Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 435

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Variation in extinction risk among birds: chance or evolutionary predisposition?

Open access
Bennett, Peter M., Owens, Ian P. F.·1997·Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Collar et al. (1994) estimate that of the 9,672 extant species of bird, 1,111 are threatened by extinction. Here, we test whether these threatened species are simply a random sample of birds, or whether there is something about their biology that predisposes them to extinction. We ask three specific questions. First, is extinction risk randomly distributed among families? Second, which families, if any, contain more, or less, threatened species than would be expected by chance? Third, is variation between taxa in extinction risk associated with variation in either body size or fecundity? Extinction risk is not randomly distributed among families. The families which contain significantly more threatened species than expected are the parrots (Psittacidae), pheasants and allies (Phasianidae), albatrosses and allies (Procellariidae), rails (Rallidae), cranes (Gruidae), cracids (Cracidae), megapodes (Megapodidae) and pigeons (Columbidae). The only family which contains significantly fewer threatened species than expected is the woodpeckers (Picidae). Extinction risk is also not distributed randomly with respect to fecundity or body size. Once phylogeny has been controlled for, increases in extinction risk are independently associated with increases in body size and decreases in fecundity. We suggest that this is because low rates of fecundity, which evolved many tens of millions of years ago, predisposed certain lineages to extinction. Low–fecundity populations take longer to recover if they are reduced to small sizes and are, therefore, more likely to go extinct if an external force causes an increase in the rate of mortality, thereby perturbing the natural balance between fecundity and mortality.

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 · 10.1098/rspb.1997.0057

Cites

32 of 32 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 32 references

Cited by

See all 435

Metadata

Authors
Bennett, P. M., & Owens, I. P. F.
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
Published
1997-03-22
Volume
264
Issue
1380
Pages
401-408
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
OpenAlex
W2119560280
Cited by
435
References
32
FWCI
14.03
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: Variation in extinction risk among birds: chance or evolutionary predisposition? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rspb.1997.0057
The paper
Bennett, P. M., & Owens, I. P. F. (1997). Variation in extinction risk among birds: chance or evolutionary predisposition? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1997.0057

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.