Extinctions: consider all species (original) (raw)

Nature volume 474, page 284 (2011) Cite this article

Subjects

We question Fangliang He and Stephen Hubbell's claim that species–area relationships overestimate global extinction (Nature 473, 368–371; 2011). We contend that they do not test their claims against real data on global extinction or threat. We also believe that they address only a small part of the problem.

Imagine destruction that wipes out 95% of habitat overnight — metaphorically speaking. How many species will have disappeared the following morning? He and Hubbell tell us it would be just those living only in the destroyed area, and not in the other 5%. In our view, the more important question is how many species in total, including those in the remnant habitat 'islands' (the 5%), will eventually become extinct (see M. L. Rosenzweig Species Diversity in Space and Time Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995.)

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 52 print issues and online access

$199.00 per year

only $3.83 per issue

Buy this article

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Additional access options:

Author information

Author notes

  1. T. M. Brooks: On behalf of 7 co-signatories

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NatureServe, Virginia, USA
    T. M. Brooks

Corresponding author

Correspondence toT. M. Brooks.

Additional information

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brooks, T. Extinctions: consider all species.Nature 474, 284 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/474284b

Download citation

This article is cited by

Comments

Commenting on this article is now closed.

  1. Mark Thompson 17 June 2011, 15:24
    It is good to see the response here, but the damage is already done. The editors of Nature need to do a better job in screening this kind of work. There is nothing inherently wrong with the SAR corrections that He and Hubbell identified. What was wrong with their article beyond the wrongs outlined in this response (and that of Evans, Possingham&#009 & Wilson &#8211 this issue) is the conclusions that He & Hubbell reached about species extinctions and the implications they drew for conservation in general. It has long been known that conservation is not just about species loss &#8211 the protection of trophic biostructure (McCann, K. (2007). "Protecting biostructure." Nature 446: 29) and other missing links are just as critical for consideration (Beattie, A.; Ehrlich, P. (2010). "The missing link in biodiversity conservation.". Science 328 (5976): 307-308). How this could have eluded He & Hubbell and the team of reviewers is just baffling.
    As a practising conservation biologists in the field I am disturbed by the He and Hubbell article because they knew in advance the social implications of their report. They knew the report would be "be falsely construed in some quarters". Well of course this would happen and it has (http://opinion.financialpos... Not only did He and Hubbell make outlandish claims, e.g., " the good news" "might already be upon us or imminent". Is this science? There is sufficient evidence to suggest that there is a mass extinction under way using methods other than the SAR (e.g., McCallum, M. L. (2007). "Amphibian decline or extinction? Current declines dwarf background extinction rate" Journal of Herpetology, 41 (3), 483-491). Beyond this we also understand that human beings appropriate more net primary production than any other species on the planet with anthromes that have permeated every corner of the Earth fundamentally altering the ecological physiology of the planet.
    There is no good news story here. The article should be retracted for its lack of insight and foresight into the implications for conservation. The damage is extensive &#8211 you can read it in the news (http://www.kcet.org/updaily.... Conservation biologists need to pay attention to the social implications especially when dealing with these kinds of issues. Haven't we learned from the situation in climate change? These kinds of outcomes create real damage to threaten efforts globally. Conservation is as much a social science as a biological one. I expected more out of Nature and the editors really need to get their act together on this. It is making our jobs as conservationists in the field very difficult when we have to contend with this kind of nonsense.