ArticleRoyal Society open science2023
How predictable are mass extinction events?
Article in Royal Society open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The macroecology of Mesozoic dinosaurs.Biology letters · 2024Review
- Trait-mediated speciation and human-driven extinctions in proboscideans revealed by unsupervised Bayesian neural networks.Science advances · 2024Article
- DeepDive: estimating global biodiversity patterns through time using deep learning.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Thermal and nutrient stress drove Permian-Triassic shallow marine extinctions.Cambridge prisms. Extinction · 2024Article
- Reduced strength and increased variability of extinction selectivity during mass extinctions.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Oversimplification risks too much: a response to 'How predictable are mass extinction events?'Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- How predictable are mass extinction events?Royal Society open science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many modern extinction drivers are shared with past mass extinction events, such as rapid climate warming, habitat loss, pollution and invasive species. This commonality presents a key question: can the extinction risk of species during past mass extinction events inform our predictions for a modern biodiversity crisis? To investigate if it is possible to establish which species were more likely to go extinct during mass extinctions, we applied a functional trait-based model of extinction risk using a machine learning algorithm to datasets of marine fossils for the end-Permian, end-Triassic and end-Cretaceous mass extinctions. Extinction selectivity was inferred across each individual mass extinction event, before testing whether the selectivity patterns obtained could be used to 'predict' the extinction selectivity exhibited during the other mass extinctions. Our analyses show that, despite some similarities in extinction selectivity patterns between ancient crises, the selectivity of mass extinction events is inconsistent, which leads to a poor predictive performance. This lack of predictability is attributed to evolution in marine ecosystems, particularly during the Mesozoic Marine Revolution, associated with shifts in community structure alongside coincident Earth system changes. Our results suggest that past extinctions are unlikely to be informative for predicting extinction risk during a projected mass extinction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.