Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35014169›Full record

ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2022

The Sixth Mass Extinction: fact, fiction or speculation?

Robert H Cowie, Philippe Bouchet, Benoît Fontaine

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 169 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
169citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
181.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

169 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 774 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The entanglement between the IUCN Red List and international biodiversity law.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

109 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Robert H CowiePacific Biosciences Research Center, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, 96822, U.S.A.ORCID 0000-0002-2986-7092
Philippe BouchetInstitut Systématique Evolution Biodiversité (ISYEB), Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, EPHE, Université des Antilles, 57 rue Cuvier CP 51, 75005 Paris, France.
Benoît FontaineUMS 2006 Patrinat (OFB, CNRS, MNHN), Centre d'Écologie et des Sciences de la Conservation (UMR 7204), Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 43 rue Buffon CP 135, 75005 Paris, France.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRHawaii Pacific University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There have been five Mass Extinction events in the history of Earth's biodiversity, all caused by dramatic but natural phenomena. It has been claimed that the Sixth Mass Extinction may be underway, this time caused entirely by humans. Although considerable evidence indicates that there is a biodiversity crisis of increasing extinctions and plummeting abundances, some do not accept that this amounts to a Sixth Mass Extinction. Often, they use the IUCN Red List to support their stance, arguing that the rate of species loss does not differ from the background rate. However, the Red List is heavily biased: almost all birds and mammals but only a minute fraction of invertebrates have been evaluated against conservation criteria. Incorporating estimates of the true number of invertebrate extinctions leads to the conclusion that the rate vastly exceeds the background rate and that we may indeed be witnessing the start of the Sixth Mass Extinction. As an example, we focus on molluscs, the second largest phylum in numbers of known species, and, extrapolating boldly, estimate that, since around AD 1500, possibly as many as 7.5-13% (150,000-260,000) of all ~2 million known species have already gone extinct, orders of magnitude greater than the 882 (0.04%) on the Red List. We review differences in extinction rates according to realms: marine species face significant threats but, although previous mass extinctions were largely defined by marine invertebrates, there is no evidence that the marine biota has reached the same crisis as the non-marine biota. Island species have suffered far greater rates than continental ones. Plants face similar conservation biases as do invertebrates, although there are hints they may have suffered lower extinction rates. There are also those who do not deny an extinction crisis but accept it as a new trajectory of evolution, because humans are part of the natural world; some even embrace it, with a desire to manipulate it for human benefit. We take issue with these stances. Humans are the only species able to manipulate the Earth on a grand scale, and they have allowed the current crisis to happen. Despite multiple conservation initiatives at various levels, most are not species oriented (certain charismatic vertebrates excepted) and specific actions to protect every living species individually are simply unfeasible because of the tyranny of numbers. As systematic biologists, we encourage the nurturing of the innate human appreciation of biodiversity, but we reaffirm the message that the biodiversity that makes our world so fascinating, beautiful and functional is vanishing unnoticed at an unprecedented rate. In the face of a mounting crisis, scientists must adopt the practices of preventive archaeology, and collect and document as many species as possible before they disappear. All this depends on reviving the venerable study of natural history and taxonomy. Denying the crisis, simply accepting it and doing nothing, or even embracing it for the ostensible benefit of humanity, are not appropriate options and pave the way for the Earth to continue on its sad trajectory towards a Sixth Mass Extinction.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesExtinction, BiologicalAnimalsAquatic OrganismsBiodiversityHumansInvertebratesMammalsbiodiversity crisisconservationdenialextinctioninvertebratesIUCN Red Listland snailsmolluscsSixth Extinctionundescribed species

Identifiers

PMID35014169
PMCPMC9786292
OpenAlexW4206582439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.