ANIMALS that are neither too big nor too small but just the right size face the lowest risk of extinction, research has shown.
The “Goldilocks” species emerged from an analysis of more than 27,000 vertebrates on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature endangered “Red List”.
Of these, roughly 4,400 face the possibility of extinction.
The largest animals, such as elephants and rhinos, are often hunted for meat consumption or trade in body parts, said the scientists.
“About 90 per cent of all threatened species larger than 2.2 pounds (1kg) in size are being threatened by harvesting,” said lead scientist Professor William Ripple, from Oregon State University, US.
Meanwhile, the smallest species, weighing less than about three ounces (77 grams) on average, were at risk because of the loss or modification of their habitats.
Examples of small threatened species included the Clarke’s banana frog, sapphire-bellied hummingbird, grey gecko, hog-nosed bat and waterfall-climbing cave fish.
Mid-sized animals falling between the two extremes were the least likely to be driven into extinction, said the researchers, writing in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Prof Ripple said: “Knowing how animal body size correlates with the likelihood of a species being threatened provides us with a tool to assess extinction risk for the many species we know very little about.”
Small species that live in freshwater habitats were especially imperilled, according to the study.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here