Evidence for modern extinction in plants and animals

IF 4.9 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Biological Conservation Pub Date : 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110772
Diana O. Fisher , Aelys M. Humphreys
{"title":"Evidence for modern extinction in plants and animals","authors":"Diana O. Fisher ,&nbsp;Aelys M. Humphreys","doi":"10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110772","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We summarise evidence of extinction reported in Red List accounts of plants (170 species) and animals (816 species) listed as extinct (EX) or extinct in the wild (EW) under different versions of the Red List. We find that types of evidence and their frequency of use are remarkably consistent across plants, animals and Red List versions. The most common evidence is ‘long time missing, fewer than half of species accounts discuss search effort, and accounts of 15 % of EX/EW plants and 27 % of animals provide no reason for the EX/EW listing. We review use of extinction probability models for EX, EW and Critically Endangered species flagged as possibly extinct, and find that 155 species have been subjects of extinction probability models. Nearly all models applied to birds and mammals agree that the species are extinct. Seventeen statistical models for estimating the probability that a species is extinct based on search effort, traits and detection rate have been published since 1993 and applied to EX, EW, or CR(PE) species. A tiny fraction (0.6 %) of Red List accounts currently include published model results; thus extinction probability modelling has been largely independent of Red Listing. This is likely to change, because since 2019, Red List guidelines provide templates for quantitative estimates of extinction likelihood. Combining statistical models with assessments of species' probability of extinction based on other criteria can strengthen extinction listings of plants and animals, and add to our understanding of the scale of modern species loss.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55375,"journal":{"name":"Biological Conservation","volume":"298 ","pages":"Article 110772"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320724003343/pdfft?md5=470cc1b48c5c75bdb63e1a88ae4a1489&pid=1-s2.0-S0006320724003343-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological Conservation","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320724003343","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We summarise evidence of extinction reported in Red List accounts of plants (170 species) and animals (816 species) listed as extinct (EX) or extinct in the wild (EW) under different versions of the Red List. We find that types of evidence and their frequency of use are remarkably consistent across plants, animals and Red List versions. The most common evidence is ‘long time missing, fewer than half of species accounts discuss search effort, and accounts of 15 % of EX/EW plants and 27 % of animals provide no reason for the EX/EW listing. We review use of extinction probability models for EX, EW and Critically Endangered species flagged as possibly extinct, and find that 155 species have been subjects of extinction probability models. Nearly all models applied to birds and mammals agree that the species are extinct. Seventeen statistical models for estimating the probability that a species is extinct based on search effort, traits and detection rate have been published since 1993 and applied to EX, EW, or CR(PE) species. A tiny fraction (0.6 %) of Red List accounts currently include published model results; thus extinction probability modelling has been largely independent of Red Listing. This is likely to change, because since 2019, Red List guidelines provide templates for quantitative estimates of extinction likelihood. Combining statistical models with assessments of species' probability of extinction based on other criteria can strengthen extinction listings of plants and animals, and add to our understanding of the scale of modern species loss.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
动植物现代灭绝的证据
我们总结了在不同版本的红色名录中被列为灭绝(EX)或野外灭绝(EW)的植物(170 种)和动物(816 种)的红色名录中报告的灭绝证据。我们发现,证据类型及其使用频率在不同植物、动物和红色名录版本中惊人地一致。最常见的证据是 "长期失踪",只有不到一半的物种报告讨论了搜寻工作,15%的EX/EW植物和27%的动物报告没有提供EX/EW列名的理由。我们回顾了灭绝概率模型在EX、EW和极度濒危物种中的使用情况,发现有155个物种被纳入灭绝概率模型。几乎所有应用于鸟类和哺乳动物的模型都一致认为这些物种已经灭绝。自 1993 年以来,已有 17 个基于搜索努力、特征和探测率来估计物种灭绝概率的统计模型发表,并应用于 EX、EW 或 CR(PE) 物种。目前,只有极少部分(0.6%)的红色名录中包含了已公布的模型结果;因此,灭绝概率建模在很大程度上与红色名录无关。这种情况很可能会改变,因为自2019年起,红色名录指南提供了灭绝可能性定量估计的模板。将统计模型与基于其他标准的物种灭绝概率评估相结合,可以加强动植物的灭绝列名,并增加我们对现代物种丧失规模的了解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Biological Conservation
Biological Conservation 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.20
自引率
3.40%
发文量
295
审稿时长
61 days
期刊介绍: Biological Conservation is an international leading journal in the discipline of conservation biology. The journal publishes articles spanning a diverse range of fields that contribute to the biological, sociological, and economic dimensions of conservation and natural resource management. The primary aim of Biological Conservation is the publication of high-quality papers that advance the science and practice of conservation, or which demonstrate the application of conservation principles for natural resource management and policy. Therefore it will be of interest to a broad international readership.
期刊最新文献
Integration of genetic, taxonomic, and functional dimensions of biodiversity yields conservation insights Leveraging passive acoustic monitoring for result-based agri-environmental schemes: Opportunities, challenges and next steps Assessing the impact of transport infrastructure construction on breeding birds: A long term before-during-after experiment on female bustards Old growth forests: A blueprint for restoring mycorrhizal fungi in second-growth and thinned coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) stands Including Funga in Brazilian environmental impact reports
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1