arabic.cnn.com
New Study Challenges 'Sixth Mass Extinction' Claim
A new study published in PLOS Biology refutes claims of a sixth mass extinction, finding that while biodiversity loss is real, extinction rates of plants and animals don't match those of past mass extinctions, with only 102 genera going extinct in the last 500 years, mostly on islands.
- What is the central finding of the new PLOS Biology study regarding the ongoing biodiversity crisis?
- The study challenges the assertion of a sixth mass extinction event. It found that while biodiversity loss is significant, extinction rates of plant and animal genera are far lower than those seen in past mass extinctions. Only 102 genera have gone extinct in the last 500 years, a significantly smaller number than what would be expected during a mass extinction event.
- What are the potential limitations of this study, and what are the broader implications of its findings for conservation efforts?
- The study acknowledges limitations, including the possibility of underreporting extinctions, especially among insects. However, its findings suggest that while biodiversity loss remains a serious concern, particularly in island ecosystems, the current rate doesn't meet the criteria of a mass extinction event. This implies a need for more nuanced approaches to conservation, focusing on specific vulnerable species and habitats rather than a generalized 'sixth extinction' narrative.
- How does this study's methodology and scope differ from previous research claiming a sixth mass extinction, and what are the implications of these differences?
- Unlike previous research focusing on a limited subset of species (e.g., 5400 vertebrate genera), this study analyzed 163,022 plant and animal species, examining extinction at the genus level. This broader scope reveals that extinctions are concentrated in island environments and that overall extinction rates, particularly among birds and mammals, appear to be slowing, contradicting claims of accelerating mass extinction.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article presents a balanced view by presenting both sides of the ongoing debate regarding the sixth mass extinction. It highlights a recent study that challenges the assertion of a rapid mass extinction event, while also acknowledging the significant biodiversity loss and the concerns raised by other studies. The headline does not sensationalize the issue, presenting the findings of the study neutrally.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and objective. The article uses precise terminology such as 'genus' and 'species' and avoids emotionally charged language. There is no clear bias in word choice or tone.
Bias by Omission
The article acknowledges a limitation in the data used, noting that the IUCN data might not fully capture all extinct genera, especially among insects. This potential omission is explicitly mentioned, mitigating any significant bias. The focus on genus-level extinction might also overlook the impact on species-level extinction, although this is addressed in the discussion of the differing studies. The article also does not address the potential impacts of climate change on biodiversity loss, which might be considered an omission depending on the scope of the article.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article directly addresses the loss of biodiversity, focusing on the extinction of plant and animal genera. The study indicates that while extinctions are occurring, they are not at the rate of a mass extinction event. However, the loss of 102 genera in the last 500 years, with a concentration on island species, highlights the significant impact of human activities on biodiversity and ecosystems. The article also notes a slowing of extinction rates in recent decades, possibly due to conservation efforts, but the overall impact remains negative due to the continued loss of species.