Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

A recent study by Brook et al. empirically tested the performance of population viability analysis (PVA) using data from 21 populations across a wide range of species. The study concluded that PVAs are good at predicting the future dynamics of populations. We suggest that this conclusion is a result of a bias in the studies that Brook et al. included in their analyses. We present arguments that PVAs can only be accurate at predicting extinction probabilities if data are extensive and reliable, and if the distribution of vital rates between individuals and years can be assumed stationary in the future, or if any changes can be accurately predicted. In particular, we note that although catastrophes are likely to have precipitated many extinctions, estimates of the probability of catastrophes are unreliable.


Journal article


Trends Ecol Evol

Publication Date





219 - 221