Assessing Biodiversity Declines: Understanding human impact on biodiversity depends on sound quantitative projection. Pereira et al. (p. 1496 , published online 26 October) review quantitative scenarios that have been developed for four main areas of concern: species extinctions, species abundances and community structure, habitat loss and degradation, and shifts in the distribution of species and biomes. Declines in biodiversity are projected for the whole of the 21st century in all scenarios, but with a wide range of variation. Hoffmann et al. (p. 1503 , published online 26 October) draw on the results of five decades' worth of data collection, managed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission. A comprehensive synthesis of the conservation status of the world's vertebrates, based on an analysis of 25,780 species (approximately half of total vertebrate diversity), is presented: Approximately 20% of all vertebrate species are at risk of extinction in the wild, and 11% of threatened birds and 17% of threatened mammals have moved closer to extinction over time. Despite these trends, overall declines would have been significantly worse in the absence of conservation actions.

Knowledge of mammalian diversity is still surprisingly disparate, both regionally and taxonomically. Here, we present a comprehensive assessment of the conservation status and distribution of the world's mammals. Data, compiled by 1700+ experts, cover all 5487 species, including marine mammals. Global macroecological patterns are very different for land and marine species but suggest common mechanisms driving diversity and endemism across systems. Compared with land species, threat levels are higher among marine mammals, driven by different processes (accidental mortality and pollution, rather than habitat loss), and are spatially distinct (peaking in northern oceans, rather than in Southeast Asia). Marine mammals are also disproportionately poorly known. These data are made freely available to support further scientific developments and conservation action.

African forest elephants– taxonomically and functionally unique–are being poached at accelerating rates, but we lack range-wide information on the repercussions. Analysis of the largest survey dataset ever assembled for forest elephants (80 foot-surveys; covering 13,000 km; 91,600 person-days of fieldwork) revealed that population size declined by ca. 62% between 2002–2011, and the taxon lost 30% of its geographical range. The population is now less than 10% of its potential size, occupying less than 25% of its potential range. High human population density, hunting intensity, absence of law enforcement, poor governance, and proximity to expanding infrastructure are the strongest predictors of decline. To save the remaining African forest elephants, illegal poaching for ivory and encroachment into core elephant habitat must be stopped. In addition, the international demand for ivory, which fuels illegal trade, must be dramatically reduced.

To determine who fathers the offspring in wild mountain gorilla groups containing more than one adult male silverback, we genotyped nearly one-fourth (n= 92) of the mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei) living in the Virunga Volcanoes region of Africa. Paternity analysis of 48 offspring born into four groups between 1985 and 1999 revealed that, although all infants were sired by within-group males, the socially dominant silverback did not always monopolize reproduction within his group. Instead, the second-ranking male sired an average of 15% of group offspring. This result, in combination with previous findings that second-ranking males fare best by not leaving the group but by staying and waiting to assume dominance even if no reproduction is possible while waiting, is not consistent with expectations from a reproductive skew model in which the silverback concedes controllable reproduction to the second-ranking male. Instead, the data suggest a “tug-of-war” scenario in which neither the dominant nor the second-ranking male has full control over his relative reproductive share. The two top-ranked males were typically unrelated and this, in combination with the mixed paternity of group offspring, means that multimale gorilla groups do not approximate family groups. Instead, as long-term assemblages of related and unrelated individuals, gorilla groups are similar to chimpanzee groups and so offer interesting possibilities for kin-biased interactions among individuals.