tilker, A. (2024). Status and conservation implications of a newly discovered large-antlered muntjac population in Cambodia. Endangered Species Research, 53, 493-498. DOI: 10.3354/esr01321 Stattersfield, A.J., M.J. Crosby, A.J. Long, and D.C. Wege. 1998. Endemic bird areas of the world: priorities for biodiversity conservation. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International, 846 pp. Stenger, L., Hovest, A. G., Nguyen, T. Q., Rauhaus, A., Le, M. D., Rödder, D., & Ziegler, T. (2023). Assessment of the threat status of reptile species from Vietnam-Implementation of the One Plan Approach to Conservation. Nature Conservation, 53, 183-221. DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.53.107566 Sterling, E. J., & Hurley, M. M. (2005). Conserving biodiversity in Vietnam: Applying biogeography to conservation research. Proceedings-California Academy of Sciences, 56, 98. Sterling, E. J., Hurley, M. M., & Le, M. D. (2006). Vietnam: A natural history. New Haven: Yale University Press, 448p. Tilker, A., Abrams, J.F., Mohamed, A., Nguyen, A., Wong, S.T., Sollmann, R., Niedballa, J., Bhagwat, T., Gray, T.N., Rawson, B.M., Guegan, F., Kissing, J., Wegmann, M., & Wilting, A. (2019). Habitat degradation and indiscriminate hunting differentially impact faunal communities in the Southeast Asian tropical biodiversity hotspot. Communications Biology , 2 (1), 396. Timmins, R.J., Duckworth, J.W., Robichaud, W., Long, B., Gray, T.N.E. & Tilker, A. 2016. Muntiacus vuquangensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T44703A22153828. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T44703A22153828.en. Timmins, R.J., Hedges, S. & Robichaud, W. 2020. Pseudoryx nghetinhensis (amended version of 2016 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T18597A166485696. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-1.RLTS.T18597A166485696.en. Trod, A. W., Duckworth, J. W., Macfarlane, C., Ravn, M., & Tallant, J. (2020). Ecosystem Profile: Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspot 2020 Update. Washington DC: Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. Available at: https://www.cepf.net/sites/default/files/indo-burma_ecosystem_profile_2020_technical_summary_0.pdf UNEP-WCMC (2024). Protected Area Profile for Viet Nam from the World Database on Protected Areas, February 2024. Available at: www.protectedplanet.net Van Song, N. (2008). Wildlife trading in Vietnam: Situation, causes and solutions. The Journal of Environment & Development, 17, 145–165. DOI: 10.1177/1070496508316220 Vu, X. D., Csaplovics, E., Marrs, C., & Nguyen, T. T. (2022). Criteria and Indicators to Define Priority Areas for Biodiversity Conservation in Vietnam. Forests, 13(9), 1341. DOI: 10.3390/f13091341 Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis . Springer-Verlag New York. ISBN 978-3-319-24277-4, https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org. Wickham, H., & Wickham, M. H. (2017). Package tidyverse. Easily install and load the ‘Tidyverse. Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L., François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J., Kuhn, M., Pedersen, T., Miller, E., Bache, S., Müller, K., Ooms, J., Robinson, D., Seidel, D., Spinu, V., … Yutani, H. (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software , 4 (43), 1686. DOI: 10.21105/joss.01686 Wilkie, D. S., Bennett, E. L., Peres, C. A., & Cunningham, A. A. (2011). The empty forest revisited. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1223(1), 120-128. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05908.x World Bank. East Asia and Pacific Regional Office. Rural Development, Natural Resources and Environment Sector Unit, & International Traffic Network. (2008). What's Driving the Wildlife Trade?: A Review of Expert Opinion on Economic and Social Drivers of the Wildlife Trade and Trade Control Efforts in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, and Vietnam. World Bank. Wyatt, T., & Cao, A. N. (2015). Corruption and wildlife trafficking. U4 Issue. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 29 Sep, 2025 Read the published version in Biodiversity and Conservation → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 06 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 26 Mar, 2025 Reviews received at journal 23 Mar, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 23 Mar, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 13 Jan, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 03 Jan, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 02 Jan, 2025 First submitted to journal 01 Jan, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5747485","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":397450077,"identity":"b5823f96-ce0c-4e1f-8d1b-6cf8d4ed2488","order_by":0,"name":"Russell J. Gray","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Liège","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Russell","middleName":"J.","lastName":"Gray","suffix":""},{"id":397450078,"identity":"edb26107-420d-4cf6-9755-a690a3f5550b","order_by":1,"name":"Eva Gazagne","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Liège","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Eva","middleName":"","lastName":"Gazagne","suffix":""},{"id":397450079,"identity":"1479ebd2-45e1-4c3f-ba44-b00a2db80b1a","order_by":2,"name":"Andrew Tilker","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Andrew","middleName":"","lastName":"Tilker","suffix":""},{"id":397450080,"identity":"9150f80b-7633-41e5-bd3a-fbaa44909e42","order_by":3,"name":"Thong Van Pham","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Western Sydney University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Thong","middleName":"Van","lastName":"Pham","suffix":""},{"id":397450081,"identity":"016d598d-ceb6-4627-ab40-da2750ddd32b","order_by":4,"name":"Bao Tran Quang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Vietnam Department of Forestry","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Bao","middleName":"Tran","lastName":"Quang","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-01-01 19:23:05","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5747485/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5747485/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-025-03165-z","type":"published","date":"2025-09-29T15:57:08+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":73020665,"identity":"95856b44-3e02-4475-84f4-0b773728bd09","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-06 03:48:43","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":486063,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eA\u003c/strong\u003e. stacked bar chart showing the categorical proportions of species overall range area occurring in Vietnam by taxonomic class within the processed dataset, \u003cstrong\u003eB.\u003c/strong\u003eThe respective IUCN Red List categories of species in the dataset within each taxonomic class, and \u003cstrong\u003eC. \u003c/strong\u003ethe distribution of key species richness across Vietnam.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5747485/v1/00d63071c3d4cd360e809226.jpg"},{"id":73020506,"identity":"83a1c466-9c0a-438e-8157-71308a8a46b1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-06 03:40:43","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":460944,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eA. \u003c/strong\u003epercentages of key species by taxonomic class which fall into each of three delineations of unprotected key species distributions, \u003cstrong\u003eB\u003c/strong\u003e. Distribution of unprotected key species in Vietnam split into low, medium, and high richness categories, and \u003cstrong\u003eC. \u003c/strong\u003eA subset of the high richness category with area (km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e) calculations by province.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5747485/v1/4839f6338473f658e6592d62.jpg"},{"id":73020480,"identity":"444ef98c-7f1b-44d5-a75d-9c73f59b8619","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-06 03:40:42","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":480454,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 2. A. \u003c/strong\u003eProportion of threats by taxonomic class, and \u003cstrong\u003eB.\u003c/strong\u003e the distribution/intensity of threats to key species across Vietnam.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5747485/v1/5953e42528689b97242fb225.jpg"},{"id":73020486,"identity":"ea68970a-d65b-4b57-8677-9adfe56e4474","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-06 03:40:42","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":563171,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 3.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eA. \u003c/strong\u003eProportion of conservation needs across taxonomic classes, and \u003cstrong\u003eB. \u003c/strong\u003ethe distribution/intensity of conservation needs of key species across Vietnam.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5747485/v1/d53d887da1d0b49415be02b7.jpg"},{"id":92883820,"identity":"4aca956e-7cf5-4f27-b182-514302043503","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 16:10:08","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":3046800,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5747485/v1/02952927-08d0-4af5-be47-0d35bad92249.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Prioritising natural heritage: Evaluating distribution, threats, and conservation needs of species recovery targets in Vietnam","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eVietnam is recognized as a biodiversity hotspot, distinguished by its vast and varied ecosystems that span 14 Global Terrestrial Ecoregions (Dinerstein et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Myers et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Trod et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The country\u0026rsquo;s rich biodiversity is a consequence of its unique geographic boundary, encompassing a variety of ecosystems along its latitude gradient, and evolutionary history, resulting in significant areas of endemism (Sterling \u0026amp; Hurley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Prominent examples include the extensive limestone karst formations and the northern and central Annamite mountains, which are critical habitats for many species that are found nowhere else on Earth (Krupnick \u0026amp; Kress, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Sterling et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Trod et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite its high levels of species richness and endemism, Vietnam's biodiversity is under severe and continuous threat. Rapid economic development, which has driven a significant decline in poverty rates from 60% in 1993 to 10% in 2016, has also led to extensive habitat loss and environmental degradation (Trod et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Concurrently, the globalization of markets and growth of the middle class in Southeast Asia and China have escalated the demand for wildlife products, fueling a pervasive and unsustainable trade in wildlife (Sandalj et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Van Song, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Nijman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Brown, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This demand extends beyond consumable wildlife products to include the pet trade, often resulting in the displacement of species from their natural habitats (Lockwood et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Vietnam has become a significant hub for both local consumption and international export of wildlife products (Sandalj et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Van Song, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). The expansion of road networks into remote areas and the use of wire snares have dramatically increased hunting pressures, leading to widespread defaunation across both protected and unprotected areas (Gray et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Harrison et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Wilkie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The use of wire snares is especially prevalent across the country, with millions of snares estimated to occur within its protected areas (Gray \u0026amp; Belecky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The devastating impacts of these pressures are evident in the recent extirpation of iconic species such as the Javan rhinoceros (\u003cem\u003eRhinoceros sondaicus annamiticus\u003c/em\u003e) and probable extirpation of the tiger (\u003cem\u003ePanthera tigris corbetti\u003c/em\u003e), with Critically Endangered species like the saola (\u003cem\u003ePseudoryx nghetinhensis\u003c/em\u003e), large-antlered muntjac (\u003cem\u003eMuntiacus vuquangensis\u003c/em\u003e), and Yangtze giant softshell turtle (\u003cem\u003eRafetus swinhoei\u003c/em\u003e) also facing imminent extinction (Brook et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Johnson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Gray et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Timmins et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Timmins et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn response to these challenges, the Vietnamese government has developed and updated its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), first proposed in 2013 and subsequently revised in 2022. This comprehensive framework aims to safeguard the nation\u0026rsquo;s biodiversity at multiple levels\u0026mdash;from genetic to landscape scales, and focusing on habitat connectivity and restoration (. The updated NBSAP sets ambitious targets, including zero extinctions, the preservation of over 100,000 genetic resources, and improved conservation status for rare, and migratory species. Additionally, it seeks to enhance the overall effectiveness of conservation efforts for endangered species through increased protection and management measures (Le and Trinh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Despite these plans, there remain significant challenges in implementation due to issues such as inadequate funding, lack of coordination, insufficient execution of conservation actions, and a critical lack of direction regarding priority localities, landscapes, and species to begin these efforts. These shortcomings have resulted in limited progress towards achieving the goals set out in the national strategies (Le and Trinh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe objective of this study was to support the ongoing efforts to update and provide direction for Vietnam's NBSAP and to contribute to the formulation of measurable goals under Target 4 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Target 4 emphasizes preventing extinctions, reducing extinction risk, and promoting the recovery of threatened species. Our analysis therefore focuses on identifying threatened (Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered) species within Vietnam that are at immediate risk of global extinction without targeted conservation efforts; we prioritize species with considerable endemicity (more than 50% of their global range within the country), considering them as \"key species\" for targeted conservation efforts and assessment under the IUCN Green Status of Species. We further examine their spatial distributions, assess associated threats, and proposed conservation needs. Additionally, we aim to identify critical provinces and protected areas as focal points for enhancing conservation efforts and optimizing resource allocation. This approach is intended to ensure that Vietnam\u0026rsquo;s conservation strategies are both effective and sustainable in the long term. Moreover, the methodology developed in this study can be adapted and applied to other countries or regions facing similar biodiversity conservation challenges, providing a versatile framework to plan species recovery and allocate limited conservation resources more efficiently.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"METHODS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData acquisition\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe used two primary open-source datasets from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and Protected Planet for this study (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). All initial threatened species data were collected from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2023) by using the advanced query function and the following criteria: Land Regions\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Viet Nam; Red List Category\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;VU - Vulnerable, EN - Endangered, CR - Critically Endangered; and Taxonomy\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Kingdom - Animalia. The query Search Summary and Range data - Polygons (SHP) were then downloaded. The raw dataset contained a total of 629 species occurring in the country. Protected areas of Vietnam were accessed through the Protected Planet database (UNEP-WCMC, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) via the \u003cem\u003ewdpar\u003c/em\u003e package in R (Hanson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The initial import of data was cleaned using the \u003cem\u003ewdpa_clean\u003c/em\u003e function, which removes UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, corrects projection issues, and validates the polygons. We further removed duplicate protected areas, RAMSAR, World Heritage Sites, and Cultural/Historic sites that overlapped with existing National Parks and Nature Reserves. Since the focus of this study was inland and terrestrial species, we omitted all Marine Protected Areas. The final dataset contained 129 National Parks (NP) and Nature Reserves (NR). It should be noted that these protected area data were last updated in 2015 for Vietnam and some protected area boundaries have been modified and others established since this time. However, the vast majority of the shapefiles are correct and accounted for within the Protected Planet dataset.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eData sources used in the analysis of threatened species with high levels of endemicity in Vietnam, their threats, and conservation needs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eData\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUse\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCitation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIUCN Red List csv data\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpreadsheet data for Species taxonomy, status, threats, and conservation needs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssociated data was joined by species name to their distribution shapefiles for geospatial analyses, and statistical analyses\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIUCN (2023)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIUCN Red List spatial data\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecies range data (SHP) polygons\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJoined with IUCN Redlist csv data for geospatial analyses and overlapping with protected area data\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIUCN (2023)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eProtected areas of Vietnam\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProtected area (SHP) polygons\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverlap analysis with species range shapefiles, threat, and conservation needs data to inform priority sites\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUNEP-WCMC (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData cleaning \u0026 Processing\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSpecies endemicity data subset\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll species range polygons were first masked to Vietnam\u0026rsquo;s country boundaries, and the area in square kilometres was calculated for both the total range and the subset overlapping with Vietnam. The percentage of each species\u0026rsquo; global range within Vietnam was then computed by dividing the Vietnam administrative boundary area by the total range polygon area. Species whose ranges constituted less than 50% of their overall distribution within Vietnam (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.5) were subsequently excluded from the dataset. This process resulted in a final dataset comprising 203 threatened species predominantly endemic to Vietnam.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThreat and conservation needs data\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThreats and conservation needs were first aggregated into high-level typologies (8 categories each), condensing the more detailed IUCN Red List-defined categories from the raw data (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Some species were associated with multiple threat categories, while others had only one. Initially, 142 species (75% of the dataset) were assigned conservation needs categories, which were further refined by excluding geographic-specific categories such as \u0026ldquo;Sub-national level\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;National Level\u0026rdquo;, and \u0026ldquo;Global\u0026rdquo;. After this refinement, relevant conservation needs data remained for 146 species (72% of the dataset). Species without any associated conservation needs were excluded from subsequent geospatial analyses aimed at addressing specific conservation needs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOnce cleaned, the threat and conservation need data were joined to the range data by shared species name. Subsets were then created for each threat and conservation category to facilitate later geospatial analytics, ensuring that species lacking specific categories were automatically filtered out from the analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThreats and Conservation Needs defined by the IUCN Red List assessment criteria grouped into simplified categories.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimplified Category\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIUCN Categories\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThreats\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHabitat Alteration and Agriculture\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgro-industry farming; Agro-industry grazing, ranching, or farming; Habitat shifting \u0026amp; alteration; Industrial aquaculture; Mining \u0026amp; quarrying; Other ecosystem modifications; Recreational activities; Shifting agriculture; Small-holder farming; Small-holder grazing, ranching, or farming; Small-holder plantations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWater exploitation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbstraction of surface water (domestic use); Abstraction of surface water (unknown use); Abstraction of surface water (agricultural use); Small dams; Large dams; Dams (size unknown)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInfrastructure/Development\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRoads \u0026amp; railroads; Tourism \u0026amp; recreation areas; Utility \u0026amp; service lines; War, civil unrest \u0026amp; military exercises; Work \u0026amp; other activities; Commercial \u0026amp; industrial areas; Renewable energy; Roads \u0026amp; railroads\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePollution\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGarbage \u0026amp; solid waste; Herbicides and pesticides; Nutrient loads; Oil spills; Sewage; Run-off; Seepage from mining\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClimate Change\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncrease in fire frequency/intensity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExploitation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntentional use (species is the target); Intentional use: (large scale) [harvest]; Intentional use: (subsistence/small scale) [harvest]; Persecution/control; Unintentional effects (species is not the target); Unintentional effects: (large scale) [harvest]; Unintentional effects: (subsistence/small scale) [harvest]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnknown\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMotivation Unknown/Unrecorded; Scale Unknown/Unrecorded; Type Unknown/Unrecorded\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eErosion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSoil erosion, sedimentation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eConservation Needs\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducation, Awareness \u0026amp; Training\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAwareness \u0026amp; communications, Training, Formal education\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHabitat Restoration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHabitat \u0026amp; natural process restoration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHarvest/Trade Management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHarvest management, Trade management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInvasive Species Mitigation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInvasive/problematic species control\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLivelihood Development\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLinked enterprises \u0026amp; livelihood alternatives, Conservation payments\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolicies and Regulations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolicies and regulations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSite Protection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSite/area protection, Resource \u0026amp; habitat protection, Site/area management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecies Recovery\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecies recovery, Captive breeding/artificial propagation,\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReintroduction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eGeospatial Analysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll analyses were conducted in R statistical software (R Core Team, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). We used \u003cem\u003etidyverse\u003c/em\u003e for data manipulation (v1.3.0; Wickham et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e); \u003cem\u003eraster, terra\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003esf\u003c/em\u003e packages were used for geospatial analysis (Hijmans, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003eb\u003c/span\u003e; Pebesma and Bivand, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e); \u003cem\u003eggplot2\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eggspatial\u003c/em\u003e packages were used for plotting static maps (Dunnington, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Wickham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). We assessed average values of cells across the provincial level and concentrated further to average across protected areas to identify provincial and protected area hotspots. Therefore, highest averages in protected areas may not reflect the highest averages at a provincial level, since the coverage is smaller. This enables a highlight both of fine-scale and large scale importance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eHigh-endemicity threatened species hotspots\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe first mapped high-endemicity threatened-species hotspots following data cleaning, retaining only threatened species\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;50% of their global range in Vietnam. A multipolygon shapefile containing all species was processed using a loop function. Each species\u0026rsquo; range polygon was rasterized at a 1 km x 1 km resolution, with grid cells inside the range counted as 1 and those outside as NA; all NA cells were then removed. Successive iterations rasterized each species and overlaid it on previous rasters, summing overlapping areas. The final raster represented cumulative species overlaps. Provincial and protected area averages were calculated from these rasters to identify areas of conservation interest.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThreats and conservation needs hotspots\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRasterization of category subsets followed a similar process to the threatened-species hotspot analysis, generating separate rasters for each of the eight threats and conservation need categories. Cell counts were centred and converted to percentage values (0-100) to indicate intensity of threats and conservation needs across spatial scales. Provincial and protected area averages were calculated for each category to pinpoint priority areas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eKey Endemic Species \u0026 Protected Areas\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSpecies range polygons were overlapped with Vietnam\u0026rsquo;s protected area polygons to assess overlap percentages. Key species to prioritize within existing protected areas were identified as those where more than 50% of their global range occurs within Vietnam\u0026rsquo;s protected areas, indicating the immediate ability to address their conservation and restoration needs. However, given that a significant portion of key species ranges fell outside protected areas, we mapped the distribution and richness of unprotected species with less than 50% of their range within protected areas. This analysis categorized species in low, medium, and high richness categories to highlight geographical patterns and identify areas where establishing future protected areas could be prioritized. Additionally, we created a subset for the highest richness category (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;10 species) and calculated the total area within each encompassing Vietnamese province to set clear provincial-level priorities for establishing more protected areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical Analyses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSummary statistics for species range, IUCN Red List status, threats, and conservation needs were calculated as proportions of the class taxonomic level. We reported the number of species in each class affected by the various threat categories, and the number of species which fell under various conservation needs categories. Where necessary, we used threshold values of \u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;50% to highlight species and protected areas of importance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eHighly-endemicity threatened species hotspots\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmong the 629 threatened animal species assessed by the IUCN Red List with ranges intersecting Vietnam, 203 species (32%) were identified as highly-endemic, with \u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;50% of their global range occurring primarily within Vietnam (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cb\u003eA\u003c/b\u003e). Three classes \u0026ndash; Amphibia, Insecta and Reptilia \u0026ndash; exhibited the highest numbers of highly-endemic species in Vietnam (56, 42, and 41 species, respectively), while Collembola, Arachnida, Gastropoda, and Diplopoda had the fewest (3, 2, 2, and 1 species, respectively). Notably, class Reptilia had the highest number of Critically Endangered key species (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9), whereas Amphibia had the most Endangered species (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;35) and Vulnerable species (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;21) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cb\u003eB\u003c/b\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe predominant threat category criteria (defined by IUCN Red List assessment criteria A-E) across taxa was B (restricted range; 64%), although specific threat criteria varied. For Actinopterygii (inland freshwater fish), Bivalvia, and Mammalia, the most frequent threat criteria was A (population reduction; 40%, 62%, and 62% respectively); for Amphibia (98%), Arachnida (100%), Aves (50%), Collembola (67%), Insecta (40%), and Reptilia (48%) the most frequent criteria was B (restricted range); for Diplopoda (myriapods) and Malacostraca (inland crustaceans), the most frequent criteria was D (restricted populations, 100% and 86% respectively).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey species had distributions across Vietnam with a complete absence in most southern provinces (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cb\u003eC\u003c/b\u003e). The highest richness (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;20 species) was shown to occur in Bac Kan and Cao Bang provinces (north), Kon Tum and Quang Nam provinces (central), and Dak Lak, Lam Dong, and Khanh Hoa provinces (south).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eKey Species and Site Protection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOf the identified key endemic species,175 out of 203 (86%) had ranges within protected areas of Vietnam. However, only 37 out of these 175 (38%) had more than 50% of their range within protected areas (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Specifically, only 21 out of 56 amphibian species (34%), 1 out of 10 bird species (10%), 3 out of 42 insects species (7%), 2 out of 13 mammal species (15%), and 10 out of 41 reptile species (24%) had the majority of their endemic range within Vietnam\u0026rsquo;s protected areas. There were no species of fish (Actinoptergyii), arachnid (Arachnida), bivalves (Bivalvia), springtails (Collembola), myriapods (Diplopoda), snails (Gastropoda), or crustaceans (Malacostraca) with the majority of their range occurring in protected areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercentage of species with \u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;50% (majority) of their distribution occurring in Protected Areas (PA) in Vietnam (VNM)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClass\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRed List Category\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArea in VNM (km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArea in PA (km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e% Protected\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"20\" rowspan=\"21\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAMPHIBIA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKalophrynus honbaensis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVulnerable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLeptobrachella botsfordi\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCritically Endangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLeptobrachella rowleyae\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCritically Endangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24.96\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24.96\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLeptobrachella pallida\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e57.63\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e57.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e99.28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRaorchestes gryllus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVulnerable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2226.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2129.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95.64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLeptobrachella applebyi\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e144.77\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e137.77\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95.16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRhacophorus helenae\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e718.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e642.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e89.41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMegophrys gerti\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2271.75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1760.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e77.49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKurixalus viridescens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e446.97\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e323.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e72.37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGracixalus lumarius\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e154.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e109.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e71.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNanohyla pulchella\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1303.79\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e830.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e63.71\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTheloderma nebulosum\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e710.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e450.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e63.43\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLeptobrachella ardens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e258.98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e163.95\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e63.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhilautus catbaensis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e139.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e61.78\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLeptobrachella bidoupensis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCritically Endangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24.66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e61.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLeptobrachella firthi\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1683.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1009.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e59.95\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLeptobrachium ngoclinhense\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e276.96\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e162.51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e58.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRhacophorus calcaneus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2085.44\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1115.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e53.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNanohyla arboricola\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVulnerable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2860.61\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1493.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e52.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLeptobrachella maculosa\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e173.44\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e88.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50.88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHylarana montivaga\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1848.28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e932.93\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAVES\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTrochalopteron yersini\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e721.97\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e458.39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e63.49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eINSECTA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGynacantha cattienensis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30.98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e72.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eChlorogomphus canhvang\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e421.57\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e253.74\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEuphaea cyanopogon\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e569.32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e312.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e54.87\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMAMMALIA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTrachypithecus poliocephalus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCritically Endangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e85.69\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e85.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMurina harpioloides\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e640.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e401.97\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e62.74\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"9\" rowspan=\"10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eREPTILIA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLeiolepis ngovantrii\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVulnerable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e117.49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e117.49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyrtodactylus takouensis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCritically Endangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.61\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e96.82\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGoniurosaurus huuliensis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCritically Endangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e87.88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGekko takouensis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVulnerable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e87.29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyrtodactylus phuquocensis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e318.46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e258.52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e81.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyrtodactylus caovansungi\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e339.52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e250.37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e73.74\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGoniurosaurus catbaensis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e152.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e98.44\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e64.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyrtodactylus badenensis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVulnerable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.93\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.78\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e63.69\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyrtodactylus thuongae\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVulnerable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyrtodactylus nigriocularis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCritically Endangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e59.53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe found that 166 out of 203 species (82%) fall into each of three delineations of unprotected key species distributions (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cb\u003eA\u003c/b\u003e). Notably, there appear to be unprotected connection points of key species range between protected areas in south central, central, and northern regions of Vietnam (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cb\u003eB\u003c/b\u003e). Lam Dong, Gia Lai, and Kon Tum are the provinces encompassing the highest richness categories (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cb\u003eC.\u003c/b\u003e). The results show the distribution of various classes across three levels of abundance: low (1\u0026ndash;5 species overlap), medium (5\u0026ndash;10 species overlap), and high (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;10 species overlap). In Actinopterygii, the distribution is equal across all levels (33.3%). Amphibia has a similar distribution pattern with 31.5% low, 37.1% medium, and 31.5% high. In Aves, medium and high levels each have 36%, with low at 28%. For Bivalvia, the medium and high levels are slightly higher (34.2%) than the low level (31.6%). Arachnida and Collembola are exclusively in the low level (100%). Diplopoda has only low level (100%). Gastropods are equally split between low and medium (50%). Insecta shows a more even spread with 31.3% low, 36.5% medium, and 32.3% high. Malacostraca has the highest percentage in the low level (46.2%), followed by medium (30.8%) and high (23.1%). Mammalia is evenly distributed across all levels (33.3%). Reptilia shows a higher percentage in the low level (44.1%), followed by medium (30.9%) and high (25%).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThreats\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe threats to key species in Vietnam were diverse, with habitat alteration and agricultural activities (i.e., habitat loss) (32%) and exploitation (25%) being the most severe. These were followed by \u0026ldquo;unknown\u0026rdquo; threats (17%), infrastructure and development (16%), pollution (4%), climate change (2%), erosion (2%), and water exploitation (2%) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the class taxonomic level, significant variations in major threats were observed. For Actinopterygii (inland freshwater fishes), infrastructure and development were the primary threats (26%). For Gastropods, both erosion and infrastructure and development were equally the largest threats (29%). Insecta faced largely unknown threats (52%). More notably, habitat alteration and agriculture were the most severe threats for Amphibia (39%), Arachnida (50%), Aves (39%), Bivalvia (38%), Collembola (66%), Diplopoda (50%), Malacostraca (40%), Mammalia (32%), and Reptilia (41%). Finally, exploitation was also a major threat next to habitat alteration for most classes except for Arachnida, Collembola, and Diplopoda.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn terms of geospatial areas of interest, the highest threat of climate change on key species was concentrated in a small area, mostly in Lao Cai Province (12% avg. intensity), and more specifically in Hoang Lien National Park (49% avg. intensity). Development threats were most prominent in Quang Nam (49% avg. intensity), and Kon Tum (46% avg. intensity), and more specifically in Ngoc Linh Nature Reserve (77%). Erosion threats were highest in Quang Ngai and Da Nang provinces (52%-55% avg. intensity), but with a more localized threat in Bach Ma National Park of Thua Thien Hue (68% avg. intensity). Wildlife exploitation was widespread, but highest in Lam Dong (45% avg. intensity), with high concentrations of key species in Bidoup-Nui Ba National Park (69% avg. intensity). Habitat alteration and agricultural threats were also prominent in key species of Lam Dong province (47% avg. intensity), again highest in Bidoup-Nui Ba (73% avg. intensity). Pollution threats were most prominent in Dong Nai province (40% avg. intensity however, concentrations of key species affected by pollution were most prominent in Huu Lien Nature Reserve of Lang Son province (64% avg. intensity). Unknown threats, mainly affecting insects, spanned across central and northern Vietnam, however the highest concentrations of key species decline due to unknown threats were in Kon Tum province (44% avg. intensity) and Xuan Son National Park of Phu Tho province (68% avg. intensity). Finally, water exploitation threats were widespread, but primarily affecting Da Nang (74% avg. intensity), particularly in Ba Na - Nui Chua Nature Reserve (95% avg. intensity).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eConservation Needs\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe most critical conservation needs for key species across Vietnam were strengthened site protection (59%), education and awareness (13%), harvest and trade management (11%), species recovery (7%), targeted policy and regulations (4%), habitat restoration (3%), livelihood development (2.6%), and invasive species mitigation (0.4%). At the class taxonomic level (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cb\u003eA\u003c/b\u003e), the predominant conservation action needed for Actinopterygii (55%), Amphibia (89%), Arachnida (66%), Aves (56%), Bivalvia (64%), Collembola (60%), Diplopoda (100%), Gastropoda (100%), Insecta (75%), Malacostracta (60%), and Reptilia (48%) was site protection. For Mammalia, the primary conservation needs were equally divided between site protection (27%) and education, awareness, and training (27%).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn a geospatial scale (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cb\u003eB\u003c/b\u003e), Kon Tum and Lam Dong exhibited the highest need for Education, Awareness, and Training (avg. intensity\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;60% for both), although more concentrated in Ngoc Linh Nature Reserve and Kon Ka Kinh National Park of Gia Lai province (avg. intensity\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;86% for both). Habitat restoration needs were concentrated in Da Nang (avg. intensity\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;99%), with Son Tra peninsula, Ngu Hanh Son, and Cu Lao Cham (Quang Nam) showing the highest restoration needs (avg. intensity\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;100%). Harvest and trade management needs were more prevalent in Lam Dong (avg. intensity\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;61%), though more finely concentrated in Kon Chu Rang of Gia Lai province (avg. intensity\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;82%). Invasive species management needs were also most significant across Da Nang (avg. intensity\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;98%), affecting 100% of key species in the Son Tra peninsula, Ngu Hanh Son, and Cu Lao Cham protected areas (avg. intensity\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;100%). Livelihood development needs were also prominent in Da Nang (avg. intensity\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;57%), with concentrated areas in Ba Na - Nui Chua (Da Nang), and Krong Trai (Phu Yen) protected areas as well as specifically in Nui Thanh (Quang Nam) (avg. intensity\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;64%, 58%, and 52%, respectively). Policy and regulation development was most needed by key species in Thai Nguyen province (avg. intensity\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;60%), with highest intensity observed at smaller scales, such as in Ke Go Nature Reserve of Ha Tinh province (avg. intensity\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;79%). Species recovery priorities were highest in Lam Dong province (avg. intensity\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;46%), particularly in Bidoup-Nui Ba National Park (avg. intensity\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;71%). Finally, site protection was required for the majority of key species in Thua Thien Hue province (avg. intensity\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;64%) overall, but with more focused need in Kon Chu Rang Nature Reserve (Gia Lai) (avg. intensity\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;80%).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Importance of Highly Endemic Species in Conservation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs a result of its rich tropical biodiversity and latitudinal gradient of ecoregions, Vietnam encompasses highly endemic species, which offers a unique opportunity for effective, conservation efforts to safeguard the country\u0026rsquo;s unique natural heritage. Vietnam\u0026rsquo;s highly-endemic species are particularly vulnerable to extinction due to their limited ranges and susceptibility to local threats. Prioritizing these species for national conservation actions is essential to prevent their global extinction. Targeting endemic species for conservation is both strategic and practical, as national policies can address their needs directly without the complexities of international coordination. For example, key species primarily found within protected areas (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) can benefit greatly from focused conservation efforts due to existing legal protections and available resources allocated to the natural spaces in which they occur.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur study identified 203 threatened key species predominantly found within Vietnam, across 12 taxonomic classes. Amphibians, insects, and reptiles were the most threatened groups, with 56, 42, and 41 key species, respectively. Notably, only 38% of these key species inhabit protected areas, highlighting the urgent need for conservation measures in unprotected habitats. The primary threats include habitat alteration due to agricultural expansion and direct wildlife exploitation. Thus, site protection and effective management of harvest and trade are critical conservation actions. The rapid conversion of landscapes for agriculture and insufficient regulation and enforcement of wildlife exploitation exacerbates these issues (Phan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Van Song, 2003; World Bank, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Wyatt and Cao, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePriority Areas for Conservation in Vietnam\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eConservation efforts in Vietnam should focus on regions with high concentrations of key species and threats, such as the L\u0026acirc;m Vi\u0026ecirc;n Plateau and central provinces like Da Nang, Thua Thien Hue, and Quang Nam. Protected areas, including Bach Ma, Ngoc Linh (Quang Nam), and Ba Na - Nui Chua, are critical as they face multiple threats and require urgent conservation action. High levels of endemicity in Bac Kan and Lam Dong provinces, particularly in Bidoup-Nui Ba National Park and Nam Xuan Lac Species Habitat Conservation Area (SHCA), underscore the importance of these sites in safeguarding Vietnam's unique species. Existing studies have already highlighted the significance of these regions (Stattersfield et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Bain and Hurley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Baltzer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Sterling et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe patterns of abundance in key species with less than 50% of their range in protected areas reflect potential vulnerabilities to conservation efforts. Classes such as Arachnida, Collembola, and Diplopoda show complete confinement to low abundance areas, suggesting limited distribution and potentially higher risk if these small ranges fall outside protected zones. Conversely, classes like Actinopterygii, Amphibia, Mammalia, and Bivalvia display an even distribution across all abundance levels, indicating that while parts of their ranges might overlap with protected areas, significant portions do not, potentially leaving a considerable number of species unprotected. The relatively higher abundance in medium and high levels for some classes (e.g., Insecta and Aves) implies that these species might still be vulnerable to habitat loss and other anthropogenic pressures outside protected areas. Our findings highlight the need for expanding protected areas or enhancing connectivity between them to encompass a greater range of habitats and species distributions, thereby improving the effectiveness of conservation strategies and reducing extinction risks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eVietnam's varied landscapes, including the Annamite mountain in central and northern Vietnam, encompass considerably high levels of endemism due to their unique ecological conditions and historical climatic and geological barriers. Isolated islands like Con Dao and Cat Ba also contribute to this endemism by providing environments where species have evolved in isolation. Ongoing surveys are likely to reveal more endemic species, many of which remain Data Deficient or undescribed (Nesi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Sterling et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). This makes the discovery (through genetic delineation as well as observation) and ecological study of these species a critical component of Vietnam's conservation strategy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStudy Caveats \u0026amp; Limitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur study utilises the IUCN Red List assessment system to identify species and sites for conservation action, a method that is locally relevant and adaptable to various administrative boundaries (Rodrigues et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). However, while the IUCN Red List is a valuable tool for assessing extinction risks and recommending conservation actions, it has limitations. The spatial data used may not accurately reflect species distribution, especially for cryptic or rare taxa. Moreover, given high levels of exploitation and defaunation in Vietnamese forests (Tilker et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) \u0026ndash; including protected areas \u0026ndash; some range maps are likely to be overly generous in their depiction of current species ranges in Vietnam; this is likely to be especially true for large mammals and birds whose populations have declined precipitously across the country as a result of the so-called \u0026ldquo;snaring crisis\u0026rdquo; in Vietnam (Gray et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Tilker et al, 2024). The wider issue around spatial data from the Red List This is compounded by issues like sampling bias and varying quality of data across different regions and taxonomic groups (Butchart et al., 2009; de Castro et al., 2014; Garner et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Schmidt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Marsh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Nonetheless, the Red List remains the international standard for measuring and adapting species threat levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor amphibians and reptiles, many species presumed to be micro-endemics might have broader distributions that remain undocumented or Data Deficient due to insufficient research (Stenger, et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, areas with high endemism like the coastal dry forests near Nha Trang may not appear in our analysis due to a lack of biodiversity surveys. These gaps highlight the need for continuous biodiversity monitoring and repeated assessments every 5\u0026ndash;10 years as Red List data is updated. These potential gaps in range data and variability of taxonomic representation underscore the importance of basic biodiversity inventory surveys in Vietnam, particularly for under-studied taxa such as invertebrates.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne additional significant observation is the complete absence of key species ranges in the 13 southern provinces of Vietnam. This could be due to data gaps, limitations in IUCN range maps, or to unique ecological characteristics of the Tonle Sap peat and freshwater swamp forest ecoregion, which is primarily located in Cambodia (Dinerstein et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, endemic species in the Mekong watershed are more likely to have most of their range encompassed by Cambodia rather than Vietnam.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith all of these factors considered, including the fact that there may be some missing protected areas from the Protected Planet database as Vietnam was last updated in 2015, and given the fact that IUCN range shapefiles continue to update with knowledge of species distributions and some species may have over-optimistic ranges (inherent Type I errors), we believe the strength in our analyses and results are in the fact that they can be automated through the use of the Protected Planet and IUCN Red List databases and continually improved with updates to the databases themselves. This allows for a more standardized method of targeted analysis of highly endemic species priorities at a national scale for any country.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRecommendations for Wildlife Recovery Prioritization in Vietnam\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAligning with Vietnam's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) the \u0026ldquo;National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan to 2030 with a vision to 2050\u0026rdquo; and the Global Species Action Plan (GSAP) under the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) Target 4, our study underscore the importance of preserving Vietnam's natural heritage, particularly its highly-endemic species. Our findings provide critical insights into which species require conservation efforts, where these efforts should be targeted, and what specific conservation activities should be prioritized. The NBSAPs play a critical role in guiding national conservation priorities and actions, which are essential for meeting global biodiversity targets set by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). However, these strategies require expert input to enhance their effectiveness in spatial planning and species prioritization. Our analysis offers specific metrics to quantity and direct conservation efforts, providing guidance for national strategies. We further recommend for these key species to be consider for listing in wildlife conservation-related policies (e.g. Decree 06/2019/ND-CP and Decree 84/2021/ND-CP) as an additional category to \u0026ldquo;rare and precious species\u0026rdquo; called Natural Heritage Species (Lo\u0026agrave;i Di sản Thi\u0026ecirc;n nhi\u0026ecirc;n; LDS) to add emphasis of their national conservation importance and protect them from any and all forms of over-exploitation to maintain their continuity in Vietnam.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNon-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other conservation entities should focus on preserving species with stable populations and restoring those experiencing declines. Structured and strategic conservation planning is essential, especially in regions with minimal NGO presence. Biodiversity-rich areas such as the central and southern Annamites and the Langbian Plateau require targeted efforts to ensure effective species protection and habitat management. Our analyses suggest that population recovery can benefit significantly from effective site protection and anti-poaching efforts. In some cases, reintroduction or population supplementation from ex-situ populations established through conservation breeding programs may be necessary.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur analysis also highlights the potential for protected area planning in Vietnam, and may inform considerations of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) for the country. The current gap in protected area coverage and the opportunistic, non-systematic approach to protected area establishment call for a more strategic framework. A major component of Vietnam\u0026rsquo;s current NBSAP is to protect and restore ecosystems, enhancing their integrity and connectivity. By using spatial analyses like ours, central ministries involved in protected area and biodiversity corridor planning can identify critical areas for expansion and prioritise the connectivity of under-represented ecosystems, such as karst habitats, dry coastal forest ecosystem in the south, and other areas with an abundance of unprotected endemic wildlife.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the species identified in our study serve as a critical starting point for prioritising IUCN Green Status assessments in Vietnam. Given their high levels of endemism and significant conservation needs, these species are prime candidates for Green Status evaluations, which go beyond the traditional focus on extinction risk to include metrics of recovery and conservation success (Ak\u0026ccedil;akaya et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The IUCN Green Status of Species provides a scoring system that assesses a species' current state, historical decline, and the impact of past and present conservation actions on its recovery. It quantifies a species' recovery potential through four metrics: Species Recovery Score, Conservation Legacy Score, Conservation Gain Score, and Recovery Potential Score. Unlike traditional Red List assessments focused solely on extinction risk, the Green Status establishes a score of recovery and conservation success (Grace et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Implementing these assessments will enhance the quality of geospatial analysis, establishing more precise and comprehensive targets for both current and future species distributions and conservation needs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eVietnam's rich biodiversity, especially its high levels of endemism, provides a critical focus for national conservation efforts. Our study identified 203 threatened key species with high endemicity in Vietnam, emphasising the need for urgent conservation actions, particularly in regions with significant biodiversity but lacking adequate protection. Prioritising endemic species is essential to prevent their global extinction, and our findings highlight the necessity for more strategic conservation planning. This includes extending protected areas to cover underrepresented ecosystems and high-biodiversity regions like the L\u0026acirc;m Vi\u0026ecirc;n Plateau and central provinces. Such efforts will safeguard critical habitats and address threats such as habitat alteration and wildlife exploitation, aligning conservation efforts with Vietnam\u0026rsquo;s NBSAP and developmental goals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntegrating IUCN Green Status assessments into Vietnam\u0026rsquo;s conservation framework will add a beneficial dimension to understanding and enhancing species recovery and resilience. The Green Status's scoring system evaluates not only extinction risk but also the success of conservation actions and potential for future recovery. Our study offers a robust method for setting detailed geospatial targets for current and potential species distributions and addressing their conservation needs. By aligning with the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) and the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), Vietnam can develop more precise and effective strategies, ensuring the long-term sustainability and resilience of its unique biodiversity. The methodologies and insights from this research can serve as a model for other countries seeking to enhance their own conservation efforts, promoting global biodiversity and sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCONFLICT OF INTEREST\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFUNDING SOURCES\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eRJG conceptualized the study, collected and analysed the data, and made the figures; RJG, EG, PVT, LTB, and AT conducted literature review, wrote the first draft, and provided edits and commentary.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe would like to thank Jennifer Luedtke Swandby for providing comments and recommendations regarding Vietnam\u0026rsquo;s NBSAP and the GBF.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDATA AVAILABILITY\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll data generated during this study are fully available without restriction. The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article and its supplementary materials. Any additional data files related to this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAk\u0026ccedil;akaya, H.R., Bennett, E.L., Brooks, T.M., Grace, M.K., Heath, A., Hedges, S., Hilton‐Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Keith, D.A., Long, B. Mallon, D., Meijaard, E., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Rodriguez, J.P., Stephenson, P.J., Stuart, S.N., \u0026amp; Young, R. P. (2018). Quantifying species recovery and conservation success to develop an IUCN Green List of Species. \u003cem\u003eConservation Biology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1128-1138.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBain, R. H., \u0026amp; Hurley, M. M. (2011). A biogeographic synthesis of the amphibians and reptiles of Indochina. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 2011(360), 1-138. DOI: 10.1206/360.1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaltzer, M., N.T. Dao, and R.G. Shore. 2001. Towards a vision of biodiversity conservation in the forests for the lower Mekong ecoregion complex. Vol. 1: Main Report. Hanoi: WWF Indochina, 109 pp.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBelecky, M. \u0026amp; Gray, T.N.E. (2020). Silence of the Snares: Southeast Asia\u0026rsquo;s Snaring Crisis, WWF International.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBorgelt, J., Dorber, M., H\u0026oslash;iberg, M. A., \u0026amp; Verones, F. (2022). More than half of data deficient species predicted to be threatened by extinction. Communications Biology, 5(1), 679. DOI: 10.1038/s42003-022-03706-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrook, S. M., Dudley, N., Mahood, S. P., Polet, G., Williams, A. C., Duckworth, J. W., ... \u0026amp; Long, B. (2014). Lessons learned from the loss of a flagship: The extinction of the Javan rhinoceros \u003cem\u003eRhinoceros sondaicus annamiticus\u003c/em\u003e from Vietnam. Biological Conservation, 174, 21-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.03.014 DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.03.014\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, V. F. (2017). \u003cem\u003eThe extinction market: Wildlife trafficking and how to counter it\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eButchart, S. H., \u0026amp; Bird, J. P. (2010). Data Deficient birds on the IUCN Red List: What don\u0026rsquo;t we know and why does it matter?. Biological Conservation, 143(1), 239-247. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.10.008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ede Castro Pena, J. C., Kamino, L. H. Y., Rodrigues, M., Mariano-Neto, E., \u0026amp; de Siqueira, M. F. (2014). Assessing the conservation status of species with limited available data and disjunct distribution. Biological Conservation, 170, 130-136. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDinerstein, E., Olson, D., Joshi, A., Vynne, C., Burgess, N. D., Wikramanayake, E., ... \u0026amp; Saleem, M. (2017). An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. \u003cem\u003eBioScience\u003c/em\u003e, 67(6), 534-545; ecoregions2017.appspot.com DOI: 10.1093/biosci/bix014\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDunnington, D. (2023). ggspatial: Spatial Data Framework for ggplot2. https://paleolimbot.github.io/ggspatial/, https://github.com/paleolimbot/ggspatial\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFick, S.E. and R.J. Hijmans, 2020. WorldClim 2: new 1km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology 37 (12): 4302-4315. DOI: 10.1002/joc.5086\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarner, B. A., Hoban, S., \u0026amp; Luikart, G. (2020). IUCN Red List and the value of integrating genetics. Conservation Genetics, 21(5), 795-801. DOI: 10.1007/s10592-020-01305-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrace, M. K., Bennett, E. L., Ak\u0026ccedil;akaya, H. R., Hilton-Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Jenkins, R., ... \u0026amp; Long, B. (2021). IUCN launches Green Status of Species: A new standard for species recovery. Oryx, 55(5), 651-652. DOI: 10.1017/S003060532100047X\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGray, T. N., Hughes, A. C., Laurance, W. F., Long, B., Lynam, A. J., O\u0026rsquo;Kelly, H., ... \u0026amp; Wilkinson, N. M. (2018). The wildlife snaring crisis: an insidious and pervasive threat to biodiversity in Southeast Asia. Biodiversity and conservation, 27, 1031-1037. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-017-1450-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGray, T.N., Belecky, M., O\u0026rsquo;Kelly, H.J., Rao, M., Roberts, O., Tilker, A., Signs, M. \u0026amp; Yoganand, K. (2021). Understanding and solving the South-East Asian snaring crisis. \u003cem\u003eThe Ecological Citizen\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e, 129-141.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHanson, J. O. (2022). Wdpar: Interface to the world database on protected areas. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Open Source Software\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(78), 4594. DOI: 10.21105/joss.04594\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarfoot, M. B., Johnston, A., Balmford, A., Burgess, N. D., Butchart, S. H., Dias, M. P., ... \u0026amp; Geldmann, J. (2021). Using the IUCN Red List to map threats to terrestrial vertebrates at global scale. Nature Ecology \u0026amp; Evolution, 5(11), 1510-1519. DOI: 10.1038/s41559-021-01542-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarrison, R. D., Sreekar, R., Brodie, J. F., Brook, S., Luskin, M., O\u0026apos;Kelly, H., ... \u0026amp; Velho, N. (2016). Impacts of hunting on tropical forests in Southeast Asia. Conservation Biology, 30(5), 972-981. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12785\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHayward, M. W. (2011). Using the IUCN Red List to determine effective conservation strategies. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20, 2563-2573. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-011-0091-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHijmans, R. (2024a). raster: Geographic Data Analysis and Modeling. R package version 3.6-27, https://rspatial.org/raster.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHijmans, R. (2024b). terra: Spatial Data Analysis. R package version 1.7-71, https://rspatial.org/terra.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIUCN Redlist (IUCN). (2023). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2023-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed on [14 February 2024].\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJohnson, A., Goodrich, J., Hansel, T., Rasphone, A., Saypanya, S., Vongkhamheng, C., \u0026amp; Strindberg, S. (2016). To protect or neglect? Design, monitoring, and evaluation of a law enforcement strategy to recover small populations of wild tigers and their prey. Biological Conservation, 202, 99-109. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.018\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKrupnick, G. A., \u0026amp; Kress, W. J. (2003). Hotspots and ecoregions: A test of conservation priorities using taxonomic data. Biodiversity \u0026amp; Conservation, 12, 2237-2253. DOI: 10.1023/A%3A1024582529645\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLe, D. M., \u0026amp; Trinh, D. H. (2022). Activity: Technical support to develop a conservation program for endangered, precious and rare animal prioritized for protection in Vietnam until 2030, with a vision toward 2050 (Vietnamese).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLockwood, J. L., Welbourne, D. J., Romagosa, C. M., Cassey, P., Mandrak, N. E., Strecker, A., Leung, B., Stringham, O. C., Udell, B., \u0026amp; Episcopio‐Sturgeon, D. J. (2019). When pets become pests: The role of the exotic pet trade in producing invasive vertebrate animals. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(6), 323\u0026ndash;330. DOI: 10.1002/fee.2059\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarsh, C. J., Syfert, M. M., Aletrari, E., Gavish, Y., Kunin, W. E., \u0026amp; Brummitt, N. (2023). The effect of sampling effort and methodology on range size estimates of poorly-recorded species for IUCN Red List assessments. Biodiversity and Conservation, 32(3), 1105-1123. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-022-02461-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinistry of Natural Resources and Environment. (2013). Vietnam National Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, Vision to 2030. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/vn/vn-nbsap-v3-en.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMyers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853\u0026ndash;858. DOI: 10.1038/35002501\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNesi, P., Luiselli, L. M., \u0026amp; Vignoli, L. (2023). \u0026ldquo;Heaven\u0026rdquo; of Data Deficient Species: The Conservation Status of the Endemic Amphibian Fauna of Vietnam. \u003cem\u003eDiversity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(7), 872. DOI: 10.3390/d15070872\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNijman, V. (2010). An overview of international wildlife trade from Southeast Asia. Biodiversity and conservation, 19(4), 1101-1114. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-009-9758-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePebesma, E., \u0026amp; Bivand, R. (2023). Spatial Data Science: With Applications in R. Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429459016\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePhan, D. C., Trung, T. H., Truong, V. T., Sasagawa, T., Vu, T. P. T., Bui, D. T., ... \u0026amp; Nasahara, K. N. (2021). First comprehensive quantification of annual land use/cover from 1990 to 2020 across mainland Vietnam. Scientific reports, 11(1), 9979. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-88571-w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eR Core Team (2023). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. \u0026lt;https://www.R-project.org/\u0026gt;.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRodrigues, A. S., Pilgrim, J. D., Lamoreux, J. F., Hoffmann, M., \u0026amp; Brooks, T. M. (2006). The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends in ecology \u0026amp; evolution, 21(2), 71-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.010\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSandalj, M., Treydte, A. C., \u0026amp; Ziegler, S. (2016). Is wild meat luxury? Quantifying wild meat demand and availability in Hue, Vietnam. Biological Conservation, 194, 105-112. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.12.018 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchmidt, C., Hoban, S., Hunter, M., Paz‐Vinas, I., \u0026amp; Garroway, C. J. (2023). Genetic diversity and IUCN Red List status. Conservation Biology, 37(4), e14064. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14064\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSinovas, P., Alexiou, I., Roberts, O., Holden, J., Chantha, N., \u0026amp; Tilker, A. (2024). Status and conservation implications of a newly discovered large-antlered muntjac population in Cambodia. Endangered Species Research, 53, 493-498. DOI: 10.3354/esr01321\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStattersfield, A.J., M.J. Crosby, A.J. Long, and D.C. Wege. 1998. Endemic bird areas of the\u003cbr\u003e world: priorities for biodiversity conservation. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International, 846 pp.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStenger, L., Hovest, A. G., Nguyen, T. Q., Rauhaus, A., Le, M. D., R\u0026ouml;dder, D., \u0026amp; Ziegler, T. (2023). Assessment of the threat status of reptile species from Vietnam-Implementation of the One Plan Approach to Conservation. Nature Conservation, 53, 183-221. DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.53.107566\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSterling, E. J., \u0026amp; Hurley, M. M. (2005). Conserving biodiversity in Vietnam: Applying biogeography to conservation research. Proceedings-California Academy of Sciences, 56, 98.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSterling, E. J., Hurley, M. M., \u0026amp; Le, M. D. (2006). Vietnam: A natural history. New Haven: Yale University Press, 448p.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTilker, A., Abrams, J.F., Mohamed, A., Nguyen, A., Wong, S.T., Sollmann, R., Niedballa, J., Bhagwat, T., Gray, T.N., Rawson, B.M., Guegan, F., Kissing, J., Wegmann, M., \u0026amp; Wilting, A. (2019). Habitat degradation and indiscriminate hunting differentially impact faunal communities in the Southeast Asian tropical biodiversity hotspot. \u003cem\u003eCommunications Biology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(1), 396.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTimmins, R.J., Duckworth, J.W., Robichaud, W., Long, B., Gray, T.N.E. \u0026amp; Tilker, A. 2016. Muntiacus vuquangensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T44703A22153828. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T44703A22153828.en.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTimmins, R.J., Hedges, S. \u0026amp; Robichaud, W. 2020. Pseudoryx nghetinhensis (amended version of 2016 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T18597A166485696. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-1.RLTS.T18597A166485696.en.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrod, A. W., Duckworth, J. W., Macfarlane, C., Ravn, M., \u0026amp; Tallant, J. (2020). Ecosystem Profile: Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspot 2020 Update. Washington DC: Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. Available at: https://www.cepf.net/sites/default/files/indo-burma_ecosystem_profile_2020_technical_summary_0.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUNEP-WCMC (2024). Protected Area Profile for Viet Nam from the World Database on Protected Areas, February 2024. Available at: www.protectedplanet.net\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Song, N. (2008). Wildlife trading in Vietnam: Situation, causes and solutions. The Journal of Environment \u0026amp; Development, 17, 145\u0026ndash;165. DOI: 10.1177/1070496508316220\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVu, X. D., Csaplovics, E., Marrs, C., \u0026amp; Nguyen, T. T. (2022). Criteria and Indicators to Define Priority Areas for Biodiversity Conservation in Vietnam. Forests, 13(9), 1341. DOI: 10.3390/f13091341\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWickham, H. (2016). \u003cem\u003eggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis\u003c/em\u003e. Springer-Verlag New York. ISBN 978-3-319-24277-4, https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWickham, H., \u0026amp; Wickham, M. H. (2017). Package tidyverse. Easily install and load the \u0026lsquo;Tidyverse.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L., Fran\u0026ccedil;ois, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J., Kuhn, M., Pedersen, T., Miller, E., Bache, S., M\u0026uuml;ller, K., Ooms, J., Robinson, D., Seidel, D., Spinu, V., \u0026hellip; Yutani, H. (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Open Source Software\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(43), 1686. DOI: 10.21105/joss.01686\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilkie, D. S., Bennett, E. L., Peres, C. A., \u0026amp; Cunningham, A. A. (2011). The empty forest revisited. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1223(1), 120-128. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05908.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWorld Bank. East Asia and Pacific Regional Office. Rural Development, Natural Resources and Environment Sector Unit, \u0026amp; International Traffic Network. (2008). What\u0026apos;s Driving the Wildlife Trade?: A Review of Expert Opinion on Economic and Social Drivers of the Wildlife Trade and Trade Control Efforts in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, and Vietnam. World Bank.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWyatt, T., \u0026amp; Cao, A. N. (2015). Corruption and wildlife trafficking. U4 Issue.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"biodiversity-and-conservation","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"bioc","sideBox":"Learn more about [Biodiversity and Conservation](https://www.springer.com/journal/10531)","snPcode":"10531","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10531/3","title":"Biodiversity and Conservation","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Conservation prioritisation, Threatened species, Recovery, Vietnam, Biodiversity, Protected areas","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5747485/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5747485/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eOur study addresses the urgent need to identify and prioritise threatened species in Vietnam for conservation and recovery. With a focus on Vulnerable, Endangered, and Critically Endangered species with high levels of endemicity (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;50% of their global range occurs in Vietnam), we conducted a comprehensive analysis of key species for conservation prioritisation, IUCN Green Status Assessment, and recovery strategies within the Vietnamese landscape. By integrating data on provincial hotspots and protected areas as key conservation sites, we established a robust framework to assess key species richness, threats, and conservation needs. We identified 203 key species across 12 taxonomic classes, establishing a viable list of wildlife recovery priorities. Habitat loss and exploitation were identified as primary threats to key species; alarmingly, only 38% of these key species had\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;50% of their range within protected areas, emphasizing urgent conservation needs that extend beyond current protected area boundaries. Our findings hold significance for guiding conservation strategies, resource allocation, and policy decisions in relation to Vietnam's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) and inform measurable species prioritisation goals under Target 4 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). By pinpointing species and regions that require immediate attention, our study provides essential guidance for policymakers, conservationists, and resource managers/donors. Acting on these insights will enhance the effectiveness of conservation efforts and ensure the long-term sustainability of wildlife as a vital natural heritage.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Prioritising natural heritage: Evaluating distribution, threats, and conservation needs of species recovery targets in Vietnam","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-01-06 03:40:37","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5747485/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-05-07T02:30:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"205428110508889309482700958771986193466","date":"2025-03-26T23:59:54+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-03-23T10:11:49+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"290607130016204900285705626675526339364","date":"2025-03-23T05:02:57+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-01-13T21:27:38+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-01-03T19:54:49+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-01-02T15:02:06+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Biodiversity and Conservation","date":"2025-01-01T19:09:21+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"biodiversity-and-conservation","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"bioc","sideBox":"Learn more about [Biodiversity and Conservation](https://www.springer.com/journal/10531)","snPcode":"10531","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10531/3","title":"Biodiversity and Conservation","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"80501c17-d974-40ae-be69-e40206b93eb0","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 6th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-10-06T16:04:11+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-5747485","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-025-03165-z","journal":{"identity":"biodiversity-and-conservation","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Biodiversity and Conservation"},"publishedOn":"2025-09-29 15:57:08","publishedOnDateReadable":"September 29th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-01-06 03:40:37","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s10531-025-03165-z","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-025-03165-z","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5747485","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5747485","identity":"rs-5747485","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}