Modern Taxonomic Tools in the Race Against Anthropogenic Extinction
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64229/mv2r6q60Keywords:
Taxonomy, Biodiversity Crisis, Species Discovery, eDNA, Conservation Prioritization, Anthropocene, Integrative MethodsAbstract
The ongoing anthropogenic extinction crisis, characterized by unprecedented rates of biodiversity loss, demands a similarly unprecedented response from the scientific community. A fundamental, yet historically rate-limiting, challenge is the incomplete inventory of life on Earth-the "taxonomic impediment." Many species are disappearing before they are even discovered and described, crippling conservation prioritization and action. This review argues that we are in the midst of a renaissance in taxonomic science, driven by a suite of integrative, high-throughput tools that are radically accelerating species discovery, delimitation, and monitoring. We synthesize the transformative impact of genomic techniques (e.g., ultra-conserved elements, whole-genome sequencing), high-throughput methods (eDNA metabarcoding, digital imaging, bioacoustics), and cyber-infrastructure (integrative databases, AI-driven image/sound recognition). We present a comparative analysis of these tools (Table 1) and a conceptual framework for an integrated taxonomic workflow (Figure 1). Case studies from global biodiversity hotspots illustrate how these tools are moving taxonomy from a reactive, descriptive discipline to a proactive, predictive, and foundational pillar of conservation biology. However, we also critically examine persistent challenges, including data integration, equitable access, and the need for parallel training in morphological and molecular skills. Ultimately, modern taxonomy, empowered by technological convergence, provides the essential data pipeline to document biodiversity, identify threats, and inform timely conservation interventions in the race against extinction.
References
[1]Rosinger, H.S., Geraldes, A., Nurkowski, K.A., Battlay, P., Cousens, R.D., Rieseberg, L.H. and Hodgins, K.A. (2021), The tip of the iceberg: Genome wide marker analysis reveals hidden hybridization during invasion. Mol Ecol, 30: 810-825. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15768
[2]The Earth BioGenome Project. (2022). Sequence all eukaryotes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(4). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2115635118
[3]Deiner, K., et al. (2017). Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how we survey animal and plant communities. Molecular Ecology, 26(21), 5872-5895. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14350
[4]Weinstein, B. G. (2018). A computer vision for animal ecology. Journal of Animal Ecology, 87(3), 533-545. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12780
[5]Sofie Meeus, Iolanda Silva-Rocha, Tim Adriaens, Peter M J Brown, Niki Chartosia, Bernat Claramunt-López, Angeliki F Martinou, Michael J O Pocock, Cristina Preda, Helen E Roy, Elena Tricarico, Quentin J Groom, More than a Bit of Fun: The Multiple Outcomes of a Bioblitz, BioScience, Volume 73, Issue 3, March 2023, Pages 168–181, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac100
[6]Pimm, S. L., et al. (2014). The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science, 344(6187), 1246752. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246752
[7]Hebert, P. D. N., et al. (2003). Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 270(1512), 313-321. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2218
[8]Beng, K. C., & Corlett, R. T. (2020). Applications of environmental DNA (eDNA) in ecology and conservation: opportunities, challenges, and prospects. Biodiversity and Conservation, 29, 2089-2121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-020-01980-0
[9]Jetz, W., et al. (2019). Essential biodiversity variables for mapping and monitoring species populations. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 3, 539-551. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0826-1
[10]Scheffers, B. R., et al. (2012). What we know and don’t know about Earth's missing biodiversity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27(9), 501-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.05.008
[11]Thomson, S. A., et al. (2018). Taxonomy based on science is necessary for global conservation. PLOS Biology, 16(3), e2005075. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005075
[12]Gippet, J. M. W., & Bertelsmeier, C. (2021). Invasiveness is linked to greater commercial success in the global pet trade. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(14), e2016337118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2016337118
[13]DeSalle, R., & Goldstein, P. (2019). Review and interpretation of trends in DNA barcoding. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 302. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00302
[14]Stork, N. E. (2018). How many species of insects and other terrestrial arthropods are there on Earth? Annual Review of Entomology, 63, 31-45. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-020117-043348
[15]Turvey, S. T., & Crees, J. J. (2019). Extinction in the Anthropocene. Current Biology, 29(19), R982-R986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.07.040
[16]Kühl, H. S., & Burghardt, T. (2013). Animal biometrics: Quantifying and detecting phenotypic appearance. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28(7), 432-441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.02.013
[17]Meineke, E. K., et al. (2019). Biological collections for understanding biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 374(1763), 20170386. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0386
[18]Ducarme, F., Flipo, F. and Couvet, D. (2021), How the diversity of human concepts of nature affects conservation of biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 35: 1019-1028. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13639
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Lea Angela Mercado (Author)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.