Plight of the Bumble Bees: How shabby climate analyses and lax peer review promote a dreadful remedy

Bumblebee

 In July 2015 the journal Science published Kerr et al’s Climate Change Impacts On Bumblebees Converge Across Continents. It was a woeful analysis hyped by the media. It did very little to further our understanding of the causes of bumblebee declines and more likely obscured the real problems. But it did illustrate why the public is becoming increasingly suspicious of “scientific claims” regards catastrophic climate change as well as demonstrating the inadequacy of the peer review process.

There were 4 major problems.

1) By employing a skewed statistical methodology and using inappropriate metrics, Kerr 2015 contradicted the biologists’ consensus (Goulson 2015) to argue bumblebees declines are independent of land use changes, pesticides and introduced pathogens.

2) Kerr 2015 results demonstrated that bees are not tracking their climate niche and are not responding to climate changes as predicted. Their data strongly suggests range shifts have been independent of climate change. Either the bees are insensitive to decades of climate change or climate change has had little impact on the bees’ critical microclimates. Nonetheless based on bad statistical modeling, they claimed range shifts were “independent of changing land uses or pesticides”, and then spun a climate catastrophe scenario by simply asserting the default cause must be climate change.

3) Kerr 2015 totally ignored the leading hypothesis that points to introduced pathogens as the cause of sudden declines and shifts in a select group of related North American Bees (Cameron 2014, The Xerces Society 2008). Kerr’s climate interpretation suggests transporting bumblebees to new northerly habitat, knowing it poses greater risks by spreading pathogens and further endangering susceptible species.

4) Kerr 2015 demonstrate that the journal Science strayed from objectivity into climate change advocacy. Science not only failed to properly edit this paper, they added an additional “news” commentary Bumblebees Aren’t Keeping Up With A Warming Planet and quote Kerr’s catastrophic view, “Climate change is crushing species in a vise”. The other global warming advocacy journal Nature ran a simultaneous apocalyptic story “Climate Change Crushes Bee Populations” encouraging wide spread media fear mongering.

1. Kerr 2015’s Inappropriate Statistical Methodology

The first statistical violation was Kerr’s categorization of time periods that prevented their models from accurately detecting the effects of land use change. They analyzed changes in bees’ latitudinal and thermal limits using records for 31 North American and 36 European species. To create a “pre-climate change” baseline for each species, they averaged 5, 10 or 20 extreme observations (depending on availability) for the time period 1901-1974. For example to determine a species’ most southerly latitude, they averaged the 5 most southerly records across the continent. However those averages would be dominated by the earliest decades and could hide any northward retractions that happened in the baseline’s later decades. To determine the bees’ warmest thermal limits, they likewise averaged 5 modeled temperatures from the warmest occupied sites. They similarly averaged observations restricted to 3 later 11-year periods of purported human caused climate change spanning 1975-1986, 1987-1998, and 1999-2010, and then compared those averaged results with the baseline averages.

However their asymmetrical categorization of a 74‑year baseline period vs. three 11‑year “climate change” periods is highly problematic. If their intent was to determine the timing of any significant shifts, their analysis should have compared equal decade-long periods.  Instead because their technique averaged the most extreme southern latitudes, the baseline would easily be dominated by the earliest 20^th century observations. Any range retractions that happened later during the baseline period would not be “statistically detected” until the 1975-1986 “climate change” period. Any editor or peer reviewer should have required a correction, knowing their asymmetrical categorization could cause such misleading results.

Many researchers from both North America and Europe (Fitzpatrick 2007) have documented that the period between 1940-1960 encompassed the greatest shift in agricultural expansion and intensity that has gravely affected bee populations. For example, studies in Illinois (Grixti 2009) determined that the greatest loss of bumblebee abundance, species richness and shifting ranges occurred between 1940-1960 due to agricultural intensification. After 1960, only minimal shifts occurred for the following 2 decades as agricultural expansion waned. But Kerr’s baseline categorization would not detect those range shifts until the 1975-86 period. The resulting statistical illusion of their model then created the incorrect perception that major range shifts were independent of those agricultural changes. 

Kerr’s main paper only provided graphs for the final 1999-2010 period, so in my Figure 1 below, I have also added the 1975-1986 graphs from their supplemental data to also compare the recent decadal shifts. Oddly their results contradict their assertion that landscape restrictions were preventing bees from migrating, and therefore climate change was “crushing bees in a vise”. Their data clearly show half of the European species (green dots) were moving northward while most of the North American species (red dots) were shifting southward. In a NY Times’ interview, bumblebee expert Dr. Sydney Cameron also noted this lack of correspondence between assertions and evidence, diplomatically stating Kerr’s suggestion of thwarted northward migration was “a surprising conclusion given the data.” Clearly the bees are not caught in any such vise. The average shift in latitudinal positions was simply contradicting global warming theory.

Second if the 1940-1960s land use changes were the major driving factor, instead of climate change, we would expect dramatic range shifts in the 1975-1986 period, but only minor range shifts between 1975 and 2010. In contrast if climate change was the driver, we would expect increasing range shifts between 1975 and 2010 as purported climate change intensified. The data does not support a climate change interpretation.

The 2 graphs on Figure 1’s left (A’s) illustrate shifts in each species’ average extreme northern latitude, while the 2 graphs on the right (C’s), illustrate the change in their southern extremes. The X-axis represents the species latitudinal extremes in terms of distance (kilometers) from the equator during the base-line period. (Figure 2 helps the reader visualize the geographic location for those distances.) The Y-axis represents the species latitudinal deviation from the baseline period. A positive number means the species’ extreme latitude shifted northward and a negative number means it shifted southward. The dashed line at “0” represents the 1901-1974 base line latitude. Species that have not shifted their latitudinal margins will be located on that dashed lines.

For example, I added blue arrows to highlight that one European species’ northern-most latitude, originally located about 6400 km north of the equator (X-axis), had already shifted northwards by 1000 km (Y-axis) by the 1975‑period. Assuming the second arrow points to the same species, there was no further shift through the 1999-2010 period, suggesting no effect from recent climate change. Readers should also note that a majority of the species on both continents had retracted their northern limit southwards by the 1975-1986 period, again the opposite of what global warming predicts. By 1999-2010, half the species still exhibited ranges that had retracted southwards, although there was a slight increase in species that expanded northward.

 

Bumblebee northern and southern extreme range changes

The graphs on Figure 1’s right side represent shifts in the species most southerly margins. Again the bees are shifting differently on each continent, suggesting regional drivers, not global climate change. Because Kerr’s graphs have a different scale, I added a blue line to highlight any northerly retraction exceeding 400 km.  By the 1975-period (top right), nearly all the North American species (red dots) had already retracted their southern range northward to some degree. By the 1999-2010 period, the greatest North American retraction remained at 1000 km, while 3 species expanded their range southward, again contradicting a global warming interpretation. The remaining North American latitudinal shifts are not noticeably different between 1975 and 2010. Furthermore, it should be noted that any retractions in the southeast USA are probably not linked to global warming because most of that area has been deemed a “warming hole” with a 20^th century cooling trend for maximum temperatures (see Fig 13 Menne 2009).

In Europe (green dots), half the species had expanded southward by the 1975-1986 period again contradicting global warming theory. By the 1999-2010 period more species began retracting northwards while the 2 most northerly species move southward retracing their earlier retractions. Because some declining species have shifted northwards while others shifted southward, most European researchers had rejected the hypothesis that climate change has been driving declining bee populations. (Willliams 2007)

Unfortunately from Kerr’s results, we cannot determine which dot represents which species, and thus we are prevented from using additional research that might elucidate why an individual species shifted its range when another species did not. Meta-analyses such as this only create average trends from a lumped set of species but typically obscure the variety of confounding factors that may be driving these diverse and complex range shifts. Yet such meta-analyses are often the preferred method for researchers advocating climate change disruption because they assume the variety of confounding factors cancel out, leaving only a climate change footprint (Dr. Singer, personal communication) A problematic IPCC meta-analysis is discussed here.

In addition to skewed temporal categories, Kerr 2015 used an inappropriate metric to dismiss land use changes. Kerr compared recent satellite data with past characterizations of the landscapes to determine changes in cropland and pasture extent. But extent, or acreage, is not the only land use factor that could impact bees. The major factor is the loss of flowers.

Due to cheaper synthetic fertilizers, many croplands no longer plant crops of bee-nourishing alfalfa to rotate with crops of wind-pollinated corn or wheat. Planting alfalfa had partially offset the loss of flowers when native grasslands were cultivated. Additionally pastures and grasslands are managed to reduce insect pollinated flowers and promote more wind‑pollinated grasses.

Furthermore methods for producing silage have increasingly replaced traditional hay‑making. Traditional hay‑making requires a good stretch of dry weather that lowers the hay’s water content, so mowing typically occurs in late summer. In contrast silage fermentation requires greater water content than hay, so fields are mowed earlier and sometimes more often. Earlier mowing removes nourishing flowers so bee species that emerge later in the season from “hibernation” are critically impacted (Fitzpatrick 2007). Additionally wind-pollinated corn has increasingly become a major source of silage replacing alfalfa and soybean.

These agricultural practices have increased production over the past few decades without cultivating more land, so those land use changes would not be detected as changes in cropland or pasture “extent”. But those changes most certainly impact bees.  Again any editor or peer-reviewer familiar with the plight of the bumblebees should have been aware that “extent” was likely a meaningless metric. Yet by using the “extent” metric, Kerr’s models incorrectly asserted that landscape changes had no impact, contradicting a wealth of research demonstrating a heavy toll by landscape changes.

 

Latitude in terms of kilometers north of equator

Still Kerr schizophrenically embraced landscape changes to help explain why so many bee species had contradicted climate change theory by shifting to lower elevations (Figure 3 below). Bees that moved to higher elevations were touted as confirmation of climate change induced shifts. But to dismiss the contradictory evidence, Kerr 2015 nebulously suggested global warming could increase forest growth at higher elevations and that resulting landscape change could eliminate bee habitat thus forcing bees to lower levations. But that begs the question of why half the bees still migrated to higher elevations. Reforestation may eliminate some warm sunny bee habitat, but in Europe the dominant cause of reforestation has been the abandonment of marginal farmlands (Gehrig-Fasel 2007). Furthermore the downward shift in elevation seen in Europe’s high latitude bee species is consistent with Scandinavian tree ring data that suggests temperatures have been cooler since the 1950s (Esper 2012). In agreement with “cooling” tree rings, many butterflies in Finland that had expanded northward during peak warming of during the 1930s to 50s, have also retreated southward. (Poyry 2009).

 

Bumblebee Elevational Changes

In North America, many bee species have also moved to lower elevations in the most recent decades (Figure 3) and this is consistent with shifts to lower elevations by several other species. In the United States vegetation in the Sierra Nevada has been moving down‑slope (Crimmins 2011). Montane butterfly populations that Parmesan claimed had gone extinct due to global warming have now returned and there is no longer a statistical shift to higher elevations (discussed here). A high percentage of newly discovered pika populations have been observed at much lower elevations than had been observed during the 1920s (discussed here). And mirroring bumblebees’ shifts, 20% of California’s bird species have moved upslope, while 20% moved down‑slope while most have not shifted at all during the 20^th century (Tingsley 2012).

2. Bumble Bees Move Independently of Climate Change

Assuming that species are in equilibrium with their environment, ecologists infer a species’ temperature tolerances based on the most extreme temperatures throughout their range and then construct a bioclimatic envelope. However the usefulness of bioclimatic envelopes has been increasingly debated (Hampe 2004) and Kerr’s data demonstrates why. Theory predicts that if a habitat warms or cools, species must shift in order to remain within their temperature envelope’s boundaries. In Kerr’s graph below (Figure 4), the dashed line, at zero on the Y-axis, represents each species’ baseline limit for cold temperature tolerance (Fig. 4’s graphs on left, B’s), and for warmth tolerance (graphs on right, D’s).

Bumblebee Changes in Extreme Temperature LImits

If a species’ range tracked its thermal limits, its representative dot would sit on the dashed line. Any dot above that line means they have retreated to warmer habitat. Any dot below the dashed line means the species retreated to cooler habitat. The X-axis represents the species thermal limit determined by the base line period. For example, for species’ extreme cold limits, several species persisted in regions experiencing winter extremes of  -10°C during the base line period (X-axis).  But during all the later periods, the coldest temperatures experienced by most species were 2 to 6 degrees warmer, (-8 to -4°C). So the bees are said to be lagging climate change because they are remaining in warmer regions.

Regards the bees’ extreme warm limits, the opposite is happening for most species. Nearly all of North America’s species (red) retracted their range by 1975 and inhabit much cooler regions than required by their bioclimatic envelope. Those bees now inhabit regions where maximum temperatures are 1 to 12 degrees cooler than their baseline period. In contrast, many European species expanded into warmer regions although the majority also retracted to cooler areas. With few species sitting on the dashed line, the data clearly shows most bee species are not tracking climate change and have shifted their ranges independently of calculated thermal limits. An alternative interpretation would argue the baseline observations never accurately defined the bioclimatic envelope. Whatever the case, clearly factors other than climate were forcing bees to alter their thermal ranges.

3. Failure to Address Pathogen Spillover Hypothesis

In North America a few closely related species in the same subgenus began a rapid decline in the late 90s. Abundance declined by up to 96% and geographic ranges contracted by 23‑87%, mostly within the last 20 years (Cameron 2011). Species once designated as abundant or common, declined to being rare or absent in just 7 to 10 years. In addition to the rapid decline, only certain species were affected while others remained abundant. So many researchers rejected climate change as a causative factor and suggested the importation of a novel pathogen was the likely cause (Thorp 2008). Commercially grown bumblebees were being transported around the world, and in the late 90s North American native bees, were reared for commercial purposes in European facilities and then re-introduced to America. Those species are believed to have been infected by a novel pathogen that they introduced to North America. One species, Bombus occidentalis that widely inhabited western North America, began a sudden sharp decline at the same time commercially raised B. occidentalis populations in greenhouses were also exhibiting declines due to the parasite Nosema bombi. Shortly thereafter two other closely related bee species began to rapidly decline. By 2010, over 60 top bee biologists petitioned the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to regulate the commercial bumblebee industry to ensure transported bees were disease free.

Although the specific strain of pathogen driving these observed declines has not been determined with full certainty, there has been growing support for the pathogen hypothesis as declining species are observed to harbor heavier pathogen loads than stable bee populations (Cameron 2011, Szabo 2012, Colla 2006, Malfi 2014).

Understanding and preventing the spread of deadly disease should be a major societal focus because it severely affects all species. Introduced pathogens wreaked havoc in the Americas ever since Europeans brought smallpox to the western hemisphere and decimated Native American populations. More recently, an introduced chytrid fungus has inflicted a wave of global amphibian extinctions. An introduced European fungus is now  decimating eastern USA bats. In the 80s, scientists were transporting the African Clawed Frog around the world to use in pregnancy testing and embryological studies. The African Clawed Frog harbors the deadly chytrid but is unaffected by it and so served as a carrier. As the fungus was inadvertently spread to new environments, susceptible species like Costa Rica’s Golden Toad and other closely related species rapidly went extinct. While ecologists embarked on efforts to minimize the spread of the disease and save the most vulnerable amphibian species, one of the IPCC’s specially selected biologists, Alan Pounds, denigrated those efforts because he falsely believed the extinctions were a result of catastrophic climate change (discussed here). He oddly argued that by blaming the pathogen, scientists were redirecting the public’s attention from addressing a speculative CO2 climate catastrophe. But Pounds’ remedy, reducing our carbon footprint, would never have stopped the spreading disease, nor saved a single frog and CO2 advocates were hindering the development of real solutions. Likewise controlling our carbon footprint will do precious little to remedy the plight of the bumblebees.

Not only does Kerr 2015 completely ignore the devastating impacts of introduced pathogens, their climate change remedy argues for transporting species northward into habitats where global warming models suggest species should have shifted. In contrast, in a NY Times interview, bumblebee expert Dr. Sydney Cameron took issue with Kerr’s suggestion that we should intervene with “assisted migration”, because that remedy risks spreading pathogens.

Dr. James Strange added. “I did not come away convinced that climate change is causing these movements.” Strange also worries that Kerr 2015 might cause people to blame climate change entirely for bee population destruction and ignore potential factors such as parasites, pesticides and habitat destruction. “There’s a bit of me that’s nervous someone will pick this up and say ‘They figured it out: It’s climate change,’ ” Dr. Strange said. “But really, we haven’t figured it out yet.”

Indeed Dr. Strange should be concerned. If there is anything we have learned from the Golden Toad extinctions, Edith’s Checkerspot extirpations, or the Emperor Penguins, advocacy for CO2 caused catastrophic climate change has blinded people from all walks of life to the more urgent conservation issues.

Apocalyptic Fear-mongering: Sometimes Rush Limbaugh is Right!

 Thirty years ago I never would have dreamed I would or could utter the words of my title. As a left-leaning young ecologist, I hated the way Limbaugh painted all environmentalists as “whackos”! I was a strong believer in the Endangered Species Act as a law that would ensure people stopped to consider win-win solutions for humans and all other species. I believed conservation science could guide us toward wise environmental stewardship, and when married to innovative entrepreneurial endeavors, we could build a better world for all. As director of a university environmental field station, I met people of all political persuasions eager to enjoy and protect the environment, and I believed both the left and right would rally around sound environmental science. So why did Rush label us as whackos? I saw Limbaugh’s polarizing polemics as an attack on the environment. But now I must agree with Rush’s recent view that “Apocalyptic, Fear-Mongering Accelerates the Decline of Our Culture”. In his critique of a newly published paper, “Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction” (hereafter Ceballos and Ehrlich 2015), Rush correctly points out that it is just another example of apocalyptic fear mongering that drives some people into hopeless despair, while forcing others to ignore scientists’ steady drone that the end of the world is before us.

As an ecologist I read several papers a week, looking for pearls of wisdom that would make us better stewards of the environment. But Ceballos and Ehrlich 2015 offered absolutely nothing new and absolutely nothing useful. They simply created a framework that would dramatize their numbers stating, “Our analysis emphasizes that our global society has started to destroy species of other organisms at an accelerating rate, initiating a mass extinction episode unparalleled for 65 million years.”  Started to destroy…??? What are we now doing to suddenly promote mass extinctions?

Indeed more species have likely gone extinct in the past 500 years due to habitat loss, overhunting and invasive species than are known to have gone extinct over the past 400 thousand years, despite the extreme climate shifts between the ice age glacials and warm interglacials. But the bulk of those extinctions were the result of past human actions that are now being rectified.  At this essay’s conclusion,  I added a table for the first 100 of the 140 extinct bird species from the same IUCN database that Ceballos and Ehrlich 2015 used for their paper. Unlike Ceballos and Ehrlich 2015, I included extinction dates and the reason the IUCN has justified their extinction status. Notice that most extinct species inhabited islands where organisms are extremely sensitive to all invasive species. That damage has already been done. So in contrast to claims we are “entering” an era of accelerated mass extinctions, it would be more honest to say humans are now reversing what began 500 years ago.

Most island die-offs began shortly after Columbus’ “discovery” of the New World that encouraged worldwide exploration. Of the 100 extinct birds listed below, three species were extinct in the 1500s, 17 in the 1600s, 18 in the 1700s, 32 in the 1800s, and 30 in the 1900s. Overhunting claimed many island species like the Dodo early on, as hungry sailors and settlers struggled to survive. However a large proportion of recent extinctions happened unintentionally due to introduced rats that stowed away on visiting ships, (or more recently the introduced brown tree snake). Without natural predators, rat populations exploded. So islanders intentionally introduced cats, ferrets and mongoose to kill the rats. But island wildlife had evolved without any threat from land predators, so most species were behaviorally ill adapted to survive the onslaught of these new arrivals.  Many island birds evolved flightlessness and explorers reported island species as remarkably tame. Most of the other extinct vertebrate species on the IUCN list suffered a similar fate in the wake of introduced species. Many of the most recent extinctions in the 1900s were simply distressed species succumbing to centuries of depredation from introduced species and lost habitat. Oddly enough, when the Christian Science Monitor hyped Ceballos and Ehrlich 2015 with How To Prevent The Sixth Mass Extinction, their only solution was a cure that is much worse than the disease. They resurrected Camille Parmesan’s pitch for widespread introduction of species into new habitats where climate change is predicted to create a more favorable environment. Not only has that remedy always caused disastrous ecological disruptions, but climate models have been notoriously awful about simulating regional climate changes.

Flightless Extinct Dodo Bird

The causes of past extinctions have been noted for decades and centuries. Instead of hammering the public with gloom and doom, Ceballos and Ehrlich 2015 would have served us better by reporting how extensive recent efforts are saving species. Globally people have been diligently working to prevent further island extinctions. For example, the Aleutian Goose was once believed to be extinct until a few individuals were found on a remote island.  The goose had disappeared from all its other breeding islands because fur farmers had introduced arctic and red foxes. Recognizing the problem, humans quickly removed the foxes and the species rebounded immediately (as did many other breeding sea birds). The Aleutian Goose is now so abundant it is considered a pest on its wintering grounds. Similarly worldwide efforts to eradicate introduced “pest” species are reporting various levels of success. For a more hopeful outlook, and to appreciate how human efforts are promoting biodiversity, I suggest visiting the websites of organizations like Island Conservation or reading about successful eradications.

Unconscionably, although most past extinctions, as well as presently endangered species, are found on islands, and despite widespread local efforts that are preventing further island extinctions, Ceballos and Ehrlich 2015’s so-called “science” and self-promoting press releases are only generating horribly despairing and deceptive headlines proclaiming, “Sixth mass extinction is here: Humanity's existence threatened.”.

Why didn’t Ceballos and Ehrlich 2015 point out productive efforts that are preventing further extinctions? Why not offer real conservation guidance and optimism?   It appears they prefer denigrating modern society and promoting apocalyptic fear mongering rather than promoting good conservation and good science. They wrote, “Modern extinction rates have increased sharply over the past 200 years (corresponding to the rise of industrial society) and are considerably higher than background rates”. But suggesting modern industrial society “corresponds” with those extinction is a horrible illusion. A stronger case can be made that industrial society will be wildlife’s savior.

Although the geometric growth of human populations for the past 500 years has undeniably led to increased habitat destruction and overhunting. But population growth may soon plateau and then reverse its growth trend. The “evils” of population growth have been the mainstay of influential apocalyptic predictions from Malthus in the 1700s to Ehrlich in recent decades.  In Ehrlich’s 1968 book The Population Bomb, he warned of the mass starvation in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation. But as Limbaugh noted, Ehrlich’s predictions have failed miserably. So perhaps his “new extinction research” is just an attempt to regain some support for his widely criticized “end of the earth” beliefs. But if Ehrlich is suggesting booming human populations will soon cause the Sixth Mass Extinction, then he has failed to report a more optimistic consensus that our modern industrial society is now reducing population pressures.

Ecologists divide animal reproductive strategies in to 2 broad categories. R-selected species provide little parental care and produce abundant young, anticipating high mortality. In contrast K-selected species produce few young but invest a lot of parental care. Modern industrial societies have encouraged humans to evolve from a R-selected to a K-selected species. Where humans once depended on cheap child labor to operate marginal subsistence farms, there was an economic advantage to having many children.  In contrast industrial societies demand greater parental investment and more education, so reproduction is delayed and families are smaller. Furthermore mechanization of agriculture has reduced the demand for abundant cheap labor on marginal farms.

Ecologists calculate that human populations require a fertility rate of 2.1 births per female to offset deaths.  A fertility rate below 2.1 causes the population to decline, while a higher fertility rate causes population to grow. In the 1950s, the decade of Baby Boomers, the USA had a fertility rate that averaged 3.7. By 1980 the rate dropped to 1.8. Now due largely to immigration, a slightly higher fertility rate stands at 2.0. Worldwide fertility rates similarly dropped from 2.67 in 1950 to 2.02 in 2000. These lower rates suggest the global human population will soon plateau and then decline. Thus decreasing population pressures will not cause an accelerating extinction rate. These decreasing fertility rates should be a cause for optimism. The graph below color-codes the fertility rates of every nation. Only the non-industrial societies are experiencing the high fertility rates (reds and yellows) that could strain the earth’s carrying capacity and diminish local biodiversity. So why does Ceballos and Ehrlich 2015 denigrate modern society?

 

Fertility Rates: 2.1 births/female needed to maintain population

Habitat loss has indeed been a major cause of local extinctions as burgeoning human populations converted more landscape for agricultural purposes. But better intensive agricultural practices, like mechanization, genetic engineering and other modern techniques, have allowed the world to feed more people on fewer acres. For example according to the USDA since 1950, “the average yield of corn rose from 39 bushels to 153 bushels per acre, and each farmer in 2000 produced on average 12 times as much farm output per hour worked as a farmer did in 1950. Again such improvements should be a cause for pride and optimism, as modern society has increasingly sacrificed less natural habitat for agriculture. 

As more marginal farms are abandoned and land is returned to the wild, we would expect to see the return of more natural habitat and indeed this was the case for Vermont. In 1900, Vermont was 80% deforested. As marginal farms were abandoned, Vermont became 80% reforested supporting natural biodiversity. Similar patterns have been observed throughout New England. As marginal farmland became reforested moose migrated southward to warmer regions where they had been extirpated by the 1800s in contrast to global warming theory. Similar reversions to natural habitat were observed throughout the Great Plains. Furthermore land managers and private hunting groups like Ducks Unlimited have been improving species prime breeding habitat in the Prairie Potholes, so that in 2014 North American duck populations had increased to record highs, 43% above the 1950-80 average.  But that landscape success story is now being threatened. As politicians become increasingly mesmerized by another apocalyptic story regards climate change, governments are subsidizing biofuels that are increasingly destroying habitat and stress groundwater supplies.

A 2013 paper from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science reported, “High corn and soybean prices, prompted largely by demand for biofuel feedstocks, are driving one of the most important land cover/land use change (LCLUC) events in recent US history; the accelerated conversion of grassland to cropland in the US Corn Belt.” Due to government biofuel subsidies, the rate of grassland conversion has accelerated land conversion rates that have not been seen since the Dust Bowl when wheat subsidies similarly encouraged the plowing under of grasslands the size of the state of Ohio. These researchers noted the landscape conversion is “comparable to deforestation rates in Brazil, Malaysia, and Indonesia, countries in which tropical forests were the principal sources of new agricultural land.” 

Similarly, tropical deforestation and lost biodiversity has been accelerated by government subsidies for other biofuels. Although palm oil had been chiefly used in foods and cosmetics, the EU began subsidizing palm oil for biofuels in a misguided fight against climate change. European Union subsidies for palm oil raised prices and increased its demand as reported in 2013 in The EU Biofuel Policy And Palm Oil: Cutting Subsidies Or Cutting Rainforest?  (see table below). This resulted in widespread deforestation throughout Indonesia that now threatens tropical species like the Orangutans and has been wreaking widespread ecological havoc. Similar subsidies for sugar cane are accelerating deforestation in Brazil. 

EU Palm Oil usage (Metric tones)	2006	2012 - After Subsidies	% increase
Used for fuel and electrical generation	822	2459	299.0%
Used for foods and cosmetics	3692	3925	06.3%

Apocalyptic fear mongering about climate change has similarly convinced politicians that burning trees (again eliminating more habitat) is better than burning coal under the guise of “sustainable fuel production”. Early settlers had decimated Great Britain’s forest thousands of years ago to create grazing land for their sheep.  But recent conservation efforts were now making this one of the few nations with increasing forests. Unfortunately government subsidies are not only promoting cutting local forests, but those subsidies were creating a demand to import more trees from America and thus destroying distant habitat. Likewise, Haiti has denuded its landscape as it relies on wood burning. While due to its reliance on a fossil fuel economy, the Dominican Republic has preserved more forest. The difference is readily observed below in NASA’s satellite photo of the Haiti (left) and Dominican (right) border.

Deforestation and the Haiti-Dominican Republic Border

Whales, walrus and other marine mammals were nearly hunted to extinction during the Little Ice Age for their blubber. But the advent of the oil industry and modern industrial society provided an alternative energy source that reduced that hunting pressure, and likely prevented the extinction of most marine mammals. Although the disruption of industrial economies by two world wars caused a temporary spike in whaling, the recovery of industrial economies once again has alleviated hunting pressures. Gray Whales are now believed to have returned to their historic numbers (see graph below), Humpback Whales are increasing by about 13% a year, and most other species are steadily recovering but at a lower pace.

In contrast to apocalyptic headlines of climate change disruption, observations of large numbers of walruses hauling out on Alaskan beaches are evidence of conservation success as Pacific walruses have rebounded to equal historic numbers as discussed in Hijacking Successful Walrus Conservation. Indeed modern societies have reduced the extinction threats to most marine mammals that were decimated by overhunting for food and fuel. Again modern industrial society should engender optimism about our environment’s future, not elicit catastrophic predictions of mass extinctions.

Ceballos and Ehrlich 2015 suggest we can avoid a sixth mass extinction by alleviating pressures on stressed populations, caused notably by  “habitat loss, over-exploitation for economic gain and climate change". Yet modern society has been increasingly addressing those first 2 problems and there is no evidence that climate change has caused any extinctions. Contrary to climate change fears, since the Little Ice Age, whether or not warming was caused by rising CO2 or natural climate change, that warming has contributed to longer growing seasons which has only benefited the entire food web for all species including humans. Phytoplankton that form the base of the Arctic food web has increased 3 fold. It is beyond all reason that proponents of a CO2 driven apocalypse would suggest that the 1-degree colder temperatures of the Little Ice Age should be revered as the benchmark against which we evaluate our “optimal” climate. During the Little Ice Age upwelling was reduced lowering ocean productivity, glaciers threatened European villages, tree line dropped, and no new trees grew in several montane regions, and there was widespread starvation that the pope blamed on witches. 

In his critique of Ceballos and Ehrlich’s 6^th mass extinction madness, Limbaugh’s warns that apocalyptic fear mongering is engendering a lack of faith, and lack of hope in our children, and in our society. In a similar vein, science writer Matt Ridley recently wrote in “Climate Wars’ Damage to Science.” that climate fear mongering is even more damaging, denigrating the very scientific process itself. Most striking to me is the lost trustworthiness of the peer review process regards climate science. It seems as if all one has to do is suggest apocalyptic climate change to get published no matter how much contradictory evidence is known.

A blatant example of such damage to science, was the American Meteorological Society’s publication of Parmesan’s half-truths about climate-caused population extinctions, If she had honestly reported the whole story that only butterflies that had recently and opportunistically colonized a logged area had been extirpated, while just ten feet away in natural communities the same species was thriving, her apocalyptic climate interpretation would have been shunned (details here). Instead her story of half-truths was repeated by our top climate scientists in scientific journals as an example of deadly climate change, and the BAMS editors refused to retract her bogus paper. But this is not an isolated incidence. There is a long list of other apocryphal climate catastrophe publications in peer reviewed science.

Camille Parmesan was also one of the earliest authors to suggest climate change was extirpating populations in Climate and Species Range. However after careful perusal of her claims, I documented several fallacies (here) and then learned that many of her purported extirpated populations have now returned (according to her own research). Yet she has never published those more uplifting observations of natural resiliency. Later in an IPCC publication, she misdiagnosed a species’ range expansion in England due to successful conservation efforts in order to blame climate change (details here). Yet despite all of Parmesan’s bad science, she was honored at the White House and became one of a select few biologists invited to join the IPCC. While promoters of apocalyptic climate change have elevated Parmesan to hero status, the only person that publicly challenged her bad science was Rush Limbaugh.

Similarly J.A. Pounds joined the IPCC after publishing in Nature that climate change was causing extreme heat and dryness, which was killing Costa Rica’s amphibians. But other scientists provided overwhelming evidence that the inadvertent introduction of a chytrid fungus by researchers and the pet trade had caused the recent amphibian extinctions. Intensive laboratory studies then revealed that the deadly fungus could not tolerate extreme warmth or dryness, which contradicted all of Pounds’ earlier interpretations. So Pounds simply reversed his position to maintain his apocalyptic climate story, and he now argued global warming was causing cooler maximum temperatures and a wetter environment and therefore climate change was still the killer by enabling the deadly fungus. The editors at Nature never demanded that Pounds explain his contrary interpretations. As long as apocalyptic climate change was suggested, it got published (details here). While other scientists rallied to save threatened amphibians, Pounds attacked them for not blaming apocalyptic climate change.

Nature published other apocalyptic papers suggesting the imminent extinction of Emperor Penguins. Researchers blamed global warming despite the fact that there had been no warming trend at the site where the population of Emperors had declined. The most likely culprit causing lower Penguin numbers was researcher disturbance during brutal winter conditions (details here), but recent papers continue to suggest global warming was the cause to infer mass extinctions will happen by the turn of the century.

Despite the Inuit insistence that it is the time of the most polar bears, or the fact that researchers have documented increasing populations, polar bears have been elevated to icons of apocalyptic climate change. In another blatant example of editors “looking the other way” and defiling the scientific process, researchers first published that cycles of heavy sea ice in the Beaufort Sea had caused significant drops in ringed seals and polar bears. Then to support the apocalyptic meme, the same researchers published that those same populations declines were due to global warming and less ice (details here).

Pika are rabbit like creatures living in the mountainous western USA. Erik Beever published that pika were experiencing accelerated upslope dispersal and extinction due to climate change. But Beever admittedly eliminated all observations of pika moving to lower elevations. Although his statistical  tinkering guaranteed “upslope movement” no matter how the climate changed, the editors considered this “good science.” In contrast more extensive surveys by other researchers have shown that 19% of all pika detections have been at lower elevations than first reported in the early 1900s. Nonetheless several papers and websites only report Dr. Beever’s interpretation of climate change, apocalyptically driving pika upwards and into extinction. (more details here) 

When Limbaugh argues that apocalyptic fear mongering is the liberal rage, I thought Rush was overreacting via his political ideology.  But after reading the conclusions of Ceballos and Ehrlich 2015, I realized Ehrlich’s paper was not about biology or good conservation, but just a vehicle to promote their politics. Ehrlich concluded, “Avoiding a true sixth mass extinction will require rapid, greatly intensified efforts to conserve already threatened species and to alleviate pressures on their populations…. All of these are related to human population size and growth, which increases consumption (especially among the rich), and economic inequity (6). [emphasis added] However, the window of opportunity is rapidly closing.”

That gave me a better understanding of Limbaugh’s perspective. Although I have yet to see Rush take a pro-environmental stance, his arguments are not anti-environment. He is railing against the political corruption of environmental science, something I have sadly observed (see above). He is fighting against those who misuse the Endangered Species Act to promote their politics. He is ranting against apocalyptic fear mongering that robs science of its objectivity and integrity, and robs people of hope in order to promote an agenda.

Yet apocalyptic fear mongering is powerfully persuasive. It has empowered a diverse menagerie of cult leaders throughout the ages as those who preach about the apocalypse are eerily seen as humanity’s saviors. Mesmerized followers relinquish there critical thinking powers and anoint their leader as the bearer of all truth. Anyone who thinks for themselves, rejects an inevitable apocalypse, or exposes the bad science of fear mongering, are called deniers by a legion of ignorant but rabid internet stalkers (as exemplified here). I am reminded of the Heaven’s Gate cult that believed the world was coming to an end, and would soon be “recycled”. Several highly intelligent high tech workers embraced their leader’s apocalyptic vision, believing the path to salvation was to castrate themselves and drink the “kool-ade”, so they could be transported by an alien spaceship hiding behind the approaching Hale-Bopp comet and swept away to a “higher level.” Once you believe the world is coming to an end, once you lose faith in humanity and nature’s resilience, once you lose hope, then like the Heaven’s Gate victims, you become easy prey for the charlatans that inhabit all walks of life, left or right, scientist or layperson. Indeed “Apocalyptic, Fear-Mongering Accelerates the Decline of Our Culture”.

100 Extinct Bird Species from Ceballos 2015
	Genus	Species	IUCN justification	Extinct Date
1	Aegolius	gradyi	This raptor was recently-described from fossil records, and likely accounts for observations of owls on Bermuda in the early 17th century. It is long Extinct.	1600s
2	Alectroenas	nitidissimus	This species was found on Mauritius, but it has been hunted to extinction. The last reports date from 1832 and it is thought to have been Extinct a few years later.	1832
3	Alectroenas	payandeei	This newly-recognised Extinct pigeon is known from a single subfossil record. It may have survived into the 17th century but most likely disappeared by the 1690s owing to predation by invasive rats.	1600s
4	Alopecoenas	ferrugineus	This species is known from Tanna, Vanuatu, but the only record dates from 1774 and it is now Extinct. Hunting is likely to have been the main cause	1774
5	Alopecoenas	salamonis	This species was known from Makira, Solomon Islands, but is now Extinct as a result of predation by introduced species. The last record is a specimen dating from 1927, and searches in 1995 and more recently failed to find it.	1927
6	Alopochen	kervazoi	This species was endemic to the island of Réunion, but is now Extinct. The last record came from 1671-1672, and it had been lost to hunting by 1710.	1710
7	Alopochen	mauritiana	This species was endemic to Mauritius, but is now Extinct. It was last recorded in 1693, when it was said to be rare, and could not be found in 1698. Hunting is thought to have caused its extinction	1693
8	Amazona	martinicana	This species formerly occurred on Martinique, but it has been driven to extinction by hunting. The last record dates from 1779 and it is thought to have gone Extinct by the end of the 18th century.	1779
9	Amazona	violacea	This species was known from Guadeloupe, but it has been driven Extinct by hunting. The last records date from 1779.	1779
10	Anas	marecula	This species was found on Amsterdam Island, French Southern Territories, but it is now Extinct having not been seen since 1793. Hunting was the main cause of its extinction.	1793
11	Anas	theodori	This species was found on Mauritius, but is now Extinct having not been recorded since 1696. Hunting is likely to have caused its extinction.	1696
12	Anthornis	melanocephala	This species was found in the Chatham Islands, New Zealand, but it is now Extinct, probably mainly as a result of habitat loss. It was last recorded in 1906, and a search for it in 1938 was unsuccessful.	1906
13	Aphanapteryx	bonasia	This species was known from Mauritius, but went Extinct around 1693 due to cat predation and hunting.	1693
14	Aplonis	corvina	This species was known from the island of Kosrae, Micronesia, but it is now Extinct due to overpredation by introduced rats. The last specimens were taken in 1828, and it was absent when the island was next visited in 1880.	1828
15	Aplonis	fusca	This species was formerly found on the Australian islands of Norfolk and Lord Howe, but it is now Extinct owing to black rat predation. The last record was of the nominate subspecies on Norfolk Island in 1923; it was certainly gone by the time the island was visited in 1968.	1923
16	Aplonis	mavornata	This taxon was known from Mauke, Cook Islands, but it is now Extinct due to overpredation by introduced brown rats. The type specimen was taken in 1825, and the species was not found on the next ornithological visit to Mauke in 1975.	1975?
17	Ara	tricolor	This species was known from Cuba, but hunting drove the population Extinct. The last reports of the species date from 1885.	1885
18	Atlantisia	podarces	This species was known from St Helena, but is now Extinct. It was presumably driven to extinction by hunting soon after the island was discovered in 1502.	1502
19	Bermuteo	avivorus	This raptor was recently-described from fossil records, and is thought to relate to raptors observed on Bermuda in 1603. It is long Extinct.	1603
20	Bowdleria	rufescens	This species was formerly found on the Chatham Islands, New Zealand, but is thought to have gone Extinct around 1892 when the last specimen was collected. Habitat destruction and invasive species were probably the major causes.	1892
21	Bulweria	bifax	This species was endemic to the island of St Helena, but is thought to have been hunted to extinction shortly after the island's discovery in 1502.	1502
22	Cabalus	modestus	This species was known from the Chatham Islands, New Zealand, but became Extinct between 1893 and 1895. It is thought that invasive species are responsible, both through direct predation and habitat modification.	1895
23	Caloenas	maculata	The one specimen of this poorly-known species may have come from Tahiti, French Polynesia, but it has not been reported there since 1928, when the only possible sightings of the species were made. It is presumed Extinct, and is likely to have been hunted.	1928
24	Camptorhynchus	labradorius	This species was formerly distributed along the northeast coast of North America, but it is now Extinct as a result of hunting. There are no records since the collection of the last specimen, in 1875.	1875
25	Caracara	lutosa	This species was endemic to Guadalupe Island, Mexico, but has been driven Extinct due to persecution by settlers. It was last recorded in 1903.	1903
26	Chaetoptila	angustipluma	This species was known from the Hawaiian Islands, USA, but it has not been recorded since a specimen was collected in 1859. It was driven Extinct by the logging of its forest habitat.	1859
27	Chaunoproctus	ferreorostris	This species was known from Japan's Ogasawara Islands, but it is now Extinct and has not been certainly reported since 1828. Forest destruction and predation by introduced species are thought to have been responsible.	1828
28	Chenonetta	finschi	This Extinct species is now thought to have survived beyond the year 1500 and has thus been assessed for the first time.	1500
29	Chloridops	kona	This species was known from the Hawaiian island of Lana'i, USA, but it has not been recorded since 1894 and is now Extinct. Logging of its forest habitat is likely to have been the primary cause.	1894
30	Chlorostilbon	bracei	This species is known from the island of New Providence, Bahamas, but has been driven to extinction by human disturbance. A specimen was taken in 1877 and it was probably Extinct soon afterwards: subsequent collectors found no trace of it.	1877
31	Chlorostilbon	elegans	This taxon is known from one specimen, probably from Jamaica, taken in 1860. It is now Extinct, likely due to deforestation or predation by introduced species.	1860
32	Ciridops	anna	This species is known from Hawaii's Big Island, USA, but it is now Extinct due to logging of its forest habitat. The last confirmed records date from 1892.	1892
33	Coenocorypha	barrierensis	This species was extirpated from its historic range by introduced mammalian predators; it was last recorded in 1870 and is classified as Extinct.	1870
34	Coenocorypha	iredalei	This species has been extirpated from its historic range in New Zealand by introduced mammalian predators; it was last recorded in 1964 and is classified as Extinct.	1964
35	Colaptes	oceanicus	This woodpecker was recently-described from subfossil remains. It is likely to have persisted into the 17th century, but is long Extinct.	1600s
36	Columba	jouyi	This species was formerly found in Japan's Ryukyu Islands, but it has not been recorded since 1936 and is now Extinct. The reasons for this are unknown.	1936
37	Columba	thiriouxi	This Extinct species has been newly-described from subfossil remains. It is little-known but probably became extinct around 1730 as a result of overhunting, predation by rats, and deforestation.	1730
38	Columba	versicolor	This species was found in Japan's Ogasawara Islands, but it has not been recorded since 1889 and is now Extinct. Habitat clearance is likely to have been the major factor driving its extinction.	1889
39	Conuropsis	carolinensis	This species formerly occurred in southeastern USA, but it is now Extinct, primarily as a result of persecution. The last wild records are of the subspecies ludoviciana in 1910.	1910
40	Coturnix	novaezelandiae	This species formerly occurred on New Zealand's South Island, but is now Extinct, probably due to diseases spread by introduced game birds. A bird that died in 1875 is thought to represent the last individual of the species.	1875
41	Coua	delalandei	This species was endemic to Madagascar, but is now Extinct. It has not been reported since 1834 and likely succumbed to the complete destruction of its native forest.	1834
42	Cyanoramphus	ulietanus	This species was known from the island of Raiatea, French Polynesia, but it is now Extinct, probably as a result of habitat clearance or the action of invasive species. Two specimens were collected in 1773 and its extinction likely followed	1793
43	Cyanoramphus	zealandicus	This species was known from Tahiti, French Polynesia, but it has not been recorded since 1844 and is now Extinct. Possible causes include deforestation, hunting and predation by introduced species.	1844
44	Diaphorapteryx	hawkinsi	This species was known from the Chatham Islands, New Zealand, but is now Extinct as a result of hunting. It is thought to have persisted until at least 1895, when it was described in a letter.	1895
45	Drepanis	funerea	This species is known from the Hawaiian island of Lana'i, USA, but it has not been recorded since 1907 and is now Extinct. Predation and habitat destruction by invasive species were the major factors causing its extinction.	1907
46	Drepanis	pacifica	This species is known from the Hawaiian Islands, USA, but it has not been recorded since 1898 and is now Extinct. Habitat destruction was probably the major cause of its extinction.	1898
47	Dromaius	baudinianus	This species was formerly found on Kangaroo Island, Australia, but is now considered Extinct. It has not been recorded since its collection in 1802, and is thought to have succumbed to hunting pressure some years before the arrival of permanent settlers in 1836.	1836
48	Dromaius	minor	This species was formerly found on King Island, Australia, but is now considered Extinct. It was last recorded in 1802, and had been exterminated through hunting by 1805.	1805
49	Dryolimnas	augusti	This recently-described, probably flightless rail was likely driven Extinct in the late 17th century as a result of hunting pressure and predation by introduced rats and cats. his recently-described, probably flightless rail was likely driven Extinct in the late 17th century as a result of hunting pressure and predation by introduced rats and cats	1600s
50	Dysmorodrepanis	munroi	This species is known from the Hawaiian island of Lana'i, USA, but it has not been recorded since 1918 and is now Extinct. Habitat clearance and introduced predators were responsible for its decline.	1918
51	Eclectus	infectus	This recently-described parrot may have survived as recently as the late 18th century, but became Extinct most likely as a result of over-hunting and predation by invasive mammals.	1700s
52	Ectopistes	migratorius	his species was formerly distributed across North America, but is now Extinct as a result of habitat clearance and hunting. The last reliable wild record dates from 1900, and a search beginning in 1910 failed to find it.	1890s
53	Erythromachus	leguati	This species was endemic to the island of Rodrigues, Mauritius, but is now Extinct as a result of hunting. It was last recorded in 1726, and its absence was noted in 1761	1761
54	Falco	duboisi	his species was endemic to the island of Réunion, but is now Extinct and has not been recorded since 1671-1672. Persecution is likely to have driven its decline.	1672
55	Fregilupus	varius	This species was known from the island of Réunion, but it became Extinct in the 1850s. Introduced disease and various forms of human disturbance are likely to have contributed to its decline.	1850s
56	Fulica	newtonii	This species was found in the Mascarene Islands, but it has not been recorded since 1693 and is now Extinct. Hunting was the major cause of its decline.	1693
57	Gallinula	nesiotis	This species is likely to have become Extinct in the late 19th century as a result of predation by rats, though this may have been in combination with feral cat and pig predation, habitat destruction and hunting by islanders.	1800s
58	Gerygone	insularis	This species was endemic to Lord Howe Island, Australia, but was driven Extinct by the depredations of introduced rats. It was last recorded in 1928, with none found on a survey in 1936.	1936
59	Haematopus	meadewaldoi	This species was found in the eastern Canary Islands, but is now Extinct due to overharvesting of its invertebrate prey. It was last collected in 1913, and locally reported to be absent by the 1940s	1940s
60	Hemignathus	ellisianus	This species was found in the Hawaiian Islands, USA, but it is now Extinct as a result of forest clearance and introduced disease. The last report was of the subspecies stejnegeri on Kaua'i in 1969	1969
61	Hemignathus	obscurus	This species was known from Hawaii's Big Island, USA, but it has not been reported since 1940 and is now Extinct. Deforestation and introduced diseases are likely to have been responsible	1940
62	Hemignathus	sagittirostris	This species is known from Hawaii's Big Island, USA, but it has not been recorded since 1901 and is now Extinct. Most of its habitat was cleared for agriculture, which is likely to have caused the extinction.	1901
63	Heteralocha	acutirostris	This species is known from New Zealand's North Island, but it was last recorded in 1907 and is now Extinct. Habitat loss, hunting and disease have all been implicated in its decline.	1907
64	Hypotaenidia	dieffenbachii	This species was found on the Chatham Islands, New Zealand, but was driven to extinction by the depredations of introduced species. The type material was collected in 1840, and it was Extinct by 1872.	1872
65	Hypotaenidia	pacifica	This species was known from the Society Islands, French Polynesia, but has been driven Extinct by cat and rat predation. It was last recorded on Mehetia in the 1930s	1930s
66	Hypotaenidia	poeciloptera	This species was found in Fiji, but it has not been recorded since 1973 and is now Extinct. Predation by introduced cats and mongooses is thought to have been responsible for its decline.	1973
67	Hypotaenidia	wakensis	This species was known from Wake Island in the United States Minor Outlying Islands, but went Extinct in the mid-1940s, being last recorded in 1945 and never seen by an observer who took up residence in 1946. It is thought to have been hunted to extinction by Japanese soldiers that were stranded on the island.	1945
68	Ixobrychus	novaezelandiae	This species was known from New Zealand's South Island, but became Extinct for unknown reasons some time in the 1890s.	1890s
69	Lophopsittacus	bensoni	This species was known from Mauritius, but hunting has driven it Extinct. It was last reported in 1764.	1764
70	Lophopsittacus	mauritianus	This species is known from Mauritius, but has been driven Extinct by hunting pressure. The last records date from 1673-1675, and it was absent in 1693.	1693
71	Mascarenotus	grucheti	This species formerly occurred on the island of Réunion. It was probably driven Extinct after the island was colonised in the early 17th century, as a result of habitat loss, hunting or predation by invasive species.	1600s
72	Mascarenotus	murivorus	This species was endemic to the island of Rodrigues, Mauritius, but is now Extinct due to logging of its habitat. It was last recorded in 1726.	1726
73	Mascarenotus	sauzieri	This species was formerly found on Mauritius, but the logging of its forest habitat has driven it to extinction. It was last recorded in 1837, and certainly Extinct by 1859.	1837
74	Mascarinus	mascarin	This species was known from the island of Réunion, but it has gone Extinct as a result of hunting pressure. The last record of wild birds dates from 1775, and none were observed on a visit in 1804.	1804
75	Mergus	australis	This species was formerly found on the Auckland Islands, New Zealand, but it is now Extinct, primarily due to hunting. It was last recorded in 1902, and had been lost by the time a reserve was set up on the islands in 1910.	1902
76	Microgoura	meeki	This species is known from Choiseul, Solomon Islands, but it has not been recorded since 1904 and is now Extinct. It is likely to have been heavily predated by introduced dogs and cats.	1904
77	Moho	apicalis	This species is known from the Hawaiian island of O'ahu, USA, but is now Extinct as a result of habitat loss and introduced disease. The last record dates from 1837, and it was not found by the collectors that visited the island in the 1890s	1837
78	Moho	bishopi	This species was formerly found in the Hawaiian Islands, USA, but it has not been recorded since 1981 and is now considered Extinct. Habitat loss was probably the primary cause of its decline.	1981
79	Moho	braccatus	This species is known from the Hawaiian island of Kaua'i, USA, but it is now Extinct having been last recorded in 1987. Habitat destruction and invasive species were the major causes.	1987
80	Moho	nobilis	This species is known from the Hawaiian island of Kaua'i, USA, but it is now Extinct having been last recorded in 1987. Habitat destruction and invasive species were the major causes.	1987
81	Mundia	elpenor	This species was known from Ascension Island, St Helena, but is now Extinct. The only record of the species comes from 1656 and it is thought to have succumbed to predation by introduced rats and cats.	1656
82	Myadestes	myadestinus	This species formerly occurred on the Hawaiian island of Kaua'i, USA, but the multitude of threats in the region have driven it Extinct. The last definite record dates from 1985 and targeted searches in 1995 and 1997 yielded no confirmed reports.	1995
83	Myadestes	woahensis	This species is known from the Hawaiian island of O'ahu, USA, but it was driven Extinct by the logging of its forest habitat. The only record is that of the type specimen, collected in 1825.	1825
84	Myiagra	freycineti	This species formerly occurred on Guam, but became Extinct in 1983. Predation by the introduced brown tree-snake was the cause of its extinction.	1983
85	Nannococcyx	psix	This species was formerly found on St Helena. It is now Extinct, presumably as a result of island deforestation in the 18th century.	1700s
86	Necropsar	rodericanus	This species was endemic to the island of Rodrigues, Mauritius, but is now Extinct, probably due to a combination of hunting, habitat loss and the action of invasive species. The last records date from 1726, and the species was not found on a visit in 1761.	1761
87	Necropsittacus	rodricanus	This species was endemic to the island of Rodrigues, Mauritius, but is now Extinct. It was last reported in 1761 and presumably hunted to extinction soon after.	1761
88	Nesillas	aldabrana	This species was formerly found on Aldabra, Seychelles, but it is now Extinct due to predation and habitat alteration by invasive species. It was last recorded in 1983, and searches in 1986 confirmed its extinction.	1983
89	Nesoenas	cicur	This Extinct species has been newly-described from subfossil remains. It is little-known but probably became extinct around 1730 as a result of overhunting, predation by rats, and deforestation.	1730
90	Nesoenas	duboisi	This species was found on the island of Réunion, but it was last recorded in 1674 and is thought to have been Extinct since the early 18th century. Predation by introduced cats and rats is likely to have been the primary cause of its extinction.	1674
91	Nesoenas	rodericanus	This Extinct species has been newly-described from subfossil remains. It is little-known but probably became extinct during the 18th century as a result of overhunting and predation by rats.	1700s
92	Nestor	productus	This species was known from Norfolk Island, but went Extinct in the mid-late 1800s. Habitat clearance and hunting are thought to have been the major drivers.	1850s
93	Nyctanassa	carcinocatactes	This species is known only from subfossil remains. It likely became Extinct during the early 17th century as a result of invasive predators and hunting for food by human settlers.	1600s
94	Nycticorax	duboisi	This species was endemic to the island of Réunion. It was last recorded in 1674, and was probably driven Extinct by hunters before 1700.	1674
95	Nycticorax	mauritianus	This species is known from the mainland of Mauritius. It was last recorded in 1693, and was probably driven Extinct by hunters before 1700.	1693
96	Nycticorax	megacephalus	This species was endemic to the island of Rodrigues, Mauritius, but is now Extinct having been last recorded in 1726, and mentioned as absent in 1761. Hunting was the cause of its extinction.	1761
97	Paroreomyza	flammea	This species is known from the Hawaiian island of Lana'i, USA, but is now Extinct, probably as a result of habitat destruction and introduced diseases. The last records date from 1961-1963, and a survey in 1979 failed to find the species.	1961
98	Pezophaps	solitaria	This species was endemic to the island of Rodrigues, Mauritius, but was hunted to extinction in the 18th century. It was reported in 1761, but had become Extinct by 1778.	1778
99	Phalacrocorax	perspicillatus	This species was known from Russia's Komandorski Islands, but is now Extinct: the last records date from the 1940s and the species is thought to have been lost by the early 1950s. Hunting was the primary cause of its extinction.	1950s
100	Pinguinus	impennis	This species was formerly distributed across the north Atlantic, but is now Extinct as a result of hunting pressure. The last live bird was seen in 1852.	1852