The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Impact of Species Concept on Biodiversity Studies
Abstract
Species are defined using a variety of different operational techniques. While discussion of the various methodologies has previously been restricted mostly to taxonomists, the demarcation of species is also crucial for conservation biology. Unfortunately, different methods of diagnosing species can arrive at different entities. Most prominently, it is widely thought that use of a phylogenetic species concept may lead to recognition of a far greater number of much less inclusive units. As a result, studies of the same group of organisms can produce not only different species identities but also different species range and number of individuals. To assess the impact of different definitions on conservation issues, we collected instances from the literature where a group of organisms was categorized both under phylogenetic and nonphylogenetic concepts. Our results show a marked difference, with surveys based on a phylogenetic species concept showing more species (48%) and an associated decrease in population size and range. We discuss the serious consequences of this trend for conservation, including an apparent change in the number of endangered species, potential political fallout, and the difficulty of deciding what should be conserved.
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
Cites
How many named species are valid?
Alroy, J. (2002) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.062691099 · Cited by 155
Cited by
Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?
Barnosky, A. D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G. O. U., Swartz, B., Quental, T. B., Marshall, C., McGuire, J. L., Lindsey, E. L., Maguire, K. C., et al. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature09678 · Cited by 4,400
Sequence-Based Species Delimitation for the DNA Taxonomy of Undescribed Insects
Pons, J., Barraclough, T. G., Gomez-Zurita, J., Cardoso, A., Duran, D. P., Hazell, S., Kamoun, S., Sumlin, W. D., & Vogler, A. P. (2006) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1080/10635150600852011 · Cited by 2,775
Mammals on the EDGE: Conservation Priorities Based on Threat and Phylogeny
Isaac, N. J. B., Turvey, S. T., Collen, B., Waterman, C., & Baillie, J. E. M. (2007) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000296 · Cited by 1,109
Quantitative criteria for species delimitation
TOBIAS, J. A., SEDDON, N., SPOTTISWOODE, C. N., PILGRIM, J. D., FISHPOOL, L. D. C., & COLLAR, N. J. (2010) · Ibis · doi:10.1111/j.1474-919x.2010.01051.x · Cited by 1,092
The role of taxonomy in species conservation
Mace, G. M. (2004) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2003.1454 · Cited by 955
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Agapow, P., Bininda‐Emonds, O. R. P., Crandall, K. A., Gittleman, J. L., Mace, G. M., Marshall, J. C., & Purvis, A.
- Venue
- The Quarterly Review of Biology
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2004-06
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 161-179
- ISSN
- 0033-5770 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-7718
- OpenAlex
- W2016325533
- Cited by
- 677
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.03
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Impact of Species Concept on Biodiversity Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/383542
- The paper
- Agapow, P., Bininda‐Emonds, O. R. P., Crandall, K. A., Gittleman, J. L., Mace, G. M., Marshall, J. C., & Purvis, A. (2004). The Impact of Species Concept on Biodiversity Studies. The Quarterly Review of Biology. https://doi.org/10.1086/383542
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.