Cited by 339Species Distribution and Climate ChangeEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesClimate Change and Environmental Impact

Recent ecological responses to climate change support predictions of high extinction risk

Open access
Maclean, Ilya M. D., Wilson, Robert J.·2011·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Predicted effects of climate change include high extinction risk for many species, but confidence in these predictions is undermined by a perceived lack of empirical support. Many studies have now documented ecological responses to recent climate change, providing the opportunity to test whether the magnitude and nature of recent responses match predictions. Here, we perform a global and multitaxon metaanalysis to show that empirical evidence for the realized effects of climate change supports predictions of future extinction risk. We use International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List criteria as a common scale to estimate extinction risks from a wide range of climate impacts, ecological responses, and methods of analysis, and we compare predictions with observations. Mean extinction probability across studies making predictions of the future effects of climate change was 7% by 2100 compared with 15% based on observed responses. After taking account of possible bias in the type of climate change impact analyzed and the parts of the world and taxa studied, there was less discrepancy between the two approaches: predictions suggested a mean extinction probability of 10% across taxa and regions, whereas empirical evidence gave a mean probability of 14%. As well as mean overall extinction probability, observations also supported predictions in terms of variability in extinction risk and the relative risk associated with broad taxonomic groups and geographic regions. These results suggest that predictions are robust to methodological assumptions and provide strong empirical support for the assertion that anthropogenic climate change is now a major threat to global biodiversity.

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.1017352108

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Long-term data on arthropod population abundance and extinction rates are severely limited.

    “Although arthropods comprise more than two-thirds of all terrestrial species and are centrally important to the ecological well-being of the Earth’s ecosystems, long-term data on population abundance and extinction rates are severely limited (9).”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [4]Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE, editors. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  2. [19]IUCN Standards and Petitions Working Group. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Gland, Switzerland: World Conservation Union; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  3. [29]R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  4. [31]Akaike H. New look at statistical-model identification. IEEE Trans Automat Contr. 1974;19:716–723. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maclean, I. M. D., & Wilson, R. J.
Affiliations
University of Exeter (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2011-07-11
Volume
108
Issue
30
Pages
12337-12342
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2101938541
Cited by
339
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 31
FWCI
1.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Environmental Impact
Keywords
climate change, extinction risk, IUCN Red List criteria, extinction probability, biodiversity loss, anthropogenic climate change, climate change prediction
MeSH terms
Animals, Models, Biological, Phylogeny, Population Density, Risk Factors, Ecosystem, Extinction, Biological, Climate Change

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