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.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $3.90 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis (World Resources Institute, 2005)
Simberloff, D. in Tropical Deforestation and Species Extinction (eds Whitmore, T. C. & Sayer, J. A. ) 75–89 (Chapman & Hall, 1992)
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)
Pimm, S. L. & Askins, R. A. Forest losses predict bird extinctions in eastern North America. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 92, 9343–9347 (1995)
Rosenzweig, M. L. Species Diversity in Space and Time (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995)
Tilman, D., May, R. M., Lehman, C. L. & Nowak, M. A. Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371, 365–366 (1994)
Pimm, S. L., Russell, G. J., Gittleman, J. L. & Brooks, T. M. The future of biodiversity. Science 269, 347–350 (1995)
Myers, N. The Sinking Ark: A New Look at the Problem of Disappearing Species (Pergamon, 1979)
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)
National Research Council. Research Priorities in Tropical Biology (National Academy of Sciences, 1980)
Ehrlich, P. R. & Ehrlich, A. H. Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species (Random House, 1981)
Myers, N. in Tropical Rain Forest Ecosystems, Structure and Function (ed. Golley, F. B. ) 325–334 (Elsevier, 1983)
Lugo, A. E. in Biodiversity (ed. Wilson, E. O. ) 58–70 (National Academy Press, 1988)
WCMC. Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earth’s Living Resources (Chapman & Hall, 1992)
Heywood, V. H. & Stuart, S. N. in Tropical Deforestation and Species Extinction (ed. Whitmore, T. C. & Sayer, J. A. ) 91–117 (Chapman & Hall, 1992)
Dial, R. & Budiansky, S. Extinction or miscalculation? Nature 370, 104–105 (1994)
Heywood, V. H., Mace, G. M., May, R. M. & Stuart, S. N. Uncertainties in extinction rates. Nature 368, 105 (1994)
Brooks, T. & Balmford, A. Atlantic forest extinctions. Nature 380, 115 (1996)
Thomas, C. D. et al. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427, 145–148 (2004)
Harte, J., Ostling, A., Green, J. & Kinzig, A. Biodiversity conservation: Climate change and extinction risk. Nature 430 10.1038/nature02718 (2004)
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)
Arrhenius, O. Species and area. J. Ecol. 9, 95–99 (1921)
Coleman, B. D. Random placement and species-area relations. Math. Biosci. 54, 191–215 (1981)
He, F. & Legendre, P. Species diversity patterns derived from species–area models. Ecology 83, 1185–1198 (2002)
Green, J. & Ostling, A. Endemics–area relationships: the influence of species dominance and spatial aggregation. Ecology 84, 3090–3097 (2003)
Condit, R. et al. Spatial patterns in the distribution of tropical tree species. Science 288, 1414–1418 (2000)
Kinzig, A. P. & Harte, J. Implications of endemics–area relationships for estimates of species extinctions. Ecology 81, 3305–3311 (2000)
Pimm, S. L. & Raven, P. Extinction by numbers. Nature 403, 843–845 (2000)
Achard, F. et al. Determination of deforestation rates of the world’s humid tropical forests. Science 297, 999–1002 (2002)
Barnosky, A. D. et al. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471, 51–57 (2011)
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.
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
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
Chinese caterpillar fungus (Ophiocordyceps sinensis) in China: Current distribution, trading, and futures under climate change and overexploitation
Science of The Total Environment (2021)
Role of the countryside landscapes for sustaining biodiversity in karst areas at a semi centennial scale
Ecological Indicators (2021)
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal (2021)
Selective extinctions resulting from random habitat destruction lead to under‐estimates of local and regional biodiversity loss in a manipulative field experiment
Global Change Biology (2021)