Co-extinction Analysis Darkens Biodiversity Picture

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Even more species may become extinct in the next few decades than previously feared, according to a study published today in Science. By tallying up parasites and other known "affiliates" that depend on species on the endangered list, the authors estimate that another 6,300 species will disappear along with the endangered ones.

Some affiliated species, including many parasites, are adapted to a single host species. Thus, if the host becomes extinct, so does the parasite. Other species--for example, butterflies that rely on plants to host their larvae--can switch to another host if their preferred one dies out. But as more and more host species disappear, the affiliate may run out of alternatives. To estimate the importance of this effect, the researchers looked at a wide variety of cases where they knew which affiliates depended on which hosts, including pollinating wasps, butterflies, and various parasites. They found that how many host species an affiliate could choose from mathematically determined how sensitive it was to extinction of the hosts. This relationship should allow a better understanding of the global extinction rate.

Scientists have recognized the importance of such "co-extinction" for some time. "What's new is that we've invented a way to quantify it that can be applied to any other group that has sufficient data," says Robert Colwell of the University of Connecticut, one of the authors of the study. He notes that the method could be extended to other hosts and affiliates, and that many more species are likely to be at risk. Remarks Colwell: "The more we look, the more we find relationships." --Don Monroe

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe