Cardillo Marcel, Mace Georgina M, Gittleman John L, Jones Kate E, Bielby Jon, Purvis Andy
Division of Biology, Imperial College London, Silwood Park campus, Ascot SL5 7PY, UK.
Proc Biol Sci. 2008 Jun 22;275(1641):1441-8. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.0179.
Extinction risk varies among species, and comparative analyses can help clarify the causes of this variation. Here we present a phylogenetic comparative analysis of species-level extinction risk across nearly the whole of the class Mammalia. Our aims were to examine systematically the degree to which general predictors of extinction risk can be identified, and to investigate the relative importance of different types of predictors (life history, ecological, human impact and environmental) in determining extinction risk. A single global model explained 27.3% of variation in mammal extinction risk, but explanatory power was lower for region-specific models (median R2=0.248) and usually higher for taxon-specific models (median R2=0.383). Geographical range size, human population density and latitude were the most consistently significant predictors of extinction risk, but otherwise there was little evidence for general, prescriptive indicators of high extinction risk across mammals. Our results therefore support the view that comparative models of relatively narrow taxonomic scope are likely to be the most precise.
物种的灭绝风险各不相同，比较分析有助于阐明这种差异的原因。在此，我们对几乎整个哺乳纲物种层面的灭绝风险进行了系统发育比较分析。我们的目的是系统地研究能够确定灭绝风险的一般预测因素的程度，并调查不同类型的预测因素（生活史、生态、人类影响和环境）在确定灭绝风险方面的相对重要性。一个单一的全球模型解释了哺乳动物灭绝风险变异的27.3%，但特定区域模型的解释力较低（中位数R2 = 0.248），而特定分类群模型的解释力通常较高（中位数R2 = 0.383）。地理分布范围大小、人口密度和纬度是灭绝风险最一致的显著预测因素，但除此之外，几乎没有证据表明存在适用于所有哺乳动物的、规定性的高灭绝风险通用指标。因此，我们的结果支持这样一种观点，即分类范围相对较窄的比较模型可能是最精确的。
