Global representation of threatened amphibians <i>ex situ</i> is bolstered by non‐traditional institutions, but gaps remain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ambitious global conservation targets have been set to manage increasing threats to amphibians. Ex situ institutions (broadly, ‘zoos’) are playing an expanding role in meeting these targets. Here, we examine the extent to which zoos house species representing the greatest overall conservation priority by testing how eight variables relating to extinction risk – International Union for the Conservation of Nature status, habitat specialization, obligate stream breeding, geographic range size, body size and island, high‐altitude and tropical endemism – vary between amphibian species held in zoos and their close relatives not held in zoos. Based on 253 species found in zoos that could be confidently paired with close relatives not in zoos, and in contrast to reported patterns for birds and mammals, we find that amphibians currently held in zoos are equally as threatened as their close relatives not found in zoos. This result is entirely driven by the inclusion of data on species holdings from Amphibian Ark (AArk), an organization that helps to coordinate conservation activities in many ‘non‐traditional’ institutions, as well as in ‘traditional’ commercial zoos. Such networks of small non‐traditional institutions thus make meaningful contributions to ex situ conservation, and the establishment of other taxa‐specific organizations modelled on AArk might be considered. That said, our results indicate that the ex situ network is still not prioritizing range‐restricted habitat specialists, species that possess greater overall extinction risk in the near future. We strongly encourage zoos to continue increasing their holdings of amphibian species, but to pay greater attention to these species of particular conservation concern.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".