Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40078797›Full record

ArticleCambridge prisms. Extinction2024

John C Z Woinarski, Michael F Braby, Heloise Gibb, Mark S Harvey, Sarah M Legge, Jessica R Marsh, Melinda L Moir, Tim R New, Michael G Rix, Brett P Murphy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cambridge prisms. Extinction, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Global biodiversity and the expanding Tree of Life.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Cambridge prisms. Extinction · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

10 authors.

John C Z WoinarskiResearch Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, NT, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1712-9500
Michael F BrabyDivision of Ecology and Evolution, Research School of Biology, The Australian National University, Acton, ACT, Australia.
Heloise GibbCentre for Future Landscapes, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
Mark S HarveyWestern Australian Museum, Welshpool DC, WA, Australia.
Sarah M LeggeResearch Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, NT, Australia.
Jessica R MarshHarry Butler Institute, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA, Australia.
Melinda L MoirDepartment of Primary Industries and Regional Development, South Perth, WA, Australia.
Tim R NewDepartment of Environment and Genetics, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
Michael G RixQueensland Museum, Hendra, QLD, Australia.
Brett P MurphyResearch Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, NT, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biodiversity is in rapid decline, but the extent of loss is not well resolved for poorly known groups. We estimate the number of extinctions for Australian non-marine invertebrates since the European colonisation of the continent. Our analyses use a range of approaches, incorporate stated uncertainties and recognise explicit caveats. We use plausible bounds for the number of species, two approaches for estimating extinction rate, and Monte Carlo simulations to select combinations of projected distributions from these variables. We conclude that 9,111 (plausible bounds of 1,465 to 56,828) Australian species have become extinct over this 236-year period. These estimates dwarf the number of formally recognised extinctions of Australian invertebrates (10 species) and of the single invertebrate species listed as extinct under Australian legislation. We predict that 39-148 species will become extinct in 2024. This is inconsistent with a recent pledge by the Australian government to prevent all extinctions. This high rate of loss is largely a consequence of pervasive taxonomic biases in community concern and conservation investment. Those characteristics also make it challenging to reduce that rate of loss, as there is uncertainty about which invertebrate species are at the most risk. We outline conservation responses to reduce the likelihood of further extinctions.

Indexed as

arthropodconservationghost extinctionsinsecttaxonomic bias

Identifiers

PMID40078797
PMCPMC11895748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.