ReviewCambridge prisms. Extinction2023
Forty years later: The status of the "Big Five" mass extinctions.
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 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.
- Identifying biotic and abiotic roles in marine clade extinction.Nature ecology & evolution · 2026Article
- Article
- A modeling approach to quantify ecological dynamics and functional structures of paleocommunities.Nature protocols · 2025Review
- The end-Cretaceous mass extinction restructured functional diversity but failed to configure the modern marine biota.Science advances · 2025Article
- A Sixth Mass Extinction? How Linguistic Uncertainty Shapes Our Understanding of the Biodiversity Crisis.Ecology and evolution · 2024Review
- Bayesian analyses indicate bivalves did not drive the downfall of brachiopods following the Permian-Triassic mass extinction.Nature communications · 2023Article
- The end-Cretaceous plant extinction: Heterogeneity, ecosystem transformation, and insights for the future.Cambridge prisms. Extinction · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over 40 years ago, Raup and Sepkoski identified five episodes of elevated extinction in the marine fossil record that were thought to be statistically distinct, thus warranting the term the "Big Five" mass extinctions. Since then, the term has become part of standard vocabulary, especially with the naming of the current biodiversity crisis as the "sixth mass extinction." However, there is no general agreement on which time intervals should be viewed as mass extinctions, in part because the Big Five turn out not to be statistically distinct from background rates of extinction, and in part, because other intervals of time have even higher extinction rates, in the Cambrian and early Ordovician. Nonetheless, the Big Five represent the five largest events since the early Ordovician, including in analyses that attempt to compensate for the incompleteness of the fossil and rock records. In the last 40 years, we have learned a great deal about the causes of many of the major and minor extinction events and are beginning to unravel the mechanisms that translated the initial environmental disturbances into extinction. However, for many of the events, further understanding will require going back to the outcrop, where the patchy distribution of environments and pervasive temporal gaps in the rock record challenge our ability to establish true extinction patterns. As for the current biodiversity crisis, there is no doubt that the rate of extinction is among the highest ever experienced by the biosphere, perhaps the second highest after the end-Cretaceous bolide impact. However (and fortunately), the absolute number of extinctions is still relatively small - there is still time to prevent this becoming a genuine mass extinction. Given the arbitrariness of calling out the Big Five, perhaps the current crisis should be called the "incipient Anthropocene mass extinction" rather than the "sixth 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.