The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing the suitability of diversity metrics to detect biodiversity change
Open accessAbstract
A large number of diversity metrics are available to study and monitor biodiversity, and their responses to biodiversity changes are not necessarily coherent with each other. The choice of biodiversity metrics may thus strongly affect our interpretation of biodiversity change and, hence, prioritization of resources for conservation. Therefore it is crucial to understand which metrics respond to certain changes, are the most sensitive to change, show consistent responses across different communities, detect early signals of species decline, and are insensitive to demographic stochasticity . Here we generated synthetic communities and simulated changes in their composition according to 9 scenarios of biodiversity change to investigate the behaviour of 12 biodiversity metrics. Metrics showed diverse abilities to detect changes under different scenarios. Sørensen similarity index, arithmetic and geometric mean abundance, and species and functional richness were the most sensitive to community changes. Sørensen similarity index, species richness and geometric abundance showed consistent responses across all simulated communities and scenarios. Sørensen similarity index and geometric mean abundance were able to detect early signals of species decline. Geometric mean abundance, and functional evenness under certain scenarios, had the greatest ability to distinguish directional trends from stochastic changes, but Sørensen similarity index and geometric mean abundance were the only indices to show consistent signals under all replicates and scenarios. Classic abundance-weighted heterogeneity indices (e.g. Shannon index) were insensitive to certain changes or showed misleading responses, and are therefore unsuitable for comparison of biological communities. We therefore suggest that separate metrics of species composition, richness, and abundance should be reported instead of (or in addition to) composite metrics like the Shannon index.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Trophic Downgrading of Planet Earth
Estes, J. A., Terborgh, J., Brashares, J. S., Power, M. E., Berger, J., Bond, W. J., Carpenter, S. R., Essington, T. E., Holt, R. D., Jackson, J. B. C., et al. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1205106 · Cited by 4,087 · cited 1×
“Less abundant species, such as top predators or large herbivores, may be keystone species (Estes et al., 2011; Leleu et al., 2012; Ripple et al., 2014, 2015) that tend to be more vulnerable to extinctions (Cardillo et al.”
BackgroundStatus and Ecological Effects of the World’s Largest Carnivores
Ripple, W. J., Estes, J. A., Beschta, R. L., Wilmers, C. C., Ritchie, E. G., Hebblewhite, M., Berger, J., Elmhagen, B., Letnic, M., Nelson, M. P., et al. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1241484 · Cited by 3,667
The Impact of Conservation on the Status of the World’s Vertebrates
Hoffmann, M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Angulo, A., Böhm, M., Brooks, T. M., Butchart, S. H. M., Carpenter, K. E., Chanson, J., Collen, B., Cox, N. A., et al. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1194442 · Cited by 1,515
Self-citationAssemblage Time Series Reveal Biodiversity Change but Not Systematic Loss
Dornelas, M., Gotelli, N. J., McGill, B., Shimadzu, H., Moyes, F., Sievers, C., & Magurran, A. E. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1248484 · Cited by 1,412
Self-citationCollapse of the world’s largest herbivores
Ripple, W. J., Newsome, T. M., Wolf, C., Dirzo, R., Everatt, K. T., Galetti, M., Hayward, M. W., Kerley, G. I. H., Levi, T., Lindsey, P. A., et al. (2015) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400103 · Cited by 1,229
A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets
Tittensor, D. P., Walpole, M., Hill, S. L. L., Boyce, D. G., Britten, G. L., Burgess, N. D., Butchart, S. H. M., Leadley, P. W., Regan, E. C., Alkemade, R., et al. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1257484 · Cited by 1,227
Self-citationRarity Value and Species Extinction: The Anthropogenic Allee Effect
Courchamp, F., Angulo, E., Rivalan, P., Hall, R. J., Signoret, L., Bull, L., & Meinard, Y. (2006) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040415 · Cited by 650 · cited 1×
“), together with higher genetic/demographic or environmental stochasticity, can easily trigger extinction vortex (Courchamp et al., 2006; Gilpin and Soulé, 1986).”
BackgroundThe geometric mean of relative abundance indices: a biodiversity measure with a difference
Buckland, S. T., Studeny, A. C., Magurran, A. E., Illian, J. B., & Newson, S. E. (2011) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1890/es11-00186.1 · Cited by 102 · cited 1×
“The geometric mean abundance tends to be more sensitive to changes in abundances of rare species than the arithmetic mean, and acts as a composite measure of evenness and abundance (Buckland et al., 2011; Gregory and van Strien, 2010; Gregory et al., 2005; Schipper et al., 2016; van Strien et al., 2012).”
Background
Cited by
The biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offs of forest restoration approaches
Hua, F., Bruijnzeel, L. A., Meli, P., Martin, P. A., Zhang, J., Nakagawa, S., Miao, X., Wang, W., McEvoy, C., Peña-Arancibia, J. L., et al. (2022) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abl4649 · Cited by 831
Species richness change across spatial scales
Chase, J. M., McGill, B. J., Thompson, P. L., Antão, L. H., Bates, A. E., Blowes, S. A., Dornelas, M., Gonzalez, A., Magurran, A. E., Supp, S. R., et al. (2019) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/oik.05968 · Cited by 268
Self-citationMcRae, L., Deinet, S., & Freeman, R. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169156 · Cited by 236
Eldridge, A., Guyot, P., Moscoso, P., Johnston, A., Eyre-Walker, Y., & Peck, M. (2018) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.012 · Cited by 209
Metadata
- Authors
- Santini, L., Belmaker, J., Costello, M. J., Pereira, H. M., Rossberg, A. G., Schipper, A. M., Ceaușu, S., Dornelas, M., Hilbers, J. P., Hortal, J., Huijbregts, M. A. J., Navarro, L. M., Schiffers, K. H., Visconti, P., & Rondinini, C.
- Venue
- Biological Conservation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-09
- Volume
- 213
- Pages
- 341-350
- ISSN
- 0006-3207 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2525127963
- Cited by
- 171
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 11.59
- 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.
