Geology ReportsSearch

Geology topics

Michael D. Craig

Publications and source records attributed to Michael D. Craig.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Conservation status of the world’s skinks (Scincidae): Taxonomic and geographic patterns in extinction risk

Our knowledge of the conservation status of reptiles, the most diverse group of terrestrial vertebrates, has improved dramatically over the past decade, but still lags behind that of the other tetrapod groups. Here, we conduct the first comprehensive assessment (~92% of the world’s ~1,714 described species) of the conservation status of skinks (Scincidae), the most speciose reptile family worldwide. Using IUCN criteria, we found that ~20% of species are threatened with extinction, and nine species are Extinct or Extinct in the Wild. The highest levels of threat are evident in Madagascar, and the Neotropics, and in the subfamilies Mabuyinae, Eugongylinae and Scincinae. The vast majority of threatened skink species were listed based primarily on their small geographic ranges (Criterion B, 83%; Criterion D2, 13%). Although the population trend of 42% of species were stable, 14% were found to have declining populations. The key threats to skinks are habitat loss due to agriculture, invasive species, and biological resource use. Distributions of 61% of species did not overlap with protected areas. Despite our improved knowledge of the conservation status of the world’s skinks, 8% of species remain to be assessed and 221 species (14%) are listed as Data Deficient. The conservation status of almost a quarter of the world’s skink species thus remains unknown. We use our updated knowledge of the conservation status of the group to develop and outline the priorities for the conservation assessment and management of the world’s skink species.

Biological Conservation

Quantifying and addressing the prevalence and bias of study designs in the environmental and social sciences

Building trust in science and evidence-based decision-making depends heavily on the credibility of studies and their findings. Researchers employ many different study designs that vary in their risk of bias to evaluate the true effect of interventions or impacts. Here, we empirically quantify, on a large scale, the prevalence of different study designs and the magnitude of bias in their estimates. Randomised designs and controlled observational designs with pre-intervention sampling were used by just 23% of intervention studies in biodiversity conservation, and 36% of intervention studies in social science. We demonstrate, through pairwise within-study comparisons across 49 environmental datasets, that these types of designs usually give less biased estimates than simpler observational designs. We propose a model-based approach to combine study estimates that may suffer from different levels of study design bias, discuss the implications for evidence synthesis, and how to facilitate the use of more credible study designs.

Nature Communications