CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 287Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementConservation, Ecology, Wildlife EducationWildlife Ecology and Conservation

How many bird and mammal extinctions has recent conservation action prevented?

Open access
Bolam, Friederike C., Mair, Louise, Angelico, Marco, Brooks, Thomas M., Burgman, Mark, Hermes, Claudia, Hoffmann, Michael, Martin, Rob W. +38 more·2021·Conservation Letters
DOI 10.1111/conl.12762

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Aichi Target 12 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) contains the aim to ‘prevent extinctions of known threatened species’. To measure the degree to which this was achieved, we used expert elicitation to estimate the number of bird and mammal species whose extinctions were prevented by conservation action in 1993–2020 (the lifetime of the CBD) and 2010–2020 (the timing of Aichi Target 12). We found that conservation action prevented 21–32 bird and 7–16 mammal extinctions since 1993, and 9–18 bird and two to seven mammal extinctions since 2010. Many remain highly threatened and may still become extinct. Considering that 10 bird and five mammal species did go extinct (or are strongly suspected to) since 1993, extinction rates would have been 2.9–4.2 times greater without conservation action. While policy commitments have fostered significant conservation achievements, future biodiversity action needs to be scaled up to avert additional extinctions.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Using expert elicitation, the paper estimates that conservation action prevented 21–32 bird and 7–16 mammal extinctions during 1993–2020, and 9–18 bird and 2–7 mammal extinctions during 2010–2020. Without conservation, extinction rates since 1993 would have been 2.9–4.2 times higher.

Key findings

  • Conservation action prevented 21–32 bird and 7–16 mammal extinctions in 1993–2020, and 9–18 bird and 2–7 mammal extinctions in 2010–2020.
  • Since 1993, 10 bird and five mammal species went extinct or are strongly suspected to have gone extinct; without conservation, bird extinctions would have been 3.1–4.2 times higher and mammal extinctions 2.4–4.2 times higher.
  • Overall, at least 28–48 bird and mammal extinctions were prevented in 1993–2020 and 11–25 in 2010–2020; without conservation, extinctions would have been at least 2.9–4.2 times higher for 1993–2020 and 12–26 times higher for 2010–2020.
  • Many species whose extinctions were prevented remain highly threatened: of 32 bird species, 16% were extinct in the wild, 47% critically endangered, 28% endangered, and 9% vulnerable; of 16 mammal species, 13% were extinct in the wild, 56% critically endangered, and 31% endangered.

Methods

  • The authors identified candidate bird and mammal species from the IUCN Red List that could plausibly have gone extinct without conservation action, then compiled information on population size, trends, threats, and conservation actions for 73 species.
  • They used a Delphi expert elicitation technique following the IDEA protocol, with 28 bird and 26 mammal evaluators, asking for lowest plausible, highest plausible, and best-estimate probabilities that conservation action prevented extinction for each species in 1993–2020 and 2010–2020.
  • Median best estimates were summarized as prevented extinctions using thresholds of ≥90% and >50%, and compared with confirmed or suspected extinctions in the same periods.

Limitations

  • The paper states that candidate identification may have missed some species whose extinction was prevented, that the IUCN definition of extinction may miss functional extinction, that only birds and mammals were considered, and that only species at the brink of extinction were examined rather than broader conservation-status deterioration.
  • The paper states that counterfactual probability estimates involve uncertainty, that information may have been missed, that some probability estimates differed between calls, and that conservation costs were not known.
  • Evident from the text: the approach relies on expert judgment and Red List information, and it does not assess which specific conservation actions worked for individual species or the effectiveness of those actions.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/conl.12762

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 12 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    The numbers of prevented extinctions are broadly consistent with values obtained by summing the median best estimates across all candidates.

    “These numbers of prevented extinctions are broadly consistent with values obtained by summing the median best estimates across all candidates (analogous to the approach for estimating the number of extinctions proposed by Akçakaya et al., 2017): 32.9 bird and 15.9 mammal species in 1993-2020, and 18.7 bird and 9.0 mammal species in 2010-2020.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Evaluators assumed that all conservation action would have ceased at the start of the period.
  • Findingnone given

    No mammal species have been documented to have become extinct since 2010.

    “No mammal species have been documented to have become extinct since 2010”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Of 23 candidate bird species for 2010-2020, three had a median best estimate ≥90% that their extinction was prevented.

    “Of 23 candidate bird species for 2010-2020, three had a median best estimate ≥90% that their extinction was prevented”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Evaluators assumed that all conservation action would have ceased at the start of the period.
  • Findingown data

    The extinction of at least 28-48 bird and mammal species was prevented between 1993-2020.

    “Our results indicate that the extinction of at least 28-48 bird and mammal species was prevented between 1993-2020”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Evaluators assumed that all conservation action would have ceased at the start of the period.
  • Findingown data

    Of 17 candidate mammal species for 2010-2020, none had a median best estimate ≥90% that their extinction was prevented.

    “Of 17 candidate mammal species for 2010-2020, none had a median best estimate of ≥90% that their extinction was prevented”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Evaluators assumed that all conservation action would have ceased at the start of the period.
  • May combine two claims. 19
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 25

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The 16 identified mammal species occur in 23 countries, including five in China and three in Vietnam and the United States, respectively.

    “The 16 identified mammal species occur in 23 countries, including five in China and three in Vietnam and the United States, respectively”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    19% of the 16 identified mammal species are restricted to islands.

    “19% are restricted to islands.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Of the 16 identified mammal species, 13% are extinct in the wild, 56% critically endangered and 31% endangered.

    “Of the 16 identified mammal species, 13% are extinct in the wild, 56% critically endangered and 31% endangered”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The most frequent current and past threats to the 32 identified bird species are invasive species, followed by habitat loss through agriculture and aquaculture, and hunting (impacting 78%, 56% and 53% of species, respectively).

    “The most frequent current and past threats to the 32 identified bird species are invasive species, followed by habitat loss through agriculture and aquaculture, and hunting (impacting 78%, 56% and 53% of species, respectively)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Of the 32 identified bird species, 16% are currently classified as extinct in the wild, 47% as critically endangered, 28% as endangered and 9% as vulnerable.

    “Of the 32 identified bird species, 16% are currently classified as extinct in the wild, 47% as critically endangered, 28% as endangered and 9% as vulnerable”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The 32 identified bird species whose extinction was likely prevented during 1993-2020 occur in 25 countries, including six in New Zealand, five in Brazil and three in Mexico.

    “The 32 identified bird species whose extinction was likely prevented during 1993-2020 occur (or occurred, for extinct in the wild species) in 25 countries, including six in New Zealand, five in Brazil and three in Mexico”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    Two formerly extinct in the wild species, Przewalski's Horse Equus ferus and Guam Rail Hypotaenidia owstoni, have been the subject of successful conservation translocations since 1993.

    “Two formerly extinct in the wild species have been the subject of successful conservation translocations since 1993: Przewalski's Horse Equus ferus and Guam Rail Hypotaenidia owstoni.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    15 confirmed or strongly suspected bird and mammal extinctions were documented since 1993, including one since 2010 (Alagoas Foliagegleaner Philydor novaesi).

    “At the same time, 15 confirmed or strongly suspected bird and mammal extinctions were documented since 1993, including one since 2010 (Alagoas Foliagegleaner Philydor novaesi).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The 70 additional species in other taxa listed as extinct in the wild would be extinct without ex situ efforts, and other extant species would have gone extinct without in situ efforts.

    “These would be extinct without ex situ efforts, while other extant species would have gone extinct without insitu efforts.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A mid-term assessment concluded that further extinctions were likely by 2020, but that conservation measures had prevented some extinctions.

    “A mid-term assessment concluded that further extinctions were likely by 2020, but that conservation measures had prevented some extinctions (CBD, 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites CBD, 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Many species remain highly threatened and may still become extinct.

    “Many remain highly threatened and may still become extinct.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    This research was granted approval by the Newcastle University Ethics Committee (Reference 15388/2018).

    “This research has been granted approval by the Newcastle University Ethics Committee (Reference 15388/2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The costs of conservation actions undertaken for each species were not known.

    “The costs of conservation actions undertaken for each species were not known.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The number of extinctions would have been at least 2.9-4.2 times higher for 1993-2020, and 12-26 times higher for 2010-2020.

    “Hence the number of extinctions would have been at least 2.9-4.2 times higher for 1993-2020, and 12-26 times higher for 2010-2020.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Evaluators assumed that all conservation action would have ceased at the start of the period.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Butchart, Stattersfield, and Collar (2006) estimated which bird species would have gone extinct without conservation action during 1994-2004 based on expert knowledge.

    “Butchart, Stattersfield, and Collar (2006) estimated which bird species would have gone extinct without conservation action during 1994-2004 based on expert knowledge.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Butchart, Stattersfield, and Collar (2006)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study undertook two calls per taxon, with largely different sets of evaluators per call.

    “We undertook two calls per taxon, with largely different sets of evaluators per call.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Without conservation in the time periods considered, some additional long-lived species may have become functionally extinct.

    “Without conservation in the time periods considered, some additional long-lived species may have become functionally extinct.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    To reduce the effect of differences between calls, the study relayed information gained during the first call to evaluators on the second call, but in some cases new information came to light during the second call.

    “To reduce this effect, we relayed information gained during the first call to evaluators on the second call, but in some cases new information came to light during the second call (see Supporting Information).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study attempted to minimise the risk of missing information by starting with all Red List assessments of bird and mammal species, incorporating up-to-date information from 124 species experts, and asking each evaluator to examine more thoroughly a small subset of species prior to the calls.

    “We attempted to minimise this risk by starting with all Red List assessments of bird and mammal species, incorporating up to date information from 124 species experts, and asking each evaluator to examine more thoroughly a small subset of species prior to the calls.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    As slightly different information was discussed during each call, there were some differences in probability estimates between calls.

    “As slightly different information was discussed during each call, there were some differences in probability estimates between calls.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Taxon experts reviewed the compiled information and the final candidate list was reduced based on their feedback.

    “Taxon experts reviewed this information.Based on their feedback, we reduced the final candidate list to 39 bird and 21 mammal species for 1993-2020, and 23 bird and 17 mammal species for 2010-2020.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    All code and data are available at http://github.com/rbolam/Prevented_bird_and_mammal_extinctions.

    “All code and data can be found at http://github.com/ rbolam/Prevented_bird_and_mammal_extinctions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    For the Vaquita Phocoena sinus, conservation may have slowed the catastrophic decline but appears to be failing to halt it.

    “For example, for the Vaquita Phocoena sinus, of which just six individuals were known to remain in September 2018 (Jaramillo-Legorreta et al., 2019), conservation may have slowed the catastrophic decline but appears to be failing to halt it.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jaramillo-Legorreta et al., 2019

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The Delphi expert elicitation followed the IDEA protocol.

    “We used a Delphi expert elicitation technique following the IDEA protocol (Investigate, Discuss, Estimate, Aggregate; Hemming, Burgman, Hanea, McBride, & Wintle, 2018), which is based on Delphi techniques (Mukherjee et al., 2015).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hemming, Burgman, Hanea, McBride, & Wintle, 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Mukherjee et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The study did not investigate what conservation actions took place for species that went extinct since 1993.

    “Similarly, we did not investigate what conservation actions took place for those species that did go extinct since 1993.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    An additional 70 species in taxa other than birds and mammals are listed as extinct in the wild on the Red List.

    “an additional 70 species in other taxa are listed as extinct in the wild on the Red List (IUCN, 2020)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites IUCN, 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given

    Policy commitments have fostered significant conservation achievements.

    “While policy commitments have fostered significant conservation achievements”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The number of species whose extinction was prevented was summarised as X-Y, with X representing median best estimate ≥90% and Y >50%.

    “We summarised the median scores as the number of species whose extinction was prevented as X-Y, with X representing species with a median best estimate ≥90% that extinction was prevented and Y representing species with a median best estimate >50%”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Agreement among evaluators was calculated using seven classes of probability.

    “We calculated agreement by defining seven classes of probability (Table S1), with high agreement if >50% of evaluators had placed their estimates within the same class, medium agreement if >50% of evaluators had placed their estimates within two adjacent classes and low agreement otherwise.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Judgements are more certain with better information available, and it is possible that the study missed information that would have changed the probabilities assigned to species.

    “Judgements are more certain with better information available, and it is possible that we missed information that would have changed the probabilities assigned to species.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study did not investigate which conservation actions worked for individual species or the effectiveness of the actions.

    “We investigated conservation actions associated with avoided extinctions, but not specifically which actions worked for individual species, or the effectiveness of the actions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Previous assessments of conservation impact investigated whether trends in extinction risk would have changed if no species had improved in conservation status, or if no conservation actions had taken place.

    “Previous assessments of conservation impact investigated whether trends in extinction risk would have changed if no species had improved in conservation status (Hoffmann et al., 2010;Szabo, Butchart, Possingham, & Garnett, 2012), or if no conservation actions had taken place (e.g., Hoffmann et al., 2015;Young et al., 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Hoffmann et al., 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Szabo, Butchart, Possingham, & Garnett, 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Hoffmann et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study benefited from the input of external experts who reviewed and corrected the information compiled for each candidate species.

    “This study also benefited from the input of external experts who reviewed and corrected when needed the information compiled for each candidate species.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The authors declare no conflict of interest.

    “The authors declare no conflict of interest.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Evaluators could revise their scores independently and anonymously after discussion.

    “Evaluators could then revise their scores (independently and anonymously) to incorporate insights gained during the calls.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
35 of 35

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Evaluators assumed that all conservation action would have ceased at the start of the period.

    “to assume that all conservation action would have ceased at the start of the period.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    All excluded species were considered to have 0% probability that conservation action prevented extinction.

    “All excluded species were considered to have 0% probability that conservation action prevented extinction.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Birds and mammals are among the best documented taxonomic classes on the IUCN Red List.

    “We focused on birds and mammals as some of the best documented taxonomic classes on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of threatened species (hereafter Red List).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Red List accounts provide sufficient information to identify persistent threats and implemented conservation actions.

    “we used information in the species' Red List accounts to identify those with persistent threats, and implemented conservation actions”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The counterfactual scenario without conservation action is meaningful and can be estimated by experts.

    “estimate the probability that each candidate species would have gone extinct in a counterfactual scenario without conservation action”
5 of 5

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?

  • Mammals and birds have received considerable conservation support, without which their rate of extinction would have been greater, such that extrapolating from them to biodiversity as a whole would under-estimate the overall extinction rate.

    “Mammals and birds have received considerable conservation support, without which their rate of extinction would have been greater, such that extrapolating from them to biodiversity as a whole would under‐estimate the overall extinction rate (Butchart, Stattersfield & Collar, 2006; Pimm et al., 2006; Young et al., 2014; Bolam et al., 2020).”

    From The Sixth Mass Extinction: fact, fiction or speculation? (2022) · cites this paper as Bolam et al., 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. CBD, 2014, Global biodiversity outlook 4

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bolam, F. C., Mair, L., Angelico, M., Brooks, T. M., Burgman, M., Hermes, C., Hoffmann, M., Martin, R. W., McGowan, P. J. K., Rodrigues, A. S. L., Rondinini, C., Westrip, J. R. S., Wheatley, H., Bedolla‐Guzmán, Y., Calzada, J., Child, M. F., Cranswick, P. A., Dickman, C. R., Fessl, B., Fisher, D. O., Garnett, S. T., Groombridge, J. J., Johnson, C. N., Kennerley, R. J., King, S. R. B., Lamoreux, J. F., Lees, A. C., Lens, L., Mahood, S. P., Mallon, D. P., Meijaard, E., Méndez‐Sánchez, F., Percequillo, A. R., Regan, T. J., Renjifo, L. M., Rivers, M. C., Roach, N. S., Roxburgh, L., Safford, R. J., Salaman, P., Squires, T., Vázquez‐Domínguez, E., Visconti, P., Woinarski, J. C. Z., Young, R. P., & Butchart, S. H. M.
Affiliations
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
  • University of the Philippines Los Baños (PH)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • BirdLife International (KE)
  • Zoological Society of London (GB)
  • BirdLife International Cambridge UK
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (AT)
  • Grupo de Ecología y Conservación de Islas, A.C. Ensenada Baja California, Mexico
  • Grupo de Ecología y Conservación de Islas, A.C. (MX)
  • South African National Biodiversity Institute (ZA)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Charles Darwin Foundation (EC)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • University of Kent (GB)
  • University of Tasmania (AU)
  • Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust (JE)
  • Colorado State University (US)
  • Department of Natural Sciences Manchester Metropolitan University Manchester UK
  • Department of Biology, Terrestrial Ecology Unit Ghent University Ghent Belgium
  • Charles Darwin University (AU)
  • Manchester Metropolitan University (GB)
  • Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
  • Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research (AU)
  • Botanic Gardens Conservation International (GB)
  • Global Wildlife Conservation (US)
  • BirdLife international (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
McGowan, Philip J.K.
ORCID
Venue
Conservation Letters
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-09-09
Volume
14
Issue
1
ISSN
1755-263X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/conl.12762
OpenAlex
W3083801242
Semantic Scholar
e160b5acc411a2e6610c50e7f3f07c791a3dfa68
Cited by
286
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 5
FWCI
14.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Conservation Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • UTAS Research Repository (acceptedVersion)
  • e-space (Manchester Metropolitan University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (acceptedVersion)
  • IIASA PURE (International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis) (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UpSpace Institutional Repository (University of Pretoria) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Huelva (Universidad de Huelva) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Hispana (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Huelva (Universidad de Huelva) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Conservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Keywords
extinction prevention, bird extinction, mammal extinction, Convention on Biological Diversity, conservation effectiveness, expert elicitation, extinction risk, threatened species, biodiversity policy

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

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