Posted on Authorea 11 Aug 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159714949.96971742 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. pce’itiscadeooia risaeotnkypeitr fetnto ik(atn&Blackburn & (Gaston risk extinction of predictors key often are traits ecological increasing fitness an and individual to intrinsic declining attributable species’ nears, to an A extinction at due as decreases nears, increases factors. extinction extinction change stochastic to as population of the time in declines influence to its variability rate scales declines annual extinction growth population (iii) to a geometric and time as (ii) (i) that extirpations, rate, that indicating population increasing specifically, size, of vortex; database population to extinction small of need the a logarithm vortex. we of with extinction hypotheses decisions, albeit the preexisting by corroborated, conservation al. extirpation several empirically informed to et (2006) make population (Palomares Holmes a to and effort of Fagan conservation robustness and the intense at-risk determine with that most even factors catastro- populations recovering the and understand the population there rapid identify the which self-reinforcing, To during of Soul´e to 1986), & 2012). prospect lead (Gilpin little to vortices’ ‘extinction thought be (Caughley so-called is may catastrophes extinction, processes to random these spirals and downward of stochasticity phic extirpation & presence environmental direct (Gilpin of concurrent as to extinction such loss The vulnerable mortality, their 1994). a especially of to is also and drivers lead small which are 2007) external could influences 2006), populations from fluctuations Holmes stochasticity small al. major & moreover, demographic (Fagan et as 1994); 2010); rate Caughley populations (Berec Soul´e growth 1986; small effects al. population in in Allee et problematic variability to Blomqvist annual particularly the due 1998; increasing size many by al. the in population populations driving et fitness stressors with processes individual (Saccheri these decrease demographic example, diversity of For detrimental to genetic face 2006). of expected Holmes the risk is & the in (Fagan species populations increases decline extinction small towards size of populations conserving inexorably population However, number As trans- populations declining a the important. as 2016). increasingly by and complicated becomes driven overexploitation is al. intervention loss loss, conservation et biodiversity (Young for habitat need species of pollution, invasive rate change, of unprecedented climate mission an including by stressors characterized anthropogenic is Anthropocene extinction The the in. to effort species conservation of invest to susceptibility populations Introduction species the which smaller-bodied alter prioritizing of can for influences populations traits feature – that useful biological size evidence a intrinsic to body as find monitored that We serve – populations suggesting may trait vortex. and vertebrate rate, phenotypic extinction vortex, 55 faster to fitness-related the of a relation key to database succumb at in a a populations vortex deteriorate whether assemble which extinction investigate we at the to Here, rate to analyses – the lacking. robustness three extinction investigating been perform to have studies and rapidly However, traits extirpation populations identified ecological drive vortex.’ has and work to ‘extinction history Previous one-another the life risk. reinforce as most mutually known at can species process those that a conserve factors to environmental critical is and populations demographic small of dynamics the Understanding Abstract 2020 11, August 2 1 vortex Williams Nathan extinction the exacerbates size body Small olgclSceyo odnIsiueo Zoology of Institute London of Society Zoological Bristol of University 1 oieMcRae Louise , 2 oi Freeman Robin , 1 2 n hitpe Clements Christopher and , 1 Posted on Authorea 11 Aug 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159714949.96971742 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. u,weesi tespplto bnac a oioe sn nietidctr.I h bec of of absence indices that the assume In we monitoring, carried indicators. were population indirect in in population used using the populations method of the monitored the censuses for was of complete criteria regardless cases, abundance contrary, inclusion some the population In of to others (2005). evidence outline appropriate al. in reputable, detailed et be whereas A Loh should by out, time. monitoring provided that through in are being included consistent LPD dataset are extinction and the the abundance the in species population on inclusion monitor the to to work (LPD) for caveat methods published the database of previously with range Planet diverse LPD, from A the Living over ii) 2006). the Holmes and for & i) 1950-2019 (Fagan data vortex between sources: abundance populations two vertebrate population from 25000 annual extirpation to containing monitored (http://www.livingplanetindex.org/data_portal), populations obtain We smaller-bodied data in series rate time faster Population a at place deterio- takes that vortex, Methods evidence and extinction 2006) aforementioned the Holmes three to & the Fagan due to for 1986; species. dynamics, of databases support Soule population history database & find in life We (Gilpin global various vortex observed. ration a extinction from been use the data has We of extirpation size predictions 2006). moni- where body Holmes populations populations result with & of 55 could supplemented (Fagan identify which cases series, of thresholds, requires dynamics time analysis quasi-extinction this extinction population the designate do vertebrate of upon to To building interpretations need processes database. event, the erroneous demographic larger extinction negating underlying much in an extirpation, with a of to interact with region through can the but tored size in (2006) body population Holmes whether a the and – of Fagan against time dynamics first the robustness high the influence and acutely for to to size susceptibility – is versus assess extinction body rate we of growth between Here, population risk relationship of the The importance where relative 2017). elements. the point al. on stochastic a et depends to thus Allen vortex reduced 2003; extinction in abruptly al. populations speed be that et implies history can (Schoener processes life stochastic species slower to Peltonen susceptibility smaller-bodied However, 1990; Greater Yeakel stochasticity. of 2017). Hickling 2013) 2013; & al. al. al. (Millar et et et population environmental Saether Saether both small 2012; (Allen 2003; to at Sinclair extirpation resistance 1991; can time of greater Hanski less they to & threat spend linked meaning large is and growth, a species 2005) of larger-bodied is Bowman rates & there intrinsic many (Brook obtain where greater quickly of to sizes with more having correlate fecund perturbations without more a from generally recover respond as This procedures. are will size data-collection taxa. species populations body expensive among Smaller-bodied small and available of Furthermore, time-consuming how trait significance 2019). with available predicting the 2016, information readily in and cryptic al. most utility more data et the potential arguably Ripple size the is 2000; body 2009), enhances it Bennett al. obtaining traits, et & of Davidson population (Owens 1997; ease hard-to-record humans Purvis the by & (Fa extinction of exploitation density to proxy because of relating population use level studies 2002), to in suite the (Johnson invoked a necessary speed and frequently with life-history are is associated as trait, that it important such factors particularly that risk anthropogenic a and meaning is ecological size reduced, intrinsic, Body measure, severely traits. of to ecological difficult already intrinsic are these are risk of though extinction which measures of vortex; populations predictors extinction important in data. as the particularly identified population traits real-life lab-based to the on vulnerability a of to behavioral many out Unfortunately, using population used specific carried Similarly, a differential been been in 2008). in not variation rarely have how al. result investigate have studies et explicitly can analogous extinctions degree to (Brook exceptions pattern) first real-life and traits the few (mating 2004), were speed, biological trait with (2020) al. life-history to al. However, et et size, relation 2019). Godwin Koh in range experiment, al. 2003; proneness geographic et Brashares extinction with (Chichorro 2000; infer 2008), indicators Young al. persistent & et as (Duncan Cardillo emerging 2000; specialization al. of et Purvis 1995; 2 tal et 08 n eorpi Jpso Forslund & (Jeppsson demographic and 2018) . Posted on Authorea 11 Aug 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159714949.96971742 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. eecuetefia bnac on rmec iesre.W tepe ofi hs oeswt negative a with models these fit to attempted We series. (2006), time Holmes each and from with Fagan count Following GLMMs abundance autocorrelation. final fit series the time we exclude for we (BM), account mass to structure body error logarithm autoregressive of the influence of log function the ~ a simultaneously as extinction change and to populations. this, expected all structures test is across the To extinction from meaning to backwards size. consistent time count a population present, to with be of time extinction’) to convert to the vortex we (‘years of extinction analyses, variable size an same For new body the the a in and produce size compatible to population series extinction of time function each a make as To changed extinction species. to proximity how assess we Firstly, using non-avian model only fitting extinction ii) our best to and the Years perform identify populations we to avian selection species), only (Bart´on 2019). model package i) of AIC-based ‘MuMIn’ subsets: the (65.38% employ two the in we dataset We as variable analysis, well 1. the each each Table as For of in together, in populations. importance represented populations relative LMMs/GLMMs overwhelmingly We all the our are units. on of in analyses comparison and taxa used easier species avian effects enable within between As random to vary nested nested models. effects may are fixed and These but our fixed measurement. populations, normalize the of effects and also units of potential species of descriptions the across effects dynamics, full consistent potential nested present population is the units, the which and inside on level type, our nested effects species of data species, site-specific effects the the inside random at for nested nested relatedness the accounts of population for This with account type. We framework, variables. data could modelling response inside that mixed the 2019) factors on a al. context-specific effects using et for fixed (Pinheiro account data of ‘nlme’ to size respectively, the effect packages in the statistical 2017) (LMMs/GLMMs) analysis mask al. three models each et For perform effects event. (Brooks We mixed extinction ‘glmmTMB’ 2019). an linear and Team, of generalized region Core or the linear (R in use change 3.6.1 we dynamics version population R how investigate using to analyses analyses statistical all perform history We life body of with and indicative relationship year their traits investigate LMM/GLMMs per other and litters adult values six of models. 10) trait to number (Myhrvold linear these (base age, using up 10) databases log-transformed mass (base fledgling collate on history log-transform time, data we life We incubation extracting size. various possible, maturity, litter/clutch 2000), from female where Pauly longevity, Additionally, dataset & maximum kg. this Froese speed: 2017; in in al. mass species et all body Oliveira for 2015; data al. et history life compile ( We 15.98 species, of different length 52 birds. data mean 34 of history a and extirpations Life has mammals population nine series 55 reptile, time of one of amphibian, dataset dataset at extinct. one a Our with went actinopterygians, produce five series population we elasmobranchs, time the two criteria, include including which filtering only in these we year on series, exact Based abundance. time the population short ascertain of from can extirpation) counts where counts bias we (signifying 10 populations zero possible that count least introducing consider so zero-abundance where avoid year, the only series to one and we time Furthermore, than count addition, omit more abundance In no we penultimate observations. was the abundance, extinct subsequent actually between population not by time were in followed the that variation were populations annual including and of inflating occurred possibility the avoid observation and the of of series minimize to rate end To time high the 2006). and a the correspondingly, before al. of and, et occurring detectability end species counts (Brook the low Zero-abundance error relatively at this. a count indicate showed might zero-abundance time. that series a in LPD time to point the declining given from any population populations identify at a as size extirpation population define true We the of representative are abundance population er oetnto ouainsz log + size population ~ extinction to years 10 pplto ie log + size) (population 10 B)+log + (BM) 3 10 ± pplto size):log (population .5 years. 6.65) 10 B)+pplto size:log population + (BM) 10 (BM) nldn first-order a including , 10 (BM) and er to years Posted on Authorea 11 Aug 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159714949.96971742 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. eaieitrcinbtenpplto ieadbd asi l he eso aa(al ;Fg 1), Fig. 2; (Table significant data taxa. a of smaller-bodied included sets in faster three models log- is all performing and deteriorates in best population rate a mass clear growth which body The geometric at rate and between the 1). size relationship that population positive indicating Fig. between significant 2; interaction a (Table negative found size we population groups, transformed three 2); all (Table over In model extinction fitting of best risk the imminent rate of growth under units Geometric are body size. AIC between species population interaction two of smaller-bodied positive within range of a model larger populations data a a of that in groups suggest included three models was all these size in outper- Also, population significantly and size S2). ( (Table size population size species log-transformed non-avian population a only non-logged with and with models fit hypothesis, those first formed the with agreement In declines population of extinction rate to Years the captures influence which trait could umbrella which useful trait a GLMM/LMMs a represents is vortex. species thus extinction our the and in to histories, size due life maturity, body litter/clutch their and female that mass longevity, on suggests body maximum This information between relationship and S1). negative mass significant (Fig. a body and size age, between fledgling relationship and time positive incubation significant a traits found history We life of and summary size full Information). a body Supporting present between We in Relationship S1 2. Table Table (see in in Information extinction models Supporting fitting to Results the best years in the with models of fitting relationship ranking best negative a the present a we by analysis, found each For be would time in models. nearer these normal- draws for extinction residuals structure as squared the these with [ log-transform variability LMMs to annual extinction:log natural fit detrended proximity We then logged, closer We structure rate. the at represent the growth trend. values change of the these models population remove extinc- Therefore, from in ity. their to residuals variability to them the annual contribute extract square greater and we and increase in this, to investigate itself To expected manifest extinction. is should capita stochasticity This of per influence that tion. the hypothesis decline, the populations As support would models these variability in Detrended size. count. size population abundance with population next decreases the for until rate year coefficient growth one positive than calculate before A more to structure rate of able . the gaps growth not with were were final We LMMs there populations’ fit where measurement. a We years abundance of in population each rate estimates to growth finite [1] geometric ( permit constant To a to rate add growth expected extinction. we from extirpation, is geometric away rate) calculate deterio- further growth We genetic year (geometric diminishes. one to change size due (N population fitness population ln of individual as = rate declining negative year-to-year of increasingly the consequence become effects, a Allee as and vortex, ration error extinction Poisson the package. a to 2020) According fit (Hartig therefore ‘DHARMa’ We the converge. rate using growth would overdispersion Geometric for models models the the of test none and however distribution distribution, error binomial t N / 10 t+1 (BM). ,weeN where ), upr o h yohssta aiblt nana ouaingot aeincreases rate growth population annual in variability that hypothesis the for Support t stepplto bnac nagvnya n N and year given a in abundance population the is λ o1(ouainsz)+log + size) log10(population ˜ [ln(residuals Δ AIC 4 2 > ]˜yast xicin+log + extinction to years ˜ )] )frdt nalseiscmie,ol birds only combined, species all on data for 2) 10 B)+lg0pplto size):log log10(population + (BM) ln(residuals) t+1 vψαςτ εξτινςτιον το ψεαρς ῀v λ stepplto size population the is 10 B)+yasto years + (BM) 2 npopulation in ] λ 10 as: ) (BM) λ Posted on Authorea 11 Aug 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159714949.96971742 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. Tay&Gog 92 emr 95;seisa h atedo h iehsoysedcniumse obe to seem continuum speed populations et with history larger Dirzo life odds naturally the 2008; by at of al. end tempered seem fast et is may the Liow species at findings 2005; fecund species our al. 1995); highly Newmark 2017), et of threat 1992; risk Cardillo IUCN George al. extinction 1997; & (e.g. (Tracy Owens the Gittleman et level However, & & threat Ripple Bennett 2014). extinction Price 2009; 1995; and al. 2004; Blackburn size Cowlishaw al. & body traits & et (Gaston between biological Isaac association status) Davidson between 2000; positive interaction 2008; Though reported Bennett the frequently phylum. & al. of the vertebrate (Owens et the property process across emergent Brook threatening trend evidence an 2007; (Fig. similar of is found is declines a we type extinction size risk suggesting species; the to population extinction 2), the as and collapsing (Table that of rate groups rapidly acknowledged size growth all geometric of is body for in the risk it decline true by at of was affected rate is This also the species is 1). exacerbates strong but a size size, a body when population small with of of that intervention, question function conservation key a vortex. early only the extinction not that for the suggest need into results the fall Our not emphasizes et do this (Johnson species diversity terms, genetic ensuring practical it of on as In restoration focus of the population decline to 2010). a the leading save this; populations al. to be support healthy required to from extirpation this change translocated struggle of ( of individuals the verge may population implication of the vortex panther The on magnitude extinction Florida in populations the 1). the the increase Well-studied in into an Fig. extinction. increase fall found 2; towards non-linear that we (Table moves a species Indeed, shrinks require intervention, population 2008). and propor- conservation as saved in with al. decline result even et of to that rate (Brook expected is capita diminishes are size per effects analysis. year-to-year Allee population this the and as in deterioration declines model genetic larger performing account vortex, may tionally best extinction dataset clear small the the relatively to Our not According is 2005). of species this range al. among that et greater persistence fact Saether a population 1995; the As across greater (Newmark for extinction traits reporting fit increases. history imminent studies size improved life to previous slower body significantly vulnerable with with as agreement more a extinction in The be from provide sizes, to population 2). distance population suggests not (Table appear the 2), size species (Table did determining population size smaller-bodied in models and body such, important and size fitting increasingly size body populations becomes best between cannot between size We term interaction the the interaction 2006). for size; vortex. an Holmes coefficients included extinction positive & body spirals that (Fagan an self-reinforcing of those persistence avoid of to long-term influence to compared indicative of the densities probability proximity declines, high out the the population at maximize that rule populations a to suggests maintain and This as to extinction rate 2006). taken to Holmes increasing be dependent & should an is Fagan care extinction at 1993; Accordingly, to (Lande decreases population size extinction a population of altered to proximity of be the logarithm can that vortex the show extinction on results the our & of findings, rate previous (Fagan the Reinforcing populations that dynamics time declining extinction first the size. in the on body for studies proneness by show empirical species. additionally, and extinction at-risk and, theoretical of in preexisting populations conservation corroborate of increase effective we the Here, an for 2006). demonstrated critical Holmes has is populations work small or Previous of models, dynamics fitting the Understanding best taxa. non-avian the larger-bodied the in in in negative variability and included in Fig. significant was increase Discussion was 2; greater extinction interaction (Table a This models to decreases suggesting 2). our years size 2), (Table all (Table and body thereof size, subset units size as AIC body higher body two to is popu- within between variability relation year-to-year those interaction In population that An detrended annual showing approached. log-transformed of 2), is 2). magnitude the Fig. extinction the between 2; as that (Table increase relationship suggest extinction indeed negative to does significant years variability and a lation change found population we in groups, variability three all For variability Population uacnoo coryi concolor Puma 5 a nyrvre fe h nrdcino several of introduction the after reversed only was ) Posted on Authorea 11 Aug 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159714949.96971742 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ro,BW,Tal,LW rdhw ...(06.Mnmmval ouainszsadglobal and sizes population viable Minimum (2006). C.J.A. Bradshaw, & L.W. both Traill, underpins B.W., extinctions. allometry Brook, biased why size– overkill: body fits modern equation and One prehistoric (2005). D. Bowman, & B.W. in Brook, extinctions mammal of correlates life-history Africa. West and behavioural, Ecological, vortex? extinction (2003). population. the J.S. vertebrate in Brashares, declining Trapped a (2010). in LA. effects Flodin genetic & Strong M. Larsson, A., management. Pauliny, population D., and Blomqvist, effects Allee Multiple Ecol. (2007). Evol. F. Trends Courchamp, & E. evolutionary Angulo, or chance L., Berec, birds: among risk extinction in Variation predisposition? (1997). I.P.F. Owens, & P.M. Bennett, 1.43.14. version package R https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn. Inference. in Multi-Model success invasion MuMIn: promote (2019). traits Barto´n, K. history life Fast reptiles. (2017). and I. amphibians Capellini, & S.E. manuscript. Street, this W.L., in Allen, used figures the producing Cited for Literature Williams Lara to grateful are generally We a and for speeds need history the life demonstrate fast Acknowledgments processes. with results stochastic taxa size our to small-bodied body and susceptibility in on taxa, high data especially all a species-specific targets popula- that across vortex, population real-life fact available to in extinction the widely approach relation this by conservative the investigate most highlighted in is specifically of the vortex findings to arguably extinction rate our first the is of the the relevance to knowledge, practical exacerbates vulnerability our The differential to size magnitude tions. investigate and, of body con- traits to populations biological small orders studies intrinsic among first two that to contexts the is evidence environmental of (˜7kg) find and one ecological we providing subset small in study, avian the disparity this of our large stituting because in the subset despite masses (˜350kg). avian conclusion, be subset body our In non-avian could in of our observed elements range of not stochastic to that the is to years than pattern size; species smaller due and similar smaller-bodied variability body size a of year-to-year in that body dynamics in variation suspect between population (Sinclair We increase interaction the elsewhere any detectable. negative that noted stochastic, less given significant been more 2); the (Table has inherently explain subset as 2006; is to non-avian species, Holmes the help in & smaller-bodied also extinction (Fagan in may stability populations This population that these 2003). lower idea of of the extirpation indicative supports the is time, causing through variability in stressors. to population involved other Brook predisposed investigating and are are analysis, effects processes they third Allee therefore decay, stochastic our Sinclair 2012), genetic of Martin 2001; of results & Hanski impacts species Wilson The & demographic smaller-bodied 2004; (Peltonen deleterious that elements al. the is stochastic et to explanation Saether to faster possible 2002; susceptible respond A Engen & more 2016). & Johst are 1995; Saether al. and Hanski 2003; et histories & Hilbers (Cook life 2005; size faster population al. have of et effect Saether confounding 1997; the Brandl for controlling after vulnerable more tal et 08.Ta h antd fana ouainvraiiyi ihri mle-oidspecies smaller-bodied in higher is variability population annual of magnitude the That 2008). . osr Biol. Conser. rc .Sc Lond., Soc. R. Proc. 2 185-191. 22, , cl Lett Ecol. 7 733-743. 17, , ,2,222-230. 20, ., 6,401-408. 264, 6 o.Ecol. Pop. M vl Biol. Evol. BMC 7 137-141. 47, , 0 33. 10, , Posted on Authorea 11 Aug 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159714949.96971742 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ibr,JP,Snii . icni . cipr .. it,C,Rniii .&Hibet,MAJ (2016). M.A.J. Huijbregts, & C. Rondinini, C., Pinto, A.M., Schipper, P., Visconti, L., Santini, J.P., Regression Hilbers, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DHARMa Mixed) 0.3.1. / version (Multi-Level package Hierarchical R for Models. Diagnostics Residual DHARMa: (2020). influence F. patterns Hartig, Mating vortex. (2020). M.J.G. extinction Gage, the & to O.Y. vulnerability Martin, L., Michalczyk, A.J., Lumley, J.L., Godwin, 19-34. Sinauer, MA, Sunderland, (1986). Soul´e, M.E. extinction. & of M.E. threat Gilpin, the and size B. Soc. body Royal Birds, Trans. (1995). T.M. Los Blackburn, ICLARM, & sources. K.J. data Gaston, and design concepts, p. 2000: 344 FishBase Philippines. (2000). Ba˜nos, Laguna, Editors. Pauly, D. & R. Froese, and traits species between relation the of review risk. A extinction (2019). P. Cardoso, & Jusl´en, A. F., biology. Chichorro, conservation in Species. Directions Mammal Large (1994). in G. Caughley, Risk & Extinction C.D.L. High Orme, of W., Causes Sechrest, 1241. Multiple O.R.P., Bininda-Emonds, (2005). J., A. Bielby, Purvis, K.E., Jones, G.M., Mace, extinction: mammals. of M., in predictability Cardillo, decline The of (2008). correlates A. Purvis, external & and K.E. Biological Jones, Zero- J.L., for Gittleman, Packages G.M., Among Mace, Flexibility M., and Cardillo, H.J., Speed Modeling. Skaug, Balances Mixed A., glmmTMB Linear Nielsen, (2017). Generalized C.W., B.M. inflated Berg, Bolker, A., & Magnusson, M. K.J., Maechler, Benthem, van K., global Kristensen, under M.E., drivers Brooks, extinction among Synergies (2008). C.J.A. change. Bradshaw, & N.S. Sodhi, B.W., Brook, unrelated. are risk extinction aa,WF oms ..(06.Qatfigteetnto vortex. extinction the Quantifying (2006). E.E. Mammals: Forest Holmes, Afrotropical & in W.F. Fagan, Density Population Species. and Neotropical Diet with Size, Comparison Body A (1997). A. Purvis, after & years J.E. 145 Fa, rarity Zealand. and New Auckland, extinction plant of settlement of Determinants European (2000). J.R. Young, Anthropocene. & the R.P. in Duncan, Defaunation (2014). al. et ecological R Multiple Dirzo (2009). G. mammals. Ceballos, in & extinction J.H. to Brown, pathways A.G., Boyer, of M.J., species Hamilton, large-bodied A.D., and Davidson, small-bodied of lifetimes islands. expected on On birds (1995). I. Hanski, & R.R. Cook, rnsEo.Ecol Evol. Trends il Conserv Biol. m Nat. Am. 4,205-212. 347, , 4,307-315. 145, , 3 453-460. 23, , cl Lett. Ecol. . 237: osrainBooy h cec fSact n Diversity and Scarcity of Science The Biology: Conservation rc al cd Sci. Acad. Natl. Proc. 220-229. lb hneBiol Change Glob. .Ai.Ecol. Anim. J. ,375-382. 9, , h Journal R The Ecology 7 6 98-112. 66, , .Ai.Ecol. Anim. J. Science 1 3048-3061. 81, , 6 4226-4239. 26, . rc .Sc B. Soc. R. Proc. 0,10702-10705. 106, , () 378-400. 9(2), , 4,401-406. 345, , cl Lett. Ecol. 3 215-244. 63, , 7,1441-1448. 275, , ,51-60. 9, , Philos. Science 0,1239- 309, , . Posted on Authorea 11 Aug 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159714949.96971742 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. aoae,F,Gdy .. oe-a,JV,Rdiuz . ous . aa-ac,M,Rvla .& E. Revilla, M., Casas-Marce, S., Roques, A., Rodriguez, J.V., Lopez-Bao, J.A., Godoy, F., Palomares, versus loss Habitat birds: 12144-12148. in predators. 97, extinction introduced of and basis persecution Ecological human (2000). P.M. Bennett, a & AmphiBIO, I.P.F. Owens, (2017). traits. G.C. ecological Costa, amphibian & for C. database Penone, global G., Santos-Barrera, V.A., Sao-Pedro, B.F., National Oliveira, American North Western in Populations Parks. Mammal of Extinction reptiles. (1995). and W.D. mammals, Newmark, An birds, (2015). with S.K. analyses Ernest, comparative Morgan 3109. perform & 96, to D.L. Freeman, database D., life-history Sivam, amniote B., Chan, Size. E., Body Baldridge, N.P., Mammalian Myhrvold, of Evolution the and Endurance Ecol. Fasting Func. (1990). G.J. Hickling, Living biodiversity. & The in J.S. (2005). trends Millar, J. track Randers, to & series V. time Kapos, population B M., species Jenkins, using J., Index: Lamoreux, Planet T., Ricketts, N.C. R.E., Stenseth, mammals. Green, & larger J., L. in Loh, Flynn, rates H., extinction Mannila, and K., origination Lintulaakso, Higher E., (2008). Bingham, M., Fortelius, H., L. Liow, Stochasticity Environmental and Demographic Catastrophes. from Random Extinction and Population of Risks (1993). R. Lande, butterflies. tropical in proneness extinction Biol. of correlates Environment. Ecological Stochastic (2004). a L.P. in Koh, Risk Extinction and Size 612-617. Body 78, (1997). R. size. Brandl, body & & not Quaternary K. but Late M.K. Johst, ecology, the Oli, and during history J.A., species life mammal Hostetler, extinctions: of L.M., ‘megafauna’ loss Penfold, of Determinants D.E., Panther. (2002). Florida Wildt, C.N. the J., Johnson, of Howard, Restoration D., Genetic McBride, (2010). Shindle, R.C., S.J. M., Belden, O’Brien, Lotz, M., Cunningham, D., E., Jansen, Land, Darrell M.E., Roelke, R., D.P., stochasticity Onorato, demographic W.E., of Johnson, effect the predict history risk? life extinction Can on (2012). P. Forslund, & threats. T. extinction Jeppsson, multiple to B. respond Soc. species R. How Proc. (2004). G. persistence. Cowlishaw, population & of N.J.B. predictor Isaac, a as mass body using mammals Biol. for targets population Setting 6,289-295. 360, . 1 385-393. 31, , 8 2215-2220. 18, , osr.Biol. Conserv. ,5-12. 4, , 7,1135-1141. 271, , m Nat. Am. ,512-526. 9, , m Nat. Am. 7,706-720. 179, , 4,911-927. 142, , rceig fteNtoa cdm fSine fteUSA the of Sciences of Academy National the of Proceedings c.Data Sci. 8 ,170123. 4, , Science rc al cd Sci. Acad. Natl. Proc. rc .Sc B Soc. R. Proc. 2,1641-1645. 329, , hls rn.RylSoc. Royal Trans. Philos. 6,2221–2227. 269, , Conserv 0,6097–6102. 105, , Oikos . Conserv. Ecology , , Posted on Authorea 11 Aug 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159714949.96971742 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. icar ...(03.Mma ouain:flcuto,rglto,lf itr n hi implications their and history life regulation, fluctuation, populations: A Mammal Extinction: (2003). of A.R.E. Models Sinclair, Life-History (2003). Spiders. D.A. Island Spiller, with & Test S. Legendre, J., Clobert, the Dynamics. T.W., Predicts Population Schoener, Variation Avian Life-History on (2004). Stochasticity H. Demographic R.J., Weimerskirch, of Robertson, & populations. Effects A.P. bird W., Moller, of Rendall, S., extinction J., Engen, to Merila, B.E., Time F.R., Saether, (2005). Gehlbach, Becker, J. C., M.M., Torok, Feu, Lambrechts, & W., Du D. Fiedler, J., Thomson, E., Dickinson, Mattysen, J.E., M.E., Brommer, Visser, P.H., A.P., Moller, S., rates. Engen, growth B.E., population Saether, avian in B. variation Soc. of Royal Pattern Trans. (2002). M.A., S. dynamics Nicoll, Engen, population C., & influences history B.E. Jones, life Saether, How A., (2013). Jenkins, H. Weimerskirch, environments. J.M., & fluctuating A. Gaillard, P.H., in Ozgul, Becker, M., M.K., C., Festa-Bianchet, Oli, Barbraud, K., K.B., F.S., Norris, Armitage, Dobson, R., Altwegg, D.T., S., Blumstein, Engen, V., and Grotan, Inbreeding T., Coulson, (1998). B.E., I. Saether, Hanski, metapopulation. & butterfly W. Fortelius, a P., in Vikman, extinction M., vertebrates. Kankare, smallest Extinction M., and Kuussaari, (2017). largest I., D.J. world’s Saccheri, McCauley, the & for extinction? A.J. acute Wirsing, to most M., megafauna is Hoffman, risk worlds T.M., the Newsome, eating C., Wolf, we W.J., Are Ripple, Van (2019). M.W., B. Hayward, Worm, F., Lett. Courchamp, & Conserv. G., A.D. Ceballos, Wallach, M.G., B., Betts, Valkenburgh, T.M., Newsome, C., mammals. Wolf, (2016). world’s W.J., H. the Young, P.A.,Ripple, & to Lindsey, C. risk Wolf, T., A.D., extinction Levi, Wallach, and M., C.A., Peres, hunting Galetti, T.M., Bushmeat R., Newsome, Dirzo, B., Machovina, G., D.W., Chapron, Macdonald, M.G., Betts, for Foundation K., Abernethy, R W.J., computing. https://www.r-project.org/ Ripple, statistical URL for Austria. environment Vienna, and language Computing. A Statistical R: declining (2019). in Team. risk Core extinction R Predicting (2000). G.M. Mace, & species. G. Cowlishaw, J.L., influence artiodactyls. Gittleman, economy in A., regional hunting Purvis, and of Biology impact the extinction: and to risk Hunting extinction (2007). Models. J.L. Effects Gittleman, Mixed & Nonlinear S.A. and Price, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme Linear URL (2019). 3.1.140. D. version Sarkar, package & R S. DebRoy, D., Extinction Bates, and J., Colonization Pinheiro, by Explained Occupancy Shrews. Island in of Rates Patterns Extirpation. (1991). of I. Verge the Hanski, on A. Lynx Peltonen, Iberian of Population a for Biol. Vortex Extinction Conserv. Possible (2012). M. Delibes, rc .Sc B. Soc. R. Proc. 2 12627. 12, , 6 689-697. 26, , Ecology 5,1185-1195. 357, , m Nat. Am. 6,1947-1952. 267, , 2 1698-1708. 72, , m Nat. Am. 6,558-573. 162, , 8,743-759. 182, , Nature 9,491-494. 392, , 9 rc .Sc B. Soc. R. Proc. .Sc pnSci. Open Soc. R. rc alAa.Sci. Acad. Natl Proc. m Nat. Am. Ecology 7,1845-1851. 274, , 6,793-802. 164, , 6 693-700. 86, , ,160498. 3, , 1,10678-10683. 114, , Philos. Posted on Authorea 11 Aug 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159714949.96971742 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. pce aeUisDt yeSeisbnma conigfrseisseiceet.Teuiso ouainaudneeg ubro niiul,nme fbedn ar t. conigfreet fui fmaueet yeo aaue omntrtepplto ..fl ouaincut ape rx t. conigfrteeet fsuydsg.Rno necp admitretRno intercept Random intercept Random intercept Random design. study of effects the for accounting etc., proxy sample, count, population full e.g. population the monitor to used data of Type LPD. effects. measurement. the of population-specific from unit for taken of accounting measurement effects population. abundance for single population accounting a Raw etc., representing pairs LPD breeding the of from number ID individuals, Unique of number Description e.g. abundance population of units The effects. species-specific for accounting binomial Species size type Population Data Units name Species ID Population Parameter 1. Table Tables exacerbates-the-extinction-vortex image9.emf file Hosted 2. Fig. exacerbates-the-extinction-vortex image1.emf file Hosted CIs. 95% indicate 1. for bars presented Fig. are Error plots fixed species. interaction that non-avian for Also, d) effect effects. and negative Figures negative or species effect. and positive avian fixed positive a c) each demonstrates of in species, zero mixture increase all with a deviation b) modeled overlap is standard not of there one do distribution otherwise a effect (mean estimates the given effect, fixed standardized coefficient extinction shows a Also, were to for intercept mass. years effects CIs the body in Where fixed therefore and change size The modeling, expected population the to for respectively. show values prior CIs, mean with 1) 95% ( variability = analysis population and third annual deviation estimates the standard from show all models 0, bars fitting b) = CIs. best and for 95% the presented Circles of indicate effect, are estimates bars fixed coefficient ). plots Error that The interaction a) for Also, species. effect 2. non-avian negative effects. Figure d) or negative and positive and species a Where positive avian demonstrates of effect. c) zero fixed mixture with species, each modeled show a overlap in of estimates is increase not coefficient distribution deviation do there Also, standard the effect otherwise one fixed mass. shows a a given intercept body extinction for and the to CIs size years therefore population in modeling, change for ( values expected to analysis the mean prior second with 1) the rate = growth from geometric deviation models standard fitting best 0, the = of estimates coefficient rate The a) 1. Figure of Consequences Legends and Figure Causes Patterns, (2016). R. Dirzo, Defaunation. & Anthropocene M. Galetti, rule. D.J., McCauley, predict Cope’s recovery H.S., and Young, and law starvation Damuth’s of both Dynamics and (2018). risk S. extinction Redner, & growth C.P. population birds. Kempes, sensitivity, alpine J.D., on Yeakel, sympatric strategies for history climate life to of response Influence and (2012). K. Martin, & S. Wilson, Extinction. of Determinants the 102-122. On 139, (1992). T.L. George, & C.R. Tracy, conservation. for .Crlsadbr hwetmtsad9%Cs epciey h xdeet eesadrie (mean standardized were effects fixed The respectively. CIs, 95% and estimates show bars and Circles ). uln fprmtr sdi LMMs/GLMMs. in used parameters of Outline vial at available at available hls rn.RylSc B. Soc. Royal Trans. Philos. https://authorea.com/users/349987/articles/474946-small-body-size- https://authorea.com/users/349987/articles/474946-small-body-size- nu e.Eo.Eo.Syst. Evol. Ecol. Rev. Annu. 5,1729-1740. 358, , M Ecol. BMC 10 a.Commun. Nat. 7 333-358. 47, , al 1. Table 2 9. 12, , uln fprmtr sdi LMMs/GLMMs. in used parameters of Outline m Nat. Am. ,657. 9, , , ouainvariability population emti growth geometric al 1. Table Fixed intercept Random type Effect uln fprmtr sdi LMMs/GLMMs. in used parameters of Outline Posted on Authorea 11 Aug 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159714949.96971742 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. oyms B)Lgtasomd(ae1)bd as(g fspecies. extirpation of from (kg) backwards mass counting body variable, 10) time (base Rescaled Log-transformed extinction to Years (BM) mass Body Log 1. Table 10 ouainsz o-rnfre bs 0 ouainaudnemeasurement. abundance population 10) (base Log-transformed size Population uln fprmtr sdi LMMs/GLMMs. in used parameters of Outline 11 al 1. Table uln fprmtr sdi LMMs/GLMMs. in used parameters of Outline al 1. Table Fixed Fixed Fixed uln fprmtr sdi LMMs/GLMMs. in used parameters of Outline