Back

Testing the predictive performance of comparative extinction risk models to support the global amphibian assessment

Lucas, P. M.; Di Marco, M.; Cazalis, V.; Luedtke, J.; Neam, K.; Brown, M. H.; Langhammer, P. F.; Mancini, G.; Santini, L.

2023-02-08 ecology
10.1101/2023.02.08.526823 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Assessing the extinction risk of species through the IUCN Red List is key to guiding conservation policies and reducing biodiversity loss. This process is resource-demanding, however, and requires a continuous update which becomes increasingly difficult as new species are added to the IUCN Red List. The use of automatic methods, such as comparative analyses to predict species extinction risk, can be an efficient alternative to maintaining up to date assessments. Using amphibians as a study group, we predict which species were more likely to change status, in order to suggest species that should be prioritized for reassessment. We used species traits, environmental variables, and proxies of climate and land-use change as predictors of the IUCN Red List category of species. We produced an ensemble prediction of IUCN Red List categories by combining four different model algorithms: Cumulative Link Models (CLM), phylogenetic Generalized Least Squares (PGLS), Random Forests (RF), Neural Networks (NN). By comparing IUCN Red List categories with the ensemble prediction, and accounting for uncertainty among model algorithms, we identified species that should be prioritized for future reassessments due to high prediction versus observation mismatch. We found that CLM and RF performed better than PGLS and NN, but there was not a clear best algorithm. The most important predicting variables across models were species range size, climate change, and landuse change. We propose ensemble modelling of extinction risk as a promising tool for prioritizing species for reassessment while accounting for inherent models uncertainty.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.7%
2
Conservation Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.5%
3
Diversity and Distributions
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.5%
4
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
7.2%
5
Ecological Informatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
6
Conservation Science and Practice
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 39%
3.6%
8
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 41%
3.1%
10
Global Change Biology
69 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.7%
11
Biological Conservation
43 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.6%
12
Animal Conservation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
13
Biodiversity and Conservation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
14
Conservation Letters
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
15
Global Ecology and Biogeography
41 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
16
Ecological Indicators
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
17
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
18
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
19
Journal of Biogeography
37 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
20
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.8%
21
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 55%
0.8%
22
Environmental Research Letters
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
23
Global Ecology and Conservation
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
24
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
25
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
26
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
27
Communications Earth & Environment
14 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
28
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 65%
0.6%
29
Molecular Ecology
304 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
30
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%