ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

The oft-repeated claim that Earth's biota is entering a sixth " mass extinction " depends on clearly demonstrating that current extinction rates are far above the " background " rates prevailing in the five previous mass extinctions. Earlier estimates of extinction rates have been criticized for using assumptions that might overestimate the severity of the extinction crisis. We assess, using extremely conservative assumptions, whether human activities are causing a mass extinction. First, we use a recent estimate of a background rate of 2 mammal extinctions per 10,000 species per 100 years (that is, 2 E/MSY), which is twice as high as widely used previous estimates. We then compare this rate with the current rate of mammal and vertebrate extinctions. The latter is conservatively low because listing a species as extinct requires meeting stringent criteria. Even under our assumptions, which would tend to minimize evidence of an incipient mass extinction, the average rate of vertebrate species loss over the last century is up to 114 times higher than the background rate. Under the 2 E/MSY background rate, the number of species that have gone extinct in the last century would have taken, depending on the vertebrate taxon, between 800 and 10,000 years to disappear. These estimates reveal an exceptionally rapid loss of biodiversity over the last few centuries, indicating that a sixth mass extinction is already under way. Averting a dramatic decay of biodiversity and the subsequent loss of ecosystem services is still possible through intensified conservation efforts, but that window of opportunity is rapidly closing.
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Accelerated modern humaninduced species
losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction
Gerardo Ceballos,
1
* Paul R. Ehrlich,
2
Anthony D. Barnosky,
3
Andrés García,
4
Robert M. Pringle,
5
Todd M. Palmer
6
The oft-repeated claim that Earths biota is entering a sixth mass extinctiondepends on clearly demonstrating that
current extinction rates are far above the backgroundrates prevailing in the five previous mass extinctions. Earlier
estimates of extinction rates have been criticized for using assumptions that might overestimate the severity of the
extinction crisis. We assess, using extremely conservative assumptions, whether human activities are causing a mass
extinction. First, we use a recent estimate of a background rate of 2 mammal extinctions per 10,000 species per
100 years (that is, 2 E/MSY), which is twice as high as widely used previous estimates. We then compare this rate
with the current rate of mammal and vertebrate extinctions. The latter is conservatively low because listing a
species as extinct requires meeting stringent criteria. Even under our assumptions, which would tend to minimize
evidence of an incipient mass extinction, the average rate of vertebrate species loss over the last century is up to
114 times higher than the background rate. Under the 2 E/MSY background rate, the number of species that have
gone extinct in the last century would have taken, depending on the vertebrate taxon, between 800 and 10,000
years to disappear. These estimates reveal an exceptionally rapid loss of biodiversity over the last few centuries,
indicating that a sixth mass extinction is already under way. Averting a dramatic decay of biodiversity and the
subsequent loss of ecosystem services is still possible through intensified conservation efforts, but that window
of opportunity is rapidly closing.
INTRODUCTION
The loss of biodiversity is one of the most critical current environmental
problems, threatening valuable ecosystem services and human well-
being (17). A growing body of evidence indicates that current species
extinction rates are higher than the pre-human background rate (815),
with hundreds of anthropogenic vertebrate extinctions documented in
prehistoric and historic times (1623). For example, in the islands of
tropical Oceania, up to 1800 bird species (most described in the last
few decades from subfossil remains) are estimated to have gone extinct
in the ~2000 years since human colonization (24). Written records of
extinctions of large mammals, birds, and reptiles date back to the 1600s
and include species such as the dodo (Raphus cucullatus, extinguished
in the 17th century), Stellersseacow(Hydrodamalis gigas, extinguished
in the 18th century), and the Rodrigues giant tortoise (Cylindraspis
peltastes, extinguished in the 19th century). More species extinction
records date from the 19th century and include numerous species of
mammals and birds. Records of extinction for reptiles, amphibians,
freshwater fishes, and other organisms have mainly been documented
since the beginning of the 20th century (14,17). Moreover, even in
species that are not currently threatened, the extirpation of popula-
tionsisfrequentandwidespread,with losses that far outstrip species-
level extinctions (18,25). Population-level extinction directly threatens
ecosystem services and is the prelude to species-level extinction (18).
Here,weanalyzethemodernratesofvertebrate species extinction
and compare them with a recently computed background rate for mam-
mals (7). We specifically addressed the following questions: (i) Are
modern rates of mammal and vertebrate extinctions higher than the
highest empirically derived background rates? (ii) How have modern
extinction rates in mammals and vertebrates changed through time?
(iii) How many years would it have taken for species that went extinct
in modern times to have been lost if the background rate had prevailed?
These are important issues because the uncertainties about estimates of
species loss have led skeptics to question the magnitude of anthropo-
genic extinctions (26) and because understanding the magnitude of
the extinction crisis is relevant for conservation, maintenance of eco-
system services, and public policy.
Until recently, most studies of modern extinction rates have been
based on indirect estimates derived, for example, on the rates of de-
forestation and on species-area relationships (11,14). Problems related
to estimating extinction since 1500 AD (that is, modern extinctions)
have been widely discussed, and the literature reflects broad agreement
among environmental scientists that biases lead to underestimating the
number of species that have gone extinct in the past few centuries
the period during which Homo sapiens truly became a major force on
the biosphere (14,68,14,15). However, direct evaluation is complicated
by uncertainties in estimating the incidence of extinction in historical
time and by methodological difficulties in comparing contemporary ex-
tinctions with past ones.
Less discussed are assumptions underlying the estimation of
background extinction rates. The lower these estimates, the more dra-
matic current extinction rates will appear by comparison. In nearly all
comparisons of modern versus background extinction rates, the
background rate has been assumed to be somewhere between 0.1 and
1 species extinction per 10,000 species per 100 years (equal to 0.1 to
1 species extinction per million species per year, a widely used metric
known as E/MSY). Those estimates reflect the state of knowledge avail-
able from the fossil record in the 1990s (7,913). In a recent analysis,
which charted the stratigraphic ranges of thousands of mammal species,
1
Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México D.F. 04510,
México.
2
Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA94304, USA.
3
Department
of Integrative Biology and Museums of Paleontology and Vertebrate Zoology, University of
California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 947203140, USA.
4
Estación de Biología Chamela, Instituto
de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Jalisco 48980, México.
5
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
08544, USA.
6
Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 326118525, USA.
*Corresponding author. E-mail: gceballo@ecologia.unam.mx
2015 © The Authors, some rights reserved;
exclusive licensee American Association for
the Advancement of Science. Distributed
under a Creative Commons Attribution
NonCommercial License 4.0 (CC BY-NC).
10.1126/sciadv.1400253
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Ceballos et al. Sci. Adv. 2015;1:e1400253 19 June 2015 1of5
extinction rates were measured over intervals ranging from single years
to millions of years, and the mean extinction rate and variance were
computed for each span of time (7). In this way, the background extinc-
tion rate estimated for mammals was estimated at 1.8 E/MSY, here
rounded upward conservatively to 2 E/MSY (that is, 2 extinctions per
100 years per 10,000 species). This is double the highest previous rough
estimate.
Those previously estimated background rates were primarily derived
from marine invertebrate fossils, which are likely to have greater species
longevity than vertebrates (10,15). Data deficiencies make it impossible
to conduct empirical analyses (as was done for mammals) for non-
mammal terrestrial vertebrates; therefore, we assume the background
rates of other vertebrates to be similar to those of mammals. This sup-
position leads to a more conservative assessment of differences between
current and past extinction rates for the vertebrates as a whole, com-
pared with using the very low background extinction rate derived from
marine invertebrates.
The analysis we present here avoids using assumptions such as loss
of species predicted from species-area relationships, which can suggest
very high extinction rates, and which have raised the possibility that
scientists are alarmistsseeking to exaggerate the impact of humans
on the biosphere (26). Here, we ascertain whether even the lowest esti-
mates of the difference between background and contemporary extinc-
tion rates still justify the conclusion that people are precipitating a global
spasm of biodiversity loss.
RESULTS
Modern and background rates of vertebrate extinctions
Modern rates of vertebrate extinction were much higher than a
background extinction rate of 2 E/MSY. Among the vertebrate taxa
evaluated by the International Union of Conservation of Nature
(IUCN), 338 extinctions have been documented since 1500 [extinct
(EX), Table 1]. An additional 279 species have become either extinct in
the wild(EW) or listed as possibly extinct(PE), totaling 617 verte-
brate species summed over the three categories. Most extinctions have
occurred in the last 114 years (that is, since 1900; Table 1). Our esti-
mated highly conservative(that is, using data for EX species only)
and conservative(that is, by including EX, EW, and PE) modern ex-
tinction rates for vertebrates varied from 8 to 100 times higher than the
background rate (Table 2). This means, for example, that under the 2
E/MSY background rate, 9 vertebrate extinctions would have been
expected since 1900; however, under the conservative rate, 468 more
vertebrates have gone extinct than would have if the background rate
had persisted across all vertebrates under that period. Specifically, these
468 species include 69 mammal species, 80 bird species, 24 reptiles, 146
amphibians, and 158 fish.
Table 1. Numbers of species used in the Table 2 calculations of highly conservativeand conservativemodern extinction rates based on
the IUCN Red List (17). For the highly conservative rates, only species verified as extinct(EX) were included; for the conservative extinction rates,
species in the categories extinct in the wild(EW) and possibly extinct(PE) were also included.
Vertebrate taxon
No. of species, IUCN 2014.3
Highly conservative
rates (EX)
Conservative rates
(EX + EW + PE) No. of species
evaluated by IUCN
Since 1500 Since 1900 Since 1500 Since 1900
Vertebrates 338 198 617 477 59% (39,223)
Mammals 77 35 111 69 100% (5,513)
Birds 140 57 163 80 100% (10,425)
Reptiles 21 8 37 24 44% (4,414)
Amphibians 34 32 148 146 88% (6,414)
Fishes 66 66 158 158 38% (12,457)
Table 2. Elevation of highly conservativeand conservativemod-
ern vertebrate extinction rates above background rate of 2 E/MSY (see
table S2 for calculations). For each assessment category, two periods are
shown: extinction rates computed from 1500 to the present, and from
1900 to the present.
Animal group
Elevation of modern rates with
respect to expected rates
Highly conservative Conservative
Since 1500 Since 1900 Since 1500 Since 1900
Vertebrates 8 22 15 53
Mammals 14 28 20 55
Birds 13 24 15 34
Reptiles 5 8 8 24
Amphibians 5 22 22 100
Fishes 5 23 12 56
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Ceballos et al. Sci. Adv. 2015;1:e1400253 19 June 2015 2of5
Variation in modern extinction rates through time
Modern extinction rates have increased sharply over the past 200 years
(corresponding to the rise of industrial society) and are considerably
higher than background rates (Fig. 1). Rates of modern extinctions vary
among vertebrate groups (Fig. 1). For example, amphibians, comprising
of ~7300 species, show an accelerating rate of extinction: only 34 extinc-
tions have been documented with a high level of certainty since 1500,
yet >100 species have likely disappeared since 1980 (17,23). This may
not only reflect real trends but also a shortage of data for groups for
which most species are not yet evaluated, such as reptiles and fish
(21,22).
Modern extinctions if background rate had prevailed
Our results indicate that modern vertebrate extinctions that occurred
since 1500 and 1900 AD would have taken several millennia to occur
if the background rate had prevailed. The total number of vertebrate
species that went extinct in the last century would have taken about
800 to 10,000 years to disappear under the background rate of 2 E/MSY
(Fig. 2). The particularly high losses in the last several decades accentu-
ate the increasing severity of the modern extinction crisis.
DISCUSSION
Arguably the most serious aspect of the environmental crisis is the loss
of biodiversitythe other living things with which we share Earth. This
affects human well-being by interfering with crucial ecosystem services
such as crop pollination and water purification and by destroying
humanitys beautiful, fascinating, and culturally important living
companions (4,5,15,2730).
Our analysis shows that current extinction rates vastly exceed
natural average background rates, even when (i) the background rate is
considered to be double previous estimates and when (ii) data on mod-
ern vertebrate extinctions are treated in the most conservative plausible
way. We emphasize that our calculations very likely underestimate the
severity of the extinction crisis because our aim was to place a realistic
lower boundon humanitys impact on biodiversity. Therefore, al-
though biologists cannot say preciselyhow many species there are, or
exactly how many have gone extinct in any time interval, we can con-
fidently conclude that modern extinction rates are exceptionally high,
that they are increasing, and that they suggest a mass extinction under
waythe sixth of its kind in Earths 4.5 billion years of history.
Cumulative extinctions as % of IUCN-evaluated species
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0
1500-1600 1600-1700 1700-1800 1800-1900 1900-2014
Time interval
Mammals
Birds
Vertebrates
Other vertebrates
Background
A
Cumulative extinctions as % of IUCN-evaluated species
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
1500-1600 1600-1700 1700-1800 1800-1900 1900-2010
Time interval
Mammals
Vertebrates
Birds
Other vertebrates
Background
B
Fig. 1. Cumulative vertebrate species recorded as extinct or extinct in the wild by the IUCN (2012). Graphs show the percentage of the number of
species evaluated among mammals (5513; 100% of those described), birds (10,425; 100%), reptiles (4414; 44%), amphibians (6414; 88%), fishes (12,457;
38%), and all vertebrates combined (39,223; 59%). Dashed black curve represents the number of extinctions expected under a constant standard
background rate of 2 E/MSY. (A) Highly conservative estimate. (B) Conservative estimate.
Fishes Amphibians Reptiles Birds Mammals Vertebrates
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Times (years)
Very conservative
Conservative
Fig. 2. Number of years that would have been required for the ob-
served vertebrate species extinctions in the last 114 years to occur un-
der a background rate of 2 E/MSY. Red markers, highly conservative
scenario; blue markers, conservative scenario. Note that for all vertebrates,
the observed extinctions would have taken between 800 to 10,000 years to
disappear, assuming 2 E/MSY. Different classes of vertebrates all show qual-
itatively similar trends.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Ceballos et al. Sci. Adv. 2015;1:e1400253 19 June 2015 3of5
A final important point is that we focus exclusively on species, ignor-
ing the extirpation of populationsthe units relevant to ecological
functioning and the delivery of ecosystem services (4,5,29). Population
extinction cannot be reliably assessed from the fossil record, precluding
any analysis along the lines of that presented here. Also, although it is
clear that there are high rates of population extinction (18), existing data
aremuchlessreliableandfarhardertoobtainthanthoseforspecies,
which will remain true for the foreseeable future. Likewise, we have not
considered animals other than vertebrates because of data deficiencies.
The evidence is incontrovertible that recent extinction rates are un-
precedented in human history and highly unusual in Earthshistory.
Ouranalysisemphasizesthatourglobal society has started to destroy
species of other organisms at an accelerating rate, initiating a mass ex-
tinction episode unparalleled for 65 million years. If the currently
elevated extinction pace is allowed to continue, humans will soon (in
as little as three human lifetimes) be deprived of many biodiversity
benefits. On human time scales, this loss would be effectively permanent
because in the aftermath of past mass extinctions, the living world took
hundreds of thousands to millions of years to rediversify. Avoiding a
true sixth mass extinction will require rapid, greatly intensified efforts
to conserve already threatened species and to alleviate pressures on their
populationsnotably habitat loss, overexploitation for economic gain,
and climate change (3133). All of these are related to human popula-
tion size and growth, which increases consumption (especially among
the rich), and economic inequity (6). However, the window of oppor-
tunity is rapidly closing.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
To estimate modern extinction rates, we compiled data on the total
number of described species and the number of extinct and possibly
extinct vertebrate species from the 2014 IUCN Red List (17). In the
IUCNs list, extinct species can be viewed as the minimum number
of actual extinctions during recent human history (that is, since 1500)
because it lists species known to be extinct (EX), extinct in the wild
(EW), and possibly extinct (PE, a subcategory within critically
endangeredreserved for species thought to be extinct, but not con-
firmed) (17) (table S1). We used the IUCN data to calculate modern
extinction rates in two ways: (i) we estimate a highly conservative mod-
ern extinction rateby using the data exclusively on species listed as EX,
and (ii) we calculate a conservative extinction rateby including also
both EW and PE species (table S2). Including these latter two categories
recognizes that there is only a slim chance that most of the species in
those categories can reestablish viable populations in their native habi-
tats. In terms of biological impact and the provision of ecosystem
services, we consider EW and PE species to be functionally equivalent
to EX species: even if some individuals still exist, their abundances are
not sufficient to have a substantial influence on ecological function and
processes.
The IUCNs list is considered the authoritative, albeit likely conserv-
ative, assessment of the conservation status of plant and animal species.
About 1.8 million species have been described since 1758 (when the cur-
rent nomenclature system was developed), of which 1.3 million are
animals (3,17). Of these animal species, about 39,223 (of the currently
counted 66,178) vertebrate species have been formally assessed and re-
ported in the 2014 IUCN Red List (17). In the IUCN sample, mammals,
birds, and amphibians have had between 88 and 100% of their known
species evaluated, whereas only 44% of reptiles and 38% of fish species
have been assessed (Table 1). We focus our comparisons on vertebrates
becausetheyarethegroupforwhichthemostreliabledataexist,both
fossil and modern.
To produce conservative comparisons with modern extinctions, we
assumed a background extinction rate of 2 E/MSY as the highest likely
baseline average background extinction rate (7); that is, we should ex-
pect 2 extinctions per 10,000 vertebrate species per 100 years. That
background extinction rate was empirically determined using the ex-
ceptionally good fossil records of mammals, combining extinction counts
from paleontological databases and published literature on the fossil, sub-
fossil, and historical records (7).Usingtheresultinghighbackgroundex-
tinction rate provides a stringent test for assessing whether current modern
extinction rates indicate that a mass extinction event is under way. Previous
estimates of background extinction rates for other taxa are invariably
lower than the mammal-derived estimate of 2 E/MSY used here.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
Supplementary material for this article is available at http://advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/
full/1/5/e1400253/DC1
Table S1. Definitions of IUCN categories (17) used to assess modern extinction rates.
Table S2. Estimation of modern extinction rates since 1500 and 1900.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. G. Ceballos, A. Garcia, P. R. Ehrlich, The sixth extinction crisis: Loss of animal populations
and species. J. Cosmology 8, 18211831 (2010).
2. R. Dirzo, P. H. Raven, Global state of biodiversity and loss. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 28,
137167 (2003).
3. G. Mace, K. Norris, A. Fitter, Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multilayered relation-
ship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27,1926 (2012).
4. G. Mace, C. Revenga, E. Ken, Biodiversity, in Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Cur rent
State and Trends, G. Ceballos, G. Orians, S. L. Pacala, Eds. (Island Press, Washington, DC,
2005), chap. 4, pp. 77121.
5. G. C. Daily, P. A. Matson, Ecosystem services: From theory to implementation. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 94559456 (2008).
6. P. R. Ehrlich, A. Ehrlich, Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided? Proc. Biol. Sci. 280,
20122845 (2013).
7. A.D.Barnosky,N.Matzke,S.Tomiya,G.O.Wogan,B.Swartz,T.B.Quental,C.Marshall,
J. L. McGuire, E. L. Lindsey, K. C. Maguire, B. Mersey, E. A. Ferrer, Has the Earthssixthmass
extinction alre ady arriv ed? Nature 471,5157 (2011).
8. R. Dirzo, H. S. Young, M. Galletti, G. Ceballos, J. B. Nick, B. Collen, Defaunation in the
Anthropocene. Science 345, 401406 (2014).
9. R. Leakey, R. Lewis, The Sixth Extinction: Patterns of Life and the Future of Humankind (Doubleday,
New York, 1995).
10. D. M. Raup, A kill curve for Phanerozoic marine species. Paleobiology 17,3748 (1991).
11. R. M. May, J. H. Lawton, E .Stork, Assessing extinction rates, in Extinction Rates, J. H. Lawton,
R. M. May, Eds. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995), chap. 1. pp. 124.
12. S. L. Pimm, G. J. Russell, J. L. Gittleman, T. M. Brooks, The future of biodiversity. Science 269,
347350 (1995).
13. J. Alroy, Constant extinction, constrained diversification, and uncoordinated stasis in North
American mammals. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 127, 285311 (1996).
14. J. E. M. Baillie, Z. Cokeliss, Extinctions in recent time, in 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species: A Global Species Assessment, J. E. M. Baillie, C. Hilton-Taylor, S. N. Stuart, Eds. (IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, 2004); pp. 3350.
15. R. M. May, Ecological science and tomorrows world. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci.
365,4147 (2010).
16. H. M. Pereira, P. W. Leadley, V. Proença, R. Alkemade, J. P. Scharlemann, J. F. Fernandez-Manjarrés,
M. B. Araújo, P. Balvanera, R. Biggs, W. W. Cheung, L. Chini, H. D. Cooper, E. L. Gilman, S. Guénette,
G. C. Hurtt, H. P. Huntington, G. M. Mace, T. Oberdorff, C. Revenga, P. Rodrigues, R. J. Scholes,
U. R. Sumaila, M. Walpole, Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science,330,
14961501 (2010).
17. IUCN, The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2014.3 (IUCN, 2014); http://www.
iucnredlist.org (downloaded on 11 March 2015).
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Ceballos et al. Sci. Adv. 2015;1:e1400253 19 June 2015 4of5
18. G. Ceballos, P. R. Ehrlich, Mammal population losses and the extinction crises. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 38413846 (2009).
19. J. Schipper, J. S. Chanson, F. Chiozza, N. A. Cox, M. Hoffmann, V. Katariya, J. Lamoreux,
A. S. Rodrigues, S. N. Stuart, H. J. Temple, J. Baillie, L. Boitani, T. E. Lacher Jr., R. A. Mittermeier,
A. T. Smith, D. Absol on, J. M. Aguiar, G. Amori, N. Bakkour, R. Baldi, R. J. Berridge, J. Bielby,
P.A.Black,J.J.Blanc,T.M.Brooks,J.A.Burton,T.M.Butynski,G.Catullo,R.Chapman,
Z. Cokeliss, B. Collen, J. Conroy, J. G. Cooke, G. A. da Fonseca, A. E. Derocher, H. T. Dublin,
J.W.Duckworth,L.Emmons,R.H.Emslie,M.Festa-Bianchet,M.Foster,S.Foster,D.L.Garshelis,
C. Gates, M. Gimenez-Dixon, S. Gonz alez, J. F. Gonzalez-Maya, T. C. Good, G. Hammerson ,
P. S. Hammond, D. Ha ppold, M. Happold, J. Hare, R. B. Ha rris, C. E. Hawkins, M. Haywood,
L. R. Heaney, S. Hedges, K. M. Helgen, C. Hilton-Taylor, S. A. Hussain, N. Ishii, T. A. Jefferson,
R. K. Jenkins, C. H. Johnston, M. Keith, J. Kingdon, D. H. Knox, K. M. Kovacs, P. Langhammer,
K. Leus, R. Lewison, G. Lichtenstein, L. F. Lowry, Z. Macavoy, G. M. Mace, D. P. Mallon, M. Masi,
M. W. McKnight, R. A. Medellín, P. Medici, G. Mills, P. D. Moehlman, S. Molur, A. Mora, K. Nowell,
J.F.Oates,W.Olech,W.R.Oliver,M.Oprea,B.D.Patterson,W.F.Perrin,B.A.Polidoro,
C. Pollock, A. Powel, Y. Protas, P. Racey, J. Ragle, P. Ramani, G. Rathbun, R. R. Reeves, S. B. Reilly,
J. E. Reynolds III, C. Rondinini, R. G. Rosell-Ambal, M. Rulli, A. B. Rylands, S. Savini, C. J. Schank,
W. Sechrest, C. Self-Sullivan, A. Shoemaker, C. Sillero-Zubiri, N. De Silva, D. E. Smith, C. Srinivasulu,
P. J. Stephenson, N. van Strien, B. K. Talukdar, B. L. Taylor, R. Timmins, D. G. Tirira, M. F. Tognelli,
K. Tsytsulina, L. M. Veiga, J. C. Vié, E. A. Williamson, S. A. Wyatt, Y. Xie, B. E. Young, The status of
the worlds land and marine mammals: Diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science 322, 225230
(2008).
20. S. L. Pimm, P. Raven, A. Peterson, C. H. Şekercioğlu, P. R. Ehrlich, Human impacts on the rates
of recent, present, and future bird extinctions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 1094110946
(2006).
21. N. M. Burkhead, Extinction rates in North American freshwater fishes, 19002010. BioScience
62,798808 (2012).
22. M. Böhm, B. Collen, J. E. M. Baillie, P. Bowles, J. Chanson, N. Cox, G. Hammerson, M. Hoffmann,
S. R. Livingstone, M. Ram, A. G. J. Rhodin, S. N. Stuart, P. P. van Dijk, B. E. Young, L. E. Afuang,
A. Aghasyan, A. García, C. Aguilar, R. Ajtic, F. Akarsu, L. R. V. Alencar, A. Allison, N. Ananjeva,
S. Anderson, C. Andrén, D. Ariano-Sánchez, J. C. Arredondo, M. Auliya, C. C. Austin, A. Avci,
P. J. Baker, A. F. Barreto-Lima, C. L. Barrio-Amorós, D. Basu, M. F. Bates, A. Batistella,
A. Bauer, D. Bennett, W. Böhme, D. Broadley, R. Brown, J. Bu rgess, A. Captain, S. Carreira,
M. del Rosario Castañeda, F. Castro, A. Catenazzi, J. R. Cedeño-Vázquez, D. G. Chapple,
M. Cheylan, D. F. Cisneros-Heredia, D. Cogalniceanu, H. Cogger, C. Corti, G. C. Costa, P. J. Couper,
T. Courtney, J. Crnobrnja-Isailovic, P.-A. Crochet, B. Crother, F. Cruz, J. C. Daltry, R. J. Ranjit Daniels,
I. Das, A. de Silva, A. C. Diesmos, L. Dirksen, T. M. Doan, C. K. Dodd Jr., J. S. Doody, M. E. Dorcas,
J. D. de Barros Filho, V. T. Egan, E. H. El Mouden, D. Embert, R. E. Espinoza, A. Fallabrino,
X. Feng, Z.-J. Feng, L. Fitzgerald, O. Flores-Villela, F. G. R. França, D. Frost, H. Gadsden, T. Gamble,
S.R.Ganesh,M.A.Garcia,J.E.García-Pérez,J.Gatus,M.Gaulke,P.Geniez,A.Georges,J.Gerlach,
S.Goldberg,J.-C.T.Gonzalez,D.J.Gower,T.Grant,E.Greenbaum,C.Grieco,P.Guo,
A. M. Hamilton, K. Hare, S. B. Hedges, N. Heideman, C. Hilton-Taylor, R. Hitchmough,
B. Hollingsworth, M. Hutchinson, I. Ineich, J. Iverson, F. M. Jaksic, R. Jenkins, U. Joger, R. Jose,
Y. Kaska, U. Kaya, J. S. Keogh, G. Köhler, G. Kuchling, Y. Kumlutaş, A. Kwet, E. La Marca, W. Lamar,
A.Lane,B.Lardner,C.Latta,G.Latta,M.Lau,P.Lavin,D.Lawson,M.LeBreton,E.Lehr,D.Limpus,
N.Lipczynski,A.S.Lobo,M.A.López-Luna,L.Luiselli,V.Lukoschek,M.Lundberg,P.Lymberakis,
R. Macey, W. E. Magnusson, D. L. Mahler, A. Malhotra, J. Mariaux, B. Maritz, O. A. V. Marques,
R.Márquez,M.Martins,G.Masterson,J.A.Mateo,R.Mathew,N.Mathews,G.Mayer,J.R.McCranie,
G. J. Measey, F. Mendoza-Quijano, M. Menegon, S. Métrailler, D. A. Milton, C. Montgomery,
S. A. A. Morato, T. Mott, A. Muñoz-Alonso, J. Murphy, T. Q. Nguyen, G. Nilson, C. Nogueira,
H. Núñez, N. Orlov, H. Ota, J. Ottenwalder, T. Papenfuss, S. Pasachnik, P. Passos, O. S. G. Pauwels,
N. Pérez-Buitrago, V. Pérez-Mellado, E. R. Pianka, J. Pleguezuelos, C. Pollock, P. Ponce-Campos,
R. Powell, F. Pupin, G. E. Quintero Díaz, R. Radder, J. Ramer, A. R. Rasmussen, C. Raxworthy,
R.Reynolds,N.Richman,E.L.Rico,E.Riservato,G.Rivas,P.L.B.daRocha,M.-O.Rödel,
L. Rodríguez Schettino, W. M. Roosenburg, J. P. Ross, R. Sadek, K. Sanders, G. Santos-Barrera,
H. H. Schleich, B. R. Schmidt, A. Schmitz, M. Sharifi, G. Shea, H.-T. Shi, R. Shine, R. Sindaco,
T. Slimani, R. Somaweera, S. Spawls, P. Stafford, R. Stuebing, S. Sweet, E. Sy, H. J. Temple ,
M. F. Tognelli, K. Tolley, P. J. Tolson, B. Tuniyev, S. Tuniyev, N. Üzüm, G. van Buurt, M. Van Sluys,
A. Velasco, M. Vences, M. Veselý, S. Vinke, T. Vinke, G. Vogel, M. Vogrin, R. C. Vogt, O. R. Wearn,
Y. L. Werner, M. J. Whiting, T. Wiewandt, J. Wilkinson, B. Wilson, S. Wren, T. Zamin, K. Zhou, G. Zug,
The conservation status of the worldsreptiles.Biol. Conserv. 157, 372385 (2013).
23. S. N. Stuart, J. S. Chanson, N. A. Cox, B. E. Young, A. S. Rodrigues, D. L. Fischman, R. W. Waller, Status
and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306, 17831786 (2004).
24. D. W. Steadman, Extinction and Biogeography of Tropical Pacific Birds (Chicago University
Press, Chicago, 2006).
25. J. B. Hughes, G. C. Daily, P. R. Ehrlich, Population diversity: Its extent and extinction. Science
278, 689692 (1997).
26. B. Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World (Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2001).
27. S. Dullinger, F. Essl, W. Rabitsch, K. H. Erb, S. Gingrich, H. Haberl, K. Hülber, V. Jarosík, F. Krausmann,
I. Kühn, J. Pergl, P. Pysek, P. E. Hulme, Europes other debt crisis caused by the long legacy of
future extinctions. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110,73427347 (2013).
28. D. S. Karp, H. V. Moeller, L. O. Frishkoff, Nonrandom extinction patterns can modulate pest
control service decline. Ecol. Appl. 23, 840849 (2013).
29. C. D. Mendenhall, D. S. Karp, C. F. Meyer, E. A. Hadly, G. C. Daily, Predicting biodiversity
change and averting collapse in agricultural landscapes. Nature 509, 213217 (2014).
30. L. O. Frishkoff, D. S. Karp, L. K. MGonigle, C. D. Mendenhall, J. Zook, C. Kremen, E. A. Hadly,
G. C. Daily, Loss of avian phylogenetic diversity in Neotropical agricultural systems. Science
345, 13431346 (2014).
31. M.deL.Brooke,S.H.M.Butchart,S.T.Garnett,G.M.Crowley,N.B.Mantilla-Beniers,A.J.Stattersfield,
Rates of movement of threatened bird species between IUCN Red List categories and toward
extinction. Conserv. Biol. 22,417427 (2008).
32. S. Butchart, A. Stattersfield, N. Collar, How many bird extinctions have we prevented? Oryx
40, 266278 (2006).
33. M. Hoffmann, C. Hilton-Taylor, A. Angulo, M. Böhm, T. M. Brooks, S. H. Butchart, K. E. Carpenter,
J. Chanson, B. Collen, N. A. Cox, W. R. Darwall, N. K. Dulvy, L. R. Harrison, V. Katariya,
C. M. Pollock, S. Quader, N. I. Richman, A. S. Rodrigues, M. F. Tognelli, J. C. Vié, J. M. Aguiar,
D. J. Allen, G. R. Allen, G. Amori, N. B. Ananjeva, F. Andreone, P. Andrew, A. L. Aquino Ortiz,
J. E. Baillie, R. Baldi, B. D. Bell, S. D. Biju, J. P. Bi rd, P. Black-Decima, J. J. Blanc, F. Bolaños,
W. Bolivar-G, I. J. Burfield, J. A. Burton, D. R. Capper, F. Castro, G. Catullo, R. D. Cavanagh,
A. Channing, N. L. Chao, A. M. Chenery, F. Chiozza, V. Clausnitzer, N. J. Collar, L. C. Collett,
B. B. Collette, C. F. Cortez Fernandez, M. T. Craig, M. J. Crosby, N. Cumberlidge, A. Cuttelod,
A.E.Derocher,A.C.Diesmos,J.S.Donaldson,J.W.Duckworth,G.Dutson,S.K.Dutta,
R. H. Emslie, A. Farjon, S. Fowler, J. Freyhof, D. L. Garshelis, J. Gerlach, D. J. Gower, T. D. Grant,
G. A. Hammerson, R. B. Harris, L. R. Heaney, S. B. Hedges, J. M. Hero, B. Hughes, S. A. Hussain,
M. J. Icochea, R. F. Inger, N. Ishii, D. T. Iskandar, R. K. Jenkins, Y. Kaneko, M. Kottelat,
K.M.Kovacs,S.L.Kuzmin,E.LaMarca,J.F.Lamoreux,M.W.Lau,E.O.Lavilla,K.Leus,R.L.Lewison,
G.Lichtenstein,S.R.Livingstone,V.Lukoschek,D.P.Mallon,P.J.McGowan,A.McIvor,
P.D.Moehlman,S.Molur,A.MuñozAlonso,J.A.Musick,K.Nowell,R.A.Nussbaum,
W. Olech, N. L. Orlov, T. J. Papenfuss, G. Parra-Olea, W. F. Perrin, B. A. Polidoro, M. Pourkazemi,
P. A. Racey, J. S. Ragle, M. Ram, G. Rathbun, R. P. Reynolds, A. G. Rhodin, S. J. Richards,
L. O. Rodríguez, S. R. Ron, C. Rondinini, A. B. Rylands, Y. de Mitcheson Sadovy, J. C. Sanciangco,
K. L . S and e rs, G . Santos-Barrera, J. Schipper, C . Self-Sullivan, Y. Shi, A. Shoemaker, F. T. Short,
C. Sillero-Zubiri, D. L. Silvano, K. G. Smith, A. T. Smith, J. Snoeks, A. J. Stattersfield, A. J. Symes,
A. B. Taber, B. K. Taluk dar, H. J. Temple, R. Timmins, J. A. Tobias, K. Tsytsul ina, D. Tweddle,
C. Ubeda, S. V. Valenti, P. P. van Dijk, L. M. Veiga, A. Veloso, D. C. Wege, M. Wilkinson, E. A. Williamson,
F. Xie, B. E. Young, H. R. Akçakaya, L. Bennun, T. M. Blackburn, L. Boitani, H. T. Dublin,
G.A.daFonseca,C.Gascon,T.E.LacherJr.,G.M.Mace,S.A.Mainka,J.A.McNeely,R.A.Mittermeier,
G.M.Reid,J.P.Rodriguez,A.A.Rosenberg,M.J.Samways,J.Smart,B.A.Stein,S.N.Stuart,The
Impact of conservation on the status of the worlds vertebrates. Science 330, 15031509 (2010).
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank B. Young for helping us with the data on possibly
extinct speciespublished by IUCN. J. Soberon, C. Mendenhall, and J. Pacheco gave valuable
suggestions on the manuscript. Funding: This work has been supported by the Programa de
apoyo a proyectos de investigación e innovación tecnológica from UNAM. Competing
interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Submitted 23 December 2014
Accepted 1 May 2015
Published 19 June 2015
10.1126/sciadv.1400253
Citation: G.Ceballos,P.R.Ehrlich,A.D.Barnosky,A.García,R.M.Pringle,T.M.Palmer,
Accelerated modern humaninduced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci.
Adv. 1, e1400253 (2015).
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Ceballos et al. Sci. Adv. 2015;1:e1400253 19 June 2015 5of5
... Over the last few decades, anthropogenic actions in the biosphere have significantly altered ecosystems, greatly reducing their self-sustainability and natural resource supply on local, regional, and global scales (Ellis et al. 2010;Lautenbach et al. 2011;Newbold et al. 2020;Bezerra et al. 2022). Such changes continue to be extremely harmful to the planet as the loss of species in geological time has been 100 times greater than those in the past mass extinctions and has resulted in the ongoing sixth mass extinction (Ceballos et al. 2015;Ceballos and Ehrlich 2018). Despite being the country with the greatest biodiversity in the world, continental proportions, and six terrestrial biomes (the Amazon rainforest, Caatinga, Cerrado, Atlantic Forest, Pantanal, and Pampas) (Valli et al. 2018), appeals about practices that cause the destruction of this diversity in Brazil and the international repercussions remain low. ...
Article
Full-text available
Brazil presents the most threatened endemic or rare species among neotropical regions, with the Hymenoptera order, to which bees belong, classified as a high-risk category. In Brazil, the main cause of bee death is the indiscriminate use of pesticides. In this context, groups such as Bee Ecotoxicology and Conservation Laboratory (LECA in Portuguese) and Bees and Environmental Services (ASAs in Portuguese) have become a reference in studies evaluating the impacts of pesticides on bees since 1976. Thus, the objective of this review was to conduct a quantitative and qualitative review of the studies conducted by these groups to evaluate and compile the advances made over the years, identify potential knowledge gaps for future studies, and support the sensitivities of stingless bees when compared to the species Apis mellifera. The quantitative analyses showed that most studies were carried out in the genus Apis, under laboratory conditions. However, more recently (since 2003), studies have also focused on stingless bees and the neonicotinoid class of insecticides. The most relevant gaps identified were the lack of studies under field conditions and on bee biology. The qualitative analyses indicated that Brazilian stingless bees are more susceptible to pesticides than A. mellifera and require a much lower average dose, concentration, or lethal time to display morphological and behavioral damage or decreased lifespan. Thus, future studies should work towards establishing more representative protocols for stingless bees. Furthermore, public policies must be created for the protection and conservation of bees native to Brazil.
... Indeed, the following contemporary issues are related both with the past and future (Bjornerud 2018;Irvine 2014). Not only are humans rapidly consuming resources that have gradually accumulated during the deep past, but also impacting the future with human-induced climate change through sudden (from a DET point of view) emission of carbon dioxide (Johansson and Stenlund 2022) and swiftly diminishing biological diversity (Barnosky et al. 2011;Ceballos et al. 2015). Despite the short existence of our species in relation to the context of macroevolution, the impact of humans on planet earth has reached a magnitude which, once a marker has been decided, will demarcate of a new geological epoch-the Anthropocene (Subramanian 2019). ...
Article
Full-text available
Understanding deep evolutionary time is crucial for biology education and for conceptualizing evolutionary history. Although such knowledge might help citizens contemplate their actions in the context of human existence, understanding deep evolutionary time is a demanding cognitive endeavor for students. The enormous magnitudes of evolutionary time are often visually communicated through phylograms and timelines. Given the importance of understanding evolutionary time in various scientific domains at large, there is a need for tools to gauge students’ knowledge about visually communicated deep evolutionary time. In response, we describe the design and validation of an instrument to measure knowledge about the visual representation of deep evolutionary time. Development, expert panel evaluation, and piloting of an initial 14 questions with 139 respondents resulted in a 10-item multiple-choice questionnaire. Subsequent collection and analysis of 212 responses validated the 10-item Deep Evolutionary Time Visual Instrument (DET-Vis). Identification of a single factor suggests a unidimensional construct that represents knowledge about the visual communication of deep evolutionary time. A Cronbach’s alpha of 0.73 yielded an acceptable internal consistency of the instrument. The items of the instrument discriminate well with discrimination coefficients between 0.25 and 0.53. The instrument is of moderate difficulty with difficulty indices ranging from 0.56 to 0.81. The seven-step methodological design and validation procedure of this study yielded a unidimensional, valid, and reliable ten-item deep evolutionary time visual test instrument. The instrument items probe both procedural and declarative aspects of the construct that could warrant future psychometric exploration. Use of DET-Vis in pedagogical practice could help support the teaching of deep evolutionary time at upper secondary and undergraduate levels.
... The sixth mass extinction of wildlife species is imminent [1]. One factor that influences animal conservation is the lack of genetic variability. ...
Article
Full-text available
The crab-eating fox inhabits all Brazilian biomes, but little is known about its in situ reproduction. The objective of this study was to assess the pharmacological semen collection by urethral catheterization in crab-eating foxes. In addition, we compare seminal and reproductive biometric parameters between juveniles and adults, as well as between the breeding season (June to September) and the non-breeding season (October to May). For this study, free-living crab-eating foxes (individuals n = 8; adult = 6 and juvenile = 2; capture events N = 10) were captured in the Pantanal using Tomahawk traps. Biometric parameters, such as testis volume, differed between juveniles and adults, but there was no difference when comparing adults across seasons. All eight attempts to collect semen from adults were successful, but attempts to collect from juveniles were unsuccessful. The average semen volume (±SD) was 39.13 ± 21.98 µL, with motility averaging 40 ± 29.01 % and vigor of 2.57 ± 0.79. The sperm concentration was 277.57 ± 298.74 × 106 sperm/mL, and the percentage of morphologically normal sperm was 50.1 ± 14.7 on average. Significant increases were observed in sperm motility, concentration, and the proportion of sperm with normal morphology during the breeding season. It is the first time that pharmacological collection has been performed on the species and the first time that semen has been collected from free-living C. thous. The results suggest that male crab-eating foxes exhibit temporal variation in seminal quality, providing additional evidence that this species is a seasonal breeder.
... As we enter the early stages of the 'Sixth Mass Extinction' (Ceballos et al., 2015), conservation agencies are struggling to face the challenges of a less certain future (Armsworth et al., 2015) as a consequence of habitat conversion and climate change (Urban, 2015). While the population-level responses of avian taxa to anthropogenic pressures are mixed (Radchuk et al., 2019), parrots (Psittaciformes) appear to be especially vulnerable, and are among the most threatened orders of birds (Butchart et al., 2004), with many species and populations subject to diverse and largely consistent threats across several continents (Martin et al., 2014;Berkunsky et al., 2017;Olah et al., 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
In addition to changes associated with climate and land use, parrots are threatened by hunting and capture for the pet trade, making them one of the most at-risk orders of birds for which conservation action is especially important. Species richness is often used to identify high-priority areas for conserving biodiversity. By definition, richness considers all species to be equally different from one another. However, ongoing research emphasizes the importance of incorporating ecological functions (functional diversity) or evolutionary relationships (phylogenetic diversity) to more fully understand patterns of biodiversity, because (1) areas of high species richness do not always represent areas of high functional or phylogenetic diversity, and (2) functional or phylogenetic diversity may better predict ecosystem function and evolutionary potential, which are essential for effective long-term conservation policy and management. We created a framework for identifying areas of high species richness, functional diversity, and phylogenetic diversity within the global distribution of parrots. We combined species richness, functional diversity, and phylogenetic diversity into an Integrated Biodiversity Index (IBI) to identify global biodiversity hotspots for parrots. We found important spatial mismatches between dimensions, demonstrating species richness is not always an effective proxy for other dimensions of parrot biodiversity. The IBI is an integrative and flexible index that can incorporate multiple dimensions of biodiversity, resulting in an intuitive and direct way of assessing comprehensive goals in conservation planning. Además de los cambios relacionados con el clima y el uso de la tierra, los psitaciformes están amenazados por la caza y la captura destinada al comercio de mascotas, lo que los convierte en uno de los órdenes de aves en mayor riesgo de extinción para el que las medidas de conser-vación son especialmente importantes. Para determinar las zonas de prioridad alta para la conservación de la biodiversidad, se suele utilizar la riqueza de especies. Por definición, la riqueza considera que todas las especies son igualmente diferentes entre sí. No obstante, los estudios que se están llevando a cabo en la actualidad hacen hincapié en la importancia de incorporar las funciones ecológicas (diversidad funcional) o las relaciones evolutivas (diversidad filogenética) para comprender mejor los patrones de la biodiversidad, ya que 1) las zonas con una elevada riqueza de especies no siempre son zonas con una elevada diversidad funcional o filogenética y 2) la diversidad funcional y la diversidad filogenética pueden predecir mejor la función de los ecosistemas y el potencial evolutivo, que son fundamentales para la elaboración y gestión de políticas de conservación eficaces a largo plazo. Hemos creado un marco para determinar las zonas dentro del área de distribución de los psitaciformes en las que la riqueza de especies, la diversidad funcional y la diversidad filogenética son elevadas. Asimismo, hemos combinado la riqueza de especies, la diversidad funcional y la diversidad filogenética en un índice integrado de biodiversidad (IBI por su sigla en inglés), que permite determinar puntos de biodiversidad críticos para los psitaciformes. Hemos observado importantes discrepan-190 Burgio et al. cias entre las dimensiones, lo que pone de manifiesto que la riqueza de especies no siempre es una buena aproximación de las otras dimensiones de la biodiversidad de psitaciformes. El IBI es un índice integrador y flexible que puede incorporar múltiples dimensiones de la biodiversidad, lo que conlleva que sea una forma intuitiva y directa de evaluar los objetivos generales en la planificación de la conservación.
... The rapid explosion of the human population resulted in the conversion of nearly two-thirds of the global biomes with biomes now dubbed anthromes (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005;Ellis & Ramankutty, 2008;Ellis et al., 2021). Biodiversity loss is the most critical environmental issue threatening valuable ecosystem services and human well-being (Ceballos et al., 2015). Of the five major threats identified by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), habitat destruction is the main driver for biodiversity loss, it represents 71.3% of the threats to the species identified as threatened with extinction; It is 70 times more threatening than climate change (Hogue & Breon, 2022). ...
Article
Full-text available
The rapidity of the global biome changes caused by humans exceeds the slow resilience of ecosystems, especially fragile biomes such as deserts. Habitat destruction is the main threat to biodiversity loss, it is seventy times more threatening than climate change. Quantifying and mapping habitat destruction is essential for biodiversity conservation plans, as it quantifies the remaining habitats and prioritizes the most important and threatened habitats. Using remote sensing and GIS, The Egyptian Dabb lizard Uromastyx aegyptia distribution in the eastern desert of Egypt was modeled and its destroyed suitable habitats were mapped and quantified. Precipitation seasonality was the most important variable contributing to the species' habitat suitability as well as NDVI. Two regions were identified as suitable, nearly half (44%) of the northern suitable region is destroyed, and the rest is low-quality habitat. In the southern region, there is an expansion in energy projects that lies in the most important areas for Dabb lizard conservation. A great conservation opportunity could be seized if energy projects considered activating and implementing their biodiversity conservation plans.
Article
Full-text available
: The Squalus genus comprises a group of small demersal sharks occurring circumglobally, popularly known as dogfish sharks. This genus exhibits a conserved morphology, thus making correct morphological identification difficult. Considering these taxonomic problems and the scarcity of molecular data, the present study aimed to identify Squalus genus MOTUs, using DNA barcoding for species delimitation via ABGD (automatic barcode gap discovery), PTP (Poisson tree process), and GMYC (general mixed Yule coalescent) employing the mitochondrial COI gene. A total of 69 sequences were generated from samples obtained from the American coast in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The ABGD analysis was the most conservative among the three applied delimitations, indicating three taxonomic units, while the PTP analysis revealed nine MOTUs, with two conflicting units noted between S. clarkae + S. mitsukurii and S. albicaudus + S. cubensis. The GMYC analysis indicated an excessive division, with S. acanthias and S. mitsukurii subdivided into six MOTUs each and S. blainville, into four. These findings demonstrated that Squalus presents a complex of previously defined species, with misidentified samples deposited in databases leading to difficulties in analyzing the real distribution and diversity of species belonging to this genus. Thus, further efforts to highlight possible new species are recommended.
Article
Full-text available
Modern human activity is profoundly changing our relationship with microorganisms with the startling rise in the rate of emerging infectious diseases. Nipah virus together with Ebola virus and SARS-CoV-2 are prominent examples. Since COVID-19 and the West African Ebola virus disease outbreak, different chemical disinfectants have been developed for preventing the direct spread of viruses and their efficacy has also been evaluated. However, there are currently no published efficacy studies for the chemical disinfection of Nipah virus. In this study, the virucidal efficacy of three disinfectants (Micro-Chem Plus detergent disinfectant cleaner, FWD and Medical EtOH) against Nipah virus was evaluated in quantitative suspension tests including. Our results showed that the > 4 log reduction achieved for all products in inactivating Nipah virus in 15 s. Even, 19% ethanol was able to inactivate Nipah virus when applied for at least 8 min contact time. Comparative analysis displayed virucidal efficacy of each of the evaluated disinfectants against SARS-CoV-2, Ebola virus and Nipah virus, with only minor differences in working concentrations and contact times required for complete inactivation. We expect that our study can assist in decontamination in healthcare settings and high level biosafety laboratories and can be beneficial to control for emerging enveloped viruses.
Article
Full-text available
Endangered species with small population sizes are susceptible to genetic erosion, which can be detrimental to long-term persistence. Consequently, monitoring and mitigating the loss of genetic diversity are essential for conservation. The Peninsular pronghorn (Antilocapra americana peninsularis) is an endangered pronghorn subspecies that is almost entirely held in captivity. Captive breeding has increased the number of pronghorns from 25 founders in 1997 to around 700 individuals today, but it is unclear how the genetic diversity of the captive herd may have changed over time. We therefore generated and analysed data for 16 microsatellites spanning 2009–2021. We detected a decline in heterozygosity and an increase in the proportion of inbred individuals over time. However, these trends appear to have been partially mitigated by a genetically informed breeding management attempt that was implemented in 2018. We also reconstructed the recent demographic history of the Peninsular pronghorn, revealing two sequential population declines putatively linked to the desertification of the Baja California peninsula around 6000 years ago, and hunting and habitat loss around 500 years ago, respectively. Our results provide insights into the genetic diversity of an endangered antelope and indicate the potential for genetically informed management to have positive conservation outcomes.
Article
Full-text available
Accurately predicting the future distribution of species is crucial for understanding how species will response to global environmental change and for evaluating the effectiveness of current protected areas (PAs). Here, we assessed the effect of climate and land use change on the projected suitable habitats of Davidia involucrata Baill under different future scenarios using the following two types of models: (a) only climate covariates (climate SDMs) and (b) climate and land use covariates (full SDMs). We found that full SDMs perform significantly better than climate SDMs in terms of both AUC (p < .001) and TSS (p < .001) and also projected more suitable habitat than climate SDMs both in the whole study area and in its current suitable range, although D. involucrate is predicted to loss at least 26.96% of its suitable area under all future scenarios. Similarly, we found that these range contractions projected by climate SDMs would negate the effectiveness of current PAs to a greater extent relative to full SDMs. These results suggest that although D. involucrate is extremely vulnerability to future climate change, conservation intervention to manage habitat may be an effective option to offset some of the negative effects of a changing climate on D. involucrate and can improve the effectiveness of current PAs. Overall, this study highlights the necessity of integrating climate and land use change to project the future distribution of species. Future land use patterns would offset some of the negative effects of a changing climate on D. involucrate.
Article
Full-text available
Effective and targeted conservation action requires detailed information about species, their distribution, systematics and ecology as well as the distribution of threat processes which affect them. Knowledge of reptilian diversity remains surprisingly disparate, and innovative means of gaining rapid insight into the status of reptiles are needed in order to highlight urgent conservation cases and inform environmental policy with appropriate biodiversity information in a timely manner. We present the first ever global analysis of extinction risk in reptiles, based on a random representative sample of 1500 species (16% of all currently known species). To our knowledge, our results provide the first analysis of the global conservation status and distribution patterns of reptiles and the threats affecting them, highlighting conservation priorities and knowledge gaps which need to be addressed urgently to ensure the continued survival of the world’s reptiles. Nearly one in five reptilian species are threatened with extinction, with another one in five species classed as Data Deficient. The proportion of threatened reptile species is highest in freshwater environments, tropical regions and on oceanic islands, while data deficiency was highest in tropical areas, such as Central Africa and Southeast Asia, and among fossorial reptiles. Our results emphasise the need for research attention to be focussed on tropical areas which are experiencing the most dramatic rates of habitat loss, on fossorial reptiles for which there is a chronic lack of data, and on certain taxa such as snakes for which extinction risk may currently be underestimated due to lack of population information. Conservation actions specifically need to mitigate the effects of human-induced habitat loss and harvesting, which are the predominant threats to reptiles.
Article
Full-text available
Habitat conversion is the primary driver of biodiversity loss, yet little is known about how it is restructuring the tree of life by favoring some lineages over others. We combined a complete avian phylogeny with 12 years of Costa Rican bird surveys (118,127 detections across 487 species) sampled in three land uses: forest reserves, diversified agricultural systems, and intensive monocultures. Diversified agricultural systems supported 600 million more years of evolutionary history than intensive monocultures but 300 million fewer years than forests. Compared with species with many extant relatives, evolutionarily distinct species were extirpated at higher rates in both diversified and intensive agricultural systems. Forests are therefore essential for maintaining diversity across the tree of life, but diversified agricultural systems may help buffer against extreme loss of phylogenetic diversity.
Article
Full-text available
Today the number of species is the largest in the history of life; however a considerable proportion of that biodiversity is endangered and many species have suffered anthropogenic extinctions. Species and population extinctions are natural phenomena, and massive biodiversity declines have occurred five times in the remote geological past. However, the current extinction episode, the "sixth extinction wave," may prove to be the most rapid and devastating. To assess the seriousness of this wave, we analyze the present extent of life's diversity, the number of species that have gone extinct in historic times, the current rates of species extinction, and the extent of population losses. Estimates of the likely number of eukaryotic species vary from 5 to 100 million, but we are now in a "new age of discovery." There is an explosion of descriptions of new species even in previously "well-known" groups such as mammals, suggesting that previous estimates of the magnitude of biodiversity may be too low. Based on the 2008 IUCN evaluation of the status of world´s species, we estimate that extinctions caused by human activities are occurring at a rate thousands of times higher than the background rate.
Article
Full-text available
We live amid a global wave of anthropogenically driven biodiversity loss: species and population extirpations and, critically, declines in local species abundance. Particularly, human impacts on animal biodiversity are an under-recognized form of global environmental change. Among terrestrial vertebrates, 322 species have become extinct since 1500, and populations of the remaining species show 25% average decline in abundance. Invertebrate patterns are equally dire: 67% of monitored populations show 45% mean abundance decline. Such animal declines will cascade onto ecosystem functioning and human well-being. Much remains unknown about this “Anthropocene defaunation”; these knowledge gaps hinder our capacity to predict and limit defaunation impacts. Clearly, however, defaunation is both a pervasive component of the planet’s sixth mass extinction and also a major driver of global ecological change.
Article
The relationship between biodiversity and the rapidly expanding research and policy field of ecosystem services is confused and is damaging efforts to create coherent policy. Using the widely accepted Convention on Biological Diversity definition of biodiversity and work for the U.K. National Ecosystem Assessment we show that biodiversity has key roles at all levels of the ecosystem service hierarchy: as a regulator of underpinning ecosystem processes, as a final ecosystem service and as a good that is subject to valuation, whether economic or otherwise. Ecosystem science and practice has not yet absorbed the lessons of this complex relationship, which suggests an urgent need to develop the interdisciplinary science of ecosystem management bringing together ecologists, conservation biologists, resource economists and others.
Article
Effective and targeted conservation action requires detailed information about species, their distribution, systematics and ecology as well as the distribution of threat processes which affect them. Knowledge of reptilian diversity remains surprisingly disparate, and innovative means of gaining rapid insight into the status of reptiles are needed in order to highlight urgent conservation cases and inform environmental policy with appropriate biodiversity information in a timely manner. We present the first ever global analysis of extinction risk in reptiles, based on a random representative sample of 1500 species (16% of all currently known species). To our knowledge, our results provide the first analysis of the global conservation status and distribution patterns of reptiles and the threats affecting them, highlighting conservation priorities and knowledge gaps which need to be addressed urgently to ensure the continued survival of the world’s reptiles. Nearly one in five reptilian species are threatened with extinction, with another one in five species classed as Data Deficient. The proportion of threatened reptile species is highest in freshwater environments, tropical regions and on oceanic islands, while data deficiency was highest in tropical areas, such as Central Africa and Southeast Asia, and among fossorial reptiles. Our results emphasise the need for research attention to be focussed on tropical areas which are experiencing the most dramatic rates of habitat loss, on fossorial reptiles for which there is a chronic lack of data, and on certain taxa such as snakes for which extinction risk may currently be underestimated due to lack of population information. Conservation actions specifically need to mitigate the effects of human-induced habitat loss and harvesting, which are the predominant threats to reptiles.
Article
Abstract? Biodiversity, a central component of Earth's life support systems, is directly relevant to human societies. We examine the dimensions and nature of the Earth's terrestrial biodiversity and review the scientific facts concerning the rate of loss of biodiversity and the drivers of this loss. The estimate for the total number of species of eukaryotic organisms possible lies in the 5?15 million range, with a best guess of ?7 million. Species diversity is unevenly distributed; the highest concentrations are in tropical ecosystems. Endemisms are concentrated in a few hotspots, which are in turn seriously threatened by habitat destruction?the most prominent driver of biodiversity loss. For the past 300 years, recorded extinctions for a few groups of organisms reveal rates of extinction at least several hundred times the rate expected on the basis of the geological record. The loss of biodiversity is the only truly irreversible global environmental change the Earth faces today.