ReviewCambridge prisms. Extinction2023
Selectivity of mass extinctions: Patterns, processes, and future directions.
Review in Cambridge prisms. Extinction, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extinction threatens to cause morphological and ecological homogenization in sharks.Science advances · 2025Article
- Reduced strength and increased variability of extinction selectivity during mass extinctions.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A central question in the study of mass extinction is whether these events simply intensify background extinction processes and patterns versus change the driving mechanisms and associated patterns of selectivity. Over the past two decades, aided by the development of new fossil occurrence databases, selectivity patterns associated with mass extinction have become increasingly well quantified and their differences from background patterns established. In general, differences in geographic range matter less during mass extinction than during background intervals, while differences in respiratory and circulatory anatomy that may correlate with tolerance to rapid change in oxygen availability, temperature, and pH show greater evidence of selectivity during mass extinction. The recent expansion of physiological experiments on living representatives of diverse clades and the development of simple, quantitative theories linking temperature and oxygen availability to the extent of viable habitat in the oceans have enabled the use of Earth system models to link geochemical proxy constraints on environmental change with quantitative predictions of the amount and biogeography of habitat loss. Early indications are that the interaction between physiological traits and environmental change can explain substantial proportions of observed extinction selectivity for at least some mass extinction events. A remaining challenge is quantifying the effects of primary extinction resulting from the limits of physiological tolerance versus secondary extinction resulting from the loss of taxa on which a given species depended ecologically. The calibration of physiology-based models to past extinction events will enhance their value in prediction and mitigation efforts related to the current biodiversity crisis.
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.