ArticleCambridge prisms. Extinction2026
Why it is easier to date Quaternary extinctions than human colonizations under conditions of overkill.
Article in Cambridge prisms. Extinction, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Faunal extinctions correlate with human colonization worldwide during the Quaternary, yet the extent to which human hunting drove these losses remains debated. Resolving these debates depends on accurately dating both human arrival and animal extinction events. Herein I present a simulated overkill scenario modeling interaction between a founding human population and a single prey species. The simulation evaluates expected age offsets, the differences between the actual and observed dates, for extinction and colonization as functions of sample size and human population growth rate. Results show that when extinction is driven by human hunting, age offsets for extinction are expected to be smaller than those for colonization. This difference in age offset is expected because overkill produces a rapid demographic collapse of prey populations and taphonomic processes concentrate late-surviving individuals in the fossil record. In contrast, colonization dates are more offset because human populations are smallest immediately after arrival, and archaeological rarity is compounded by taphonomic effects. Although colonization age offsets are consistently larger than extinction age offsets across sample sizes, they are not extreme, such that archaeological sites should be detectable within five centuries of initial human settlement under modest rates of human population growth.
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.