The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The cost‐effectiveness of biodiversity surveys in tropical forests
Abstract
The identification of high‐performance indicator taxa that combine practical feasibility and ecological value requires an understanding of the costs and benefits of surveying different taxa. We present a generic and novel framework for identifying such taxa, and illustrate our approach using a large‐scale assessment of 14 different higher taxa across three forest types in the Brazilian Amazon, estimating both the standardized survey cost and the ecological and biodiversity indicator value for each taxon. Survey costs varied by three orders of magnitude, and dung beetles and birds were identified as especially suitable for evaluating and monitoring the ecological consequences of habitat change in our study region. However, an exclusive focus on such taxa occurs at the expense of understanding patterns of diversity in other groups. To improve the cost‐effectiveness of biodiversity research we encourage a combination of clearer research goals and the use of an objective evidence‐based approach to selecting study taxa.
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
Cited by
Ribeiro, M. C., Metzger, J. P., Martensen, A. C., Ponzoni, F. J., & Hirota, M. M. (2009) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.021 · Cited by 4,282
Prospects for tropical forest biodiversity in a human‐modified world
Gardner, T. A., Barlow, J., Chazdon, R., Ewers, R. M., Harvey, C. A., Peres, C. A., & Sodhi, N. S. (2009) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01294.x · Cited by 1,021
Self-citationMagurran, A. E., Baillie, S. R., Buckland, S. T., Dick, J. M., Elston, D. A., Scott, E. M., Smith, R. I., Somerfield, P. J., & Watt, A. D. (2010) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.06.016 · Cited by 940
Edwards, D. P., Larsen, T. H., Docherty, T. D. S., Ansell, F. A., Hsu, W. W., Derhé, M. A., Hamer, K. C., & Wilcove, D. S. (2011) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.1062 · Cited by 360
Titley, M. A., Snaddon, J. L., & Turner, E. C. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189577 · Cited by 328
Metadata
- Authors
- Gardner, T. A., Barlow, J., Araujo, I. S., Ávila‐Pires, T. C., Bonaldo, A. B., Costa, J. E., Esposito, M. C., Ferreira, L. V., Hawes, J., Hernandez, M. I. M., Hoogmoed, M. S., Leite, R. N., Lo‐Man‐Hung, N. F., Malcolm, J. R., Martins, M. B., Mestre, L. A. M., Miranda‐Santos, R., Overal, W. L., Parry, L., Peters, S. L., Ribeiro‐Junior, M. A., Da Silva, M. N. F., Da Silva Motta, C., & Peres, C. A.
- Venue
- Ecology Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-11-21
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 139-150
- ISSN
- 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
- 1461-0248
- OpenAlex
- W2099540835
- Cited by
- 599
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The cost‐effectiveness of biodiversity surveys in tropical forests. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01133.x
- The paper
- Gardner, T. A., Barlow, J., Araujo, I. S., Ávila‐Pires, T. C., Bonaldo, A. B., Costa, J. E., Esposito, M. C., Ferreira, L. V., Hawes, J., Hernandez, M. I. M., Hoogmoed, M. S., Leite, R. N., Lo‐Man‐Hung, N. F., Malcolm, J. R., Martins, M. B., Mestre, L. A. M., Miranda‐Santos, R., Overal, W. L., Parry, L., . . . Peres, C. A. (2008). The cost‐effectiveness of biodiversity surveys in tropical forests. Ecology Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01133.x
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.