research paper about animal extinction

Researchers Estimate Humans Have Driven Over 100,000 Species to Extinction

Brown Spider Monkey. (Photo: wollertz/ Depositphotos )

According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List , 777 animals have gone extinct since the beginning of the modern era in 1500. While some of those extinctions occurred due to natural causes, human impact has most certainly worsened conditions for many vulnerable species. But since we don't know all the creatures that call our planet home, the number feels small, leading many scientists to wonder: how many animal species have humans driven to extinction?

There are several reasons that the precise number is difficult to determine. For starters, the IUCN red list only begins in 1500 as that's when scientists and academics began recording the disappearance of animals. Even now, with state-of-the-art technology and thorough biological studies, it's still hard to quantify how many species have gone extinct in the last centuries. Additionally, the IUCN has only assessed the extinction risk of about 5% of the known species. This inevitably raises the number of animals that may have gone extinct without anyone noticing.

While mammals and birds are the most visible animal groups—the dodo or the woolly mammoth often come to mind when thinking of extinct animals—insects have more species than any other animal group, making them also more prone to unrecorded extinctions. The fact that many undiscovered species likely live in tropical, understudied areas makes quantification harder for academics.

In 2022, aiming to find a number, Robert Cowie, a research professor at the University of Hawaii, aided by Philippe Bouchet and Benoît Fontaine, published a study Biological Reviews . There, they suggested that as many as 150,000 to 260,000 of all known species could have perished since roughly 1500. The number surprised the study's lead author. “I thought, jeez, have I made some mistakes in the calculations?” Cowie told Live Science .

How did the researchers calculate the extinction rate? At first, they looked at a sample of 200 species of land snails and, using previous scientific studies, determined how many of the snails had gone extinct. They then extrapolated the data to all known species, calculating the number of extinctions if all known species had suffered a similar extinction rate consistently over 500 years. This led them to estimate 150 to 260 extinctions a year for every million species on Earth (E/MSY).  However, after looking at other wildlife groups like amphibians and birds, the numbers varied wildly. Eventually, they noted a sweet spot.

“They tend to cluster around about 100 [E/MSY],” Cowie said. “I think that's a more reasonable, not overly conservative, but not overly exaggerated value.” This method suggests that 100,000 of the roughly 2 million known species have gone extinct over the past 500 years.

John Alroy, an associate professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University in Australia who didn't participate in the study, believes it's virtually impossible to calculate modern extinction rates if biologists don't know how many species there are out there to begin with.

“We should be supercautious about trying to nail a number down based on the existing literature,” Alroy says. “My feeling is that we don't have a very good fix on the current extinction rate whatsoever.”

Ultimately, it's clear to him that the number of extinctions is much higher than the 777 recorded on the IUCN Red List, and human impact is only worsening the extinction rate. “Whether the extinction rate is 100 E/MSY or 20 E/MSY or 200 E/MSY, it's still a lot, and it's still really bad,” he concluded.

How many animal species have humans driven to extinction?

Digital rendering of a herd of woolly mammoths. (Photo: auntspray/ Depositphotos )

The IUCN Red List points to 777 species since the year 1500, but scientists believe the number is much higher.

Scimitar-horned oryx. (Photo: rixipix/ Depositphotos )

In 2022, researchers estimated that 150,000 to 260,000 of all known species could have perished since roughly 1500

Axolotl. (Photo: Argument/ Depositphotos )

h/t: [ Live Science ]

Related Articles :

15 of the World’s Most Endangered Animals

“De-Extinction” Biotech Company Is Working To Bring the Dodo Back To Life

Hawaiian Zookeeper Bravely Saves Critically Endangered Animals From Wildfires

Wildlife Photographers Unite in New Book To Highlight Beauty of Endangered Animals

Get Our Weekly Newsletter

Learn from top artists.

Related Articles

Sponsored Content

More on my modern met.

My Modern Met

Celebrating creativity and promoting a positive culture by spotlighting the best sides of humanity—from the lighthearted and fun to the thought-provoking and enlightening.

• Photography
• Architecture
• Environment

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 06 May 2019
• Update 06 May 2019

Humans are driving one million species to extinction

• Jeff Tollefson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Up to one million plant and animal species face extinction, many within decades, because of human activities, says the most comprehensive report yet on the state of global ecosystems.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 569 , 171 (2019)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01448-4

Updates & Corrections

Update 06 May 2019 : This story has been updated with comment from Anne Larigauderie, IPBES executive secretary.

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

The battle for the soul of biodiversity

Top UN panel paints bleak picture of world’s ecosystems

Global biodiversity report warns pollinators are under threat

• Biodiversity
• Environmental sciences

Lonely? Playful? Why are dolphin attacks rising in Japan?

News Q&A 28 AUG 24

Dismantle ‘zombie’ wildlife protection conventions once their work is done

Comment 12 AUG 24

Camera-carrying sea lions map uncharted areas of the ocean

News 07 AUG 24

International whaling convention needs boosting, not dismantling

Correspondence 03 SEP 24

To conserve biodiversity, create spaces where natural selection is allowed free rein

Don’t dismiss the Montreal ozone-depletion protocol as a ‘zombie’

Faculty Positions & Postdocs at Institute of Physics (IOP), Chinese Academy of Sciences

IOP is the leading research institute in China in condensed matter physics and related fields. Through the steadfast efforts of generations of scie...

Beijing, China

Institute of Physics (IOP), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)

FACULTY POSITION IN THE MOLECULAR BIOLOGY OF REPRODUCTION

Dallas, Texas (US)

The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UT Southwestern Medical Center)

FACULTY RECRUITING IN GENE REGULATION

Permanent researcher positions for materials science.

NIMS (Tsukuba, Japan) invites international applications from researchers who can conduct research in materials science.

Tsukuba, Ibaraki (JP)

National Institute for Materials Science (NIMS)

Osaka University Immunology Frontier Research Center Postdoctoral Researcher

IFReC, Osaka University in Japan offers Advanced Postdoc Positions for Immunology, Cell Biology, Bioinformatics and Bioimaging.

Suita Campus, Osaka University in Osaka, Japan

Immunology Frontier Research Center, Osaka University

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci
• v.377(1857); August 15, 2022

Circling the drain: the extinction crisis and the future of humanity

Rodolfo dirzo.

1 Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

Gerardo Ceballos

2 Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City 04510, Mexico

Paul R. Ehrlich

Associated data.

This article has no additional data.

Humanity has triggered the sixth mass extinction episode since the beginning of the Phanerozoic. The complexity of this extinction crisis is centred on the intersection of two complex adaptive systems: human culture and ecosystem functioning, although the significance of this intersection is not properly appreciated. Human beings are part of biodiversity and elements in a global ecosystem. Civilization, and perhaps even the fate of our species, is utterly dependent on that ecosystem's proper functioning, which society is increasingly degrading. The crisis seems rooted in three factors. First, relatively few people globally are aware of its existence. Second, most people who are, and even many scientists, assume incorrectly that the problem is primarily one of the disappearance of species, when it is the existential threat of myriad population extinctions. Third, while concerned scientists know there are many individual and collective steps that must be taken to slow population extinction rates, some are not willing to advocate the one fundamental, necessary, ‘simple’ cure, that is, reducing the scale of the human enterprise. We argue that compassionate shrinkage of the human population by further encouraging lower birth rates while reducing both inequity and aggregate wasteful consumption—that is, an end to growthmania—will be required.

This article is part of the theme issue ‘Ecological complexity and the biosphere: the next 30 years’.

1.  A sixth mass extinction: the context

Five major episodes of mass biological extinction ( sensu Jablonski [ 1 ]: those with at least 76% of species lost) have occurred over the last 550 million years (Myr)—that is, a rough average of one mass extinction pulse per 110 Myr across the Phanerozoic period, following the ‘Cambrian (biological) explosion’ [ 2 ]. By this measure, mass extinctions represent a rare phenomenon in the history of life. These major reductions in the biological richness of the planet have been triggered by natural cataclysmic phenomena. For example, the combined effect of global warming and oxygen loss driven by major volcanic activity that took place towards the end of the Permian period triggered the largest mass extinction in Earth's history—the Great Dying—some 252 Myr ago [ 3 ]. Similarly, the collision of the Chicxulub meteorite on what is now the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico annihilated much of the predominant animal life of the planet, famously the dinosaurs (save for the ancestral lineage of the birds), approximately 65 Myr ago [ 4 ].

This has been a story of biological catastrophe and recovery, characterized by a long process of biological resurgence. This delay of biological revival has been shown to be complex and dynamic, and varies depending on a plethora of factors, including, for example, the evolutionary lineage, geography and the particular mass extinction. However, a common denominator of recovery is a delay of several million years [ 5 – 8 ]—an important lesson for humanity.

On the other hand, a post-extinction tree of life evolves in a new configuration and becomes reconstructed with different terminal branches. For example, the truncated tree of animal life that remained after the Chicxulub meteorite crash became radically reconfigured. The diverse and often gigantic reptiles of the Mesozoic were replaced by a lineage of small-sized animals, the early mammals—a bestiary of dwarfed species that underwent a trajectory of expansion, diversification and colonization of all parts of the biosphere [ 9 ]. Another salient aspect of that bio-recovery is that over the last 100 Myr of planetary life, but particularly after the last mass extinction, a seemingly relentless trajectory of biological diversification (particularly on land) has occurred, with a dramatic, exponential buildup, leading over the 550 Myr of the Phanerozoic to a recent biodiversity pinnacle [ 10 ]. From an anthropocentric perspective, and relevant to our discussion here, three lessons stand out: (i) Earth's biological diversity does recover from mass extinction events, but this is a process that involves millions of years; (ii) the identity of the organisms that rise from the ashes, and the configuration of the communities and ecosystems they become part of, are very different from those of the ‘normal’ period before the extinction event; and (iii) we, as a species, have evolved just at a time in which the diversity of living companions is the highest in the entire history of life.

Occurring after a shorter inter-extinction interval than the Phanerozoic average—indeed at about 60% of that average interval—there is now a clear signal of the start of the sixth mass extinction episode [ 11 , 12 ]. Furthermore, the cause of the sixth mass extinction is a very different type of cataclysm: expansion of one element of biodiversity to planetary dominance. In short, that is, expansion of the human enterprise—the explosion of the numbers of Homo sapiens and their domesticates and the near-instantaneous (in terms of geological time) burst of ecosystem altering and destroying technologies. That expansion has created a new geological epoch, dubbed the Anthropocene [ 13 , 14 ]. The term Anthropocene, meant to replace the formal, geologically accepted label of the Holocene epoch, encapsulates the consequences of humanity's activities on Earth's life-support systems. Indeed, humanity's planetary impact includes alterations of geological processes so profound as to leave stratigraphic signatures in multiple structures of the Earth's surface. These new structures are technofossils like plastics, metal junk, radioactive wastes and other synthetic material footprints [ 15 ]. Therefore, the term Anthropocene is increasingly penetrating the lexicon of not only the academic socio-sphere, but also society more generally (e.g. it is now an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary ) and is useful for discussion of the sixth mass extinction.

The Anthropocene includes a plethora of manifestations in terms of the activities of humanity and the translation of those into a variety of environmental repercussions [ 16 ]. The former are represented by a set of socio-economic variables underlying growth , including, for example, the growth rate of the number of vehicles, of fertilizer consumption, of water consumption, of the number of dams, of fast-food mega-businesses, or total world gross domestic product (GDP) (see magnitudes of change in [ 16 ]). The accelerated growth rate of these socio-economic variables is driven by an explosive human population growth, particularly in countries or regions of countries where the consumption of resources is inordinately wasteful. That is, civilization is living now under a syndrome of too many people , with those in ‘ developed’ parts of the world consuming an unfair share of Earth's resources and all together using an unsustainable fraction of our planet's natural capital (defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity as the world's stocks of natural assets which include geology, soil, air, water and all living things; https://www.cbd.int/business/projects/natcap.shtml ). Humanity in many parts of the world is overconsuming, writing cheques heedlessly on our biological resource banks and disregarding the declining balance of natural capital rather than living more frugally on its ‘interest'.

The environmental translation of these socio-economic drivers includes the correspondingly accelerated rate of greenhouse emissions (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide), leading to climate disruption on land and in oceans. Such climatic disruption encompasses global warming, with dramatic snow- and ice-thawing from polar and high-elevation lands and consequent global sea-level rise, ocean acidification and increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events (see [ 14 , 17 ]). Despite the active disinformation efforts of deniers (often sponsored by big corporations and special interest groups, in particular the fossil fuel industry; see https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-machine-how-fossil-fuel-industry-blocks-climate-action ), climate change-related calamities do manage to make their way into mainstream media, including movies and documentaries. This is understandable, given the increasingly vivid, short-term catastrophic consequences on humans (and their infrastructures) around the world. However, this is not the only global environmental change of the Anthropocene. Land-use change, over-drafting of soils and groundwater, rampant terrestrial and aquatic toxification, the proliferation of invasive organisms (plants, animals and pathogenic microbes) and, especially, the intimately connected loss of biodiversity are also grave manifestations of the Anthropocene [ 14 , 18 ].

Here we are concerned with the latter, which is one of the most critical manifestations of the Anthropocene. Save for the ethically and ecologically unsound arguments of de-extinction advocates (see [ 19 ]), the loss of biological diversity is irreversible on a time scale of interest to humanity. The loss of biodiversity could ultimately become the most pervasive global environmental change our species will face, since all taxa that have disappeared from Earth will be gone forever. Biodiversity loss is both a cause and a consequence of global environmental change. Therefore, our destruction of the global biological richness on which we utterly depend represents an unprecedented threat to the existence of civilization that could even threaten the persistence of humanity.

2.  The drivers of biodiversity loss: an underappreciated network of synergies

Most conservation research focuses on the impact of each of the drivers of global change on biodiversity. It is critical, however, to appreciate that the overall impact is the result of the drivers interacting in multiple and complex ways, including synergies, feedbacks and nonlinear direct and indirect effects [ 20 ]. This means that analyses of individual drivers are limited in realism and conceal the multiplicity of complex causalities of biodiversity loss. For example, we can document the local loss of animal biodiversity as a result of the combined effects of overexploitation and land-use change. In our research in rainforests in Veracruz, Mexico, deforestation and fragmentation singly reduce the amount of suitable habitat needed to maintain viable populations of large animals (an indirect effect), therefore leading to wildlife declines and eventual loss of the local populations of large vertebrates [ 21 ]. However, such deforestation and fragmentation also facilitate overexploitation (a direct effect) via the access of poachers to sectors of the habitat that previously were inaccessible—a synergy that drives the local extinction of medium-sized and large mammals (in turn affecting multiple interactions between wildlife and plants). Similarly, climate warming that impacts the health of cold-adapted animals is exacerbated by the invasion of pathogens into those climatic regimes [ 22 ], creating a synergy of wildlife loss in cold environments. These examples illustrate synergies between pairs of drivers, but interactions between three or more drivers also occur. For instance, recent research has shown that animal overexploitation and habitat loss interact with climate change, leading to a reduction of frugivorous animals around the world [ 23 ]. Similarly, climate change is allowing killer whales to move north and influencing the habitats and behaviour of white whales (beluga), which are hunted by both the orcas and climate-influenced Indigenous hunters [ 24 ].

Appreciation of the complex interplay of drivers of biodiversity loss warrants future research, and it is encouraging that recent work has started to analyse the impact of combined drivers of biodiversity loss [ 25 ]. Nevertheless, the available evidence makes it abundantly clear that the impact of humanity results from a network of proximate interacting drivers that collectively represent a planetary forcing causing a major pulse of contemporary biodiversity annihilation [ 12 , 20 ].

3.  Indicators of the current biodiversity crisis

Recent local, regional and global studies present diverse indications of the current biodiversity crisis. From a plant life perspective, for example, 70% of the Earth's land surface potentially occupied by plants has been altered [ 26 ]. Consistent with the onset of agriculture some 11 000 years ago, the biomass of terrestrial vegetation has been reduced by ca 50% [ 27 ], with an estimated loss of approximately 20% of its original biodiversity [ 28 ]. Related to this, 40% of plants have been catalogued as endangered [ 29 ]. From a zoocentric perspective, a clear pulse of Anthropocene defaunation ( sensu [ 30 , 31 ]) has been demonstrated. Vertebrate biomass consisted of some 300 million tons 11 000 years ago, of which a tiny fraction corresponded to a human population of approximately 4 million [ 32 ]. By 2015, total vertebrate biomass exploded to a dramatic 1850 million tons, but this was largely composed of domesticated animals, which monopolized 76% of the total, followed by humans at 23% (7.3 billion humans by then), while wildlife was reduced to a mere 1% (not considering seals, sea lions, amphibians and birds in this study). Despite this biological holocaust, a little fewer than 700 vertebrate species have been recorded as extinct or extinct in the wild over the last 520 years [ 11 , 12 ]. Undoubtedly the extinction of many more species, particularly of small-sized, understudied invertebrates, has gone unrecorded [ 33 ], but a basic point remains—the holocaust is the loss of populations and the ecosystem services they provide, not the loss of species, as we will discuss later [ 34 ].

4.  The extinction crisis: an intersection of two complex adaptive systems

Within an ecosystem, the plants, animals, fungi, bacteria and many other types of microorganisms play ecological roles via their evolutionary and ecological interaction with their abiotic and biotic environments. Such interactions define the functioning of ecosystems. They are complex adaptive systems, as they consist of myriad elements that interact locally (survive and reproduce), leading to emergent system properties [ 35 ]. Predicting the exact trajectory of a complex adaptive system is near impossible but predicting one that will have emergent properties is generally correct. Changing the atmospheric temperature will certainly change the functioning of a terrestrial ecosystem, but just how is much more difficult to predict.

Although of very recent appearance in the evolutionary tree, and with a few traits that set them apart, human beings are part of biodiversity and elements in a global ecosystem. Their most distinctive traits among vertebrates are their vast stores of non-genetic information or ‘culture’ [ 36 ] and their ultrasociality—levels of cooperation vastly greater than those seen in other mammals [ 37 ].

Human culture is another complex adaptive system with emergent properties (religions, wars and pandemics), but again the trajectory of the entire system is notoriously unpredictable. Combine two complex adaptive systems, and you can see why mitigating or even reversing the anthropogenic effects of the ongoing sixth mass extinction event in detail is particularly difficult (see [ 38 ]). Traffic jams are one emergent property of the cultural complex adaptive systems, but the basic problem cannot be solved by arresting drivers who slow down.

Civilization, and even the fate of our species, is utterly dependent on proper global ecosystem functioning. Ecosystem functioning, including primary productivity, the biogeochemical cycles, and the network of trophic mutualistic and antagonistic species interactions that compose the food chains, is the fabric of life—a fabric that is translated by humans as ecosystem services (e.g. [ 28 , 39 ]).

The vast literature on the biodiversity–ecosystem function relationship and the significance thereof in terms of services to humanity has focused its attention on the consequences of changes in the diversity of (mostly) plant species or genetic variants on four major types of ecological processes: (i) provisioning, such as crop yield, fodder yield, wood production, medicines and medicine models; (ii) regulating, such as biocontrol, pollination and nutrient cycling; (iii) support services such as primary productivity; and (iv) cultural services, such as inspiration, and education (see a classic review in [ 40 ]; also [ 39 ]). Biodiversity–ecosystem function studies focused on animals are more limited, but some reviews make such relationship evident too, including services such as crop pollination and pest control, seed dispersal, litter decomposition, carbon cycling, carrion and dung removal, soil erosion control, animal forage provisioning, and zoonosis risk regulation (see reviews in [ 30 , 41 ]). What all this implies, in practical terms, is that the millions of years of plant and phytoplankton cumulative photosynthesis; the tens of millions of soil organisms that transform dirt into fertile soil, decompose the bodies of dead organisms and contribute to nutrient recycling; the wild and domesticated plants, animals (both terrestrial and aquatic) and fungi that for millennia have fed and currently feed the human population (i.e. we all eat biodiversity); the communities of animals that maintain plant reproduction and genetic diversity, as well as those animals that regulate the abundance of disease hosts and vectors; the thousands of plants, fungi, other microorganisms and animals that have provided and continue to provide medicine or medicine models; the physical protection due to ecosystem ‘structures' such as mangroves and coral reefs from extreme weather events; and the increasingly appreciated significance of the inspirational, educational and emotional benefit derived from our contact with biodiversity constitute the life-support systems for humanity (see a recent review in [ 18 ]).

In a different perspective, ecosystem services have been examined in economic terms (see a major review in [ 42 ]), and several researchers have attempted to calculate the value of nature's services in a variety of ways. Among these would be the cost of infrastructure that needs to be developed to substitute for the services of, for example, protective coastal ecosystems, and the price of water treatment plants that can play the role of wetlands in filtering contaminants [ 43 ]. Similarly, one estimate is that without mangroves flood damage in tropical coastal areas would increase by more than 16% or $US82 billion annually. However, we emphasize that the fundamental value of ecosystems in the intersection culture–ecosystem functioning lies in that the value of our life-supporting systems ‘is essentially incalculable’ [ 18 ].

This short review makes it evident that humanity cannot survive in the absence of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, which, as we have discussed above, we are increasingly degrading. Furthermore, the prospect of Homo sapiens being present when the normal recovery times following a mass extinction occur is simply unrealistic. Finally, it is imperative to appreciate that all these aspects of human dependence on biodiversity—the intersection between human culture and ecosystem services—occur at the level of the populations of the myriad species and functional groups present where human populations are present. Therefore, it is crucial that we examine the impact of the human enterprise on the myriad populations of plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms.

5.  Population declines and extinctions: the heart of the impending mass extinction

We re-emphasize that the magnitude of the current extinction crisis is underestimated owing to three key factors. First, the lack of attention given to this existential threat [ 38 ]. Second, most people, even many scientists, assume incorrectly that the problem is primarily one of the disappearance of species when it is in fact the existential threat of myriad population extinctions [ 44 ]. Third, while concerned scientists know there are many individual and collective steps that must be taken to slow the rate of population extinctions, only some advocate one fundamental, necessary and ‘simple’ cure. That, of course, is reducing the scale of the human enterprise [ 38 ].

Let us consider, first the global extinction of species—the total disappearance of different kinds of organisms from the face of the Earth; that is the facet of the sixth mass extinction event that captures most of the attention, among both the scientific community and the public. The strong emphasis placed on numbers of extinct species leads to the misinterpretation that biodiversity is not immediately threatened but is just part of a slow episode of extinction. For example, the number of vertebrate species recorded as extinct since year 1500 is 338, or 667 if we count species extinct in the wild and those regarded as threatened (according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Species Red List). These are seemingly low numbers, in contrast with estimates of many millions of species extant. However, they result from close to 60 and 70%, respectively, occurring over just the last 120 years [ 11 , 12 ]. This exemplifies the ‘Anthropocene acceleration’ discussed earlier and the latter numbers represent extinction rates 100–1000 faster (depending on the vertebrate group) than the background extinction rates for vertebrates [ 11 , 12 ]. Recent model trajectories of bird species across IUCN's categories of endangerment concluded that the ‘effective’ bird extinction rate is six times higher than that observed since 1500 [ 11 , 12 ], indicating that extinction analyses should consider not only the extinct species but also the endangerment trajectory of species that are deemed not at risk now. Such a process of endangerment follows a spatio-temporal dynamic as illustrated in figure 1 (see also [ 45 ]).

The spatio-temporal dynamics of population extinctions leading to range contraction and ultimately global species extinction. ( a ) This depicts how species are composed of mosaics of multiple locally viable populations, here considered with a hypothetical local abundance of N > 50 individuals (circle clusters in different shades of blue) along their distribution range, and the proximate drivers of impact. ( b ) This illustrates six stages of the extinction dynamics, starting with an unimpacted population mosaic (0), which undergoes human impact leading to local declines in abundance in some populations (stages 1 and 2), subsequently undergoing local population extinctions and range shrinkage (stage 3). Subsequent population extinctions and range contraction (stage 4) eventually lead to global species extinction (stage 5).

Most species are constituted of a mosaic of populations distributed throughout their geographical range ( figure 1 a ). Depending on the environmental heterogeneity that occurs through the range, populations of the species can be phenotypically or genetically differentiated into locally adapted populations (represented by the different shades of colour in figure 1 a ). In their native range, the individuals that make up such populations are sufficiently abundant that the populations are demographically and genetically viable (stage 0 in figure 1 b ). It is these population mosaics that are being impacted by the different drivers of anthropogenic impact—individually and in complex synergies among all these. Under such stresses, the abundance of individuals begins to decline ( figure 1 b , stage 1), with some populations reducing their densities to levels below population viability ( figure 1 b , stage 2), in some cases with populations experiencing extreme declines, leading to local population extinctions and range contractions ( figure 1 b , stage 3). As this process progresses and population extinctions continue, the range shrinks even further ( figure 1 b , stage 4), to the point that only a few populations, comprising a few individuals (therefore demographically and genetically non-viable), remain. At this stage, the species can still be counted as not extinct, even though it has experienced the collapse of its populations and humanity has lost the ecosystem services it once supplied. The extinction dynamics depicted here represent the prelude of the global extinction of species and are exemplified by numerous species of plants and animals. For example, from a sample of 177 species of mammals, just shy of 50% exhibited a range contraction of at least 80% in the period of 1990–2015 [ 44 ]. Similarly, billions of populations of plants and animals have been lost in the last centuries, and the most recent Living Planet Report indicates that the abundance of individuals of a large number of monitored species of animals has declined by 70% over the last four decades [ 46 ]. These examples constitute a vivid representation of the population extinction crisis.

Furthermore, from the point of view of the species' ecological roles within their natural communities and ecosystems, it is their local populations that really matter. Consider, for example, the case of the elephant ( Loxodonta africana ), common hippopotamus ( Hippopotamus amphibius ) and black rhino ( Diceros bicornis ), which have been exterminated in many areas of their original distribution ranges throughout Africa and South Asia [ 47 ]. This massacre means that many populations of each species have been lost (a veritable, major pulse of within-species biological extinction); that the ecology of the savannah (in terms of the dynamics of fire, for example) in those localities is now disrupted [ 47 ]; and that it represents a tragedy for the local populations of humans who, for example, had or might have had an ecotourism business as a way of living. All these losses occur, even though the species itself is not extinct, as it still exists somewhere else in a deplorable remnant of its former geographic range. This pattern (and the implications thereof) is consistent with that of other emblematic species, such as: the orang-utang ( Pongo spp.), Asian rhinos ( Rhinoceros spp.) and the Oriental pied hornbill ( Anthracoceros albirostris ); the koala ( Phascolarctos cinereus ) [ 48 ] in Australia; the jaguar ( Panthera onca ), harpy eagle ( Harpia harpyja ) [ 49 ] and tapirs ( Tapirus spp.) [ 50 ] in Latin America; and the bison ( Bison bison ), wolf ( Canis lupus ) and grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos ) in North America [ 47 , 51 ].

6.  Actions that can be taken to slow the rate of population extinctions

A number of proximate actions can be taken to prevent populations from circling the extinction drain, including the following.

(a) Telling it like it is

Although the magnitude of the crisis is formidable, as we have outlined here, effective communication of what is at stake is central [ 38 ]. Grasping of the scale of the problem needs to go beyond the scientific arena and reach out to policy-makers and society in general. It is notable that, while climate change has drawn the spotlight, the biodiversity crisis has comparatively received appallingly little attention [ 38 ]. The young, in particular, if properly informed, can represent an ambassador with potential to help mobilize society, just as we have seen in the case of Greta Thunberg in the climate crisis. The critical grasping of the problem needs to consider that climate change and biodiversity loss are inextricably connected and, in conjunction with the other drivers of change, represent a formidable but poorly appreciated threat to humanity.

(b) Safeguarding what is still present

Although the damage to biodiversity is considerable, we still have a few relatively unscathed remnants in the natural protected areas of the world and, to some degree, in some human-dominated landscapes. Since a large portion of such remnants of biodiversity is present in Indigenous and rural territories, recognizing, supporting and materially compensating those populations is a matter of utmost importance. In addition, safeguarding those Indigenous territories is critical to retain the traditional ecological knowledge and languages that are being profoundly eroded from these communities across the world [ 52 , 53 ]. This is compatible with recent efforts such as the Half Earth, championed by E. O. Wilson [ 54 ], and the 30 by 30 initiatives [ 55 ]. Safeguarding remnants of biodiversity can in turn serve as an inoculum for the agenda of restoration in the areas where this is needed and feasible. In this regard, restoration needs to go beyond traditional reforestation and consider refaunation and, ideally, the restoration of ecological processes, consequently leading to the protection or restoration of ecosystem services [ 56 ].

(c) Moving towards an ecologically friendly human diet

The dramatic deforestation resulting from land conversion for agriculture and meat production could be reduced via adopting a diet that reduces meat consumption. Less meat can translate not only into less heat, but also more space for biodiversity and betterment of human health [ 57 ]. Although among many Indigenous populations, meat consumption represents a cultural tradition and a source of protein, it is the massive planetary monopoly of industrial meat production that needs to be curbed [ 41 ]. Related to this, the overexploitation of animals and animal products is another action that can be addressed without incurring any impact on society; on the contrary, it has the potential to reduce the perverse business of wildlife trafficking, and fresh markets that in addition represent a latent risk of zoonosis, like the one that has impacted humanity over the last two years.

(d) Combat kakistocracy

To the extent that we engage in telling it like it is, and society becomes increasingly better informed of the risks of a ghastly future [ 38 ], we can aspire to have a societal force ready to elect leaders committed to address the biodiversity crisis and other existential threats.

7.  An ultimately simple cure: reduce the scale of the human enterprise

It is clear that only a giant change in human culture can significantly limit the extinction crisis. Humanity must face the need to reduce birth rates further, especially among the overconsuming wealthy and middle classes. In addition, a reduction of wasteful consumption will be necessary, accompanied by a transition away from environmentally malign technological choices such as private automobiles, plastic everything, and treating billionaires to space tourism. Otherwise growthmania will win; the human enterprise will not undergo the needed shrinkage, but will continue to expand, destroying most of biodiversity and further wrecking the life-support systems of humanity until global civilization collapses [ 38 ]. Avoiding that, with its vast increase in death and misery, will require simultaneous increases in equity—not just gender equity to increase fairness and discourage over-reproduction, but equity in general so that people can be assured they are not being asked to shoulder more than a fair share of the substantial burdens the transition to sustainability will entail. Dealing with the emergent properties of the two interacting complex adaptive systems we have described here would be difficult enough without conflict further complexifying both [ 35 ].

Circling the drain is dizzying even for scientists documenting it. All people well enough off to pay attention to issues beyond their immediate needs and those of their loved ones are faced with arrays of serious issues buried in the cultural complex adaptive systems. Health, finances, politics, status and such, demand our attention. However, from childhood, the formal education system and the communications of civil society ( MAHB.Stanford.edu ) must challenge us to pay attention to the biospheric complex adaptive systems as well. The price of not doing so will end the dizziness—we will go down the environmental and cultural drain.

Acknowledgements

We thank N. Saldivar, J. Pacheco and J. Torres-Romero for logistic support, and Simon Levin for his most helpful comments.

Data accessibility

Authors' contributions.

R.D.: conceptualization, investigation, visualization, writing—original draft, and writing—review and editing; G.C.: writing—review and editing; P.R.E.: conceptualization, writing—original draft, and writing—review and editing.

All authors gave final approval for publication and agreed to be held accountable for the work performed therein.

Conflict of interest declaration

We declare we have no competing interests.

R.D. and P.R.E. were supported by Stanford University and by MAHB Stanford. G.C. was supported by the National University of Mexico (UNAM).

January 13, 2021

10 min read

What We’ve Lost: The Species Declared Extinct in 2020

Dozens of frogs, fish, orchids and other species—many unseen for decades—may no longer exist because of humanity’s destructive effects on the planet

By John R. Platt

The red handfish, a relative of the extinct smooth handfish.

Mark Green/CSIRO Marine Research Wikimedia   (CC BY 3.0)

A few months ago a group of scientists warned about the rise of “ extinction denial ,” an effort much like climate denial to mischaracterize the extinction crisis  and suggest that human activity isn’t really having a damaging effect on ecosystems and the whole planet.

That damaging effect is, in reality, impossible to deny.

This past year scientists and conservation organizations declared that a long list of species may have gone extinct, including dozens of frogs, orchids and fish. Most of these species haven’t been seen in decades, despite frequent and regular expeditions to find out if they still exist. The causes of these extinctions range from diseases to invasive species to habitat loss, but most boil down to human behavior.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Of course, proving a negative is always hard, and scientists are often cautious about declaring species truly lost . Do it too soon, they warn, and the last conservation efforts necessary to save a species could evaporate, a problem known as the Romeo and Juliet Effect. Because of that, and because many of these species live in hard-to-survey regions, many of the announcements this past year declared species possibly or probably lost, a sign that hope springs eternal.

And there’s reason for that hope: When we devote energy and resources to saving species, it often works. A study published in 2019 found that conservation efforts have reduced bird extinction rates by 40 percent . Another recent paper found that conservation actions have prevented dozens of bird and mammal extinctions over just the past few decades. The new paper warns that many of the species remain critically endangered, or could still go extinct, but we can at least stop the bleeding.

And sometimes we can do better than that. This year the IUCN—the organization that tracks the extinction risk of species around the world— announced several conservation victories, including the previously critically endangered Oaxaca treefrog ( Sarcohyla celata ), which is now considered “near threatened” due to protective actions taken by the people who live near it.

“We can turn things around. We don’t just have to sit there and cry,” says conservation scientist Stuart Pimm, founder of the organization Saving Nature.

But at the same time, we need to recognize what we’ve lost, or potentially lost. We can mourn them and vow to prevent as many others as possible from joining their ranks.

With that in mind, here are the species that scientists and the conservation community declared lost in 2020, culled from media reports, scientific papers, the IUCN Red List and my own reporting.

32 orchid species in Bangladesh —One of the first papers of 2020 to report any extinctions announced the probable loss of 17 percent of Bangladesh’s 187 known orchid species. Some of these still exist in other countries, but even regional extinctions (or extirpations, as they’re called) tell us that we’ve taken a toll on our ecological habitats. A similar paper published just days later suggested that nine more orchid species from Madagascar may have also gone extinct.

Smooth handfish ( Sympterichthys unipennis ) —One of the few extinctions of 2020 that received much media attention , and it’s easy to see why. Handfish are an unusual group of species whose front fins look somewhat like human appendages, which they use to walk around the ocean floor. The smooth species, which hasn’t been seen since 1802, lived off the coast of Tasmania and was probably common when it was first collected by naturalists. Bottom fishing, pollution, habitat destruction, bycatch and other threats are all listed as among the probable reasons for its extinction. Even though the local fishery collapsed more than 50 years ago, the remaining handfish species are still critically endangered, so this extinction should serve as an important wake-up call to save them.

65 North American plants —This past year researchers set out to determine how many plants in the continental United States had been lost. They catalogued 65, including five small trees, eight shrubs, 37 perennial herbs and 15 annual herbs. Some of these had been reported before, but for most this is the first time they’ve been declared extinct. The list includes Marshallia grandiflora , a large flowing plant from the American Southeast that was declared its own species this past year. Too bad it was last seen in 1919 (and has been confused with other species for even longer).

22 frog species —The IUCN this year declared nearly two dozen long-unseen Central and South American frog species as “critically endangered (possibly extinct)”—victims of the amphibian-killing chytrid fungus . They include the Aragua robber frog ( Pristimantis anotis ) , which hasn’t been observed in 46 years, and the Piñango stubfoot toad ( Atelopus pinangoi ) , which mostly disappeared in the 1980s. A single juvenile toad observed in 2008 leads scientists to say this species “is either possibly extinct or if there is still an extant population, that it is very small (<50 mature individuals).”

Chiriqui harlequin frog ( Atelopus chiriquiensis ) and splendid poison frog ( Oophaga speciosa ) —Last seen in 1996 and 1992, these frogs from Costa Rica and Panama fell victim to the chytrid fungus and were declared extinct in December.

15 percent of mite species —This requires a lot more research, but a paper published this past August announced “evidence of widespread mite extinctions” following similar disappearances of plants and vertebrates. Mites may not look or sound important, but they play key roles in their native ecosystems. If 15 percent of the world’s 1.25 million mite species were lost by the year 200, we’re talking tens to hundreds of thousands of extinctions—a number the researchers predict will continue to rise.

Simeulue Hill mynas —An alarming paper called this an “extinction-in-process” of a previously undescribed bird that probably went extinct in the wild in the past two to three years due to overcollection for the songbird trade. A few may still exist in captivity—for now.

17 freshwater fish from Lake Lanao, Mindanao, the Philippines —A combination of predatory invasive species, overharvesting and destructing fishing methods (such as dynamite fishing) wiped these lost species out. The IUCN this year listed 15 of the species as “extinct” following extensive searches and surveys; the remaining two as “critically endangered (possibly extinct).” The predators, by the way, are still doing just fine. Here are the 15 extinct species:

Barbodes disa —last seen in 1964.

Barbodes truncatulus —last seen in 1973.

Barbodes pachycheilus —last seen in 1964.

Barbodes palaemophagus —last seen in 1975.

Barbodes amarus —Last seen in 1982.

Barbodes manalak —Once a commercially valuable fish, last seen in 1977.

Barbodes clemensi —last seen in 1975.

Barbodes flavifuscus —last seen in 1964.

Barbodes katolo —last seen in 1977.

Barbodes palata —last seen in 1964.

Barbodes baoulan —last seen in 1991.

Barbodes herrei —last seen in 1974, when just 40 pounds’ worth of fish were caught.

Barbodes lanaoensis —last seen in 1964.

Barbodes resimus —last seen in 1964.

Barbodes tras —last seen in 1976.

Bonin pipistrelle ( Pipistrellus sturdeei ) —Scientists only recorded this Japanese bat one time, back in the 19th century. The IUCN listed it as “data deficient” from 2006 to 2020, a period during which its taxonomy was under debate, but a paper published in March settled that issue , and the latest Red List update placed the species in the the extinct category. The Japanese government itself has listed the bat as extinct since 2014.

Pseudoyersinia brevipennis —This praying mantis from France hasn’t been seen since 1860. Its declared extinction comes after some extended (and still unresolved) debate over its validity as a unique species.

Agave lurida —Last seen in Oaxaca, Mexico, in 2001, this succulent was finally declared extinct in the wild this year after numerous expeditions searching for remaining plants. As the IUCN Red List notes, “There are only a few specimens left in  ex-situ  collections, which is a concern for the extinction of the species in the near future.”

Falso Maguey Grande ( Furcraea macdougallii ) —Another Oaxacan succulent that’s extinct in the wild but still exists in cultivated form (you can buy these plants online today for as little as $15). Last seen growing naturally in 1973, the plant’s main habitat was degraded in 1953 to make way for agave plantations for mezcal production. Wildfires may have also played a role, but the species’ limited distribution also made it easier to kill it off: “The restricted range of the species also made it very vulnerable to small local disturbances, and hence the last few individuals were easily destroyed,” according to the IUCN.

Eriocaulon inundatum —Last scientifically collected in Senegal in 1943, this pipewort’s only know habitat has since been destroyed by salt mining.

Persoonia laxa —This shrub from New South Wales, Australia, was collected just two times—in 1907 and 1908—in habitats that have since become “highly urbanized.” The NSW government still lists it as “ presumed extinct ,” but the IUCN placed it fully in the “extinct” category in 2020.

Nazareno ( Monteverdia lineata ) —Scientific papers declared this Cuban flowing plant species extinct in 2010 and 2015, although it wasn’t catalogued in the IUCN Red List until this year. It grew in a habitat now severely degraded by agriculture and livestock farming.

Wynberg conebush  (Leucadendron grandiflorum) —This South African plant hasn’t been seen in more than 200 years and was long considered the  earliest documented extinction from that country , although it only made it to the IUCN Red List recently. Its sole habitat “was the location of the earliest colonial farms,” including vineyards.

Wolseley conebush ( Leucadendron spirale ) —Another South African plant, this one last seen in 1933 and since extensively sought after, including high  rewards  for its rediscovery. The IUCN says the cause of its extinction is unknown “but is likely the result of habitat loss to crop cultivation, alien plant invasion and afforestation.” Oh yeah, and it probably didn’t help that in 1809 a scientist wrote that the species possessed “ little beauty ” and discouraged it from further collection.

Schizothorax saltans —This fish from Kazakhstan was last seen in 1953, around the time the rivers feeding its lake habitats were drained for irrigation. The IUCN did not assess the species before this past year.

Alphonsea hortensis —Declared “extinct in the wild” this year after no observations since 1969, the last specimens of this Sri Lankan tree species now grow at Peradeniya Royal Botanic Garden.

Lord Howe long-eared bat ( Nyctophilus howensis ) —This island species is known from a single skull discovered in 1972. Conservationists held out hope that it still existed following several possible sightings, but those hopes have now been dashed.

Deppea splendens —This IUCN declared this beautiful plant species “extinct in the wild” this year. All living specimens exist only because botanist Dennis Breedlove, who discovered the species in 1973, collected seeds before the plant’s sole habitat in Mexico was  plowed over  to make way for farmland. Now known as a “holy grail” for some gardeners, cultivated plants descended from Breedlove’s seeds can be purchased online for as little as $16.95.

Pass stubfoot toad ( Atelopus senex ) —Another Costa Rican chytrid victim, last seen in 1986.

Craugastor myllomyllon —A Guatemalan frog that never had a common name and hasn’t been seen since 1978 (although it wasn’t declared a species until 2000). Unlike the other frogs on this year’s list, this one disappeared before the chytrid fungus arrived; it was likely wiped out when agriculture destroyed its only habitat.

Spined dwarf mantis ( Ameles fasciipennis ) —This Italian praying mantis was only scientifically collected once, in or around 1871, and never seen again. The IUCN says the genus’s taxonomy is “rather confusing and further analysis need to be done to confirm the validity of this species.” Here’s what we do know, though: There are none to be found today, despite extensive surveys.

Scleria chevalieri —This Senagalese plant, last seen in 1929, once grew in swamps that have since been drained to irrigate local gardens.

Hawai‘i yellowwood ( Ochrosia kilaueaensis ) —This tree hasn’t been seen since 1927. Its rainforest habitat has been severely degraded by invasive plants and goats, as well as fires. It’s currently listed as  endangered  under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, but the IUCN declared it extinct this past year.

Roystonea stellate —Scientists only collected this Cuban palm tree a single time, back in 1939. Several searches have failed to uncover evidence of its continued existence, probably due to conversion of its only habitats to coffee plantations.

Jalpa false brook salamander ( Pseudoeurycea exspectata ) —Small farms, cattle grazing and logging appear to have wiped out this once-common Guatemalan amphibian, last seen in 1976. At least 16 surveys since 1985 did not find any evidence of the species’ continued existence.

Faramea chiapensis —Only collected once in 1953, this Mexican plant lost its cloud-forest habitat to colonialism and deforestation.

Euchorium cubense —Last seen in 1924, this Cuban flowing plant—the only member of its genus—has long been assumed lost. The IUCN characterized it as extinct in 2020 along with  Banara wilsonii , another Cuban plant last seen in 1938 before its habitat was cleared for a sugarcane plantation.

Aloe silicicola —Last seen in 1920, this plant from the mountains of Madagascar enters the IUCN Red List as “extinct in the wild” due to a vague reference that it still exists in a botanical garden. Its previous habitat has been the site of frequent fires.

Chitala lopis —A large fish from the island of Java, this species hasn’t been seen since 1851 (although many online sources use this taxonomic name for other “featherback” fish species that still exist). It was probably wiped out by a wide range of habitat-degrading factors, including pollution, unsustainable fishing and near-complete deforestation around nearby rivers.

Eriocaulon jordanii —This grass species formerly occurred in two known sites in coastal Sierra Leone, where its previous habitats were converted to rice fields in the 1950s.

Amomum sumatranum —A relative of cardamom, this plant from Sumatra was only scientifically collected once, back in 1921, and the forest where that sample originated has now been completely developed. The IUCN says one remaining cultivated population exists, so they’ve declared it “extinct in the wild.”

Lost shark ( Carcharhinus obsoletus ) —This species makes its second annual appearance on this list. Scientists  described this species in 2019 after examining decades-old specimens, noting that it hadn’t been observed since the 1930s. This year the IUCN added the species to the Red List and declared it “critically endangered (possibly extinct).”

Cora timucua —This lichen from Florida was just identified from historical collections through DNA barcoding. Unfortunately no new samples have been collected since the turn of the 19th century. The scientists who named the species this past December call it “potentially extinct” but suggest it be listed as critically endangered in case it still hangs on in remote parts of the highly developed state. They caution, however, that it hasn’t turned up in any recent surveys.

Dama gazelle ( Nanger dama ) in Tunisia —This critically endangered species still hangs on in a few other countries, and in captivity, but the death of the last individual in Tunisia marked one more country in which the gazelle has now been extirpated and serves as a stark reminder to keep the rest from fading away.

This essay first appeared on The Revelator on January 6, 2021

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Local awareness and interpretations of species extinction in a rural chinese biodiversity hotspot.

• 1 Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, London, United Kingdom
• 2 School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, United Kingdom
• 3 College of Forestry, Hainan University, Haikou, China

Incorporating local perspectives is fundamental to evidence-based conservation, for both understanding complex socio-ecological systems and implementing appropriate management interventions. How local communities understand extinction, and whether these views affect perceptions of biodiversity loss and the effect of anthropogenic activities, has rarely been evaluated explicitly in conservation projects. To target this data gap, we conducted 185 interviews to assess levels and patterns of understanding about wildlife decline and extinction in rural communities around Bawangling National Nature Reserve, Hainan, China, a priority conservation site that has experienced recent species losses. Interviewees showed varying awareness of declines and extirpation of local wildlife species. Two-thirds did not consider the permanent disappearance of wildlife to be possible; among those who did, only one-third could comprehend the scientific term “extinction.” Thinking extinction is possible was associated with identifying declined and extirpated species, but not with perceiving locally-driven human activities, such as hunting, as the reason for wildlife loss. The government was seen as the entity most responsible for conservation. Variation found around local perceptions of extinction, its drivers, and conservation responsibility demonstrates that comprehension of key conservation concepts should not be assumed to be homogenous, highlighting the challenge of transposing scientific concepts between different social and cultural settings. Proactively incorporating local perspectives and worldviews, especially by obtaining context-specific baseline understandings, has major implications for other contexts worldwide and should inform conservation planning and management.

Introduction

A key objective of conservation science is to understand the patterns and drivers of species declines and extinction to reduce the loss of biodiversity ( Soulé, 2013 ). In the Anthropocene, human activities are driving the sixth mass extinction and pose the greatest threats to wildlife ( Dirzo et al., 2014 ; Ceballos et al., 2015 ). A robust understanding of extinction is therefore needed to both reduce negative human impacts and support conservation actions. Extinction can be studied with different sources of data, including ecological surveys, assessments of species population trends and conservation status ( Rodrigues et al., 2006 ; Collen et al., 2009 ), fossils and palaeoecological records ( Turvey and Saupe, 2019 ), historical archives ( Grace et al., 2019 ; Turvey et al., 2019 ), and local and traditional ecological knowledge ( Aswani et al., 2018 ). Multiple sources of data yield more comprehensive understandings of species extinction, especially in data-poor contexts ( Turvey et al., 2019 ). The increasing emphasis on using evidence in conservation research and decision-making ( Sutherland et al., 2004 ) also includes the integration of social science theories and methods to incorporate human dimensions ( Bennett et al., 2017 ; Moon et al., 2019 ). Traditional indigenous and/or rural communities often interact closely with the environment and are directly involved in activities negatively impacting biodiversity, such as hunting, habitat degradation, and human-wildlife conflicts ( Dickman, 2010 ; Specht et al., 2015 ; Roe and Booker, 2019 ). Hence, to understand extinction patterns and processes, researchers and practitioners can benefit from proactive engagement with the perceptions, knowledge, and experiences of people in these communities ( Bennett, 2016 ; Pyhälä et al., 2016 ). In many cases, such communities are also the focus for conservation interventions aimed at altering awareness and behaviors ( Nilsson et al., 2016 ), but doing so effectively requires baseline understandings of local perceptions.

Ample evidence shows that traditional communities can have ecological knowledge about wildlife that others from outside these communities lack, and may also have different processes of knowing the environment compared with that of formally trained scientists ( Berkes, 2004 ; Wheeler and Root-Bernstein, 2020 ). When engaging with multiple stakeholders in conservation, establishing mutually understood concepts should be a priority, and is important in helping diverse actors work toward a common goal. Conversely, a lack of shared understanding can be problematic as conflicts can arise from disagreements between stakeholders. For example, the rewilding movement has been hindered by a lack of consensus among stakeholders on terminology and goals, including around key ecological concepts such as what constitutes “wild” and “natural,” and on whose land should rewilding be done ( Nogués-Bravo et al., 2016 ; Root-Bernstein et al., 2018 ). Addressing how people understand—or do not understand—fundamental conservation concepts such as species decline and its causes should therefore be a key objective in conservation management to reach common ground between stakeholders.

In these contexts, reaching a common understanding of extinction is therefore key to conservation. The concept of extinction in western scientific thought emerged at the end of the eighteenth century when Georges Cuvier demonstrated the phenomenon with evidence from the fossil record ( Rudwick, 1998 ). This realization only came after several centuries of European exploration and colonization, which catalyzed rapid anthropogenic environmental change around the globe that led directly to numerous documented species extinctions, including the dodo ( Raphus cucullatus ), now the symbol of extinction ( Turvey and Cheke, 2008 ). Nonetheless, the philosophical and intellectual framework, and even the necessary language and terminology, around the concept of extinction was lacking at first, a shortfall subsequently perceived to have been an obstacle to further study of extinctions ( Sodikoff, 2011 ; Wiens et al., 2020 ). Today, conservationists work in diverse social, political, and cultural contexts directly with traditional communities with independent intellectual traditions and worldviews that might not necessarily contain comparable concepts of extinction ( Brooks et al., 2013 ; Albuquerque et al., 2019 ). Actively engaging with potentially different perspectives, especially in regions with a high diversity of belief systems and languages that often overlap with biodiversity hotspots ( Maffi, 2005 ; Turvey and Pettorelli, 2014 ), would help guide conservation management. However, establishing a baseline of how local people view extinction is often a missing step in conservation planning and management. In this case, knowledge co-assessment and co-production between researchers and local people, using pluralistic and context-based approaches, can be effective at filling data gaps ( Sutherland et al., 2017 ; Norström et al., 2020 ).

While the cultural significance of extinction has been studied through anthropological, psychological, and historical frameworks ( Poling and Evans, 2004 ; Sodikoff, 2011 ; Rose et al., 2017 ), research on how non-scientists view the phenomenon of extinction and its implications for conservation is limited. A comparison of schoolchildren's understanding of the death of individual animals with the disappearance of entire species (e.g., dinosaurs), and of the acceptance of the possibility of human extinction among adults, showed that demographic variation exists even in the same cultural context ( Poling and Evans, 2004 ). Past extinctions can also indicate how losses of species were perceived. For instance, Maori ancestral sayings and expressions have been interpreted as reflecting local observations that the extinction of moa, an important food source, was driven by human exploitation ( Wehi et al., 2018 ). Assessing current perceptions of species loss in traditional communities living within biodiversity-rich regions would therefore contribute more direct insights to inform management today and in the future.

Research on species of conservation priority has sometimes explicitly investigated local peoples' perceptions of the drivers of wildlife decline and extinctions, and has revealed further variation in understanding and awareness within these social-ecological systems. For example, different cultural groups inhabiting the same area in the Dry Chaco, Argentina, have different perceptions of the species that have become locally extinct and the timeframes of these extinctions, despite a consensus that the overall decline and extinction of wildlife species was mainly driven by hunting ( Camino et al., 2016 ). Some indigenous peoples also have terminology describing local animal extinction and beliefs that wildlife decline was caused by overhunting and/or habitat destruction, recalled primarily by older people from their own experiences and established without the influence of western scientific concepts of extinction ( de Azevedo et al., 2012 ; Forth, 2016 ). Conversely, other indigenous cultures appear not to have strong notions of extinctions being possible, such as not believing that wildlife or the forest ecosystem could disappear, and these views may again vary according to demographic factors ( Casanova et al., 2014 ). Differences in understanding endangered species decline have also been found between rural and urban residents in Brazil ( de Azevedo et al., 2012 ). This complex variation in local understanding of extinction leads to further questions of whether these perceptions are driven by cultural traditions, livelihood methods, associated patterns of resource use, or other factors. Finally, it should not be assumed that communities are homogenous entities, nor that they would automatically take on responsibility for sustainable environmental management even if they associate species losses with their own activities ( Agrawal and Gibson, 1999 ). Understanding how local people's perceptions of biodiversity loss relates to their sense of responsibility for conservation can therefore potentially be used to increase community involvement and a sense of ownership over natural resources, and promote pride, equity, and fair governance ( Nilsson et al., 2016 ; Bennett et al., 2019 ).

In order to target these key data gaps in our understanding of extinction awareness, we investigated the following questions in village communities surrounding Bawangling National Nature Reserve (BNNR) in Hainan Province, China: (a) whether and how local people understand species decline and extinction, and their respective drivers; (b) what demographic variables covary with these perceptions; (c) whether people who think extinction is possible have favorable attitudes toward hunting, firewood collection, and use of natural resources; and (d) who local people think should be responsible for conservation, and what factors influence whether they identify different bodies as being responsible. The findings have major implications for how to engage proactively with local communities and identify shortfalls in conservation, while being sensitive to their views about biodiversity loss and associated local drivers. Overall, our results provide new understanding of human-wildlife relationships among non-western rural communities around a key protected area, and contribute transferrable insights to inform conservation at wider scales.

Interviews were carried out in villages within 3 km of the border of BNNR ( Figure 1 ). The reserve (18°57–19°11 N, 109°03–109°17 E) has an area of about 300 square kilometers and straddles two counties on Hainan Island (Changjiang and Baisha Li Autonomous Counties). BNNR has been a priority for conservation management and scientific research partly because it contains the only surviving population of the Critically Endangered Hainan gibbon ( Nomascus hainanus ) ( Chan et al., 2005b ; Turvey et al., 2015 ). Gun ownership and logging were banned in 2001 and 1994, respectively ( Davies and Wismer, 2007 ), but forest degradation and exploitation of wildlife within BNNR and other protected forests in Hainan continue to threaten local biodiversity ( Zhang et al., 2010 ; Gong et al., 2017 ; Xu et al., 2017 ). Large carnivores such as the Asiatic black bear ( Ursus thibetanus ) and clouded leopard ( Neofelis nebulosa ) have probably disappeared from the reserve over the last two decades, and several other species such as the Chinese pangolin ( Manis pentadactyla ) are known to have undergone major declines and are now extremely rare if not also extirpated ( Fellowes et al., 2001 ; Turvey et al., 2019 ).

Figure 1 . Villages visited in this survey around Bawangling National Nature Reserve in western Hainan, China.

Numerous villages surround BNNR, with the nearest located within 1 km of the reserve boundary. Local communities are predominantly of Li ethnicity, with a few villages also comprised of people of Miao and Han ethnicity ( Lian, 2003 ). Communities are typically low-income, with primarily agricultural-based economies. Until centrally planned conservation management of Hainan's forests began around 2000, these communities relied on natural resources from the surrounding forest environment for food, housing, and cultural and spiritual uses ( Fauna and Flora International China Programme, 2005 ; Gu, 2019 ). Villages around BNNR cluster in three areas (Bawang, Qingsong and Wangxia), each of which share village-level government bureaus ( xiang ), shops and services, roads, and bus routes. The total human population of these three areas is c. 25,300 ( National Bureau of Statistics, 2019 ).

Data Collection

An interview survey was conducted between February 27 th and April 1 st 2019 by the lead author and four local university undergraduate students. Students were recruited as part of a Chinese-UK institutional collaboration and provided with training in conservation social science skills to increase local conservation capacity. All of the villages within 3 km of BNNR, a total of 30 villages (15 in Changjiang County, 15 in Baisha County), were visited ( Figure 1 ). Individual household interviews with a questionnaire format were conducted by going door-to-door and asking whether local residents aged 18 or above would like to participate. A target number of 10 people per village was aimed for ( Guest, 2006 ); however, this was not always achieved because in smaller villages there were few people at home or willing to be interviewed. Interviews were carried out using methods previously used by Nash et al. (2016) and Turvey et al. (2017 , 2019) in the same area. Participation was voluntary with verbal consent given before the interview began, and interviewees were informed that interviews were anonymous and they could withdraw at any time or could choose not to answer any question. Researchers' positions as independent from government authorities were clearly explained to interviewees, emphasizing that they were students wanting to learn about the local environment. Researchers were not accompanied by local officials because this has been known to affect responses ( Davies and Wismer, 2007 ; Ratigan and Rabin, 2020 ). Standard Mandarin was used in all interviews, which the interviewees could understand. The study was approved and supported by Hainan University College of Forestry and the Research Ethics Committee at Royal Holloway, University of London (ID 535). Ethical considerations highlighted by Brittain et al. (2020) were further incorporated into all stages of research.

Substantial informal qualitative interviews and group discussions were conducted with local forest wardens and other local residents around BNNR and other reserves on Hainan prior to formal data collection, and information and observations obtained during these activities were used to guide questionnaire and survey design. Local people from communities around BNNR were not recruited as research assistants because there are currently insufficient mechanisms between regional universities and local government on Hainan to enable full involvement of community members in conducting formal research in this study system. Whereas knowledge co-production is highly important, hunting, resource use, and attitudes toward conservation also represent potentially sensitive topics, and we consider that an appropriate first step is to assess the relevant information-content of local knowledge and advocate for its value in informing conservation management.

Using a standardized questionnaire with a mix of open and closed questions, information was first collected on interviewees' demographic characteristics, including gender, age, ethnicity, and highest level of education ( Supplementary Material ). All interviewees were asked whether they perceived any change in the overall abundances of local wildlife populations during the time they had lived in their village, and were then asked to free-list species they believed to have declined and to have disappeared completely from the surrounding area. They were then asked “is it possible for animals to disappear and never appear again?,” followed by what they thought the word “extinction” (“ miejue” ) meant. Interviewees were also asked to list what they thought had caused both local decline and local disappearance of wildlife. To assess the relationship between relying on the reserve for resources and responsibility for conservation, all interviewees were presented with statements about three locally-driven human behaviors (it is acceptable to hunt, use natural resources from the reserve, and use firewood) and were asked to respond with agree, disagree, or neither agree nor disagree. Finally, interviewees were asked who they thought should be responsible for doing conservation with open-ended questions. Interviewees could respond with “don't know” to any question. Open-ended questions were designed to encourage interviewees to provide further detail to their responses, with qualitative data gathered through these questions valuable for understanding and contextualizing local perceptions ( Drury et al., 2011 ); interviewees could give more than one answer for these questions and were encouraged to provide further detail. Additional data collected in this interview survey have been analyzed separately ( Ma, 2021 ).

Data Analysis

Responses about perceived change in overall wildlife abundances were totaled for each of the possible categories (no change, increased, decreased, don't know). The most frequently mentioned declined and locally extirpated species were identified by summing the number of people who free-listed each species. Reasons for decline and extirpation from open-ended questions were categorized as either locally-driven human activities (e.g., hunting, deforestation) or other drivers that are the result of regional or global changes (e.g., climate change). Responses to whether local or non-local people's activities caused wildlife decline, and attitudes toward hunting and using natural forest resources or firewood, were summed across all interviewees and converted to proportions. Responses for who should do conservation were coded into five categories (reserve management, government, citizens, conservation professionals, and other), which captured the different levels of specificity given by interviewees (for example, provincial-level and village-level government were coded together with other levels of government, and forestry wardens were coded with reserve management).

All statistical analyses were performed in R version 3.5.2 ( R Development Core Team, 2018 ). Generalized linear models (GLMs) with binomial error distributions and logit link functions were used to determine which demographic variables were associated with: (1) thinking wildlife abundances have undergone overall decline; (2) being able to free-list any locally declined species; (3) being able to free-list any locally extirpated species; and (4) thinking extinction is possible. All response variables were binary (yes or no). Model predictors included age (continuous), gender (categorical), village location (categorical), and formal education level (categorical). Education level was divided into four categories (none; primary school; middle school; and high school and above, including university). Only people of Li ethnicity were included in GLMs due to the imbalance in relative frequencies of interviewees belonging to different ethnic groups in our sample (92.4% Li, 6.6% Miao and Han). The same predictors, plus whether someone thought extinction is possible, were also used in GLMs with the binary response variables of: (1) thinking local human activities caused wildlife decline; (2) thinking local human activities caused wildlife extirpation; (3) thinking it is acceptable to use natural resources from the forest; (4) thinking citizens should be responsible for conservation; and (5) thinking the government should be responsible for conservation. Over 80% of interviewees reported that they were against hunting and in favor of firewood use, so Fisher's Exact test was used instead of GLMs to test for associations with these variables. Chi-square tests were used to investigate whether there was an association between free-listing any locally extirpated species and thinking extinction is possible.

A total of 185 people were interviewed. People interviewed per village varied from 2 to 20. Two-thirds of interviewees were from villages in the Qingsong area ( Supplementary Table 1 ). About two-thirds of the interviewees were men (70.2%), and overall they had relatively low levels of formal education, with most having only reached middle school (88.6%).

Less than half (76, 41%) of all interviewees perceived a decrease in wildlife populations, in contrast to the number of interviewees who perceived an increase (37, 20%) ( Figure 2A ). Declines were often perceived based on direct personal experience; for example, one interviewee recounted that “ Seven to eight years ago, when I went up the nearby mountains, sometimes I saw animal footprints, but I no longer see them now .” Many people did not know whether wildlife populations had changed (61, 30%); one interviewee explained that this was because “[ people ] are not allowed to go into the forest, so [ we ] do not see animals and do not know if they have declined .” Very few people (11, 6%) thought there was no change. Age (binomial GLM, n = 169, χ 2 = 11.748, df = 1, p = 0.001) and village location (binomial GLM, n = 169, χ 2 = 8.814, df = 2, p = 0.012) were significantly associated with whether someone was more likely to perceive a decline in wildlife populations. Older people (estimate = 0.043, standard error = 0.015, z -value = 2.968, p = 0.003) and people in Qingsong (estimate = 1.332, standard error = 0.522, z-value = 2.554, p = 0.011) and Wangxia (estimate = 1.461, standard error = 0.632, z-value = 2.310, p = 0.021) were more likely to think wildlife had declined ( Supplementary Table 2 ).

Figure 2. (A) Interviewees' perceptions of change in wildlife populations over the time they have lived in their village ( n = 185). ( B ) Interviewees' perceptions of whether extinction of wildlife is possible or not ( n = 184).

Among all interviewees, 81 (44%) were able to free-list at least one species they perceived to have locally declined. In total, 11 species or species groups were identified by at least five people. The most frequently mentioned declined species were wild boar ( Sus scrofa, n = 38), sambar deer ( Rusa unicolor, n = 22), rhesus macaque ( Macaca mulatta, n = 15), and birds ( n = 15) ( Figure 3A ). One interviewee stated that “ in the past, wild boars would eat the crops, but now they do not anymore .” Most listed wildlife were mammals, but some interviewees also mentioned turtles ( n = 13), and fish, insects, and snakes (all listed by fewer than five people), including one mention of pythons. Of the people who mentioned turtles, three specifically identified golden coin turtle ( Cuora trifasciata ), two identified big-headed turtle ( Platysternon megacephalum ), and one described a small aquatic turtle. Age (binomial GLM, n = 167, χ 2 = 7.403, df = 1, p = 0.007) and village location (binomial GLM, n = 167, χ 2 = 11.499, df = 2, p = 0.003) were significantly associated with someone being able to name at least one species perceived as being locally declined. Older people (estimate = 0.031, standard error = 0.014, z -value = 2.206, p = value = 0.027) and people in Qingsong (estimate = 1.367, standard error = 0.491, z -value = 2.785, p = value = 0.015) compared to Bawang were more likely to identify at least one locally declined species ( Supplementary Table 3 ).

Figure 3. (A) Wild animals that at least five interviewees thought have declined ( n = 81). (B) Wild animals that at least five interviewees thought have been locally extirpated ( n = 60).

In total, 60 interviewees (32%) were able to free-list at least one species they perceived to have become locally extirpated. Only four species were reported by more than five people: Chinese pangolin ( n = 26), red muntjac ( Muntiacus vaginalis, n = 11), Asiatic black bear ( n = 10), and sambar deer ( n = 7) ( Figure 3B ). Several interviewees described the disappearance of pangolins in further detail: “ Pangolins disappeared twenty years ago. I have not seen one; I have heard of them, but they no longer exist now ”; and “ Pangolins have gone extinct. They are valuable and were not protected. Villagers would go looking for them after the rain by following their footprints .” In addition, four people mentioned civets (with two people specifically naming masked palm civet Paguma larvata ); three people mentioned turtles (including two who named golden coin turtle); fish and toads were each mentioned once; and birds were not generally identified to species group or species level, except for pheasant (two), owl (one), crested myna (one), and parrot (one). The disappearance of fish was attributed to water depletion: “ Fish have disappeared locally. Before there was plenty of water, but the water has gradually dried up .” Age (binomial GLM, n = 167, χ 2 = 7.779, df = 1, p = 0.005) and village location (binomial GLM, n = 167, χ 2 = 11.888, df = 2, p = 0.003) were significantly associated with someone being able to name at least one species perceived as being locally extirpated. Older people (estimate = 0.033, standard error = 0.015, z -value = 2.283, p = 0.022) and people in Qingsong (estimate = 1.819, standard error = 1.819, z -value = 2.760, p = 0.015) compared to Bawang were more likely to identify at least one locally extirpated species ( Supplementary Table 3 ).

Many people stated they did not know the reasons for local wildlife decline (106, 57%) or extirpation (138, 75%). The most frequently identified cause for both local wildlife decline and extirpation was hunting; for example, one interviewee stated that “ In the past, the elders had to survive and needed to hunt animals. Because the animals were hunted a lot, they decreased .” Another interviewee stated that “ business owners would pay for people to hunt. When there were too many [ animals hunted ] and they could not all be eaten in the villages, they were given away .” A range of other local drivers were also identified; for example, declines or extirpations were also considered to be caused by factors such as “ human destruction—deforestation, clearing land, and hunting ,” or because “ The forest has decreased because trees have been cut down, and the land has turned barren because it got burnt; the animals have nowhere to live .” However, other local human activities, including habitat loss and degradation (deforestation, land clearing, or burning), disturbance by humans, and herbicide or pesticide use, were reported far less frequently than hunting ( Figure 4 ).

Figure 4. (A) Interviewees' perceptions of the reasons for local wildlife decline ( n = 76). (B) Interviewees' perceptions of the reasons for local wildlife extirpation ( n = 43).

Of the 76 people who reported reasons for wildlife decline, 62 (82%) identified at least one local human activity, while 12 (16%) identified other reasons ( Figure 4A ); two answers were not classified due to ambiguity (“ because of the government ” and “ animals got protected ”). More interviewees thought local people were responsible for the activities causing wildlife decline (47, 25%) compared to those who thought that decline was caused by non-local people's activities (35, 19%), but nearly two-thirds (122, 66%) of interviewees did not know. In contrast, of the 43 people who gave reasons for local wildlife extirpation, 36 (84%) were able to identify at least one local human activity as the reason, while 6 (14%) listed other reasons ( Figure 4B ); one answer was not classified due to ambiguity (“ animals got protected ”).

Village location was the only variable significantly associated with thinking wildlife decline was caused by local human activities (binomial GLM, n = 164, χ 2 = 14.460, df = 2, p = 0.001), with interviewees in Qingsong more likely to think local human activities were responsible (estimate = 1.614, standard error = 0.601, z -value = 2.684, p = 0.007). Conversely, interviewees with a higher education level were more likely to think wildlife extirpation was caused by local human activities (binomial GLM, n = 164, χ 2 = 14.057, df = 3, p = 0.003), but no significant differences were found between education levels ( Supplementary Table 3 ). Thinking extinction is possible was not significantly associated with identifying local human activities as the cause of wildlife decline or extirpation ( Supplementary Table 2 ).

Of all interviewees, 86 (47%) were not sure whether wildlife species could go extinct based on the description of the concept of extinction (“is it possible for animals to disappear completely?” Figure 2B ), while 60 (32%) thought it was possible, and 38 (21%) thought it was impossible. Interviewees who thought it was impossible for animals to disappear completely explained that “ the animals have run away but will return ,” “ animals may exist elsewhere ,” or “ as long the forest exists there should be animals .” Age (binomial GLM, n = 168, χ 2 = 11.670, df = 1, p = 0.001) and village location (binomial GLM, n = 168, χ 2 = 6.854, df = 2, p = 0.032) were significantly associated with whether someone was more likely to think it was possible for animals to disappear completely ( Supplementary Table 2 ). Older people were more likely to think it was possible for animals to disappear completely (estimate = 0.045, standard error = 0.015, z -value = 2.988, p = 0.003), but there were no significant differences between the three village locations detected by post-hoc tests. An association was found between considering it was possible for animals to disappear completely and being able to list locally extirpated species (chi-square test, χ 2 = 28.189, n = 183, df = 1, p -value < 0.001); more people both recognized local extirpation of wildlife and thought it was possible for animals to disappear completely than expected (36 observed vs. 20 people expected).

In contrast, of the 60 people who thought it was possible for animals to disappear completely, 37 (62%) did not understand the scientific term “extinction,” and only 21 (35%) provided an explanation of what it meant. Definitions of extinction given by interviewees typically included “ animals have disappeared forever ,” “ all died out ,” or “ all got killed or captured .” Interviewees also understood extinction as “ some animals existed before but have disappeared now ” or “ a particular species has been destroyed and no longer exists .” Specifically, the concept of overexploitation was linked to extinction by one interviewee, as “[ some ] animals only have one offspring per year, people caught two or two each time they hunted, so the animals are all gone .” Of the 124 people who were not certain it was possible for animals to disappear completely, 38 (31%) still described the meaning of the term “extinction,” while 86 (69%) were neither certain it was possible for animals to disappear completely nor understood the term “extinction.” In addition, three people said dinosaurs went extinct in the past, but emphasized that it is impossible for animals to go extinct now.

Just under half of interviewees (45%) thought it was acceptable to use natural resources from the forest. Most interviewees (172, 95%) had a positive attitude toward using firewood for powering stoves for cooking. In contrast, most interviewees were against hunting (146, 81%), but some (24, 13%) had a neutral attitude. Thinking it is acceptable to use natural resources from the forest was significantly associated with thinking it was possible for animals to disappear completely (binomial GLM, n = 166, χ 2 = 5.310, df = 1, p = 0.021) and village location (binomial GLM, n = 166, χ 2 = 6.980, df = 2, p = 0.031). Interviewees who thought it was possible for animals to disappear completely were more likely to think it is acceptable to use natural resources (estimate = 0.846, standard error = 0.371, z -value = 2.279, p = 0.023), and those in Wangxia were more likely to think it is acceptable (estimate = 1.455, standard error = 0.578, z -value = 2.519, p = 0.012) ( Supplementary Table 3 ). There was no association between whether an interviewee thought it was possible for animals to disappear completely and whether they thought it is acceptable to use firewood (Fisher's Exact Test, n = 168, odds ratio = 2.07, 95% confidence interval = 0.39–20.67, p = 0.49), or that it is acceptable to hunt (Fisher's Exact Test, n = 168, odds ratio = 1, 95% confidence interval = 0.21–3.94, p = 1).

In total, most interviewees (165, 89%) thought wildlife should be protected. Among these, 137 (74%) identified at least one group of people they thought should be responsible for conservation, while 28 did not know (15%). Sixteen people (9%) were unsure whether wildlife should be protected, and one person did not think so. Of the interviewees who thought wildlife should be protected, reserve management was thought to be responsible by the most people (64, 47%), followed by ordinary citizens (60, 44%) and various levels of government (43, 31%) ( Figure 5 ). Only five people (4%) thought conservation professionals should be responsible for conservation. One interviewee who thought the forestry bureau was responsible reasoned that it is “ because the central government gives them funding ,” but also thought that each person also has a role, “ because otherwise future generations would not see wildlife .” Individual responsibility was not seen as sufficient, however, as one interviewee pointed out: “ All people should be responsible … it is useless if only one person protects [ wildlife ] but others still hunt .” Others thought the government should be responsible because “ unless the government promotes [ conservation ] , people would not understand and would eat all the animals ,” and because “ the government has to manage the public, otherwise people would hunt as they please .” One interviewee further explained that “ unless the government owns the wildlife, people will go into the forest. If wildlife is privately managed (e.g., contracted out to business owners), it will be depleted by hunting ,” suggesting that centrally managed conservation is necessary.

Figure 5 . Interviewee opinions on who they considered should be responsible for conservation ( n = 137).

Demographic variables and perceptions of extinction had varying effects on perceptions of responsibility for conservation. Age (binomial GLM, n = 162, χ 2 = 6.423, df = 1, p = 0.011) and education level (binomial GLM, n = 162, χ 2 = 24.638, df = 3, p < 0.001) were associated with thinking all citizens are responsible for conservation, with younger people (estimate = −0.039, standard error = 0.016, z -value = −2.396, p = 0.017) and those with higher education more likely to think all citizens are responsible ( Supplementary Table 2 ). Age was also associated with thinking the government is responsible for conservation (binomial GLM, n = 165, χ 2 = 12.351, df = 1, p < 0.001), with older people more likely to hold this opinion (estimate = 0.047, standard error = 0.015, z -value = 3.190, p = 0.001). Gender, village location, and whether someone believed extinction was possible were not significant predictors of whether interviewees held either opinion ( Supplementary Table 2 ).

In order to develop appropriate methods to mitigate unsustainable interactions between local communities and threatened biodiversity, it should neither be assumed that all cultures share the western scientific understanding of extinction, nor that people not exposed to western scientific thinking cannot comprehend extinction ( Casanova et al., 2014 ; Forth, 2016 ; Wehi et al., 2018 ). Understanding local perceptions of extinction and associated worldviews, knowledge levels, and attitudes is essential to avoid erroneous assumptions in conservation planning, and to enable stakeholders to reach a shared consensus about conservation issues and goals. We addressed this data gap by evaluating the understanding of species extinction and decline around a key protected area in Hainan, China.

Responses to free-listing questions indicate that a relatively large proportion of people living close to BNNR are aware of local species declines. While there have not been regular systematic wildlife surveys inside the reserve ( Fellowes et al., 2001 ; Chan et al., 2005a ; Lau et al., 2010 ), other recent interview surveys conducted around BNNR provide independent data on reductions in sightings of several mammal species (e.g., sambar) that are consistent with local perceptions of wildlife decline documented in this study ( Nash et al., 2016 ; Turvey et al., 2019 ; Wang et al., 2021 ). Furthermore, continued hunting of birds and turtles is documented in adjacent reserves in Hainan, and local people in these landscapes perceive that population declines are caused by overhunting ( Gong et al., 2009 ; Liang et al., 2013 , Gong et al., 2017 ). Awareness of the potential for local wildlife decline is well-documented in both environmental history and other traditional societies. For example, sustainable hunting and fishing practices exist among many indigenous cultures ( Berkes et al., 2000 ; Wheeler and Root-Bernstein, 2020 ). Formal governance structures, such as medieval European hunting regulations and forest conservation, also demonstrate past awareness of the risk of wildlife decline and a desire to prevent it ( Young, 1978 ). Indeed, millennia-old philosophical traditions in China promoted the moderate and sustainable usage of natural resources to prevent their depletion, indicating an understanding of concepts of biodiversity loss ( Sterckx, 2019 ), and notions of local species decline directly influenced Chinese environmental management practices from the eleventh century BCE ( Cui and Wang, 2001 ; Marks, 2007 ). Sustainable management practices also exist within both rural ethnic minority and Han communities in China today ( Coggins, 2003 ; Urgenson et al., 2010 ; Shen et al., 2015 ). Overall, these findings reaffirm the value of incorporating local ecological knowledge in species conservation, especially in data-poor environments ( Berkes et al., 2000 ; Turvey et al., 2010 , 2014 ).

Responses to free-listing questions also indicate that relatively many people living close to BNNR are aware not only of local species declines but also of local species extirpations, as reflected by the differences in the most frequently perceived locally extirpated species (pangolin, muntjac, black bear, sambar) and declined species (wild boar, sambar, macaque, birds, turtles). These responses are consistent with the findings of previous studies suggesting that pangolin and black bear may have disappeared from BNNR ( Fellowes et al., 2001 ; Turvey et al., 2019 ). However, although we found that perception of local extirpation of species and considering it was possible for animals to disappear completely are linked, our results also demonstrate that a relatively low proportion of interviewees considered that the permanent disappearance of animals is possible. While culturally salient extinction “icons” exist in both western and eastern societies ( Turvey and Cheke, 2008 ; Heise, 2010 ), the association between awareness of local extirpation and acknowledging global extinction is thus not necessarily obvious. For example, the Lewis and Clark expedition across western North America in the early nineteenth century was partly motivated by Thomas Jefferson's belief that mastodons were not extinct and might still exist somewhere in as-yet unexplored territories ( Thompson, 2009 ). Therefore, the existence of a causal relationship between understandings of local extirpation and global extinction warrants further comparative research across differing social and cultural contexts.

A limited awareness of the possibility of extinction has also been documented elsewhere in other rural communities around protected areas. For instance, many local people living close to Cantanhez Forest National Park in Guinea-Bissau believed that neither wildlife nor the forest ecosystem would disappear, with such views related to religious beliefs ( Casanova et al., 2014 ). The concept of extinction caused by anthropogenic change to natural environments was recognized independently by Chinese scholars in the early nineteenth century ( Marks, 2007 ). However, the lack of widespread acceptance of extinction in rural Hainan could potentially have roots in classical Chinese culture, which was heavily influenced by Buddhist, Taoist, and Confucian philosophies in which human and animals are all interconnected components of nature and coexist in harmony ( Grumbine and Xu, 2011 ; Sterckx, 2019 ). In these belief systems, nature was a rather abstract construction, which may have been why understandings of concrete ecological phenomena were largely absent; instead, observations of nature were typically framed and explained in moral terms or as metaphors for human behavior ( Grumbine and Xu, 2011 ; Sterckx, 2019 ).

The low number of people who could explain the meaning of the scientific term “extinction” (“ miejue” ), even among those who thought that the permanent disappearance of animals is possible, has further implications for conservation practice, especially for communication and awareness-raising. It is not surprising that this formal scientific term is not well-understood by ethnic minority communities who live in rural settlements and have low levels of formal education. Indeed, confirming species extinction is conceptually and practically challenging, an issue that is further hindered by the lack of robust evidence to assess possible continued survival of many rare and enigmatic species ( McKelvey et al., 2008 ; Roberts et al., 2010 ). Local people should therefore not be expected to have a consistent understanding of extinction, especially considering the different experiences they have with the environment compared to those of authorities, researchers, and conservation professionals. However, if this formal term is widely used in awareness-raising about conservation, mismatches in understanding could result in low uptake of the key messages being communicated. If such discrepancy can be found within one social-ecological system, it may therefore be even more prevalent when transposing conservation concepts internationally between vastly different cultures and languages.

We also found that perceptions of both wildlife decline and extinction were further influenced by demographic and geographic factors. The association between older age and greater understanding of species loss may be attributed to more experience of local environments, consistent with other studies showing that community elders often have more ecological knowledge ( Turvey et al., 2010 ; Forth, 2016 ). In Hainan and elsewhere, erosion of local and traditional ecological knowledge has been found to accompany biodiversity loss and ecological degradation ( Kai et al., 2014 ; Turvey et al., 2018 ). Conversely, the observed different levels of understanding species loss between village locations around BNNR may reflect variation in levels of implementation of conservation awareness-raising activities in different communities around the protected area. The conservation flagship species of BNNR, the critically endangered Hainan gibbon, has been the focus of most awareness-raising activities previously conducted in this region ( Fauna and Flora International China Programme, 2007 , 2008 ; Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden, 2016 , 2018 ), and more conservation-relevant information focused around this species has been available from billboards, murals, and education activities in the Qingsong region ( Qian et al., 2021 ). The greater level of general understanding of species decline and extinction seen in this region may thus suggest a potential link between exposure to gibbon-specific awareness-raising and higher levels of general extinction knowledge.

The most frequently identified reason for wildlife extinction was hunting, and few people knew about any other drivers of decline or extinction. Awareness of hunting as a threat may reflect local people's direct personal experiences, either having hunted themselves, or having observed or heard from others such as village elders who hunted in the past. In a separate recent study, many local people around BNNR also reported that their knowledge about threats to the Hainan gibbon came from experience of hunting or observing hunting activities ( Qian et al., 2021 ). Elsewhere, local peoples who traditionally practice subsistence hunting also have a high degree of consensus that hunting is the main driver of local biodiversity loss, and have proposed hunting restrictions as conservation solutions ( Camino et al., 2016 ). To achieve a more robust evaluation of hunting threats, interview responses should be triangulated with other methods to evaluate the impact of different human activities, such as monitoring evidence of hunting such as traps and market surveys ( Gong et al., 2009 ; Gaillard et al., 2017 ).

Local perceptions of the possibility of extinction, the species affected, and the causes of species decline have important implications for conservation awareness-raising activities. The overall low level of knowledge of species extinction and its drivers highlights the need to promote understanding of key conservation concepts when engaging with local communities. Variation in awareness of the drivers of biodiversity loss, especially of hunting compared with other causes such as habitat degradation and disturbance by human activities, suggests that future awareness-raising should include information not only on the conservation-priority species present in the landscape, but also on the various processes causing species decline. It is also important to assess if, how and where local human activities are currently impacting biodiversity to better focus awareness-raising and other mitigation measures to where they are most needed. For example, awareness-raising at BNNR could be specifically designed to target the identified gaps in local understanding of extinction by emphasizing that the Hainan gibbon is only found in this reserve and nowhere else, the species' existence depends solely on habitat inside the reserve, and the likelihood of irreversible extinction increases without support for conservation actions.

To local people living close to BNNR, responsibility for conservation was primarily thought to be borne by the government, but the participation of the general public was also seen as important. Reserve authorities, including the forestry bureau, management office, and reserve wardens, were perceived to be most responsible for wildlife conservation, suggesting that local people associate reserve staff the most with conservation or receive the most exposure to conservation from reserve staff. In contrast, few people identified conservation professionals as being responsible, possibly reflecting the more limited activities of the few conservation organizations active at BNNR, and their temporally and geographically more patchy engagement with local communities ( Fauna and Flora International China Programme, 2005 , 2007 ; Turvey et al., 2015 ; Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden, 2016 , 2018 ). Overall, national-level government was perceived to be more responsible than provincial-level or village-level government. The increased likelihood of older people to have this view may reflect the last few decades of state-led environmental management directives in recent Chinese history ( Marks, 2017 ; Mao and Zhang, 2018 ). In contrast, younger people and those with higher education levels were more likely to think everyone is responsible, suggesting a potential shift toward the belief that conservation should involve all members of society. For example, birdwatching is increasingly popular in China, and many birdwatchers, typically those who are higher educated, younger, and wealthier, have expressed their environmental concerns ( Walther and White, 2018 ), presenting opportunities for raising regional awareness about the extinction crisis through nature-based education and leisure activities.

Drawing upon local knowledge via research co-production between local people, scientists, and practitioners is therefore a vital way to ensure that local perspectives are not only documented, but also can be readily incorporated into conservation management ( Nel et al., 2015 ; Norström et al., 2020 ). We acknowledge that this research does not constitute knowledge co-production, as local community members are not co-authors, and the conclusions drawn from the data are instead the researchers' interpretation of local people's knowledge, awareness, and attitudes. Further in-depth qualitative research, involving interactive co-learning processes ( Norström et al., 2020 ), could help triangulate the results found in this study to tackle this limitation. Due to the potentially sensitive nature of what could be discussed, e.g., illegally entering protected areas and hunting, no local people were identified to protect their identities, and thus it was not possible to include any as co-authors while ensuring anonymity ( Brittain et al., 2020 ). Additionally, because one aim of this study was to investigate underlying patterns of local perceptions of extinction, interviewees were conducted opportunistically rather than by identifying local experts. Nonetheless, the inclusion of local knowledge is integral to the long-term conservation programme that this research is part of, which aims to amplify local communities' perspectives in the management of Hainan's protected areas. However, we are also aware that while knowledge was gathered directly from local people, this process does not guarantee that they will have more power in conservation decision-making ( Latulippe and Klenk, 2020 ).

Consistent with similar studies conducted in this region ( Nash et al., 2016 ; Turvey et al., 2019 ), our sample was biased toward men and people with lower levels of education, possibly because men can have a higher willingness to interact with strangers in rural China, and might be more likely to agree to be interviewed compared to women ( Ratigan and Rabin, 2020 ). The villages we surveyed represent some of the poorest and underdeveloped communities in Hainan (and indeed across China), which is why overall education levels are low amongst interviewees ( Davies and Wismer, 2007 ; Gu and Wall, 2007 ), and people who attain higher education from such communities in China tend to migrate to urban areas to seek better employment opportunities ( Gu and Wall, 2007 ). We recognize that the lower representation of women and people with higher levels of education may be a limitation in this study; however, because these demographic groups tend to be the ones that conservation will both engage with and impact, it is important to take their perceptions into account for conservation outreach and management.

Overall, our results demonstrate the importance of engaging proactively with varying understandings of wildlife extinction, because doing so can help different stakeholders—local communities, researchers, and management authorities—reach consensus on the key ecological concepts underpinning conservation goals. The contrast between many interviewees acknowledging local wildlife extirpation but considering that extinction is not possible highlights the nuances within local perceptions of species decline. It is therefore important to avoid the assumption that people from varying cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds will have homogenous views of species extinction. Finally, our results also reaffirm the contributions of local ecological knowledge to understanding wildlife decline, and advocate for the inclusion of such knowledge, co-produced with local communities, as crucial evidence for conservation.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Royal Holloway, University of London Research Ethics Committee. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author Contributions

HM, SP, and ST designed the study, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. HM, TG, XW, CY, and HZ collected data. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Funding was provided by the Arcus Foundation (Grant Nos. G-PGM-1608-1913 and G-PGM-1911-3071) and Royal Holloway, University of London (scholarship ID 100865427).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We thank the indigenous communities of Hainan for sharing their knowledge. Data collection was supported by Hainan University College of Forestry.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2021.689561/full#supplementary-material

Agrawal, A., and Gibson, C. C. (1999). Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Dev. 27, 629–649. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00161-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Albuquerque, U. P., do Nascimento, A. L. B., da Silva Chaves, L., Feitosa, I. S., de Moura, J. M. B., Gonçalves, P. H. S., et al. (2019). How to partner with people in ecological research: challenges and prospects. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 17, 193–200. doi: 10.1016/j.pecon.2019.11.004

Aswani, S., Lemahieu, A., and Sauer, W. H. H. (2018). Global trends of local ecological knowledge and future implications. PLoS ONE 13:e0195440. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195440

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bennett, N. J. (2016). Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conserv. Biol. 30, 582–592. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12681

Bennett, N. J., Di Franco, A., Calò, A., Nethery, E., Niccolini, F., Milazzo, M., et al. (2019). Local support for conservation is associated with perceptions of good governance, social impacts, and ecological effectiveness. Conserv. Lett. 12:e12640. doi: 10.1111/conl.12640

Bennett, N. J., Roth, R., Klain, S. C., Chan, K., Christie, P., Clark, D., et al. (2017). Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biol. Conserv. 205, 93–108. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006

Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv. Biol. 18, 621–630. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00077.x

Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol. Appl. 10, 1251–1262. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:ROTEKA]2.0.CO;2

Brittain, S., Ibbett, H., de Lange, E., Dorward, L., Hoyte, S., Marino, A., et al. (2020). Ethical considerations when conservation research involves people. Conserv. Biol. 34, 925–933. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13464

Brooks, J., Waylen, K. A., and Mulder, M. B. (2013). Assessing community-based conservation projects: a systematic review and multilevel analysis of attitudinal, behavioral, ecological, and economic outcomes. Environ. Evid. 2, 1–34. doi: 10.1186/2047-2382-2-2

Camino, M., Cortez, S., Cerezo, A., and Altrichter, M. (2016). Wildlife conservation, perceptions of different co-existing cultures. Int. J. Conserv. Sci. 7, 109–122.

Google Scholar

Casanova, C., Sousa, C., and Costa, S. (2014). Are animals and forests forever? Perceptions of wildlife at Cantanhez Forest National Park, Guinea-Bissau Republic, in Memoria: Special Issue on Environmental Anthropology (Lisbon: Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa), 69–104.

Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., Barnosky, A. D., García, A., Pringle, R. M., and Palmer, T. M. (2015). Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv. 1:e1400253. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1400253

Chan, B. P. L., Fellowes, J. R., Geissmann, T., and Zhang, J. (2005a). Hainan Gibbon Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan . Hong Kong: Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden.

Chan, B. P. L., Lee, K. S., Zhang, J., and Su, W. (2005b). Notable bird records from Bawangling National Nature Reserve, Hainan Island, China. Forktail 21, 33–41.

Coggins, C. (2003). The Tiger and the Pangolin: Nature, Culture, and Conservation in China . Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. doi: 10.1515/9780824865122

Collen, B., Loh, J., Whitmee, S., McRae, L., Amin, R., and Baillie, J. E. M. (2009). Monitoring change in vertebrate abundance: the Living Planet Index. Conserv. Biol. 23, 317–327. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01117.x

Cui, H., and Wang, L. (2001). Study on laws and rules of wild animals protecting in ancient China. China Popul. Resour. Environ . 11, 149–150 (in Chinese).

Davies, E. G. R., and Wismer, S. K. (2007). Sustainable forestry and local people: the case of Hainan's Li minority. Hum. Ecol. 35, 415–426. doi: 10.1007/s10745-006-9097-y

de Azevedo, C. S., Silva, K. S., Ferraz, J. B., Tinoco, H. P., Young, R. J., and Rodrigues, M. (2012). Does people's knowledge about an endangered bird species differ between rural and urban communities? The case of the greater rhea ( Rhea americana , Rheidae) in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Ornitol. 20, 8–18.

Dickman, A. J. (2010). Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Anim. Conserv. 13, 458–466. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00368.x

Dirzo, R., Young, H. S., Galetti, M., Ceballos, G., Isaac, N. J. B., and Collen, B. (2014). Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345, 401–406. doi: 10.1126/science.1251817

Drury, R., Homewood, K., and Randall, S. (2011). Less is more: the potential of qualitative approaches in conservation research. Anim. Conserv. 14, 18–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00375.x

Fauna and Flora International China Programme (2005). Action Plan for Implementing Co-Management in the Bawangling Nature Reserve and Adjacent Communities in Qingsong Township . Beijing: Fauna and Flora International China Programme.

Fauna and Flora International China Programme (2007). Community-Based Education for Conservation of the Hainan Gibbon . Beijing: Fauna and Flora International China Programme.

Fauna and Flora International China Programme (2008). Community-Based Capacity Building and Mainstreaming for Conservation of the Hainan Gibbon . Beijing: Fauna and Flora International China Programme.

Fellowes, J. R., Sai-Chit, N., Hau, B. C. H., and Lau, M. W. N. (2001). Report of Rapid Biodiversity Assessments at Bawangling National Nature Reserve and Wangxia Limestone Forest, Western Hainan, 3 to 8 April 1998. South China Forest Biodiversity Survey Report 2. Hong Kong: Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden.

Forth, G. (2016). Why the Porcupine is Not a Bird: Explorations in the Folk Zoology of an Eastern Indonesian People . Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. doi: 10.3138/9781487510053

Gaillard, D., Liu, L., S, H., and Luo, S. (2017). Turtle soup: local usage and demand for wild caught turtles in Qiongzhong County, Hainan Island. Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 12, 33–40.

Gong, S., Chow, A. T., Fong, J. J., and Shi, H. T. (2009). The chelonian trade in the largest pet market in China: scale, scope and impact on turtle conservation. Oryx 43, 213–216. doi: 10.1017/S0030605308000902

Gong, S., Shi, H., Jiang, A., Fong, J. J., Gaillard, D., and Wang, J. (2017). Disappearance of endangered turtles within China's nature reserves. Curr. Biol. 27, 170–171. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.01.039

Grace, M., Akçakaya, H. R., Bennett, E., Hilton-Taylor, C., Long, B., Milner-Gulland, E. J., et al. (2019). Using historical and palaeoecological data to inform ambitious species recovery targets. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 374:20190297. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2019.0297

Grumbine, R. E., and Xu, J. (2011). Creating a ‘Conservation with Chinese Characteristics'. Biol. Conserv. 144, 1347–1355. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.03.006

Gu, K., and Wall, G. (2007). Rapid urbanization in a transitional economy in China: the case of Hainan Island. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 28, 158–170. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9493.2007.00288.x

Gu, Y. (2019). Ecological construction and cultural reconstruction in the process of the Li people's livelihood adaptation in Hainan Province. J. Guang. Unive. Natl. 41, 177–182.

Guest, G. (2006). How many interviews are enough? an experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18, 59–82. doi: 10.1177/1525822X05279903

Heise, U. K. (2010). Lost dogs, last birds, and listed species: cultures of extinction. Configurations 18, 49–72. doi: 10.1353/con.2010.0007

Kadoorie Farm Botanic Garden (2016). China Eco Tales: Working With Local People, KCC Bolsters the Future of Hainan Gibbons . Available online at: https://www.kfbg.org/eng/blogs/hainan-gibbons-fair.aspx (accessed June 14, 2019).

Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden (2018). Oral presentation given at “Gibbon Conservation Technical Skills Meeting” (Guangzhou).

Kai, Z., Woan, T. S., Jie, L., Goodale, E., Kitajima, K., Bagchi, R., et al. (2014). Shifting baselines on a tropical forest frontier: extirpations drive declines in local ecological knowledge. PLoS ONE 9:e86598. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086598

Latulippe, N., and Klenk, N. (2020). Making room and moving over: knowledge co-production, indigenous knowledge sovereignty and the politics of global environmental change decision-making. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 42, 7–14. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.10.010

Lau, M. W. N., Fellowes, J. R., and Chan, B. P. L. (2010). Carnivores (Mammalia: Carnivora) in South China: a status review with notes on the commercial trade. Mamm. Rev. 40, 247–292. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2907.2010.00163.x

Lian, M. (2003). On origins of Hainan Li nationality. J. Guang. Polytech. Norm. Univ. 2003, 75–81.

Liang, W., Cai, Y., and Yang, C. C. (2013). Extreme levels of hunting of birds in a remote village of Hainan Island, China. Bird Conserv. Int. 23, 45–52. doi: 10.1017/S0959270911000499

Ma, H. (2021). Local Perceptions of Biodiversity Loss and Conservation: Insights from Rural Communities Around a Key Protected Area in Hainan, China . Ph.D. thesis, Royal Holloway, University of London.

Maffi, L. (2005). Linguistic, cultural and biological diversity. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 34, 599–617. doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120437

Mao, K. R., and Zhang, Q. (2018). Dilemmas of state-led environmental conservation in China: environmental target enforcement and public participation in Minqin County. Soc. Nat. Resour. 31, 615–631. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2017.1422063

Marks, R. (2017). China: An Environmental History, 2nd Edn. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Marks, R. B. (2007). “People said extinction was not possible:” two thousand years of environmental change in South China, in Rethinking Environmental History: World-System History and Global Environmental Change , eds A. Hornborg, J. R. McNeill, and J. Martinez-Alier (Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press), 41–42.

McKelvey, K. S., Aubry, K. B., and Schwartz, M. K. (2008). Using anecdotal occurrence data for rare or elusive species: the illusion of reality and a call for evidentiary standards. Bioscience 58, 549–555. doi: 10.1641/B580611

Moon, K., Blackman, D. A., Adams, V. M., Colvin, R. M., Davila, F., Evans, M. C., et al. (2019). Expanding the role of social science in conservation through an engagement with philosophy, methodology, and methods. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 294–302. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.13126

Nash, H. C., Wong, M. H. G., and Turvey, S. T. (2016). Using local ecological knowledge to determine status and threats of the critically endangered Chinese pangolin ( Manis pentadactyla ) in Hainan, China. Biol. Conserv. 196, 189–195. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.02.025

National Bureau of Statistics (2019). China Statistical Yearjournal (County Level) - 2018 . Available online at: http://www.tjcn.org/tjnj/XXX/37920.html (in Chinese).

Nel, J. L., Roux, D. J., Driver, A., Hill, L., Maherry, A. C., Snaddon, K., et al. (2015). Knowledge co-production and boundary work to promote implementation of conservation plans. Conserv. Biol. 30, 176–188. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12560

Nilsson, D., Baxter, G., Butler, J. R. A., and McAlpine, C. A. (2016). How do community-based conservation programs in developing countries change human behaviour? A realist synthesis. Biol. Conserv. 200, 93–103. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.020

Nogués-Bravo, D., Simberloff, D., Rahbek, C., and Sanders, N. J. (2016). Rewilding is the new Pandora's box in conservation. Curr. Biol. 26, R87–R91. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.12.044

Norström, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., et al. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustain. 3, 182–190. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2

Poling, D. A., and Evans, E. M. (2004). Are dinosaurs the rule or the exception? Developing concepts of death and extinction. Cogn. Dev. 19, 363–383. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2004.04.001

Pyhälä, A., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Lehvävirta, H., Byg, A., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Salpeteur, M., et al. (2016). Global environmental change: local perceptions, understandings, and explanations. Ecol. Soc. 21:25. doi: 10.5751/ES-08482-210325

Qian, J., Mills, M., Ma, H., and Turvey, S. T. (2021). Assessing the effectiveness of public awareness-raising initiatives for the Hainan gibbon Nomascus hainanus . Oryx . doi: 10.1017/S0030605320000599

R Development Core Team (2018). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing . Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Ratigan, K., and Rabin, L. (2020). Re-evaluating political trust: the impact of survey nonresponse in rural China. China Quar. 243, 823–838. doi: 10.1017/S0305741019001231

Roberts, D. L., Elphick, C. S., and Reed, J. M. (2010). Identifying anomalous reports of putatively extinct species and why it matters. Conserv. Biol. 24, 189–196. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01292.x

Rodrigues, A. S. L., Pilgrim, J. D., Lamoreux, J. F., Hoffmann, M., and Brooks, T. M. (2006). The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 71–76. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.010

Roe, D., and Journaler, F. (2019). Engaging local communities in tackling illegal wildlife trade: a synthesis of approaches and lessons for best practice. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1:e26. doi: 10.1111/csp2.26

Root-Bernstein, M., Gooden, J., and Boyes, A. (2018). Rewilding in practice: projects and policy. Geoforum 97, 292–304. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.09.017

Rose, D. B., van Dooren, T., and Chrulew, M., (2017). Extinction Studies: Stories of Time, Death, and Generations. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. doi: 10.7312/van-17880

Rudwick, M. J. S. (1998). Georges Cuvier, Fossil Bones, and Geological Catastrophes: New Translations and Interpretations of the Primary Texts, 1st Edn . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226731087.001.0001

Shen, X., Li, S., Wang, D., and Lu, Z. (2015). Viable contribution of Tibetan sacred mountains in southwestern China to forest conservation. Conserv. Biol. 29, 1518–1526. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12587

Sodikoff, G. M. (2011). Accumulating absence: Cultural productions of the sixth extinction, in The Anthropology of Extinction: Essays on Culture and Species Death (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press), 1–16.

Soulé, M. E. (2013). What is conservation biology?,” The Future of Nature: Documents of Global Change, Vol. 35, eds L. Robin, S. Sörlin, and P. Warde (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press), 391–404.

Specht, M. J., Pinto, S. R. R., Albuqueque, U. P., Tabarelli, M., and Melo, F. P. L. (2015). Burning biodiversity: fuelwood harvesting causes forest degradation in human-dominated tropical landscapes. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 3, 200–209. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2014.12.002

Sterckx, R. (2019). Chinese Thought: From Confucius to Cook Ding . London: Pelican.

Sutherland, W. J., Pullin, A. S., Dolman, P. M., and Knight, T. M. (2004). The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 305–308. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.018

Sutherland, W. J., Shackelford, G., and Rose, D. C. (2017). Collaborating with communities: co-production or co-assessment? Oryx 51, 569–570. doi: 10.1017/S0030605317001296

Thompson, K. (2009). The Legacy of the Mastodon: The Golden Age of Fossils in America . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Turvey, S. T., Barrett, L. A., Hao, Y., Zhang, L., Zhang, X., Wang, X., et al. (2010). Rapidly shifting baselines in Yangtze fishing communities and local memory of extinct species. Conserv. Biol. 24, 778–787. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01395.x

Turvey, S. T., Bryant, J. V., Duncan, C., Wong, M. H. G., Guan, Z., Fei, H., et al. (2017). How many remnant gibbon populations are left on Hainan? Testing the use of local ecological knowledge to detect cryptic threatened primates. Ame. J. Primatol. 79:e22593. doi: 10.1002/ajp.22593

Turvey, S. T., Bryant, J. V., and McClune, K. A. (2018). Differential loss of components of traditional ecological knowledge following a primate extinction event. Roy. Soc. Open Sci. 5:172352. doi: 10.1098/rsos.172352

Turvey, S. T., and Cheke, A. S. (2008). Dead as a dodo: the fortuitous rise to fame of an extinction icon. Hist. Biol. 20, 149–163. doi: 10.1080/08912960802376199

Turvey, S. T., Fernández-Secades, C., Nuñez-Miño, J. M., Hart, T., Martinez, P., Brocca, J. L., et al. (2014). Is local ecological knowledge a useful conservation tool for small mammals in a Caribbean multicultural landscape? Biol. Conserv. 169, 189–197. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.018

Turvey, S. T., and Pettorelli, N. (2014). Spatial congruence in language and species richness but not threat in the world's top linguistic hotspot. Proc. R. Soc. B 281:20141644. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.1644

Turvey, S. T., and Saupe, E. E. (2019). Insights from the past: unique opportunity or foreign country? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 374:20190208. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2019.0208

Turvey, S. T., Traylor-Holzer, K., Wong, M. H. G., Bryant, J. V., Zeng, X., Hong, X., et al. (2015). International Conservation Planning Workshop for the Hainan Gibbon: Final Report . London/Apple Valley: MN: Zoological Society of London/IUCN SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group.

Turvey, S. T., Walsh, C., Hansford, J. P., Crees, J. J., Bielby, J., Duncan, C., et al. (2019). Complementarity, completeness and quality of long-term faunal archives in an Asian biodiversity hotspot. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 374:20190217. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2019.0217

Urgenson, L. S., Hagmann, R. K., Henck, A. C., Harrell, S., Hinckley, T. M., Shepler, S. J., et al. (2010). Social-ecological resilience of a Nuosu community-linked watershed, southwest Sichuan, China. Ecol. Soc. 15, 1–23. doi: 10.5751/ES-03568-150402

Walther, B. A., and White, A. (2018). The emergence of birdwatching in China: history, demographics, activities, motivations, and environmental concerns of Chinese birdwatchers. Bird Conserv. Int. 28, 337–349. doi: 10.1017/S0959270917000557

Wang, Y., Leader-Williams, N., and Turvey, S. T. (2021). Exploitation histories of pangolins and endemic pheasants on Hainan Island, China: baselines and shifting social norms. Front. Ecol. Evol. 9:608057. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2021.608057

Wehi, P. M., Cox, M. P., Roa, T., and Whaanga, H. (2018). Human perceptions of megafaunal extinction events revealed by linguistic analysis of indigenous oral traditions. Hum. Ecol. 46, 461–470. doi: 10.1007/s10745-018-0004-0

Wheeler, H. C., and Root-Bernstein, M. (2020). Informing decision-making with indigenous and local knowledge and science. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 1634–1643. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.13734

Wiens, D., Sweet, T., and Worsley, T. (2020). Validating the new paradigm for extinction: overcoming 200 years of historical neglect, philosophical misconception, and inadequate language. Q. Rev. Biol. 95, 109–124. doi: 10.1086/709086

Xu, Y., Lin, S., He, J., Xin, Y., Zhang, L., Jiang, H., et al. (2017). Tropical birds are declining in the Hainan Island of China. Biol. Conserv. 210, 9–18. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.029

Young, C. R. (1978). Conservation policies in the royal forests of medieval England. Albion 10, 95–103. doi: 10.2307/4048336

Zhang, M., Fellowes, J. R., Jiang, X., Wang, W., Chan, B. P. L., Ren, G., et al. (2010). Degradation of tropical forest in Hainan, China, 1991-2008: conservation implications for Hainan gibbon ( Nomascus hainanus ). Biol. Conserv. 143, 1397–1404. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.03.014

Keywords: China, ethnic minority, extinction, Hainan Island, indigenous knowledge, interview survey, protected area, worldview

Citation: Ma H, Papworth SK, Ge T, Wu X, Yu C, Zhang H and Turvey ST (2021) Local Awareness and Interpretations of Species Extinction in a Rural Chinese Biodiversity Hotspot. Front. Conserv. Sci. 2:689561. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2021.689561

Received: 01 April 2021; Accepted: 08 June 2021; Published: 07 July 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Ma, Papworth, Ge, Wu, Yu, Zhang and Turvey. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Heidi Ma, heidi.ma@ioz.ac.uk

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Loading metrics

Open Access

Primers provide a concise introduction into an important aspect of biology highlighted by a current PLOS Biology research article.

See all article types »

Reptile research shows new avenues and old challenges for extinction risk modelling

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

• Moreno Di Marco

Published: July 11, 2022

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001719
• Reader Comments

In a new PLOS Biology paper, de Oliveira Caetano and colleagues presented an innovative method to estimate extinction risk in reptile species worldwide. The method shows a promising avenue to support Red List assessment, alongside some well-known challenges.

Citation: Di Marco M (2022) Reptile research shows new avenues and old challenges for extinction risk modelling. PLoS Biol 20(7): e3001719. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001719

Copyright: © 2022 Moreno Di Marco. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: MDM acknowledges support from the MUR Rita Levi Montalcini program. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist.

Human-induced rates of species extinction largely surpass the background rates registered from the fossil record [ 1 ], and global monitoring of extinction risk is essential to track progresses towards sustainable development. The Red List of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN; hereafter “Red List”) is the global authority that manages data on species extinction risk, now including over 140,000 assessed species. Yet, while the taxonomic coverage of the Red List has rapidly grown, a parallel increase in resources for update (i.e., periodic reassessment) has not followed [ 2 ]. Limited reassessment efforts means that the Red List is constantly facing a risk of becoming outdated, with many species (ca. 20% at the time of writing) having an assessment older than 10 years and possibly undergoing undetected decline. Under rapidly accelerating human pressure, there is a clear need to make the global monitoring of extinction risk more effective.

Many works have proposed approaches that might support extinction risk monitoring [ 3 ] using automated estimates of Red List parameters, e.g., population decline inferred from satellite-borne estimates of deforestation rates [ 4 ], or directly modelling Red List categories (or aggregation of categories) from environmental and life history variables [ 5 ]. Yet, very few of these approaches have fed into the Red List process, generating a research-implementation gap [ 3 ]. For example, most extinction risk modelling exercise do not reflect the process of Red List assessment (including its required parameters and guidelines), which makes it difficult to incorporate modelling outputs in the Red List. At the same time, there is often an implementation barrier even for potentially relevant methods, due to limited technical capacity by (and limited training offered to) assessors. However, recent research on reptiles shows a promising avenue to advance this debate.

In a new PLOS Biology paper, de Oliveira Caetano and colleagues [ 6 ] presented an innovative machine learning analysis to estimate the extinction risk of 4,369 reptile species that were unassessed or data deficient in the Red List. Meanwhile, in a recent Nature paper, Cox and colleagues [ 7 ] presented the results of the Global Reptile assessment, including extinction risk categories for ca. 85% of the 10,196 reptile species in the Red List (the rest being data deficient). Reptiles are a diverse group which represent a perfect example of the “update or outdate” conundrum in the Red List, as their assessment required nearly 50 workshops and 15 years to complete [ 7 ]. At the same time, enough data on reptile distribution and life history are now available [ 8 ] to attempt large-scale extinction risk modelling for the group, indicating that it might be time to “bridge” the research-implementation gap [ 3 ].

The model presented in [ 6 ] was 84% accurate in predicting Red List categories during cross-validation and found unassessed species to face higher risk compared to assessed species (27% versus 21% species threatened with extinction). The model’s performance was higher compared to previous similar exercises, albeit prediction accuracy for certain categories (e.g., near threatened) was substantially lower than others (e.g., least concern). The recent completion of nearly all reptile assessments in the Red List [ 9 ] allows to compare the model’s performance measured on the training set of originally assessed species (i.e., “model interpolation”) versus the performance measured on newly assessed species not used for model training (i.e., “model extrapolation”) ( Fig 1 ).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

The bar plots report the contingency distribution between predicted Red List categories (y-axis, prediction) and assessed categories (x-axis, observation). Plot (a) reports the contingency between assessed versus predicted categories for 6,520 species used to train the automated assessment model in [ 6 ]. Plot (b) reports the contingency between assessed versus predicted categories for 1,463 species that were considered unassessed and not used for model training in [ 6 ] and were only assigned a Red List category in 2021 [ 9 ]. For this latter comparison, I only selected species having precise taxonomic correspondence with the latest release of the IUCN Red List database and being assigned a category of risk (see S1 Table ), as follows: CR, critically endangered; EN, endangered; LC, least concern; NT, near threatened; VU, vulnerable.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001719.g001

The automated assessment model in [ 6 ] showed high accuracy both in the interpolation and extrapolation of least concern species: 92% of the species newly assessed as least concern were correctly predicted by the model. This reflects the ability of automated methods to separate least concern species from the rest, which is a promising implementation for facilitating periodic reassessments [ 10 ]. However, the model’s ability to extrapolate near threatened and threatened categories was substantially lower than the ability to interpolate those categories. Less than 30% of the newly assessed species in each of these categories were correctly predicted by the model: In most cases, these species were predicted as least concern.

The mismatch between predicted versus assessed categories during model extrapolation can have multiple causes. For 18% newly assessed species, the model predicted a lower category of risk than what Red List assessors have then assigned. This might happen because assessors have access to information on threats that are not explicitly accounted for in the model (harvesting, pathogens, invasive species, etc.). Instead, for 10% of species, the model predicted a higher category of risk than that assigned by Red List assessors. This might be related to the compound mechanistic nature of Red List criteria, which require a combination of parameters that models are typically unable to account for (e.g., restricted distribution AND severe fragmentation AND continuing decline). Importantly, however, the 2 works are based on different sources of species’ distribution maps, which can lead to a discrepancy in the measure of environmental and spatial variables (e.g., extent of occurrence) for the same species. If the distribution maps of newly assessed species differ substantially between the GARD dataset [ 8 ] and the Red List dataset [ 9 ], the mismatch in category prediction can be simply an outcome of different underlying data. This calls for a better homogenisation of spatial data used for extinction risk modelling and assessment purposes. Of course, there is also the possibility that some of the new assessments are incorrect, as Red List assessors did not have sufficient information to determine a species’ status while the model was able to use ancillary information. In this case, an indication of mismatch between predicted versus assessed category can be used to inform future reassessments [ 3 ].

Regardless of prediction performance, both recent works [ 6 , 7 ] highlight the difficulty to properly account for the effect of climate change. Cox and colleagues acknowledged the limited consideration of climate vulnerability in reptile Red List assessments [ 7 ], as the proportion of threatened species at risk from climate change (11%) was much lower than that of birds (30%). This likely indicates lower knowledge rather than lower vulnerability, considering that reptiles are ectotherms with limited climatic tolerance and dispersal ability [ 11 ]. Possibly because of this knowledge gap, climatic variables had limited predictive importance in the automated assessment model in [ 6 ]. As climate change accelerates, it is paramount that climate risk for groups such as reptiles and amphibians is consistently and customarily assessed in the Red List [ 12 ].

The recent publication of an innovative extinction risk model, alongside the complete Red List assessment of reptile species, shows promising avenues but also some well-known challenges for technological applications in the Red List. Automated assessment models can help Red List assessors by (i) quickly identifying species that are least concern and not in need of immediate conservation attention; (ii) pinpointing species that might be in need of reassessment (i.e., those with a mismatch between predicted versus assessed category); and (iii) investigate any significant bias in the assessment process (e.g., associated with differential application of the Red List guidelines by assessors). However, for these methods to be effective, it is important that model outputs are shared with assessors and any feedback is iteratively used to improve model’s structure, interpretation, and validation.

Supporting information

S1 table. list of reptile species considered unassessed (and not used for model training) in the work of de caetano oliveira and colleagues and subsequently assigned a red list category in 2021..

The list only includes species having precise taxonomic correspondence with the latest release of the IUCN Red List database and being assigned a category of risk.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001719.s001

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 9. IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2021–3. 2021 [cited 2022 May 10]. Available from: https://www.iucnredlist.org .

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The sixth extinction crisis: Loss of animal populations and species

2010, Journal of Cosmology

Related Papers

Andres Garcia

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Gerardo Ceballos

Significance The strong focus on species extinctions, a critical aspect of the contemporary pulse of biological extinction, leads to a common misimpression that Earth’s biota is not immediately threatened, just slowly entering an episode of major biodiversity loss. This view overlooks the current trends of population declines and extinctions. Using a sample of 27,600 terrestrial vertebrate species, and a more detailed analysis of 177 mammal species, we show the extremely high degree of population decay in vertebrates, even in common “species of low concern.” Dwindling population sizes and range shrinkages amount to a massive anthropogenic erosion of biodiversity and of the ecosystem services essential to civilization. This “biological annihilation” underlines the seriousness for humanity of Earth’s ongoing sixth mass extinction event.

Victor Nazarevich

The number of species becoming extinct has drawn a significant deal of attention from scientists and non-scientists alike. This research reviews recent literature citing evidence for the impact humans have had on our planet and how our biological systems are affected in both known species of flora and fauna as well as unknown species of flora and fauna, the latter lacking documentation as well as sightings by humans. Theoretical research is derived from previous research investigating the impacts of humankind's use of the land as well as population increases. Though there are many different definitions of what a mass extinction is and gradations of extinction intensity, a conservative approach is used to assess the seriousness of the current ongoing extinction crisis, setting the highest level of recognition for mass extinction, in extreme diversity loss associated with the Big Five extinction events (Barnosky, 2011). Understanding the relationship between extinction and functional diversity over time will be critical for making conservation work (Boyer & Jetz, 2014). If another mass extinction is allowed to progress, it would mean the end of biodiversity as we know it and would also mean that greater pressure would be placed on both humans and flora and fauna to survive in a world completely changed by the Anthropocene. Over the course of 8,000-10,000 years, humans grew in population and changed the landscape

Biodiversity and Conservation

Malcolm McCallum

The ongoing sixth mass species extinction is the result of the destruction of component populations leading to eventual extirpation of entire species. Populations and species extinctions have severe implications for society through the degradation of ecosystem services. Here we assess the extinction crisis from a different perspective. We examine 29,400 species of terrestrial vertebrates, and determine which are on the brink of extinction because they have fewer than 1,000 individuals. There are 515 species on the brink (1.7% of the evaluated vertebrates). Around 94% of the populations of 77 mammal and bird species on the brink have been lost in the last century. Assuming all species on the brink have similar trends, more than 237,000 populations of those species have vanished since 1900. We conclude the human-caused sixth mass extinction is likely accelerating for several reasons. First, many of the species that have been driven to the brink will likely become extinct soon. Second,...

The human race faces many global to local challenges in the near future. Among these are massive biodiversity losses. The 2012 IUCN/SSC Red List reported evaluations of *56 % of all vertebrates. This included 97 % of amphibians, mammals, birds, cartilaginous fishes, and hagfishes. It also contained evaluations of *50 % of lampreys, *38 % of reptiles, and *29 % of bony fishes. A cursory examination of extinction magnitudes does not immediately reveal the severity of current biodiversity losses because the extinctions we see today have happened in such a short time compared to earlier events in the fossil record. So, we still must ask how current losses of species compare to losses in mass extinctions from the geological past. The most recent and best understood mass extinction is the Cretaceous terminal extinction which ends at the Cretaceous– Paleogene (K–Pg) border, 65 MYA. This event had massive losses of biodiversity (*17 % of families, [50 % of genera, and [70 % of species) and exterminated the dinosaurs. Extinction estimates for non-dinosaurian vertebrates at the K–Pg boundary range from 36 to 43 %. However, there remains much uncertainty regarding the completeness, preservation rates, and extinction magnitudes of the different classes of vertebrates. Fuzzy arithmetic was used to compare recent vertebrate extinction reported in the 2012 IUCN/SSC Red List with biodiversity losses at the end of K–Pg. Comparisons followed 16 different approaches to data compilation and 288 separate calculations. I tabulated the number of extant and extinct species (extinct ? extinct in the wild), extant island endemics, data deficient species, and so-called impaired species [species with IUCN/SSC Red List designations from vulnerable (VU) to critically endangered (CR)]. Species that went extinct since 1500 and since 1980 were tabulated. Vertebrate extinction moved forward 24–85 times faster since 1500 than during the Cretaceous mass extinction. The magnitude of extinction has exploded since 1980, with losses about 71–297 times larger than during the K–Pg event. If species identified by the IUCN/SSC as critically endangered through vulnerable, and those that are data deficient are assumed extinct by geological standards, then vertebrate extinction approaches 8900–18,500 times the magnitude during that mass extinction. These extreme values and the great speed with which vertebrate biodiversity is being decimated are comparable to the devastation of previous extinction events. If recent levels of extinction were to continue, the magnitude is sufficient to drive these groups extinct in less than a century.

niles eldredge

There is little doubt left in the minds of professional biologists that Earth is currently faced with a mounting loss of species that threatens to rival the five great mass extinctions of the geological past. As long ago as 1993, Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson estimated that Earth is currently losing something on the order of 30,000 species per year — which breaks down to the even more daunting statistic of some three species per hour. Some biologists have begun to feel that this biodiversity crisis — this “Sixth Extinction” — is even more severe, and more imminent, than Wilson had supposed.

Uttam Saikia

Geosciences

Maria Rita Palombo

Extinction of species has been a recurrent phenomenon in the history of our planet, but it was generally outweighed in the course of quite a long geological time by the appearance of new species, except, especially, for the five geologically short times when the so-called “Big Five” mass extinctions occurred. Could the current decline in biodiversity be considered as a signal of an ongoing, human-driven sixth mass extinction? This note briefly examines some issues related to: (i) The hypothesized current extinction rate and the magnitude of contemporary global biodiversity loss; (ii) the challenges of comparing them to the background extinction rate and the magnitude of the past Big Five mass extinction events; (iii) briefly considering the effects of the main anthropogenic stressors on ecosystems, including the risk of the emergence of pandemic diseases. A comparison between the Pleistocene fauna dynamics with the present defaunation process and the cascading effects of recent anth...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Elizabeth Ferrer

Gregory Bassham

Federica Bocchi , Aja Watkins

IAEES Publications

philippe grandcolas

Annual Review of Environment and Resources

Peter Raven

Dr Suguna Lakshmi M

Scientific Reports

Kunio Kaiho

Simon Darroch , Celli Hull , Douglas Erwin

Zenaida Lauda-Rodriguez

University of California Press eBooks

Gary Roemer

Philip Cafaro

Rosemary Mason

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

David Burney

Journal of African Earth Sciences

ahmed abdelhady

The Environmentalist

Nixon Ayala

Stuart Pimm

Archaeobios

manuel galvez

Historical Biology

Michael Robert Rampino

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

96 Extinction Essay Topics & Examples

Looking for extinction essay topics? One of the most severe ecological problems is worth exploring.

🏆 A+ Extinction Essay Examples

📌 best extinction essay topics, 🔝 top ideas for an essay about extinction, 👍 endangered species essay topics & title ideas, ❓ research questions about extinction.

Extinction is the termination of a certain living form, usually a species, or a language. The death of the last individual of the species (or the last speaker) is considered to be the moment of extinction. This phenomenon of animal extinction s considered to be the world’s largest threat to wildlife. In the last 50 years, the wildlife population sizes have dropped by 60%. That’s why animal extinction is one of the major ecological issues.

Whether you need to write a research paper or an argumentative essay on extinction, this article will be helpful. It contains top endangered species essay topics, titles, extinction essay examples, etc. Write an A+ essay about extinction with us!

• Premature Extinction of Species For thousands of years of geological time, the extinction of some species has been balanced by the emergence of the new ones.
• Preventing Animal Extinction in the UAE In essence, the UAE has been at the forefront of protecting endangered species from extinction and promoting an increment in their population, by putting up breeding programmes which help in multiplication of such animals.
• Dodo Bird and Why It Went Extinct One of the extinct species of bird is the dodo bird. Its extinction has made it hard for scholars to classify the bird when it comes to taxonomy of birds.
• Language Extinction in East Africa Most of the languages in the world fall under the endangered languages category with UNESCO approximating the percentage of endangered languages to be around 60%-80%.
• Wildlife Management and Extinction Prevention in Australia This paper investigates the threats to wildlife in Australia and strategies for managing and preventing their extinction. In summary, this paper examines the threats to wildlife in Australia and outlines strategies for managing and preventing […]
• Animal Extinction: Causes and Effects Due to the increased rates of globalization and the rapid development of industries, the effect that the humankind has been producing on the environment has been amplified.
• Extinction of minority languages On the other hand, the extinction of minor languages leads to the extinction of certain cultural groups and their individualities, turning the world into a global grey crowd.
• Animal Extinction and What Is Being Done To Help The affected species, the causes of the change, as well as the possible criterion of arresting the situation, forms the subject of their discussion.
• “Extinction Rebellion” News Article by Eells The Extinction Rebellion movement was created in 2018, and, according to the organizers, now it has spread to dozens of countries where there are groups ready to participate in protests.
• Diversity and Extinction of Cyclura Lewisi One of the biggest risks to the population of this species is wild animals. The Grand Cayman blue iguana population is gradually expanding and is predicted to continue to rise as a result of continuing […]
• Extinction of Dinosaurs in North America and Texas It is necessary to identify the reason for the extinction of dinosaurs on the territory of the continent, namely, the state of Texas.
• Seabird Extinction from Invasive Rodent Species This paper will review seabirds’ role in ecosystems, the invasive rodent species and their impact on seabirds, and methods of protecting seabirds from non-native rodents.
• Mathematical Biology: Explaining Population Extinction Species in settings with soft carrying capacities such as those with non-negative value K create a restricted expectation of a variation, given a full past history, is non-positive when the species surpasses the carrying volume.
• The Importance of Saving a Species From Extinction It leads to a lack of surviving members of some species to reproduce in order create a new generation of the extinct species.
• Human Evolution and Animal Extinction The recent scholarly findings prove that invasions of Homo sapiens to the Austronesian and American continents were the major factors that conditioned the extinction of numerous animal species.
• Extinction of Music Education Plato quoted: “The decisive importance of education in poetry and music: rhythm and harmony sink deep into the recesses of the soul and take the strongest hold there.
• The Cause of Human Extinction: Nature’s Ferocity or People’s Irresponsibility? The following sections will provide statistical data and projections as well as non-scientific scenarios for the end of the world and the extinction of the human race.
• Is Cannibalism the Reason for Neanderthal’s Extinction? They also found that cuts and fractures on the deer bones that were very similar to the ones that were found in the Neanderthal body.
• Chinese Dialects and Extinction Threats The problem of the reduction and extinction of the local dialects is one of the most sensitive and unresolved issues in China.
• Mass Extinction Theories It can thus be speculated that the species that could not withstand the effects of global warming had to become extinct due to the adverse changes in climate.
• Saving Sharks from the Extinction Thus, it is significant for the marshals to guard and secure the naval areas to uncover the abuse and intervene to discontinue the vicious killing of sharks.
• Comparison of Two Archaeological Papers on the Extinction of Animals Due to the Activities of Human Societies. In this study, the varying trends on the abundance of certain species were used to describe changes observed in the hunting practices and the animal species that were hunted.
• Their Benefits Aside, Human Diets Are Polluting the Environment and Sending Animals to Extinction The fact that the environment and the entire ecosystem have been left unstable in the recent times is in no doubt.
• Human Activities and their Impact on Species Extinction in Arctic Unfortunately, what should be taken into consideration is the fact that as human interference continues to escalate within the region such as overfishing, oil drilling, population expansion and the effects of global warming this has […]
• Hazard from Space: Mass Extinction Theory The massive impact of extraterrestrial objects did not cause mass extinction of dinosaurs. Dinosaur basis of mass extinction theory do not give plausible explanation for extraterrestrial bodies since they occurred only once during the period […]
• Population Explosion and the Possible Extinction of Humans
• The Continuous Pollution on Earth Post Human Extinction in The World Without Us, a Book by Alan Weisman
• The Endangerment And Mass Extinction of The Tiger: Can We Stop It
• The Wildlife Biodiversity and its Continuous Extinction
• The Permo-Triassic Mass Extinction And The Earth’s Triassic Period
• Mass Extinction of Biodiversity From The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect
• Profit Maximization and the Extinction of Animal Species
• What Are the Consequences of the Removal/Extinction of an Organism from the Food Web
• The Biological Description of the Dodo and Its Extinction
• The Circumstances that Led to the Extinction of Dinosaurs
• We Must Save The Great White Shark From Extinction
• Problem of the Extinction of Many Rare Species
• The Destruction of Natural Habitats and the Extinction of Plants and Animals
• Why Extinction Does Happen It Is Not Indefinite
• Cascades of Failure and Extinction in Evolving Complex Systems
• The Permian Triassic Extinction Event And It’s Effects On Life On Earth
• Upper Estimates of the Mean Extinction Time of a Population with a Constant Carrying Capacity
• What Could Have Caused The Extinction of Dinosaurs
• The Role of Fungus in the Extinction of Dinosaurs
• Saving the Whales: Lessons from the Extinction of the Eastern Arctic Bowhead
• The Extinction, Endangerment, And Captivity of Endangered
• The Effects of Language Extinction on Cultural Identity in Third World Countries
• Sex, Drugs, Disasters, and the Extinction of Dinosaurs by Stephen Jay Gould
• The Ghost of Extinction: Preservation Values and Minimum Viable Population in Wildlife Models
• Recovery After Mass Extinction: Evolutionary Assembly in Large-Scale Biosphere Dynamics
• The Devonian Extinction and the Long Process of Evolution in the Past 300 Million Years
• The Process of De-Extinction And Its Ecological And Moral Consequences
• The Need to Save the Animals from Extinction Using Genetic Engineering
• The Brink Of The Extinction Of America’s Civility And Inclusion
• The Current Extinction Rate Throughout The World: We Must Act Now
• Conservation Biology: Extinction, Habitat Loss, Invasive Species, Overexploitation
• Why Evolution And Extinction Is Essential To Humanity
• The Guam Rail Should Be Saved from Possible Extinction Essay
• The Extinction Event and Life in the Post-Apocalyptic Greenhouse
• Causes of Animal and Plant Extinction, and Its Effects on Humans
• Ultimate Extinction of the Promiscuous Bisexual Galton-Watson Metapopulation
• Saving the Cheetahs of the Serengeti from Extinction
• The Influx of New Languages and Its Dangers to the Extinction of the English Language
• The First Great Whale Extinction: The End of the Bowhead Whale in the Eastern Arctic
• Causes of Canine Extinction and Disappearing Species
• The Themes of Isolation, Extinction and Man’s Limitations in the Poetry of Robert Frost
• The Viability of the Catastrophism Theory in Dinosaur Extinction
• Why The Asian Small-Clawed Otter Is At The Brink Of Extinction
• Species Extinction To Environmental Deterioration
• The Extinction Of Neanderthals And Early Modern Humans
• Did Humans Cause the Mass Extinction of Megafauna During the Late Pleistocene?
• What Are the Consequences of the Extinction of an Organism for the Food Web?
• What Do We Mean by Extinction?
• What Was the Worst Extinction in History?
• What Are the Five Major Extinctions in Earth’s History?
• Are We Overdue for a Mass Extinction?
• What Are the Potential Benefits and Consequences of De-extinction?
• What Could Have Caused the Extinction of Dinosaurs?
• What Events Apparently Triggered the Mass Extinction?
• Why Evolution and Extinction Are Essential to Humanity?
• Why the Asian Small-Clawed Otter Is at the Brink of Extinction?
• Will Global Warming Lead to the Mass Extinction of the Worlds Species?
• What Causes Extinction of Animals?
• What Are the Three Types of Extinction?
• What Is the Cause of Extinction and What Are Its Effects?
• What Causes More Extinction?
• Which Is the Main Cause of the Extinction of Several Species?
• How Are Humans Causing Animal Extinction?
• How Will Extinction Affect Humans?
• What Causes Extinction and What Are Its Impacts?
• Why Is Extinction a Problem?
• How Does Extinction Affect Biodiversity?
• How Does Extinction Affect Evolution?
• What Usually Happens After a Mass Extinction?
• What Is the Advantage of Extinction?
• Cruelty to Animals Titles
• Endangered Species Questions
• Invasive Species Titles
• Animal Rights Research Ideas
• Wildlife Ideas
• Zoo Research Ideas
• Cultural Identity Research Topics
• Animal Ethics Research Ideas
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 28). 96 Extinction Essay Topics & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/extinction-essay-topics/

"96 Extinction Essay Topics & Examples." IvyPanda , 28 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/extinction-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '96 Extinction Essay Topics & Examples'. 28 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "96 Extinction Essay Topics & Examples." February 28, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/extinction-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "96 Extinction Essay Topics & Examples." February 28, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/extinction-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "96 Extinction Essay Topics & Examples." February 28, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/extinction-essay-topics/.

Extinct species, explained

Extinctions happen when a species dies out from cataclysmic events, evolutionary problems, or human interference.

The truth is, scientists don’t know how many species of plants, animals, fungi, and bacteria exist on Earth. The most recent estimate put that number at 2 billion , and that will most likely change at some point.

One thing we do know: The western black rhinoceros, the Tasmanian tiger, and the woolly mammoth are among the creatures whose populations at one point dwindled to zero, and it’s possible that species extinction is happening a thousand times more quickly because of humans .

Extinction happens when environmental factors or evolutionary problems cause a species to die out. The disappearance of species from Earth is ongoing, and rates have varied over time. A quarter of mammals is at risk of extinction , according to IUCN Red List estimates.

To some extent, extinction is natural. Changes to habitats and poor reproductive trends are among the factors that can make a species’ death rate higher than its birth rate for long enough that eventually, none are left.

Humans also cause other species to become extinct by hunting, overharvesting, introducing invasive species to the wild, polluting, and changing wetlands and forests to croplands and urban areas. Even the rapid growth of the human population is causing extinction by ruining natural habitats.

Among the most famous species driven to extinction by humans is the dodo , a bird that primarily lived in the island nation of Mauritius and was popularized by its appearance in Lewis Carroll’s book “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.” Dodos were first mentioned by Dutch sailors in the late 16th century and last seen in 1662 after having been hunted to extinction. Passenger pigeons, billions of which frequently blanketed North American skies when Europeans arrived on the continent, went extinct when the last one died at the Cincinnati Zoo in 1914.

Six mass extinctions

Fossils show that there have been five previous periods of history when an unusually high number of extinctions occurred in what are known as mass extinctions. Most of the Earth’s species went extinct roughly 266 million to 252 million years ago in the Permian extinction .

Those losses, however, also paved the way for dinosaurs to evolve into existence, as mass extinctions create a chance for new species to emerge. Dinosaurs met their end about 65 million years ago in another mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous period. A large crater off of Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula suggests that an asteroid most likely struck there. Scientists believe that volcanic eruptions in India caused global warming that also may have contributed to the mass extinction.

Scientists are debating whether Earth is now in the midst of a sixth mass extinction . If so, it may be the fastest one ever with a rate of 1,000 to 10,000 times the baseline extinction rate of one to five species per year. Humans are largely responsible for the striking trend. Scientists believe that pollution, land clearing, and overfishing might drive half of the planet’s existing land and marine species to extinction by 2100.

Slowly increasing surface temperatures caused by heightened levels of greenhouse gases likely will cause many species to move toward the Earth’s poles and higher up into the mountains to stay in habitats with the same climates. But not all species will be able to adapt quickly enough to stave off extinction and many are expected to perish.

What can we do about it?

Using fewer fossil fuels by lowering the thermostat, driving less frequently, and recycling is one good way to slow the rate of extinctions. Eating less meat and avoiding products, like ivory, that are made from threatened species also can make a difference. At home, securing garbage in locked cans, reducing water usage, and refraining from using herbicides and pesticides can protect local wildlife.

Related Topics

• EXTINCT SPECIES
• EXTINCTION EVENTS
• PALEOZOIC ERA

You May Also Like

We just learned where the asteroid that ended dinosaurs came from

What killed the last woolly mammoths?

Scientists just dug up a new dinosaur—with tinier arms than a T.Rex

There are two northern white rhinos left on Earth. Can a controversial approach save them?

This dinosaur dug its own grave

• Environment
• Paid Content

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved