Traits, threats, and popularity explain extinction risk of birds globally

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

As the biodiversity crisis deepens, understanding extinction risk is essential for conserving at-risk species and triaging those potentially overlooked. Extinction risk is often estimated with traits (e.g. larger species are more vulnerable) without considering the context of threats or human bias in the listing process (e.g. more popular species are more or less likely to be listed). On the other hand, current global assessments of threats do not include the context of the biological variation of species (e.g. hunting mainly impacts large species). Here, we show that biological traits, threats, and popularity all interact to influence extinction risk for birds globally. We find particularly strong interactions between body mass and hunting (large body mass increases extinction risk for species threatened by hunting), habitat breadth and agriculture (narrow habitat breadth increases extinction risk for species threatened by agriculture), body mass and agriculture (small bodied species have increased extinction risk when threatened by agriculture) and range size and agriculture (for mid range-sized species, agriculture increases extinction risk). Further, we find that extinction risk increases with popularity, likely reflecting the increased chance of popular species having been listed given the same traits and threats. Overall, our results show the importance and necessity of including both biological and human biases, as well as human-posed threats when estimating extinction risk and identifying regions harbouring disproportionally high numbers of vulnerable species.
Full text 2,280 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 2 sections · click to expand

Abstract

As the biodiversity crisis deepens, understanding extinction risk is essential for conserving at-risk species and triaging those potentially overlooked. Extinction risk is often estimated with traits (e.g. larger species are more vulnerable) without considering the context of threats or human bias in the listing process (e.g. more popular species are more or less likely to be listed). On the other hand, current global assessments of threats do not include the context of the biological variation of species (e.g. hunting mainly impacts large species). Here, we show that biological traits, threats, and popularity all interact to influence extinction risk for birds globally. We find particularly strong interactions between body mass and hunting (large body mass increases extinction risk for species threatened by hunting), habitat breadth and agriculture (narrow habitat breadth increases extinction risk for species threatened by agriculture), body mass and agriculture (small bodied species have increased extinction risk when threatened by agriculture) and range size and agriculture (for mid range-sized species, agriculture increases extinction risk). Further, we find that extinction risk increases with popularity, likely reflecting the increased chance of popular species having been listed given the same traits and threats. Overall, our results show the importance and necessity of including both biological and human biases, as well as human-posed threats when estimating extinction risk and identifying regions harbouring disproportionally high numbers of vulnerable species. DOI https://doi.org/10.32942/X2RG9P Subjects Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

Keywords

Data limitations, Extinction Risk, Global bird species, human impact, IUCN Red List, Popularity, traits, threats, extinction risk, Global bird species, human impact, IUCN Red List, Popularity, traits, threats Dates Published: 2024-07-25 08:59 License CC-BY Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Additional Metadata Conflict of interest statement: The authors have no conflict of interest Data and Code Availability Statement: Data and code will be available upon request Language: English

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2024) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00