Thread by @rtmcswee

Interesting back and forth in @NatureEcoEvo on a #corals paper from last year.

The original study concluded that "the global extinction risk of most coral species is lower than previously estimated”.

nature.com/articles/s4155…

1/8

This conclusion was based on a new estimated total of "approximately half a trillion corals" inhabiting reefs "spanning the Pacific Ocean biodiversity gradient, from Indonesia to French Polynesia".

2/8

The authors suggested that a "major revision of current @IUCNRedList classifications of corals is urgently needed".

The criteria for which should "better reflect the life histories and population sizes of invertebrates such as corals"

3/8

Now, in a "matters arising" paper, a group of researchers “find problems with the suitability of the data” used in the analysis, which “call into question these conclusions”.

nature.com/articles/s4155…

4/8

The study “requires additional and contemporary data collected using methods that avoid bias towards the most abundant species”, the researchers say, noting that “~500 species not assessed are likely to include those most at risk”.

5/8

Most importantly, they write, “the rate of population change is required to predict the trajectories of populations and associated risk, thus conclusions regarding risk are premature due to a lack of suitable data”.

6/8

In a reply, the authors of the original study say the response “present[s] no evidence to support [their claims] and the studies that they cite in support of this assertion are based on semiquantitative or qualitative abundance estimates”.

nature.com/articles/s4155…

7/8

They maintain that "for species currently defined by the @IUCN, our quantitative, large-scale abundance data indicate that the extinction risk assessments of coral species are in urgent need of revision".

8/8