Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 291

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Expert perspectives on global biodiversity loss and its drivers and impacts on people

Open access
Isbell, Forest, Balvanera, Patricia, Mori, Akira S, He, Jin‐Sheng, Bullock, James M, Regmi, Ganga Ram, Seabloom, Eric W, Ferrier, Simon, Sala, Osvaldo E, Guerrero‐Ramírez, Nathaly R, Tavella, Julia, Larkin, Daniel J, Schmid, Bernhard, Outhwaite, Charlotte L, Pramual, Pairot, Borer, Elizabeth T, Loreau, Michel, Omotoriogun, Taiwo Crossby, Obura, David O, Anderson, Maggie, Portales‐Reyes, Cristina, Kirkman, Kevin, Vergara, Pablo M, Clark, Adam Thomas, Komatsu, Kimberly J, Petchey, Owen L, Weiskopf, Sarah R, Williams, Laura J, Collins, Scott L, Eisenhauer, Nico, Trisos, Christopher H, Renard, Delphine, Wright, Alexandra J, Tripathi, Poonam, Cowles, Jane, Byrnes, Jarrett EK, Reich, Peter B, Purvis, Andy, Sharip, Zati, O’Connor, Mary I, Kazanski, Clare E, Haddad, Nick M, Soto, Eulogio H, Dee, Laura E, Díaz, Sandra, Zirbel, Chad R, Avolio, Meghan L, Wang, Shaopeng, Ma, Zhiyuan, Liang, Jingjing, Farah, Hanan C, Johnson, Justin Andrew, Miller, Brian W, Hautier, Yann, Smith, Melinda D, Knops, Johannes MH, Myers, Bonnie JE, Harmáčková, Zuzana V, Cortés, Jorge, Harfoot, Michael BJ, Gonzalez, Andrew, Newbold, Tim, Oehri, Jacqueline, Mazón, Marina, Dobbs, Cynnamon, Palmer, Meredith S·2023·Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
DOI 10.1002/fee.2536
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Despite substantial progress in understanding global biodiversity loss, major taxonomic and geographic knowledge gaps remain. Decision makers often rely on expert judgement to fill knowledge gaps, but are rarely able to engage with sufficiently large and diverse groups of specialists. To improve understanding of the perspectives of thousands of biodiversity experts worldwide, we conducted a survey and asked experts to focus on the taxa and freshwater, terrestrial, or marine ecosystem with which they are most familiar. We found several points of overwhelming consensus (for instance, multiple drivers of biodiversity loss interact synergistically) and important demographic and geographic differences in specialists’ perspectives and estimates. Experts from groups that are underrepresented in biodiversity science, including women and those from the Global South, recommended different priorities for conservation solutions, with less emphasis on acquiring new protected areas, and provided higher estimates of biodiversity loss and its impacts. This may in part be because they disproportionately study the most highly threatened taxa and habitats. Front Ecol Environ 2022;

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/fee.2536

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Metadata

Authors
Isbell, F., Balvanera, P., Mori, A. S., He, J., Bullock, J. M., Regmi, G. R., Seabloom, E. W., Ferrier, S., Sala, O. E., Guerrero‐Ramírez, N. R., Tavella, J., Larkin, D. J., Schmid, B., Outhwaite, C. L., Pramual, P., Borer, E. T., Loreau, M., Omotoriogun, T. C., Obura, D. O., Anderson, M., Portales‐Reyes, C., Kirkman, K., Vergara, P. M., Clark, A. T., Komatsu, K. J., Petchey, O. L., Weiskopf, S. R., Williams, L. J., Collins, S. L., Eisenhauer, N., Trisos, C. H., Renard, D., Wright, A. J., Tripathi, P., Cowles, J., Byrnes, J. E., Reich, P. B., Purvis, A., Sharip, Z., O’Connor, M. I., Kazanski, C. E., Haddad, N. M., Soto, E. H., Dee, L. E., Díaz, S., Zirbel, C. R., Avolio, M. L., Wang, S., Ma, Z., Liang, J., Farah, H. C., Johnson, J. A., Miller, B. W., Hautier, Y., Smith, M. D., Knops, J. M., Myers, B. J., Harmáčková, Z. V., Cortés, J., Harfoot, M. B., Gonzalez, A., Newbold, T., Oehri, J., Mazón, M., Dobbs, C., & Palmer, M. S.
Venue
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-07-18
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
94-103
ISSN
  • 1540-9295 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-9309
DOI
10.1002/fee.2536
OpenAlex
W4285726404
Cited by
291
References
42
FWCI
36.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.