Toward multifactorial null models of range contraction in terrestrial vertebrates

The contraction of a species’ distribution range, which results from the extirpation of local populations, generally precedes its extinction. Therefore, understanding drivers of range contraction is important for conservation and management. Although there are many processes that can potentially lead to local extirpation and range contraction, three main null models have been proposed: demographic, contagion, and refuge. The first two models postulate that the probability of local extirpation for a given area depends on its relative position within the range; but these models generate distinct spatial predictions because they assume either a ubiquitous (demographic) or a clinal (contagion) distribution of threats. The third model (refuge) postulates that extirpations are determined by the intensity of human impacts, leading to heterogeneous spatial predictions potentially compatible with those made by the other two null models. A few previous studies have explored the generality of some of these null models, but we present here the first comprehensive evaluation of all three models. Using descriptive indices and regression analyses we contrast the predictions made by each of the null models using empirical spatial data describing range contraction in 386 terrestrial vertebrates (mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles) distributed across the World. Observed contraction patterns do not consistently conform to the predictions of any of the three models, suggesting that these may not be adequate null models to evaluate range contraction dynamics among terrestrial vertebrates. Instead, our results support alternative null models that account for both relative position and intensity of human impacts. These new models provide a better multifactorial baseline to describe range contraction patterns in vertebrates. This general baseline can be used to explore how additional factors influence contraction, and ultimately extinction for particular areas or species as well as to predict future changes in light of current and new threats.

Socioeconomic correlates of global mammalian conservation status

The main causes of biodiversity decline are related to human use of resources, which is ultimately triggered by the socioeconomic decisions made by individuals and nations. Characterizing the socioeconomic attributes of areas in which biodiversity is most threatened can help us identify decisions and conditions that promote the presence or absence of threats and potentially suggest more sustainable strategies. In this study we explored how diverse indicators of social and economic development correlate with the conservation status of terrestrial mammals within countries explicitly exploring hypothesized linear and quadratic relationships. First, comparing countries with and without threatened mammals we found that those without threatened species are a disparate group formed by European countries and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) with little in common besides their slow population growth and a past of human impacts. Second, focusing on countries with threatened mammals we found that those with a more threatened mammalian biota have mainly rural populations, are predominantly exporters of goods and services, receive low to intermediate economic benefits from international tourism, and have medium to high human life expectancy. Overall, these results provide a comprehensive characterization of the socioeconomic profiles linked to mammalian conservation status of the world's nations, highlighting the importance of transborder impacts reflected by the international flux of goods, services and people. Further studies would be necessary to unravel the actual mechanisms and threats that link these socioeconomic profiles and indicators with mammalian conservation. Nevertheless, this study presents a broad and complete characterization that offers testable hypotheses regarding how socioeconomic development associates with biodiversity.

Generalized drivers in the mammalian endangerment process

An important challenge for conservation today is to understand the endangerment process and identify any generalized patterns in how threats occur and aggregate across taxa. Here we use a global database describing main current external threats in mammals to evaluate the prevalence of distinct threatening processes, primarily of anthropogenic origin, and to identify generalized drivers of extinction and their association with vulnerability status and intrinsic species' traits. We detect several primary threat combinations that are generally associated with distinct species. In particular, large and widely distributed mammals are affected by combinations of direct exploitation and threats associated with increasing landscape modification that go from logging to intense human land-use. Meanwhile, small, narrowly distributed species are affected by intensifying levels of landscape modification but are not directly exploited. In general more vulnerable species are affected by a greater number of threats, suggesting increased extinction risk is associated with the accumulation of external threats. Overall, our findings show that endangerment in mammals is strongly associated with increasing habitat loss and degradation caused by human land-use intensification. For large and widely distributed mammals there is the additional risk of being hunted.

Which intrinsic traits predict vulnerability to extinction depends on the actual threatening processes

Understanding what makes some species more vulnerable to extinction than others is an important challenge for conservation. Many comparative analyses have addressed this issue exploring how intrinsic and extrinsic traits associate with general estimates of vulnerability. However, these general estimates do not consider the actual threats that drive species to extinction and hence, are more difficult to translate into effective management. We provide an updated description of the types and spatial distribution of threats that affect mammals globally using data from the IUCN for 5941 species of mammals. Using these data we explore the links between intrinsic species traits and specific threats in order to identify key intrinsic features associated with particular drivers of extinction. We find that families formed by small-size habitat specialists are more likely to be threatened by habitat-modifying processes; whereas, families formed by larger mammals with small litter sizes are more likely to be threatened by processes that directly affect survival. These results highlight the importance of considering the actual threatening process in comparative studies. We also discuss the need to standardize and rank threat importance in global assessments such as the IUCN Red List to improve our ability to understand what makes some species more vulnerable to extinction than others.

Variability in life-history and ecological traits is a buffer against extinction in mammals

Anthropogenic degradation of the world's ecosystems is leading to a widespread and accelerating loss of biodiversity. However, not all species respond equally to existing threats, raising the question: what makes a species more vulnerable to extinction? We propose that higher intraspecific variability may reduce the risk of extinction, as different individuals and populations within a species may respond differently to occurring threats. Supporting this prediction, our results show that mammalian species with more variable adult body masses, litter sizes, sexual maturity ages and population densities are less vulnerable to extinction. Our findings reveal the role of local variation among populations, particularly of large mammals, as a buffering mechanism against extinction, and emphasise the importance of considering trait variation in comparative analyses and conservation management.

Biases in comparative analyses of extinction risk: mind the gap

1. Comparative analyses are used to address the key question of what makes a species more prone to extinction by exploring the links between vulnerability and intrinsic species’ traits and/or extrinsic factors. This approach requires comprehensive species data but information is rarely available for all species of interest. As a result comparative analyses often rely on subsets of relatively few species that are assumed to be representative samples of the overall studied group. 2. Our study challenges this assumption and quantifies the taxonomic, spatial, and data type biases associated with the quantity of data available for 5415 mammalian species using the freely available life-history database PanTHERIA. 3. Moreover, we explore how existing biases influence results of comparative analyses of extinction risk by using subsets of data that attempt to correct for detected biases. In particular, we focus on links between four species’ traits commonly linked to vulnerability (distribution range area, adult body mass, population density and gestation length) and conduct univariate and multivariate analyses to understand how biases affect model predictions. 4. Our results show important biases in data availability with c.22% of mammals completely lacking data. Missing data, which appear to be not missing at random, occur frequently in all traits (14–99% of cases missing). Data availability is explained by intrinsic traits, with larger mammals occupying bigger range areas being the best studied. Importantly, we find that existing biases affect the results of comparative analyses by overestimating the risk of extinction and changing which traits are identified as important predictors. 5. Our results raise concerns over our ability to draw general conclusions regarding what makes a species more prone to extinction. Missing data represent a prevalent problem in comparative analyses, and unfortunately, because data are not missing at random, conventional approaches to fill data gaps, are not valid or present important challenges. These results show the importance of making appropriate inferences from comparative analyses by focusing on the subset of species for which data are available. Ultimately, addressing the data bias problem requires greater investment in data collection and dissemination, as well as the development of methodological approaches to effectively correct existing biases.

Integrating archaeology and palaeoecology to understand Jê landscapes in southern Brazil

Around AD 1000, the southern Brazilian highlands witnessed a convergence of phenomena: climatic change, the abrupt expansion of Araucaria forest and the appearance of large pit-houses and monumental mound and enclosure complexes, which signal fundamental socio-political and ideological change amongst southern proto-Jê (SPJ) groups. These developments raise intriguing questions regarding the relationships between people, vegetation and climate over the last 2000 years.

Larger brain size indirectly increases vulnerability to extinction in mammals

Although previous studies have addressed the question of why large brains evolved, we have limited understanding of potential beneficial or detrimental effects of enlarged brain size in the face of current threats. Using novel phylogenetic path analysis, we evaluated how brain size directly and indirectly, via its effects on life-history and ecology, influences vulnerability to extinction across 474 mammalian species. We found that larger brains, controlling for body size, indirectly increase vulnerability to extinction by extending the gestation period, increasing weaning age, and limiting litter sizes. However, we found no evidence of direct, beneficial or detrimental, effects of brain size on vulnerability to extinction, even when we explicitly considered the different types of threats that lead to vulnerability. Order-specific analyses revealed qualitatively similar patterns for Carnivora and Artiodactyla. Interestingly, for Primates, we found that larger brain size was directly (and indirectly) associated with increased vulnerability to extinction. Our results indicate that under current conditions the constraints on life-history imposed by large brains outweigh the potential benefits, undermining the resilience of the studied mammals. Contrary to the selective forces that have favoured increased brain size throughout evolutionary history, at present, larger brains have become a burden for mammals.