Revision to our Extinction Potential Metric for IAS preprint posted online. Some acknowledgements to the origin of the methods used to compute extinction probabilities were missing, and a more comprehensive scientific background has been added. biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/…

Co-led by @Mart1P1, and with collaborators @u_arbieu, @ecoalok, @ross_cuthbert, Piero Genovesi, @SKumschick, @arman_pili, @HannoSeebens, @WangShengyu14

3/4 We also propose EPM-U, a version of EPM that accounts for the evolutionary history of the impacted native species.

3/4 We also propose EPM-U, a version of EPM that accounts for the evolutionary history of the impacted native species.

2/4 We use the IUCN Red List categories to estimate probabilities native species will go extinct in 50 years under a business-as-usual scenario (including species already extinct) when IAS contribute to this. We then sum these probabilities to get a quantitative metric.

1/4 I am super happy to share the link to our new preprint presenting our novel Extinction Potential Metric (EPM), assessing the ecological impacts of invasive species as the number of native species that are expected to go extinct within 50 years. biorxiv.org/cgi/content/shor…

‼️ Nouvelle vidéo YouTube: "Vers une future espèce humaine ?" tinyurl.com/37c88ma8 On refait des parallèles entre science et sci-fi, mais cette fois en utilisant cette dernière pour parler d'évolution. Subtitles in English available as usual!

Great collaboration with @u_arbieu, @SvenBacher, @Stefano_Canessa, @franckcourchamp, Stefan Dullinger, @FranzEssl1, Michael Glaser, @IvanJaric, @Bernd_le_, Anna Schertler and John R. U. Wilson

All these variations can be combined at different levels, in different context. We think that using thought experiments may allow to examine these issue in a systematic, less emotional fashion. If the trolley problem is convenient, more ecological metaphors could be developed.

Finally, and probably the least acknowledged: the causality and direct implication of stakeholders. Using a natural enemy may feel more acceptable than direct lethal management. Is that still the case if one species is responsible for the demise of the other?

The second is uncertainty: can we act if there is a chance that consequences may be more dire than not active?

The first one is asymmetry: - asymmetry of numbers (how many individuals or species) - asymmetry of victims (species may be valued differently) - asymmetry of impact (not all individuals will be impacted similarly) - spatio-temporal asymmetry (impacts may occur now or later)

When a conservation action may affect different groups of individuals, species, etc., than those affected by doing nothing, many factors can make us decide to act or not

New "out-of-the-box thinking paper" - Ethical dilemma in conservation: a trolley problem thought experiment. doi.org/10.32942/X2DP54 We use the well-known trolley problem to break-down factors that matter when making a conservation decision from an ethical perspective.

Congratulations!!

3/3 We also applied our method to real data (plant traits data in French Polynesia), and showed that conclusions can be quite different depending on the method!

2/3 We show how some overlooked details when computing the kernels are crucial to get accurate indices. What is an accurate index? An index that reflects what we expect when comparing theoretical assemblages for which we can control trait distribution across species.

1/3 We use a kernel integral method to map trait distribution for each assemblages, and directly compare these kernels. We developed different indices corresponding to well-known indices of turnover (aka Sørensen and Williams, but it is easy to extend to Jaccard and Simpson).

‼️ If you study functional or trait diversity, I hope you will like the new approach for computing trait turnover we develop in our new paper in @MethodsEcolEvol with @PaulBoittiaux @CangHUI_Ecology @MelodieAM doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.14… (quick summary below 👇)