Quick search in Citations
*Required field
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search in Journals
AnywhereCitationPNAS NexusProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Advanced Search
SUGGESTED SEARCHES:
Covid-19 Artificial Intelligence Mpox Climate Change Gun Violence
Research Article
Ecology
Free access

A global map of species at risk of extinction due to natural hazards

Fernando Gonçalves [email protected], Harith Farooq https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9031-2785, Mike Harfoot, +22 , Mathias M. Pires https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2500-4748, Nacho Villar https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3609-4080, Lilian Sales https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1159-6412, Carolina Carvalho https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0063-2185, Carolina Bello https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6351-4998, Carine Emer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1258-2816, Ricardo S. Bovendorp https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0734-1866, Calebe Mendes, Gabrielle Beca, Laís Lautenschlager https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2526-2333, Yuri Souza https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2133-0469, Felipe Pedrosa, Claudia Paz https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9754-4087, Valesca B. Zipparro, Paula Akkawi, William Bercê https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2837-3928, Fabiano Farah, André V. L. Freitas https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5763-4990, Luís Fábio Silveira https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2576-7657, Fábio Olmos https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3832-6455, Jonas Geldmann https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1191-7610, Bo Dalsgaard https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2867-2805, and Mauro GalettiAuthors Info & Affiliations
Edited by Pablo Marquet, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile; received December 2, 2023; accepted May 5, 2024
June 17, 2024
121 (26) e2321068121
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2321068121
Track CitationsAdd to Reading List
PDF/EPUB

Significance

This study explores the global overlap between species distributions and the occurrences of earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, and volcanoes, to show that 10% of all 34,035 assessed terrestrial vertebrates (5.7% of birds, 7% of mammals, 16% of amphibians, and 14.5% of reptiles) are at risk due to at least one natural hazard, while 5.4% are at high risk. Species at high risk are mainly found in the tropics and on islands. Exposure to natural hazards can augment anthropogenic drivers, thereby compounding their impacts. Therefore, conservation strategies, such as intensive population management in situ and ex situ and the establishment of insurance populations, may become pivotal for the survival of those species in the next decades.

Abstract

An often-overlooked question of the biodiversity crisis is how natural hazards contribute to species extinction risk. To address this issue, we explored how four natural hazards, earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, and volcanoes, overlapped with the distribution ranges of amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles that have either narrow distributions or populations with few mature individuals. To assess which species are at risk from these natural hazards, we combined the frequency and magnitude of each natural hazard to estimate their impact. We considered species at risk if they overlapped with regions where any of the four natural hazards historically occurred (n = 3,722). Those species with at least a quarter of their range subjected to a high relative impact were considered at high risk (n = 2,001) of extinction due to natural hazards. In total, 834 reptiles, 617 amphibians, 302 birds, and 248 mammals were at high risk and they were mainly distributed on islands and in the tropics. Hurricanes (n = 983) and earthquakes (n = 868) affected most species, while tsunamis (n = 272), and volcanoes (n = 171) affected considerably fewer. The region with the highest number of species at high risk was the Pacific Ring of Fire, especially due to volcanoes, earthquakes, and tsunamis, while hurricane-related high-risk species were concentrated in the Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and northwestern Pacific Ocean. Our study provides important information regarding the species at risk due to natural hazards and can help guide conservation attention and efforts to safeguard their survival.
The critical role of biodiversity in sustaining not only natural systems but also human populations is recognized by the convention on biological diversity (CBD) (1). Yet, the extinction of species and degradation of ecosystems continue at a rate not experienced in human history (2, 3). To reverse this trend, the Parties at the CBD have recently agreed to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (1) and researchers suggested the ambitious goal of keeping the extinctions of species at a low level over the next 100 y (4). The ongoing pulse of animal species loss, also referred to as the Anthropocene defaunation (2), is mainly a consequence of direct and indirect human impacts on the planet. Nonetheless, species that are under threat from human activities often have restricted distribution or limited abundance; thus, they may also be more susceptible to extinction through natural hazards, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, and volcanoes (5–10).
Natural hazards are usually defined as events that overwhelm the community’s resilience and have the potential to push species toward extinction (11). One example is the 2017 Hurricane Maria, which likely extirpated 239 of the remaining 250 individuals of the endemic and critically endangered imperial amazon parrot (Amazona imperialis) from Dominica in the eastern Caribbean Sea (12). Human-driven changes in the environment may also restrict species ranges to areas with high incidence of natural hazards, which in turn can push these species closer to extinction. For example, the critically endangered Quito rocket frog (Colostethus jacobuspetersi) was once widely distributed across the central and northern Andes but is now restricted to areas around the Volcán Cotopaxi, an active volcano in Ecuador that has erupted more than 50 times since 1738 (13).
To promote resilience to natural hazards, species may be translocated to other suitable habitats and have other in situ and ex situ conservation measures established, such as in the case of the Puerto Rican parrot (Amazona vittata), endemic to Puerto Rico in the Caribbean Sea (14, 15). Despite once being widespread and abundant, human activity and recent hurricanes nearly caused its extinction. Due to the continued risk posed by frequent hurricanes, researchers established captive breeding programs and new wild populations in different locations across Puerto Rico, thereby facilitating its recovery (14, 15). As these cases illustrate, identifying those species that are frequently exposed to natural hazards can be an important guide for prioritizing monitoring and for the timely implementation of in situ and ex situ conservation programs.
The overall risk of a species experiencing negative impacts from natural hazards is expected to depend on the exposure (e.g., the frequency and magnitude) to the hazard and the species’ intrinsic characteristics (5–10, 12, 16–19). For example, species with reduced mobility (e.g., most amphibians and reptiles), small body size (e.g., rodents and marsupials), slow reproductive rates (e.g., tortoises, parrots), specialised habitat requirements (e.g., lowland-affiliated species), or specific dietary requirements (notably nectarivorous and frugivorous species) are likely to be more susceptible to frequent and intense natural hazard events (8–10, 16, 18, 20–22). In addition, natural hazards can also cause indirect effects that may affect nearly all taxa, by promoting habitat degradation and temporary changes in local climatic conditions (6, 7, 10, 12, 17, 20–23), altering the onset of sexual maturity (24), accelerating biological aging via changes to the immune system (25) and increasing the vulnerability to human impacts (26). These case-based observations support the need to understand risks posed by natural hazards. However, even basic knowledge on the number and distribution of species at risk due to natural hazards remains lacking at the global scale.
To address this knowledge gap, we provide an evaluation of the risk posed by natural hazards to terrestrial vertebrate species worldwide, focusing especially on those species that have limited distributions and/or occur at low numbers. First, we selected all amphibian, bird, mammal, and reptile species with a maximum population size of 1,100 mature individuals and/or those with a range size less than or equal to 2,500 km2 based on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (27). Second, we constructed an estimate for the likelihood of impact from four natural hazards (earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, and volcanoes) by analyzing approximately 50 y of historical data concerning the frequency and magnitude of events. We then identified all species whose ranges overlap with known occurrences of hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes. Finally, we classified the species at “high risk” as those for which at least a quarter of their range overlapped with areas of high relative impact from at least one natural hazard.

Results

Across all amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles (n = 34,035), we identified 8,813 species with limited population size and/or a restricted global range size (SI Appendix, Fig. S2). Among those species, 42% (3,722 out of 8,813 species) overlapped with regions where one or more major natural hazard had occurred in the past 50 y (Figs. 1 and 2A, Table 1, and Datasets S1–S4). Of that subset of 3,722 species, 54% (2,001 species) were at high risk due to natural hazards (Figs. 1 and 2B, Table 1, and Datasets S1–S4).
Fig. 1.
Number of species ranges (1,502 reptiles, 1,183 amphibians, 632 birds, and 405 mammals) overlapping with each natural hazard and the relative weighted impact. The red square represents a subset of species (834 reptiles, 617 amphibians, 302 birds, and 248 mammals) with at least 25% of their range overlapping with areas experiencing a relative impact of at least 0.25. Varying circle sizes were employed to represent differences in log-transformed range sizes while the colours of the circles are based on the weighted frequency experienced by each species.
Fig. 2.
Global distribution of 3,722 species that met our criteria and are considered at risk of extinction due to four natural hazards. The map shows the combined distribution of 1,502 reptiles, 1,183 amphibians, 632 birds, and 405 mammals (Top panel A). Global distribution of 2,001 species that met our criteria and are considered at high risk of extinction due to four natural hazards: volcanoes (red circle), earthquakes (yellow circles), tsunamis (green circle), and hurricanes (purple circle) (Bottom panel B). The map shows the combined distribution of 834 reptiles, 617 amphibians, 302 birds, and 248 mammals (Bottom panel B). Varying circle sizes and colors were employed to enhance the visualization of four types of hazards. The illustrations above each map represent a subset of species that met our threshold and that have already been shown to be susceptible to natural hazards.
Table 1.
Number of species that met our criteria and are considered at risk and high risk of extinction due to earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, and hurricanes
 Species in earthquake zonesSpecies in volcanic zonesSpecies in tsunami zonesSpecies in hurricane zones
GroupRiskHigh-riskRiskHigh-riskRiskHigh-riskRiskHigh-risk
Birds144102683033190161156
Mammals598528116589108118
Amphibians207391796726929294199
Reptiles187290536345564435510
All species5978682281711,120272998983
*Species are considered at risk when at least a small percentage of their extant geographical range overlaps with areas where natural hazards are frequent. Species are considered at high risk when at least 25% of their extant geographical range overlaps with areas experiencing a relative impact of at least 0.25.
The 2,001 high-risk species were mainly distributed in the Neotropics (~34%), followed by the Indomalayian (~31%) biogeographic realm (Datasets S1–S4). Almost 70% (615 reptiles, 267 amphibians, 266 birds, and 207 mammals) were only found on islands (Datasets S1–S4). Of the 2,001 high-risk species, 16% (129 reptiles, 86 amphibians, 69 birds, and 27 mammals) overlapped with regions where two or more major natural hazards have high incidence (Datasets S1–S4). Importantly, according to the latest IUCN assessment of the species, approximately 30% (247 amphibians, 171 reptiles, 98 mammals, and 89 birds) of the high risk species have their entire known range outside protected areas and a specific conservation plan was identified for only 15% (297 species; Datasets S1–S4).
Most species at high risk were reptiles (834), followed by amphibians (617), birds (302), and mammals (248) (Fig. 2B, Table 1, SI Appendix, Figs. S3–S6, and Datasets S1–S4). Hurricanes were the most prominent natural hazard in our dataset, overlapping with 49% (983 species out of 2,001) of the high-risk species, followed by earthquakes 43% (868 species out of 2,001), tsunamis 13% (272 out of 2,001), and volcanoes 8% (171 out of 2,001) (Table 1, and SI Appendix, Figs. S7–S22, and Datasets S1–S4). The highest numbers of species at high risk due to volcanic, earthquake, and tsunami activities were located in the “Ring of Fire” along the Pacific Ocean and adjacent areas while hurricane-prone species were located primarily in the Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and northwestern Pacific Ocean (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3.
The distribution of the impact of volcanoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, and hurricanes. We added buffer circles on the maps of volcanoes, tsunamis, and earthquakes for visualization purposes. For grid cells where we had impact scores but no overlap with our subset of species, we displayed them in gray.

Discussion

In this first attempt to provide a global map of species at risk of extinction due to natural hazards, we identified 2,001 terrestrial vertebrate species that met our threshold of high risk of extinction due to one or more natural hazards. Although these species were found to be distributed across the world, they were focused on tropical regions and the majority were located on islands. The restricted geographic range of island-dwelling species is compounded by the propensity of natural hazards to impact tropical archipelagos characterized by high level of extinctions since colonization by humans (28). This highlights the multifaceted pressures experienced by species on tropical islands.
Species endemic to tropical islands, as well as all other areas with high probability of experiencing natural hazards, have mostly evolved and persisted in natural hazard-prone environments (5, 10). Therefore, the evolutionary histories of these species may have shaped their capacity to respond to natural hazards (29), such as the evolution of generalized feeding habits (5, 28). Species surviving past natural hazards might thus be more likely to persist in the face of future but analogous exposure to natural hazards (5, 30). However, generalized feeding habits and other adaptations that have prevented species from becoming extinct due to recurrent exposure to natural hazards (e.g., high dispersal ability, early maturation, a greater number of offspring and/or many reproductive events during a lifetime) might not be enough to survive the impacts of synergistic interactions between natural hazards and anthropogenic activities (8, 16). Thus, species with advantageous sets of traits may still fail to recover after facing climatic or geological events if their populations have already declined to small numbers or have been confined to a small geographical area. This may especially be problematic if combined with degraded habitat and fragmented landscapes (8, 16). Notably, human-modified landscapes often have restricted connectivity, which limits the ability of individuals to flee and establish populations in other locations (31). Specifically for tropical islands, human-introduced predators have driven numerous island endemics to extinction and caused many to be at high risk of extinction (28), jeopardizing their survival in the case of major natural hazard events. In addition to human impacts, climate-driven natural hazards (e.g., hurricanes) are predicted to increase in frequency and magnitude in the future (32), with unknown but probably significant impacts on biodiversity. Taken together, this highlights the need for implementing conservation measures to safeguard species at risk due to natural hazards.
Ecosystem-level conservation and restoration may effectively mitigate the long-term threat posed by natural hazards to biodiversity (33, 34) although the effectiveness of such efforts may depend on the frequency and magnitude of those events. Additionally, ecosystem-level approaches can influence the extent of human intervention necessary to manage the impacts of natural hazards on ecosystems (11). Natural barriers like mature sand dunes, mangrove forests, secondary forests, wetlands, and coral reefs, for instance, are all important elements of shore protection and flood mitigation during hurricanes and tsunamis (35, 36). Connecting native vegetation fragments and forest patches with broad corridors and establishing protected areas surrounding regions at risk, in addition to preserving existing ones, can also act to protect high-quality habitat and increase species’ range occupancy, reducing extinction risk by natural hazards such as volcanoes and earthquakes (17, 31, 33). Although such comprehensive approaches may both safeguard high-quality habitats and serve as a protective measure for species seeking refuge from the impact of natural hazards, we note that some natural hazard events, and especially volcanic eruptions, may in some cases be too severe that no in situ conservation intervention may help as a safeguarding measure. Despite this there is evidence that conservation interventions at local scales can be effective in preventing extinctions, including for several of the species highlighted in our study as at risk of extinction due to natural hazards (10, 14, 37–40).
Despite inevitably outdated information contained in some of the IUCN assessments, it is still concerning that only 15% of species at high risk of extinction due to natural hazards have conservation plans and the ranges of about 30% were not reported to be covered by any protected areas (27). Habitat protection and conservation interventions are cornerstone conservation strategies (33, 34) and successful examples include the recovery of the Puerto Rican amazon (A. vittata), the black robin (Petroica traversi), the Mauritius kestrel (Falco punctatus), the Visayan warty pig (Sus cebifrons), the takahe (Porphyrio hochstetteri), the Georgia blind salamander (Eurycea wallacei), the alligator lizard (Abronia meledona), the blue-sided treefrog (Agalychnis annae), and the akiapolaau (Hemignathus wilsoni) (37–45).
Conserving the species that are susceptible to being impacted by natural hazards requires an understanding of both the causes and consequences of small and fragmented populations (46); however, this information is often unavailable (46, 47). Some efforts have been made to undertake population viability analyses, taking into account the added complication of natural hazards alongside anthropogenic effects (48). Yet, we still lack basic life-history information to devise realistic population viability analyses for many of the species at high risk. Furthermore, it has also been difficult to determine the number of individuals required to avoid the fitness costs of a small population size and maintain the viability of populations (49).
In summary, assessing species’ vulnerability to natural hazards is a complex process, dependent on factors such as the frequency, magnitude, nature of the hazards, and species-specific traits. Our results indicate that approximately 10% of terrestrial vertebrate species globally are exposed to at least one type of natural hazard, with a notable increased prevalence for species on islands and across the tropics. Mitigation of anthropogenic threats combined with in situ and ex situ conservation, focusing on assisted breeding and translocation, may be vital to preserve species of small global population sizes that are also exposed to natural hazards. This may especially be the case for endemic insular species, as they exist solely on one or a few specific islands, making them highly susceptible to devastating natural hazards. Therefore, we argue that continued and scaled-up investment in advocacy, habitat protection, restoration, intensive population management, targeted research, and public and local engagement is needed to diminish the impact of natural hazards on biodiversity. Given the likely synergistic, and often overlooked, interactions between natural hazards and anthropogenic drivers (8, 16), we hope that our global map of species at risk of extinction due to natural hazards will spur more research into the joint role of natural hazards and anthropogenic threats to biodiversity. Our study therefore contributes as a first-approximation of the species and areas that require intensive and urgent conservation actions to minimize extinctions and provides a timely insight directed to prevent species extinctions in line with Target 4 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (1, 4).

Materials and Methods

Mapping the Location of Species at Risk.

We obtained the ranges of all amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, and reptiles from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (27, 50). We then extracted the subset of species with a range size smaller than 2,500 km2 and/or with a maximum population size of 1,100 mature individuals. The range size of 2,500 km2 was used to identify species with restricted spatial distribution globally while also reducing commission error—false presence of a species by keeping the minimum size equal to or smaller than our grid size. The 1,100 individual threshold was based on the IUCN’s criteria for threatened species (e.g., 1,000 mature individuals) plus an additional 10% designed to avoid excluding species because of uncertainties in the IUCN population. We also extracted from the IUCN Red List information about in situ conservation actions that were in place related to habitat protection (e.g., if the species occurs in at least one protected area), species management (e.g., if the species is subject to ex-situ conservation), if the species was distributed on islands or mainland, as well as the biogeographic realm (27). Further details about data on mapping the location of species at risk can be found in SI Appendix, Text.

Data on Natural Hazards.

To obtain data on natural hazards, we georeferenced events involving volcanos (51), tsunamis (52), earthquakes (53), and hurricanes (54) using publicly accessible geophysical data. These natural hazards were selected due to the availability of georeferenced information, extensive scientific literature, and evidence of their significant impacts on terrestrial vertebrates (7, 8, 14–16, 18–22). We then filtered events to those that occurred between 1970 and 2016 (the latest year for which we had events for all four natural hazards), yielding 318,400 occurrences of hurricanes, 15,003 tsunamis, 1,871 earthquakes, and 239 volcanic eruptions. Since the hurricane dataset contained events which are not classified as hurricanes (e.g., storms and depressions, which are classified in categories of 0 to −5), we excluded these and included only events with a magnitude between 1 and 5, obtaining a dataset of 2,081 distinct hurricanes that, due to their dynamic nature, contributed to a total of 58,501 observations/events. We mapped all events using a 2,500 km2 resolution to avoid commission errors at higher resolutions and calculated the frequency, total magnitude, and relative impact of each natural hazard within a grid cell. The frequency was calculated as the total number of events in each grid cell, and the magnitude was calculated as the sum of the magnitudes scores. The magnitude of the events of all types of hazards were standardized to a 1 to 10 scale to allow us to compare across hazards. Since there was no information on the spatial extent of all events, we considered that the extent of a hazard had the potential to impact the entire grid cell covering an area of 2,500 km2. Further details about data on natural hazards can be found in SI Appendix, Text.

Calculating the Relative Impact of Natural Hazards.

To calculate the probability of occurrence of an event for each natural hazard in a given year within a specific 2,500 km2 grid cell, we used a binomial regression with a logit link function. In this analysis, the dependent variable was the presence or absence of a hazard in a given year, with this event weighted by its magnitude. After exploring alternative weighting schemes (SI Appendix, Text), we adjusted the models to accommodate the assumption that a single and strong event should have a higher magnitude as well as account for years with multiple events. Furthermore, as observations with no weight (e.g., years during which no hazards were observed) were discarded by our model, we assigned the lowest magnitude (a value of 1 after standardization) between 1970 and 2016 for these observations.
We calculated the probability of impact for each grid cell using the following equation:
I=glm(F∼1,weights=M,family="binomial"),
where I is the relative impact, F is the binary variable of occurrence or not of a specific hazard in a given year (between 1970 and 2016), and M is the scaled magnitudes of the hazards in each year. To give higher weight to events with higher magnitudes in relation to events with lower magnitudes, we squared the magnitude values. To account for years where there were multiple events, we summed the magnitudes before squaring them. The relative impact of natural hazards varies between 0 (indicating a low impact) and 1 (indicating a high impact). Further details about the calculation of the relative impact of natural hazards and the exploration of alternative weighting schemes can be found in SI Appendix, Text.

Identifying Species Exposure to Natural Hazards.

We identified species exposed to natural hazards by intersecting the range of each species with the occurrences of natural hazards. To account for potential errors of commission and omission in the IUCN range maps, we tested two approaches: 1) estimating the percentage of the ranges intersecting with each cell and 2) conducting binary pixel-based analyses, using the entire cell area is a species range intersected it. Here, we provide the results of the former approach and in supplementary materials we provide the latter. Species were classified as high risk if at least 25% of their geographic range overlapped with areas subjected to at least 0.25 of relative impact of natural hazards. The impact of each threat was estimated by calculating the median impact across the cells with hazards that overlapped with the range of a species. We used this threshold value to categorize species at high risk by natural hazard because they have been previously used in spatial ecology and conservation prioritization of terrestrial vertebrates at different scales (7, 8, 16). Further details about data on species exposure to natural hazards and the results on regarding the binary exposure approach can be found in SI Appendix, Text.

Data, Materials, and Software Availability

All data and code needed to evaluate the results and conclusions in this paper are freely available within the supplementary material, Dryad (55), and GitHub (56) https://github.com/harithmorgadinho/natural_hazards. All other data are included in the manuscript and/or supporting information.

Acknowledgments

We thank Thomas M. Brooks and Andrew Balmford for their invaluable suggestions in response to an early draft of this manuscript. This study was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (Grants 2011/50225-3; 2014/18800-6; 2015/15172-7; 2017/24252-0; 2017/23458-2; 2019/00648-7; 2021/03868-8; 2022/09561/4, 2023/03965-9, and Centro para pesquisa em Biodiversidade e Mudanças no clima (CBioClima) 2021/10639-5); Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico (CNPq) (304291/2020-0; 308337/2019-0) and Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. This work was also supported by the Independent Research Fund Denmark (F.G. and B.D.: grant no. 0135-00333B; H.F. and J.G.: grant no. 0165-00018B). C.B. was supported by DOB Ecology and the Bernina Foundation.

Author contributions

F.G., H.F., M.H., J.G., B.D., and M.G. designed research; F.G., H.F., M.H., M.M.P., N.V., L.S., C.C., C.B., C.E., R.S.B., C.M., G.B., L.L., Y.S., F.P., C.P., V.B.Z., P.A., W.B., F.F., A.V.L.F., L.F.S., F.O., J.G., B.D., and M.G. performed research; H.F. analyzed data; and F.G. wrote the paper with assistance from H.F., M.H., M.M.P., N.V., L.S., C.C., C.B., C.E., R.S.B., C.M., G.B., L.L., Y.S., F.P., C.P., V.B.Z., P.A., W.B., F.F., A.V.L.F., L.F.S., F.O., J.G., B.D., and M.G.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interest.

Supporting Information

Appendix 01 (PDF)
Dataset S01 (XLSX)
Dataset S02 (XLSX)
Dataset S03 (XLSX)
Dataset S04 (XLSX)
Dataset S05 (XLSX)
Dataset S06 (XLSX)
Dataset S07 (XLSX)
Dataset S08 (XLSX)
Dataset S09 (XLSX)
Dataset S10 (XLSX)
Dataset S11 (XLSX)
Dataset S12 (XLSX)
Dataset S13 (XLSX)
Dataset S14 (XLSX)
Dataset S15 (XLSX)
Dataset S16 (XLSX)
Dataset S17 (XLSX)
Dataset S18 (XLSX)
Dataset S19 (XLSX)
Dataset S20 (XLSX)

References

1
Convention on Biological Diversity, Decision CBD/COP/15/L.26: Monitoring framework for the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework (2022). https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/179e/aecb/592f67904bf07dca7d0971da/cop-15-l-26-en.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2023.
Google Scholar
2
R. Dirzo et al., Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345, 401–406 (2014).
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
3
S. L. Pimm et al., The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344, 1246752 (2014).
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
4
M. D. A. Rounsevell et al., A biodiversity target based on species extinctions. Science 368, 1193–1195 (2020).
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
5
B. Dalsgaard et al., Impacts of a volcanic eruption on the forest bird community of Montserrat, Lesser Antilles. Ibis 149, 298–312 (2007).
Crossref
Google Scholar
6
W. Xu et al., Conservation of giant panda habitat in South Minshan, China, after the May 2008 earthquake. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 353–358 (2009).
Crossref
Google Scholar
7
R. H. Walker et al., Trait-based sensitivity of large mammals to a catastrophic tropical cyclone. Nature 623, 757–764 (2023).
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
8
E. I. Ameca y Juárez et al., Assessing exposure to extreme climatic events for terrestrial mammals. Conserv. Lett. 6, 145–153 (2013).
Crossref
Google Scholar
9
S. J. Roberts et al., Past penguin colony responses to explosive volcanism on the Antarctic peninsula. Nat. Commun. 8, 14914 (2017).
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
10
J. W. Wiley, J. M. Wunderle, The effects of hurricanes on birds, with special reference to Caribbean islands. Bird Conserv. Int. 3, 319–349 (1993).
Crossref
Google Scholar
11
H. Zhou, J. Wang, J. Wan, H. Jia, Resilience to natural hazards: A geographic perspective. Nat. Hazards 53, 21–41 (2010).
Crossref
Google Scholar
12
C. A. Palmer, T. E. Martin, S. Durand, M. Lamont, First observations of the impacts of Hurricane Maria on the endemic imperial amazon. Oryx 52, 410–411 (2018).
Crossref
Google Scholar
13
M. R. Bustamante, S. R. Ron, L. A. Coloma, Cambios en la diversidad en siete Comunidades de anuros en los Andes de Ecuador. Biotropica 37, 180–189 (2005).
Crossref
Google Scholar
14
T. H. White, J. A. Collazo, F. J. Vilella, Survival of captive-reared Puerto Rican parrots released in the Caribbean national forest. Condor 107, 424–432 (2005).
Crossref
Google Scholar
15
J. Earnhardt et al., The Puerto Rican parrot reintroduction program: Sustainable management of the aviary population. Zoo Biol. 33, 89–98 (2014).
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
16
S. L. Maxwell et al., Conservation implications of ecological responses to extreme weather and climate events. Divers. Distrib. 25, 613–625 (2019).
Crossref
Google Scholar
17
A. D. Irizarry, J. A. Collazo, J. Vandermeer, I. Perfecto, Coffee plantations, hurricanes and avian resiliency: Insights from occupancy, and local colonization and extinction rates in Puerto Rico. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 27, e01579 (2021).
Crossref
Google Scholar
18
E. A. Lacey, R. Takenaka, K. LaBarbera, M. N. Tammone, Ecological and demographic impacts of a recent volcanic eruption on two endemic Patagonian rodents. PLoS One 14, 1–20 (2019).
Crossref
Google Scholar
19
R. A. Grant, T. Halliday, Predicting the unpredictable; evidence of pre-seismic anticipatory behaviour in the common toad. J. Zool. 281, 263–271 (2010).
Crossref
Google Scholar
20
L. L. Woolbright, The impact of hurricane Hugo on forest frogs in Puerto Rico. Biotropica 23, 462–467 (1991).
Crossref
Google Scholar
21
E. J. Temeles, G. A. Bishop, A hurricane alters pollinator relationships and natural selection on an introduced island plant. Biotropica 51, 129–138 (2019).
Crossref
Google Scholar
22
M. P. van den Burg, H. Madden, T. P. van Wagensveld, E. Boman, Hurricane-associated population decrease in a critically endangered long-lived reptile. Biotropica 54, 708–720 (2022).
Crossref
Google Scholar
23
S. J. Presley, M. R. Willig, Composition and structure of Caribbean bat (Chiroptera) assemblages: Effects of inter-island distance, area, elevation and hurricane-induced disturbance. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 17, 747–757 (2008).
Crossref
Google Scholar
24
C. K. Dodd Jr., M. J. Dreslik, Habitat disturbances differentially affect individual growth rates in a long-lived turtle. J. Zool. 275, 18–25 (2008).
Crossref
Google Scholar
25
M. M. Watowich et al., Natural disaster and immunological aging in a nonhuman primate. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 119, e2121663119 (2022).
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
26
P. Craig, P. Trail, T. E. Morrell, The decline of fruit bats in American Samoa due to hurricanes and overhunting. Biol. Conserv. 69, 261–266 (1994).
Crossref
Google Scholar
27
IUCN, The IUCN Rred list of threatened species (Version 2022-1, 2022). https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 19 June 2023.
Google Scholar
28
R. J. Whittaker, J. M. Fernández-Palacios, T. J. Matthews, M. K. Borregaard, K. A. Triantis, Island biogeography: Taking the long view of nature’s laboratories. Science 357, eaam8326 (2017).
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
29
A. Balmford, Extinction filters and current resilience: The significance of past selection pressures for conservation biology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 193–196 (1996).
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
30
M. G. Betts et al., Extinction filters mediate the global effects of habitat fragmentation on animals. Science 366, 1236–1239 (2019).
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
31
V. Arroyo-Rodríguez et al., Designing optimal human-modified landscapes for forest biodiversity conservation. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1404–1420 (2020).
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
32
M. F. Wehner, J. P. Kossin, The growing inadequacy of an open-ended Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale in a warming world. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 121, e2308901121 (2024).
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
33
J. Geldmann et al., Essential indicators for measuring site-based conservation effectiveness in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12792 (2021).
Crossref
Google Scholar
34
B. B. N. Strassburg et al., Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature 586, 724–729 (2020).
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
35
F. Danielsen et al., The Asian tsunami: A protective role for coastal vegetation. Science 310, 643 (2005).
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
36
F. Dahdouh-Guebas et al., How effective were mangroves as a defence against the recent tsunami? Curr. Biol. 15, R443–R447 (2005).
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
37
F. C. Bolam et al., How many bird and mammal extinctions has recent conservation action prevented? Conserv. Lett. 14, e12762 (2021).
Crossref
Google Scholar
38
R. A. Griffiths, L. Pavajeau, Captive breeding, reintroduction, and the conservation of amphibians. Conserv. Biol. 22, 852–861 (2008).
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
39
R. A. Griffiths, Which amphibians should qualify for the ark? Anim. Conserv. 20, 120–121 (2017).
Crossref
Google Scholar
40
M. K. Grace et al., Testing a global standard for quantifying species recovery and assessing conservation impact. Conserv. Biol. 35, 1833–1849 (2021).
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
41
D. B. Fenolio, M. L. Niemiller, M. G. Levy, B. Martinez, Conservation status of the Georgia blind salamander (Eurycea wallacei) from the Floridan aquifer of Florida and Georgia. Reptil. Amphib. 20, 97–111 (2020).
Crossref
Google Scholar
42
W. L. R. Oliver, R. Wirth, Conservation programmes for threatened endemic species in the Philippines. Internat. Zoo News 43, 337–348 (1997).
Google Scholar
43
L. D. Wilson, J. H. Townsend, J. D. Johnson, Conservation of Mesoamerican Amphibians and Reptiles (Eagle Mountain Inc., 2010).
Google Scholar
44
N. J. Collar, S. H. M. Butchart, Conservation breeding and avian diversity: Chances and challenges. Internat. Zoo Yearb. 48, 7–28 (2014).
Crossref
Google Scholar
45
D. R. Towns, K. A. Miller, N. J. Nelson, D. G. Chapple, Can translocations to islands reduce extinction risk for reptiles? Case studies from New Zealand. Biol. Conserv. 204, 120–127 (2016).
Crossref
Google Scholar
46
G. Caughley, Directions in conservation biology. J. Anim. Ecol. 63, 215 (1994).
Crossref
Google Scholar
47
W. Jetz, R. P. Freckleton, Towards a general framework for predicting threat status of data-deficient species from phylogenetic, spatial and environmental information. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 370, 20140016 (2015).
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
48
J. V. Briskie, M. Mackintosh, Hatching failure increases with severity of population bottlenecks in birds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 558–561 (2004).
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
49
R. Frankham, J. D. Ballou, D. A. Briscoe, Eds., Introduction to Conservation Genetics (Cambridge University Press Inc., 2002).
Crossref
Google Scholar
50
BirdLife International & Nature Serve, Bird species distribution maps of the world. Version 6. http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/requestdis (BirdLife International and Handbook of the Birds of the World, 2023). Downloaded on 19 June 2023.
Google Scholar
51
National Geophysical Data Center, World Data Service (NGDC/WDS): NCEI/WDS Global significant volcanic eruptions database (NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information). (Accessed 19 June 2023).
Google Scholar
52
National Geophysical Data Center, World Data Service: NCEI/WDS Global Historical tsunami database (NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information) (Accessed 19 June 2023).
Google Scholar
53
National Geophysical Data Center, World Data Service (NGDC/WDS): NCEI/WDS Global significant earthquake database (NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information). (Accessed 19 June 2023).
Google Scholar
54
K. R. Knapp et al., International best track archive for climate stewardship (IBTrACS) Project, Version 4 (NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, 2010). (Accessed 19 June 2023).
Google Scholar
55
F. Gonçalves et al., A global map of species at risk of extinction due to natural hazards (Dataset). Dryad. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.m0cfxpp8s. Accessed 27 May 2023.
Google Scholar
56
H. Farooq, A global map of species at risk of extinction due to natural hazards (Data analysis scripts). https://github.com/harithmorgadinho/natural_hazards. Accessed 27 May 2023.
Google Scholar

Information & Authors

Information

Published in

The cover image for PNAS Vol.121; No.26
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Vol. 121 | No. 26
June 25, 2024
PubMed: 38885390

Classifications

  1. Biological Sciences
  2. Ecology

Copyright

Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by PNAS. This article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND).

Data, Materials, and Software Availability

All data and code needed to evaluate the results and conclusions in this paper are freely available within the supplementary material, Dryad (55), and GitHub (56) https://github.com/harithmorgadinho/natural_hazards. All other data are included in the manuscript and/or supporting information.

Submission history

Received: December 2, 2023
Accepted: May 5, 2024
Published online: June 17, 2024
Published in issue: June 25, 2024

Keywords

  1. earthquake
  2. conservation strategies
  3. hurricane
  4. tsunamis
  5. volcanoes

Acknowledgments

We thank Thomas M. Brooks and Andrew Balmford for their invaluable suggestions in response to an early draft of this manuscript. This study was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (Grants 2011/50225-3; 2014/18800-6; 2015/15172-7; 2017/24252-0; 2017/23458-2; 2019/00648-7; 2021/03868-8; 2022/09561/4, 2023/03965-9, and Centro para pesquisa em Biodiversidade e Mudanças no clima (CBioClima) 2021/10639-5); Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico (CNPq) (304291/2020-0; 308337/2019-0) and Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. This work was also supported by the Independent Research Fund Denmark (F.G. and B.D.: grant no. 0135-00333B; H.F. and J.G.: grant no. 0165-00018B). C.B. was supported by DOB Ecology and the Bernina Foundation.
Author contributions
F.G., H.F., M.H., J.G., B.D., and M.G. designed research; F.G., H.F., M.H., M.M.P., N.V., L.S., C.C., C.B., C.E., R.S.B., C.M., G.B., L.L., Y.S., F.P., C.P., V.B.Z., P.A., W.B., F.F., A.V.L.F., L.F.S., F.O., J.G., B.D., and M.G. performed research; H.F. analyzed data; and F.G. wrote the paper with assistance from H.F., M.H., M.M.P., N.V., L.S., C.C., C.B., C.E., R.S.B., C.M., G.B., L.L., Y.S., F.P., C.P., V.B.Z., P.A., W.B., F.F., A.V.L.F., L.F.S., F.O., J.G., B.D., and M.G.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interest.

Notes

This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
Although PNAS asks authors to adhere to United Nations naming conventions for maps (https://www.un.org/geospatial/mapsgeo), our policy is to publish maps as provided by the authors.

Authors

Affiliations

Fernando Gonçalves2,1 [email protected]
Center for Research on Biodiversity Dynamics and Climate Change, Department of Biodiversity, São Paulo State University, Rio Claro, Sao Paulo 13506-900, Brazil
Section for Molecular Ecology and Evolution, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen 1350, Denmark
View all articles by this author
Harith Farooq1 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9031-2785
Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen 1350, Denmark
Faculty of Natural Sciences, Lúrio University, Pemba 3200, Mozambique
Gothenburg Global Biodiversity Centre, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg 41319, Sweden
View all articles by this author
Mike Harfoot
Vizzuality, Calle de Fuencarral, Madrid 28010, Spain
View all articles by this author
Mathias M. Pires https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2500-4748
Center for Research on Biodiversity Dynamics and Climate Change, Department of Biodiversity, São Paulo State University, Rio Claro, Sao Paulo 13506-900, Brazil
Departamento de Biologia Animal, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo 13083-862, Brazil
View all articles by this author
Nacho Villar https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3609-4080
Center for Research on Biodiversity Dynamics and Climate Change, Department of Biodiversity, São Paulo State University, Rio Claro, Sao Paulo 13506-900, Brazil
Department of Aquatic Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology, Wageningen, PB 6708, The Netherlands
View all articles by this author
Lilian Sales https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1159-6412
Department of Earth, Environmental and Geographic Sciences, Irving K. Barber, Faculty of Science, University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V8, Canada
View all articles by this author
Carolina Carvalho https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0063-2185
Center for Research on Biodiversity Dynamics and Climate Change, Department of Biodiversity, São Paulo State University, Rio Claro, Sao Paulo 13506-900, Brazil
Instituto Tecnológico Vale, Belém, Pará 66055-090, Brazil
View all articles by this author
Carolina Bello https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6351-4998
Center for Research on Biodiversity Dynamics and Climate Change, Department of Biodiversity, São Paulo State University, Rio Claro, Sao Paulo 13506-900, Brazil
Department of Environmental Systems Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich 8092, Switzerland
View all articles by this author
Carine Emer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1258-2816
Center for Research on Biodiversity Dynamics and Climate Change, Department of Biodiversity, São Paulo State University, Rio Claro, Sao Paulo 13506-900, Brazil
Instituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 22460-030, Brazil
View all articles by this author
Ricardo S. Bovendorp https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0734-1866
Center for Research on Biodiversity Dynamics and Climate Change, Department of Biodiversity, São Paulo State University, Rio Claro, Sao Paulo 13506-900, Brazil
Applied Ecology and Conservation Lab, Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Ilhéus, Bahia 45662-900, Brazil
View all articles by this author
Calebe Mendes
Center for Research on Biodiversity Dynamics and Climate Change, Department of Biodiversity, São Paulo State University, Rio Claro, Sao Paulo 13506-900, Brazil
Asean School of the Environment, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
View all articles by this author
Gabrielle Beca
Center for Research on Biodiversity Dynamics and Climate Change, Department of Biodiversity, São Paulo State University, Rio Claro, Sao Paulo 13506-900, Brazil
Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Subiaco, WA 6008, Australia
View all articles by this author
Laís Lautenschlager https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2526-2333
Center for Research on Biodiversity Dynamics and Climate Change, Department of Biodiversity, São Paulo State University, Rio Claro, Sao Paulo 13506-900, Brazil
Department of Biology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124
View all articles by this author
Yuri Souza https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2133-0469
Center for Research on Biodiversity Dynamics and Climate Change, Department of Biodiversity, São Paulo State University, Rio Claro, Sao Paulo 13506-900, Brazil
Department of Biology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124
View all articles by this author
Felipe Pedrosa
Center for Research on Biodiversity Dynamics and Climate Change, Department of Biodiversity, São Paulo State University, Rio Claro, Sao Paulo 13506-900, Brazil
View all articles by this author
Claudia Paz https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9754-4087
Center for Research on Biodiversity Dynamics and Climate Change, Department of Biodiversity, São Paulo State University, Rio Claro, Sao Paulo 13506-900, Brazil
View all articles by this author
Valesca B. Zipparro
Center for Research on Biodiversity Dynamics and Climate Change, Department of Biodiversity, São Paulo State University, Rio Claro, Sao Paulo 13506-900, Brazil
View all articles by this author
Paula Akkawi
Center for Research on Biodiversity Dynamics and Climate Change, Department of Biodiversity, São Paulo State University, Rio Claro, Sao Paulo 13506-900, Brazil
View all articles by this author
William Bercê https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2837-3928
Center for Research on Biodiversity Dynamics and Climate Change, Department of Biodiversity, São Paulo State University, Rio Claro, Sao Paulo 13506-900, Brazil
View all articles by this author
Fabiano Farah
Center for Research on Biodiversity Dynamics and Climate Change, Department of Biodiversity, São Paulo State University, Rio Claro, Sao Paulo 13506-900, Brazil
View all articles by this author
André V. L. Freitas https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5763-4990
Departamento de Biologia Animal, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo 13083-862, Brazil
Museu de Diversidade Biológica, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo 13083-862, Brazil
View all articles by this author
Luís Fábio Silveira https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2576-7657
Museu de Zoologia de São Paulo, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo 04263-000, Brazil
View all articles by this author
Fábio Olmos https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3832-6455
Permian Global, London W1G 0LB, United Kingdom
View all articles by this author
Jonas Geldmann3 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1191-7610
Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen 1350, Denmark
View all articles by this author
Bo Dalsgaard3 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2867-2805
Section for Molecular Ecology and Evolution, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen 1350, Denmark
View all articles by this author
Mauro Galetti3
Center for Research on Biodiversity Dynamics and Climate Change, Department of Biodiversity, São Paulo State University, Rio Claro, Sao Paulo 13506-900, Brazil
Kimberly Green Latin American and Caribbean Center, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199
View all articles by this author

Notes

2
To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: [email protected].
1
F.G. and H.F. contributed equally to this work.
3
J.G., B.D., and M.G. contributed equally to this work.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Note: The article usage is presented with a three- to four-day delay and will update daily once available. Due to ths delay, usage data will not appear immediately following publication. Citation information is sourced from Crossref Cited-by service.


Altmetrics




Citations

Cite this article

  • F. Gonçalves,
  • H. Farooq,
  • M. Harfoot,
  • M.M. Pires,
  • N. Villar,
  • L. Sales,
  • C. Carvalho,
  • C. Bello,
  • C. Emer,
  • R.S. Bovendorp,
  • C. Mendes,
  • G. Beca,
  • L. Lautenschlager,
  • Y. Souza,
  • F. Pedrosa,
  • C. Paz,
  • V.B. Zipparro,
  • P. Akkawi,
  • W. Bercê,
  • F. Farah,
  • A.V.L. Freitas,
  • L.F. Silveira,
  • F. Olmos,
  • J. Geldmann,
  • B. Dalsgaard,
  • & M. Galetti,
A global map of species at risk of extinction due to natural hazards, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 121 (26) e2321068121, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2321068121 (2024).

Copied!

Copying failed.

Export the article citation data by selecting a format from the list below and clicking Export.

Cited by

    View Options

    View options

    PDF format

    Download this article as a PDF file

    DOWNLOAD PDF

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Personal login Institutional Login

    Recommend to a librarian

    Recommend PNAS to a Librarian
    Save for later Item saved, go to cart

    Purchase options

    Purchase this article to access the full text.

    Single Article Purchase

    A global map of species at risk of extinction due to natural hazards
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
    • Vol. 121
    • No. 26

    Restore content access

    Restore content access for purchases made as a guest

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share article link

    Share on social media

    Further reading in this issue

    Trending