It says 80% of the variance is explained by biology in their model and 45% by human populations. They over lap, that adds to more than 100%, yet they don't describe that very well. In each of the tables the biggest predictor, the one that explains the most variance, it the % of the geographic ranch that overlap with humans. Yet, in the discussion they say human population density explains only 0.5% while biology explains 44% of extinction risk.
They did multiple regression on a ordered categorical variable. Wouldn't a ordered logistic regression be more appropriate? It accounts the the noncontinuous outcome measure.
I wish they gave more information on the appropriateness of the model. Its a new model, I guess people will in the future.
They say it turned out, nevertheless, that African viverid species are particularly likely to become threatened.
What would that be?
Ethiopian wolf is the most threatened of the Canidai family it says.
Its a good point that their model and data predict which animals may become threatened and preemptive action can potentially be taken to protect them that would be cost effective.
Good find, do you study this or something?