Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 167

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Phylogenetic trees and the future of mammalian biodiversity

Open access
Davies, T. Jonathan, Fritz, Susanne A., Grenyer, Richard, Orme, C. David L., Bielby, Jon, Bininda-Emonds, Olaf R. P., Cardillo, Marcel, Jones, Kate E., Gittleman, John L., Mace, Georgina M., Purvis, Andy·2008·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Phylogenies describe the origins and history of species. However, they can also help to predict species' fates and so can be useful tools for managing the future of biodiversity. This article starts by sketching how phylogenetic, geographic, and trait information can be combined to elucidate present mammalian diversity patterns and how they arose. Recent diversification rates and standing diversity show different geographic patterns, indicating that cradles of diversity have moved over time. Patterns in extinction risk reflect both biological differences among mammalian lineages and differences in threat intensity among regions. Phylogenetic comparative analyses indicate that for small-bodied mammals, extinction risk is governed mostly by where the species live and the intensity of the threats, whereas for large-bodied mammals, ecological differences also play an important role. This modeling approach identifies species whose intrinsic biology renders them particularly vulnerable to increased human pressure. We outline how the approach might be extended to consider future trends in anthropogenic drivers, to identify likely future battlegrounds of mammalian conservation, and the likely casualties. This framework could help to highlight consequences of choosing among different future climatic and socioeconomic scenarios. We end by discussing priority-setting, showing how alternative currencies for diversity can suggest very different priorities. We argue that aiming to maximize long-term evolutionary responses is inappropriate, that conservation planning needs to consider costs as well as benefits, and that proactive conservation of largely intact systems should be part of a balanced strategy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0801917105

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 167

Metadata

Authors
Davies, T. J., Fritz, S. A., Grenyer, R., Orme, C. D. L., Bielby, J., Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., Cardillo, M., Jones, K. E., Gittleman, J. L., Mace, G. M., & Purvis, A.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2008-08-12
Volume
105
Issue
supplement_1
Pages
11556-11563
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2067914026
Cited by
167
References
8
FWCI
11.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Phylogenetic trees and the future of mammalian biodiversity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0801917105
The paper
Davies, T. J., Fritz, S. A., Grenyer, R., Orme, C. D. L., Bielby, J., Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., Cardillo, M., Jones, K. E., Gittleman, J. L., Mace, G. M., & Purvis, A. (2008). Phylogenetic trees and the future of mammalian biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0801917105

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.