The article itself admits the unusualness of the term (unusual to the expected audience, anyways), by wrapping it in scare quotes.
The article fails to directly define the term, and the indirect definitions do not point to anything that might constitute a “vortex”:
>The article points several times to the increasing isolation of the populations and the threats that giving them protected status would require development to take isolation of population in care when developing.
Which only implies the vortex, or feedback loop, if you already know the term and meaning, but the article does not expect you to know it..!
Isolation alone hardly reads as an evolutionary feedback loop... unless you already know that isolation creates an evolutionary feedback loop