The DOI matches its Crossref record.
On the Risk of Extinction
Abstract
Well-known theoretical predictions are that the risk of extinction should decrease with maximum population size (K) and should increase with the temporal coefficient of variation in population size (CV). In an unvarying environment, where extinction is caused solely by demographic accidents, the risk of extinction should decrease steeply with K; the greater the contribution of environmental variability to the risk of extinction, the less steep should be the dependence on K. Large-bodied species tend to have long lifetimes but low rates of increase, which have opposite effects on the risk of extinction per year. We show that in comparisons of a large- and small-bodied species at the same average population size (N), the large-bodied species should be at less risk at low N but at greater risk at high N. We test these predictions using a data base of short-term survivals (up to a few decades) of 355 populations belonging to 100 species of British land birds on 16 islands. The mean N and risk of extinction are known for these populations, and we can calculate CV's for 39 of the species. To identify how factors other than N affect the risk of extinction, we devise a means of correcting that risk for much of the effect of N. We make the following observations. (1) Risk of extinction does decrease sharply with N. (2) After correcting for much of the effect of N, we confirm the theoretical prediction that the relative susceptibility to extinction of large- and small-bodied species reverses with increasing population size. Above seven pairs, larger-bodied species are at greater risk than smaller-bodied species; the reverse is true below seven pairs. (3) Migratory species are at greater risk of extinction than resident species. (4) Finally, after accounting for the effects of N, body size, and migratory status, we show that the risk of extinction does increase with the CV.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: A review
SAUNDERS, D. A., HOBBS, R. J., & MARGULES, C. R. (1991) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00384.x · Cited by 4,110
“Pimm et al. (1988) confirm that over a few decades extinction risk does decrease with population size, but they found no extinctions among British island birds numbering over 18 pairs.”
BackgroundMultiple causes of high extinction risk in large mammal species
Cardillo, M., Mace, G. M., Jones, K. E., Bielby, J., Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., Sechrest, W., Orme, C. D. L., & Purvis, A. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1116030 · Cited by 1,337
Dominant species maintain ecosystem function with non-random species loss
Smith, M. D., & Knapp, A. K. (2003) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00454.x · Cited by 824
Biodiversity studies: Science and policy
Ehrlich, P. R., & Wilson, E. O. (1991) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.253.5021.758 · Cited by 666
Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L) dominance in the Great Basin Desert
Knapp, P. A. (1996) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/0959-3780(95)00112-3 · Cited by 560
Biodiversity loss, trophic skew and ecosystem functioning
Duffy, J. E. (2003) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00494.x · Cited by 516
Which traits of species predict population declines in experimental forest fragments?
Davies, K. F., Margules, C. R., & Lawrence, J. F. (2000) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[1450:wtospp]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 444
Baleen whales: conservation issues and the status of the most endangered populations
Clapham, P. J., Young, S. B., & Brownell, R. L. (1999) · Mammal Review · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2907.1999.00035.x · Cited by 386
Scheper, J., Reemer, M., van Kats, R., Ozinga, W. A., van der Linden, G. T. J., Schaminée, J. H. J., Siepel, H., & Kleijn, D. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1412973111 · Cited by 357
Rates of species loss from Amazonian forest fragments
Ferraz, G., Russell, G. J., Stouffer, P. C., Bierregaard, R. O., Pimm, S. L., & Lovejoy, T. E. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2336195100 · Cited by 350
Self-citationLife-stage simulation analysis: Estimating vital-rate effects on population growth for conservation.
Wisdom, M. J., Mills, L. S., & Doak, D. F. (2000) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[0628:lssaev]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 355
Species decline—but why? Explanations of carabid beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) declines in Europe
Kotze, D. J., & O'Hara, R. B. (2003) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/s00442-002-1174-3 · Cited by 307
Key evolutionary innovations and their ecological mechanisms
Heard, S. B., & Hauser, D. L. (1995) · Historical Biology · doi:10.1080/10292389509380518 · Cited by 280
MacPhee, R. D. E., & Burney, D. A. (1991) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/0305-4403(91)90030-s · Cited by 164
The Wildlife Picture Index: monitoring top trophic levels
O'Brien, T. G., Baillie, J. E. M., Krueger, L., & Cuke, M. (2010) · Animal Conservation · doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00357.x · Cited by 151
Castelletta, M., Sodhi, N. S., & Subaraj, R. (2000) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2000.99285.x · Cited by 145
SIGEL, B. J., SHERRY, T. W., & YOUNG, B. E. (2006) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00293.x · Cited by 116
Diversity–productivity relationships in two ecologically realistic rarity–extinction scenarios
Isbell, F. I., Losure, D. A., Yurkonis, K. A., & Wilsey, B. J. (2008) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2008.16692.x · Cited by 34
Metadata
- Authors
- Pimm, S. L., Jones, H. L., & Diamond, J.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1988-12
- Volume
- 132
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 757-785
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W2052125423
- Cited by
- 1,023
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 31.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.