Back

Socioeconomics drive population change in the world's largest carnivores

Johnson, T. F.; Isaac, N. J. B.; Paviolo, A.; Gonzalez-Saurez, M.

2021-12-01 ecology
10.1101/2021.11.30.470341 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Land-use1,2 and climate change3-5 have been linked to wildlife population declines, but the role of socioeconomic factors in driving declines, and promoting population recoveries, remains relatively unexplored despite its likely importance. Here, we evaluate a comprehensive array of potential drivers of population changes observed in some of the worlds most charismatic species - large mammalian carnivores. Our results reveal a strong role of human socioeconomic development, which we find has a greater impact on population change than habitat loss and climate change. Increases in socioeconomic development are linked to sharp population declines but, importantly, once development is high, carnivore populations have the potential to recover. These links between human development and wildlife population health highlight the challenges ahead to achieve the different UN Sustainable development goals.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 10%
17.9%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
● 393 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
11.5%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Conservation Biology
○ 17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.6%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Global Change Biology
○ 78 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
7.6%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Nature Ecology & Evolution
131 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
6
Global Ecology and Biogeography
○ 47 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.3%
7
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 23%
4.2%
8
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
● 72 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.3%
9
Science
● 477 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.1%
10
Biological Conservation
○ 46 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.1%
11
Ecology Letters
○ 135 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.1%
12
Science Advances
● 1243 papers in training set
Top 13%
2.7%
13
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 41%
2.6%
14
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 22%
2.3%
15
Communications Biology
○ 993 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.7%
16
Communications Earth & Environment
○ 14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
17
Biological Reviews
○ 11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.1%
18
Conservation Letters
○ 14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
19
Ecography
○ 54 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
20
Environmental Research Letters
○ 14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
21
Science of The Total Environment
○ 186 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
22
Royal Society Open Science
● 214 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
23
Ecology and Evolution
○ 267 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
24
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 38%
0.8%
25
Animal Conservation
○ 13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
26
Conservation Science and Practice
○ 15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
27
Ecology
○ 85 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
28
Ecological Applications
○ 34 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.