Literature DB >> 25159086

Estimating the normal background rate of species extinction.

Jurriaan M De Vos1, Lucas N Joppa, John L Gittleman, Patrick R Stephens, Stuart L Pimm.   

Abstract

A key measure of humanity's global impact is by how much it has increased species extinction rates. Familiar statements are that these are 100-1000 times pre-human or background extinction levels. Estimating recent rates is straightforward, but establishing a background rate for comparison is not. Previous researchers chose an approximate benchmark of 1 extinction per million species per year (E/MSY). We explored disparate lines of evidence that suggest a substantially lower estimate. Fossil data yield direct estimates of extinction rates, but they are temporally coarse, mostly limited to marine hard-bodied taxa, and generally involve genera not species. Based on these data, typical background loss is 0.01 genera per million genera per year. Molecular phylogenies are available for more taxa and ecosystems, but it is debated whether they can be used to estimate separately speciation and extinction rates. We selected data to address known concerns and used them to determine median extinction estimates from statistical distributions of probable values for terrestrial plants and animals. We then created simulations to explore effects of violating model assumptions. Finally, we compiled estimates of diversification-the difference between speciation and extinction rates for different taxa. Median estimates of extinction rates ranged from 0.023 to 0.135 E/MSY. Simulation results suggested over- and under-estimation of extinction from individual phylogenies partially canceled each other out when large sets of phylogenies were analyzed. There was no evidence for recent and widespread pre-human overall declines in diversity. This implies that average extinction rates are less than average diversification rates. Median diversification rates were 0.05-0.2 new species per million species per year. On the basis of these results, we concluded that typical rates of background extinction may be closer to 0.1 E/MSY. Thus, current extinction rates are 1,000 times higher than natural background rates of extinction and future rates are likely to be 10,000 times higher.
© 2014 Society for Conservation Biology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  diversification rates; extinction rate; filogenias moleculares; fossil record; linajes a través del tiempo; lineages through time; molecular phylogenies; registro fósil; tasa de diversificación; tasa de extinción

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25159086     DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12380

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  43 in total

1.  The development of Anthropocene biotas.

Authors:  Chris D Thomas
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2020-01-27       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  News Feature: Deadly deficiency at the heart of an environmental mystery.

Authors:  Natasha Gilbert
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Setting priorities in biodiversity conservation: An exercise with students, recent graduates, and environmental managers in Brazil.

Authors:  Emanuelle Cordeiro Azevedo Souza; Enrico Bernard
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2018-11-17       Impact factor: 5.129

Review 4.  How smart is smart growth? Examining the environmental validation behind city compaction.

Authors:  Åsa Gren; Johan Colding; Meta Berghauser-Pont; Lars Marcus
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2018-08-31       Impact factor: 5.129

5.  Invasive mammal eradication on islands results in substantial conservation gains.

Authors:  Holly P Jones; Nick D Holmes; Stuart H M Butchart; Bernie R Tershy; Peter J Kappes; Ilse Corkery; Alfonso Aguirre-Muñoz; Doug P Armstrong; Elsa Bonnaud; Andrew A Burbidge; Karl Campbell; Franck Courchamp; Philip E Cowan; Richard J Cuthbert; Steve Ebbert; Piero Genovesi; Gregg R Howald; Bradford S Keitt; Stephen W Kress; Colin M Miskelly; Steffen Oppel; Sally Poncet; Mark J Rauzon; Gérard Rocamora; James C Russell; Araceli Samaniego-Herrera; Philip J Seddon; Dena R Spatz; David R Towns; Donald A Croll
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-03-21       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Union of phylogeography and landscape genetics.

Authors:  Leslie J Rissler
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Lévy flight movements prevent extinctions and maximize population abundances in fragile Lotka-Volterra systems.

Authors:  Teodoro Dannemann; Denis Boyer; Octavio Miramontes
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 8.  Adaptation, speciation and extinction in the Anthropocene.

Authors:  Sarah P Otto
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-11-14       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  The dynamics underlying avian extinction trajectories forecast a wave of extinctions.

Authors:  Melanie J Monroe; Stuart H M Butchart; Arne O Mooers; Folmer Bokma
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2019-12-18       Impact factor: 3.703

10.  Reconciling global priorities for conserving biodiversity habitat.

Authors:  Karel Mokany; Simon Ferrier; Thomas D Harwood; Chris Ware; Moreno Di Marco; Hedley S Grantham; Oscar Venter; Andrew J Hoskins; James E M Watson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-04-21       Impact factor: 11.205

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.