ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2024
Using comparative extinction risk analysis to prioritize the IUCN Red List reassessments of amphibians.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global patterns and drivers of extinction risk in island endemic terrestrial vertebrates.Science advances · 2026Article
- The risk of underestimating generation length for extinction risk assessments.Cambridge prisms. Extinction · 2026Article
- NewtCap: An Efficient Target Capture Approach to Boost Genomic Studies in Salamandridae (True Salamanders and Newts).Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Can Macroevolution Inform Contemporary Extinction Risk?Ecology letters · 2025Review
- Using comparative extinction risk analysis to prioritize the IUCN Red List reassessments of amphibians.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Assessing the extinction risk of species based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List (RL) is key to guiding conservation policies and reducing biodiversity loss. This process is resource demanding, however, and requires continuous updating, which becomes increasingly difficult as new species are added to the RL. Automatic methods, such as comparative analyses used to predict species RL category, can be an efficient alternative to keep assessments up to date. Using amphibians as a study group, we predicted which species are more likely to change their RL category and thus should be prioritized for reassessment. We used species biological traits, environmental variables, and proxies of climate and land-use change as predictors of RL category. We produced an ensemble prediction of IUCN RL category for each species by combining 4 different model algorithms: cumulative link models, phylogenetic generalized least squares, random forests, and neural networks. By comparing RL categories with the ensemble prediction and accounting for uncertainty among model algorithms, we identified species that should be prioritized for future reassessment based on the mismatch between predicted and observed values. The most important predicting variables across models were species' range size and spatial configuration of the range, biological traits, climate change, and land-use change. We compared our proposed prioritization index and the predicted RL changes with independent IUCN RL reassessments and found high performance of both the prioritization and the predicted directionality of changes in RL categories. Ensemble modeling of RL category is a promising tool for prioritizing species for reassessment while accounting for models' uncertainty. This approach is broadly applicable to all taxa on the IUCN RL and to regional and national assessments and may improve allocation of the limited human and economic resources available to maintain an up-to-date IUCN RL.
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.