For each tree and assignment, we calculated the EDGE and HEDGE scores using the Tuatara module [26] of the Mesquite package [27] . We asked how often the top ranked species differed as one moved between transformations. When the ranks differed between transformations, we also recorded the degree of this difference by taking the sum of the differences in ranks. For example, if the top five species under the Isaac transformation {1,2,3,4,5} are ranked {1,5,3,10,2} under the IUCN100 transformation, this contributes 12 (0+3+0+6+3) to the sum, and if the top five species under the IUCN100 transformation {1,2,3,4,5} are ranked {1,5,3,8,2} under the Isaac et al. transformation, this contributes 10 {0+3+0+4+3}, giving a summed difference score of 22. We considered four measures of sensitivity to transformation. For the top five- and for the top 20-ranked species under a transformation, we recorded the proportion of the simulated trees that showed any difference, and also the average across trees of the sum of these differences in ranks.
Evaluating Extinction Risk Transformations
For each tree and assignment, we calculated the EDGE and HEDGE scores using the Tuatara module [26] of the Mesquite package [27] . We asked how often the top ranked species differed as one moved between transformations. When the ranks differed between transformations, we also recorded the degree of this difference by taking the sum of the differences in ranks. For example, if the top five species under the Isaac transformation {1,2,3,4,5} are ranked {1,5,3,10,2} under the IUCN100 transformation, this contributes 12 (0+3+0+6+3) to the sum, and if the top five species under the IUCN100 transformation {1,2,3,4,5} are ranked {1,5,3,8,2} under the Isaac et al. transformation, this contributes 10 {0+3+0+4+3}, giving a summed difference score of 22. We considered four measures of sensitivity to transformation. For the top five- and for the top 20-ranked species under a transformation, we recorded the proportion of the simulated trees that showed any difference, and also the average across trees of the sum of these differences in ranks.
Corresponding Organization : University of British Columbia
Protocol cited in 18 other protocols
Variable analysis
- Five main IUCN risk levels
- Five transformations: one where each increase in level corresponds to a doubling of extinction risk, three transformations corresponding to the official IUCN designations but scaled to 50, 100, and 500 year windows, and a pessimistic transformation of the researchers' choosing
- EDGE scores
- HEDGE scores
- Proportion of simulated trees that showed any difference in the top 5 and top 20 ranked species between transformations
- Average across trees of the sum of differences in ranks of the top 5 and top 20 ranked species between transformations
- Birth-death trees with b = 0.1 and d = 0.06
- Proportion of species assigned to each IUCN risk level, matching the mean for birds and mammals of the world
Annotations
Based on most similar protocols
As authors may omit details in methods from publication, our AI will look for missing critical information across the 5 most similar protocols.
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required
Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!