Hello everyone, my name is Jake Brittnor. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to talk. Today I'll be giving some recent findings on the conservation of the margins, ecological marginalization increased the extinct risk in mammals. So in this study we modeled the historic and contemporary ranges of 4,785 terrestrial mammal species. We modeled them using hypervolume and minimal convex elliptoid models and most of these were a combination of topographic and climactic variables. So this is minimum and maximum temperature, precipitation and temperature and precipitation seasonality, also elevation slope. The native ranges came from the thylating data set and so did the contemporary ranges. We modeled the historic range as using coliseum general circulation models to get an idea of the climatic conditions and niches animals would occupy prior to like large scale widespread human appropriation of land. And also we trimmed the biomes to the a biome we actually know animals occupy from the IUCN road list. So what we looked in this was geografic range loss, habitat diversity loss, niche loss which is the hypervolume size differences and climactic shifts, so whether they're being pushed to their climatic centre or their climatic average or their climatic extremes. We also looked at what we called ecological marginalization. So a niche will be modeled in three dimensions. We look at whether the range of traction is pushed animals towards the centre of historic niche or the edge of its historic niche. So some of the findings that we found were firstly as animals lose geographic range, they also their niches shrink. So they do not occupy the same amount of niche space they historically would. Also we found it's not presented here that as animals lose greater amounts of geographic range, they lose an increased number of eca regions. So they lose a greater proportion there, habitat diversity. So as a geographic range of traction makes mammalian ranges smaller, it actually makes them more homogeneous and shrinks their niche. What we also found was a common trend was that as animals lose geographic range, they are pushed to their precipitation, elevation and slope extremes. We also found correlations with temperature but that is also not presented here. So what we have on these axes are the effect size shift of your precipitation in the left elevation and slope on the right and geographic range loss. So the animals that have lost, geop disproportionately lost more geographic range have been pushed to their climatic and topographic extremes. These climatic and topographic and topographic extremes may be marginal environments, areas where the animals do not perform well. And we also found using two different metrics of ecological marginalization that was Mahalamova's distance. So you get all the niche points of your contemporary and historic ranges and you look at each the average distance, the effect size change of the average distance, the historic niche center, that's Mahalamova's distance. And if this pushed away from the center is increasing amounts of Mahalamova's distance. So here you've got ecological marginalization, increasing with geographic range loss and also you've got the difference between the two niche centers. So the difference between the two niche centers also increases as geographic range loss increases. All of this suggests the animals are pushed to the periphery of their niche which also may be suboptimal as geographic range loss continues. This is most poignant and also most crucial in small range and large embodied animals. So large body animals are disproportionately more likely to be experienced geographic range loss and so animals with small ranges and they are disproportionately more likely to be pushed to the edge of their niche. What we also found was when we ranked the IUCN and the IUCN scaling using an ordinal scale and we found that animals that experienced greater amounts of shifts towards the niche peripheries also had greater IUCN rankings, independent of geographic range loss. So what we're suggesting is that being pushed to the edge of your periphery increases your extinction risk independent of how much range you've actually lost. And in the why the context this is important because what this could be leading to is animals have already lost a large proportion of geographic range. They're then being pushed to their niche periphery where they have poor reproductive and survival rates. Those can those niche peripheries because they're the last areas animals occupy can then become protected. And then we end up protecting a perceived optimal which is lower than what we have what would have historically been an optimal environment. And the problem with this is that that is marginal environment will not bolster the largest and larger population sizes or the greatest resilience to reproductive rates. And therefore the animals are more like to be vulnerable to extinction independent of protection or not. And there are examples of that. So thank you for listening to my talk. I would like to acknowledge my supervisors everyone in my lab and also my external internal survivor as I've just finished my PhD at the University of Manchester. If you'd like to contact me here is my contact details. Thank you very much and thank you to my funders. Thank you.