A new method to estimate species and biodiversity intactness using empirically derived reference conditions
Introduction
Biodiversity is threatened by modern human activities (Hooper et al., 2005). The current extinction crisis is one of the most significant in earth’s history, with habitat loss, spread of non-native species, and global climate change the greatest threats (Wilcove et al., 1998, Chapin et al., 2000). Maintenance of biodiversity is important as its erosion will result in less stable ecosystems with reduced function (Naeem et al., 1994, Naeem et al., 1995, Tilman et al., 1996, Stachowicz et al., 1999). Reduced function and stability eventually lead to greater uncertainty in ecosystem services, including a number critical for human welfare (Costanza et al., 1997, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). The value of such services is substantial, with global natural capital estimated at $33 trillion (US) per year in 1997; nearly double the global gross national product (Costanza et al., 1997). Given economic values and social-ethical concerns, governments, organizations, and scientists have attempted to quantify the ‘state’ of biodiversity by assessing status and trends, setting targets for mitigating biodiversity loss, and/or identifying hot spots for biodiversity protection (Dobson et al., 1997, Dobson et al., 2001, Myers et al., 2000, Weber et al., 2004, Scholes and Biggs, 2005). Despite the need for consistency in monitoring programmes, no single method of measuring or reporting biodiversity has emerged (Purvis and Hector, 2000).
When biodiversity is measured and reported, it is not always evident what benchmark to use for comparison and indexing (Allen et al., 2003). Three general approaches have been used: (1) desired goal or target; (2) time-zero; and (3) protected areas. In desired goal or target, expert opinion or social values determine reference (benchmark) conditions (Young et al., 2004). Floristic quality assessments, for instance, have been used to assess ecological integrity of the Midwestern USA (Herman et al., 1997, Taft et al., 1997) using prior assignment of coefficients of conservation for each species (Wilhelm and Masters, 1995). Such assignments are impractical when dealing with hundreds to thousands of species necessary to inform biodiversity and for taxonomic groups about which little knowledge exists. Moreover, additional quantitative information, such as relative abundance (density, percent cover, etc.), is not fully considered. As an alternative to desired states, time zero referencing has been suggested. Here, a point in time is selected (normally the start of the monitoring programme) to compare and index against current conditions. The Living Planet Index uses 1970 as a benchmark to report on the state of the planet’s ecosystems and species (Loh et al., 2005). Without a sufficiently distant past, time zero references fail to fully inform conservation-based boundaries for restoration and status assessments. Local areas within many ecosystems were already highly degraded in the year 1970. Furthermore, comparisons between monitoring programmes are compromised unless year of time zero and level of degradation are similar. Protected areas have also been used as comparison benchmarks. Sites of interest are compared against ‘natural’ or ‘intact’ reference sites, such as national parks (Mayer and Galatowitsch, 2001, Sinclair et al., 2002, Scholes and Biggs, 2005). Existing protected areas do not always contain a representative sample of biodiversity (Scott et al., 2001, Hansen and Rotella, 2002), since they often occur in remote high elevation areas lacking the potential for cultivation (Margules and Pressey, 2000, Scott et al., 2001). Without controlling for environmental gradients, differences among target and control areas can be solely due to natural patterns in species distributions, rather then anthropogenic influence. Furthermore, protected areas are being degraded over time by human activity resulting in sliding benchmarks.
We propose a fourth alternative for calculating benchmarks and biodiversity intactness. By estimating empirical relationships between species occurrence/abundance and human footprint we are able to estimate reference conditions under a pristine situation. These statistically-derived reference conditions are then compared to current species occurrence and abundance to index intactness. Deviation from reference (decreasing sensitive species or increasing non-native species) results in loss of intactness. With species as the basic unit of measure, numerous levels of organization can be reported (i.e., guilds, taxonomic group, or overall biodiversity). We demonstrate the utility of the approach using winter mammal monitoring data collected from the boreal forest of Alberta, Canada.
Section snippets
What to measure?
Biodiversity encompasses numerous levels of natural organization. Species, however, are the focus of biodiversity, because they are the most easily defined (Noss, 1990, Huston, 1994). Although other levels of biodiversity organization, such as genetic diversity (Watson-Jones et al., 2006) and landscape configuration (Roy and Tomar, 2000, Lindenmayer et al., 2006), are important, we focus the development of our biodiversity index on species. Measures of species occurrence and abundance, rather
Intactness for mammals in the boreal forest of Alberta: a working example
To illustrate our method, we demonstrate the biodiversity intactness index using winter mammal monitoring data in the boreal forest of northeastern Alberta, Canada.
Discussion
Indices of biodiversity integrity are desired by policy-makers as a mechanism to monitor change in ecological condition. Developing appropriate indices has proven to be difficult in practice (Purvis and Hector, 2000). There have been at least three significant challenges to characterizing biodiversity condition: (1) establishment of appropriate reference conditions, (2) sensitivity to both rarity and overabundance, and (3) incorporating both native and non-native species in a single measure of
Conclusions
As many existing monitoring programmes already collect information on species occurrence and abundance, we suggest occurrence and abundance be used as a foundation for monitoring biodiversity intactness. By estimating a range of reference for each measure based on empirical models, current conditions can be compared with the estimated range of reference to determine whether current conditions are “normal”. By scaling deviations between 0 (degraded) and 100 (intact), while leaving observations
Acknowledgements
Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Program (ABMP) and the University of Alberta provided funding, making this work possible. We thank R. Noss and C. Aldridge for reviewing a draft of this manuscript and making helpful suggestions that improved the manuscript.
References (48)
- et al.
General management principles and a checklist of strategies to guide forest biodiversity conservation
Biological Conservation
(2006) - et al.
Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States
Ecological Economics
(2005) - et al.
Biodiversity characterization at landscape level using geospatial modelling technique
Biological Conservation
(2000) - et al.
Population baseline data for monitoring genetic diversity loss for 2010: A case study for Brassica species in the UK
Biological Conservation
(2006) - et al.
Forest biodiversity assessment for reporting conservation performance
Science for Conservation
(2003) - et al.
Potential ecological distribution of alien invasive species and risk assessment: A case study of buffel grass in arid regions of Mexico
Conservation Biology
(2004) The square root transformation in analysis of variance
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Supplemental
(1936)- Bayne, E., Moses, R., Boutin, S., 2005. Evaluation of winter tracking protocols as a method for monitoring mammals in...
- et al.
Carnivores as focal species for conservation planning in the Rocky Mountain Region
Ecological Applications
(2001) - et al.
Consequences of changing biodiversity
Nature
(2000)
The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital
Nature
Ecological impacts of deer overabundance
Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics
Geographic distribution of endangered species in the United States
Science
Synoptic tinkering: Integrating strategies for large-scale conservation
Ecological Applications
Road ecology: Science and solutions
Top carnivores in the suburbs? Ecological and conservation issues raised by colonization of north-eastern North America by coyotes
Bioscience
Influence of exotic earthworms on the soil organic horizon and the rare fern Botrychium mormo
Conservation Biology
Biophysical factors, land use, and species viability in and around nature reserves
Conservation Biology
Floristic quality assessment: Development and application in the state of Michigan (USA)
Natural Areas Journal
Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: A consensus of current knowledge
Ecological Monographs
Biological diversity: The coexistence of species on changing landscapes
Wildlife triangle scheme in Finland: methods and aims for monitoring wildlife populations
Finnish Game Research
The Living Planet Index: using species population time series to track trends in biodiversity
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Cited by (52)
Mask R-CNN based automated identification and extraction of oil well sites
2022, International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and GeoinformationSelecting appropriate plant indicator species for Result-Based Agri-Environment Payments schemes
2021, Ecological IndicatorsSetting reference levels and limits for good ecological condition in terrestrial ecosystems – Insights from a case study based on the IBECA approach
2020, Ecological IndicatorsCitation Excerpt :More specifically, using baseline years is less appropriate for monitoring progress towards management goals that are set in absolute terms (e.g. evaluating restoration success) and for comparisons across sites or geographical areas as conditions, and hence baseline values, will generally differ for any given baseline year (cf. Soga & Gaston 2018). For the purpose of general applications and/or comparative purposes, a quantification of a universally defined desirable ecosystem reference condition is therefore preferable (Scholes & Biggs 2005, Nielsen et al. 2007). Such universally-defined reference values may be developed to describe the system in good ecological condition as well as by associated limit values – or tipping points – beyond which the system is no longer considered to be in an acceptable condition (e.g. Becker & Hoffmann 2019).
What Is Invasion Biology?
2018, Ecological EconomicsCitation Excerpt :Invasion biologists often refer to indices of biodiversity “intactness” or “integrity” which make the occurrence of introduced species a per se indicator of biodiversity decline (Gibbons and Freudenberger, 2006; Newbold et al., 2016). “Intact biodiversity is defined as the community found in the absence of anthropogenic disturbance” (Lamb et al., 2009: 442, citing Nielsen et al., 2007). If invasion biology excludes introduced or invasive species by stipulation from the idea of biodiversity or rules them out a priori from the species richness of a site, it relies on stipulative tautologies not on empirical discoveries to describe their “negative” effects.
Experts and models can agree on species sensitivity values for conservation assessments
2018, Biological ConservationCitation Excerpt :Likewise, modelling is only as good as the input data and knowledge of the study system. There will always be cases in which neither method is accurate, such as rare or elusive species where experts lack the experience to make an informed decision and empirical results become imprecise (Nielsen et al., 2007; Matthews et al., 2015). However, it is patterns of excessive mismatch that signal deficiencies in expert knowledge, errors in the modelling process, or both.
- 1
Tel.: +1 780 492 4165; fax: +1 780 492 9234.
- 2
Tel.: +1 780 632 8306; fax: +1 780 632 8379.
- 3
Tel.: +1 780 492 5766; fax: +1 780 492 9234.
- 4
Tel.: +1 780 492 1297; fax: +1 780 492 9234.