Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Species–area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from habitat loss

Abstract

Extinction from habitat loss is the signature conservation problem of the twenty-first century1. Despite its importance, estimating extinction rates is still highly uncertain because no proven direct methods or reliable data exist for verifying extinctions. The most widely used indirect method is to estimate extinction rates by reversing the species–area accumulation curve, extrapolating backwards to smaller areas to calculate expected species loss. Estimates of extinction rates based on this method are almost always much higher than those actually observed2,3,4,5. This discrepancy gave rise to the concept of an ‘extinction debt’, referring to species ‘committed to extinction’ owing to habitat loss and reduced population size but not yet extinct during a non-equilibrium period6,7. Here we show that the extinction debt as currently defined is largely a sampling artefact due to an unrecognized difference between the underlying sampling problems when constructing a species–area relationship (SAR) and when extrapolating species extinction from habitat loss. The key mathematical result is that the area required to remove the last individual of a species (extinction) is larger, almost always much larger, than the sample area needed to encounter the first individual of a species, irrespective of species distribution and spatial scale. We illustrate these results with data from a global network of large, mapped forest plots and ranges of passerine bird species in the continental USA; and we show that overestimation can be greater than 160%. Although we conclude that extinctions caused by habitat loss require greater loss of habitat than previously thought, our results must not lead to complacency about extinction due to habitat loss, which is a real and growing threat.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Sampling differences for SAR and EAR.
Figure 2: Species– and endemics–area curves for six of the nine data sets in Table 1 .

References

  1. 1

    Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis (World Resources Institute, 2005)

  2. 2

    Simberloff, D. in Tropical Deforestation and Species Extinction (eds Whitmore, T. C. & Sayer, J. A. ) 75–89 (Chapman & Hall, 1992)

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    May, R. M., Lawton, J. H. & Stork, N. E. in Extinction Rates (eds Lawton, J. H. & May, R. M. ) 1–24 (Oxford Univ. Press, 1995)

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Pimm, S. L. & Askins, R. A. Forest losses predict bird extinctions in eastern North America. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 92, 9343–9347 (1995)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Rosenzweig, M. L. Species Diversity in Space and Time (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Tilman, D., May, R. M., Lehman, C. L. & Nowak, M. A. Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371, 365–366 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Pimm, S. L., Russell, G. J., Gittleman, J. L. & Brooks, T. M. The future of biodiversity. Science 269, 347–350 (1995)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Myers, N. The Sinking Ark: A New Look at the Problem of Disappearing Species (Pergamon, 1979)

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Lovejoy, T. E. in The Global 2000 Report to the President: Entering the Twenty-First Century (study director Barney, G. O.) 328–331 (Council on Environmental Quality, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980)

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    National Research Council. Research Priorities in Tropical Biology (National Academy of Sciences, 1980)

  11. 11

    Ehrlich, P. R. & Ehrlich, A. H. Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species (Random House, 1981)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Myers, N. in Tropical Rain Forest Ecosystems, Structure and Function (ed. Golley, F. B. ) 325–334 (Elsevier, 1983)

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Lugo, A. E. in Biodiversity (ed. Wilson, E. O. ) 58–70 (National Academy Press, 1988)

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    WCMC. Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earth’s Living Resources (Chapman & Hall, 1992)

  15. 15

    Heywood, V. H. & Stuart, S. N. in Tropical Deforestation and Species Extinction (ed. Whitmore, T. C. & Sayer, J. A. ) 91–117 (Chapman & Hall, 1992)

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Dial, R. & Budiansky, S. Extinction or miscalculation? Nature 370, 104–105 (1994)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Heywood, V. H., Mace, G. M., May, R. M. & Stuart, S. N. Uncertainties in extinction rates. Nature 368, 105 (1994)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Brooks, T. & Balmford, A. Atlantic forest extinctions. Nature 380, 115 (1996)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Thomas, C. D. et al. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427, 145–148 (2004)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Harte, J., Ostling, A., Green, J. & Kinzig, A. Biodiversity conservation: Climate change and extinction risk. Nature 430 10.1038/nature02718 (2004)

  21. 21

    Brooks, T. M., Pimm, S. L. & Oyugi, J. O. Time lag between deforestation and bird extinction in tropical forest fragments. Conserv. Biol. 13, 1140–1150 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Arrhenius, O. Species and area. J. Ecol. 9, 95–99 (1921)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Coleman, B. D. Random placement and species-area relations. Math. Biosci. 54, 191–215 (1981)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    He, F. & Legendre, P. Species diversity patterns derived from species–area models. Ecology 83, 1185–1198 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Green, J. & Ostling, A. Endemics–area relationships: the influence of species dominance and spatial aggregation. Ecology 84, 3090–3097 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Condit, R. et al. Spatial patterns in the distribution of tropical tree species. Science 288, 1414–1418 (2000)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Kinzig, A. P. & Harte, J. Implications of endemics–area relationships for estimates of species extinctions. Ecology 81, 3305–3311 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Pimm, S. L. & Raven, P. Extinction by numbers. Nature 403, 843–845 (2000)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Achard, F. et al. Determination of deforestation rates of the world’s humid tropical forests. Science 297, 999–1002 (2002)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Barnosky, A. D. et al. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471, 51–57 (2011)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the work of the principal investigators and their field assistants for collecting the field data on the large plots of the Center for Tropical Forest Science network. We are grateful to P. Gowaty, K. Gaston and M. Rosenzweig for their comments on the paper. We thank R. Condit, R. Perez and S. Agular for Barro Colorado Island, R. Valencia for Yasuni, N. Supardi Noor and R. Kassim for Pasoh, D. Thomas, D. Kenfack and G. Chuyong for Korup, W.-H. Ye for Dinghushan, I.-F. Sun and C.-F. Hseih for Fushan, X.-H. Wang for Tiantong, Z.-Q. Hao for Changbaishan and X.-L. Wang for processing the passerine data. This work was supported by Sun Yat-sen University, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Canada), NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and the US National Science Foundation.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Both authors designed the study, analysed and interpreted data, and wrote the paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Fangliang He or Stephen P. Hubbell.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

The file contains Supplementary Text and Data, Supplementary Figures 1-3 with legends and additional references. (PDF 294 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

He, F., Hubbell, S. Species–area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from habitat loss. Nature 473, 368–371 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09985

Download citation

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing