ArticleCambridge prisms. Extinction2024
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digging into dirt: Rewilding with threatened mammals shapes soil-emerging insect assemblages.The Journal of animal ecology · 2026Article
- Global biodiversity and the expanding Tree of Life.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Unpacking the extinction crisis: rates, patterns and causes of recent extinctions in plants and animals.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Recent extinctions of plant and animal genera are rare, localized, and decelerated.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Intergenerational justice, the impending sixth mass extinction, reproduction and advanced biotechnologies, and humanity's future.Cambridge prisms. Extinction · 2025Review
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
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
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.