Endangered Animals 100 Times Worse Off than Previously Believed

Scientists create a new system for modeling risk and discover that some species may be far more endangered than ever imagined

In Even Deeper Water?: Photo by Joel Garlich-Miller, USFWS
Adding insult to injury, many species that are already solidly facing extinction might actually be 100 times more endangered than previously thought, scientists say. A new mathematical model, developed by ecologists at the University of Colorado at Boulder and the University of California, produces extinction risks that are orders of magnitude higher than conservation biologists estimated in compilations like the IUCN red-list.

Older risk models may not work well enough, a letter, published in Nature by Boulder ecologist Brett Melbourne, reports. Traditional models rely on two main factors: The number of random events affecting individuals within a species, and the impact of things like temperature and weather changes on a species. But when Melbourne and colleagues added sex variations and physical variations between individuals into their model, risk went up a hundredfold.

Melbourne and colleagues made their new model by observing beetles in the lab. Natural populations, they argue, have even more individual variation than lab animals—a compelling reason, the authors say, to re-evaluate what endangered really means.

10 Comments

Comments

Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

It is very unlikely we will get smart enough fast enough to avert mass extinction. Our best bet at this point is to prepare for catastrophic failure. At the very least, we should begin a global project to collect and store sufficient samples of DNA from all endangered and threatened species.

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." Aldous Huxley

1 out of 1 people found this comment helpful
I found this comment
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

will it really matter in the end?
species will always go extinct, and whether or not we are speeding up or slowing down the process, the earth will bounce back. it always has, and always will until it can't sustain life anymore

1 out of 1 people found this comment helpful
I found this comment
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

we just all better hope that there isn't a God that will hold us accountable.

0 out of 1 people found this comment helpful
I found this comment
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

gbabunovic,
of course it matters.
yes, species would have recovered before.

but what humans are doing now are damaging the earth, to the point that the earth will not be able to bounce back.
the destruction of coral reefs and logging is taking away key resources that endangered species need to survive.

1 out of 1 people found this comment helpful
I found this comment
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

I have to agree gbabunovic, some will perish, others will thrive to survive and yet others will ride the coat tails of the survivors...

0 out of 0 people found this comment helpful
I found this comment
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

251 million years ago, 96% if marine species and 70% of land species disappeared in The Great Dying. As long as Something survives, Nature will bounce back... eventually.

0 out of 0 people found this comment helpful
I found this comment
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

Hmmmm....... no mention of any peer review.???

Sombody wouldn't be worried about their funding now would they?????????

Enuf said, I'm not even going to waist my time researching who these Math Wizards are........
and which group is behind the "New" study

0 out of 0 people found this comment helpful
I found this comment
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

I kinda wish they didn't say 100 times more as that makes the entire model sound like bunk if they were that threatened they would already be gone.

0 out of 0 people found this comment helpful
I found this comment
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

Ruri, you are correct......and they wouldn't have doubled in Pop in the last 50 years

0 out of 0 people found this comment helpful
I found this comment
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

So someone tweaked a mathematical model on a computer and the results were different. Weird. I've never seen that before. Oh wait, I have. Every time someone makes a spurious claim about disastrous global warming it's because someone tweaked a computer model with different values. Even though the computer models correlate very poorly with what we measure in the real world, we still believe the computer models over real world measurements. Even weirder.

Someone fiddling with a mathematical model that didn't correlate with reality well in the first place and now correlates even more poorly is nothing to get excited about. Nature will keep on naturing while the mathematicians and modelers fiddle about. Yawn.

0 out of 0 people found this comment helpful
I found this comment

POPSCI'S 21ST ANNUAL BEST OF WHAT'S NEW


Every year, PopSci honors the top 100 innovations in categories such as consumer products, medical tech and engineering.

Learn more and submit your product or technology today at popsci.com/enter.

Share your photos in the Pop Sci pool at www.flickr.com!
Current theme: Science Close Up

PPX: The PopSci Predictions Exchange

RSS Link

The Environment

  • Northwest Passage Commercial Use

    Will the Northwest Passage be used for commercial shipping purposes by September 30, 2008?

  • Arctic Ocean Oil Rush

    This proposition will pay out at POP$100 per share if oil from a rig in the Lomonosov Ridge, the Beaufort Sea or the Chuckchi Sea is produced and packaged for export by January 1, 2010.

Ready to bet on the future? Start here!

Subscribe for 2 free issues!

may2008_cover.jpg