The Wildlife Picture Index: monitoring top trophic levels
Abstract
Although recent biodiversity loss has been compared with cataclysmic mass extinctions, we still possess few indicators that can assess the extent or location of biodiversity loss on a global scale. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has mandated development of indicators that can meet the needs of monitoring biodiversity by 2010. To date, many indicators rely on unwarranted assumptions, secondary data, expert opinion and retrospective time series. We present a new biodiversity indicator, the Wildlife Picture Index (WPI) that targets medium and large‐sized terrestrial birds and mammals in forested and savannah ecosystems that. The WPI is a composite indicator based on the geometric mean of relative occupancy estimates derived from camera trap sampling at a landscape scale. It has been designed to meet the needs of a CBD indicator while avoiding many of the pitfalls that characterize some CBD indicators. We present an example using 8 years of camera trap data from Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park, Indonesia to show that the WPI is capable of detecting changes in the rate of loss of biodiversity, a key requirement of a CBD indicator. We conclude that the WPI should be effective at monitoring top trophic levels in forest and savannah ecosystems using primary data and can fill the gap in knowledge about trends in tropical biodiversity.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
New standardized camera-trap methods have been advocated for landscape-scale monitoring.
“new standardized camera-trap methods have been advocated for landscape-scale monitoring (O'Brien et al., 2010).”
From Field surveys for the Endangered pygmy hippopotamus <i>Choeropsis liberiensis</i> in Sapo National Park, Liberia (2011) · cites this paper as O'Brien et al., 2010
Cites
Log-normal distributions across the sciences: keys and clues
LIMPERT, E., STAHEL, W. A., & ABBT, M. (2001) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0341:lndats]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 2,621 · see citing works
A biodiversity intactness index
Scholes, R. J., & Biggs, R. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03289 · Cited by 577 · see citing works
Realistic species losses disproportionately reduce grassland resistance to biological invaders
Zavaleta, E. S., & Hulvey, K. B. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1102643 · Cited by 366 · see citing works
Wolves, elk, willows, and trophic cascades in the upper Gallatin Range of Southwestern Montana, USA
Ripple, W. J., & Beschta, R. L. (2004) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2004.06.017 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 · see citing works
Swanson, A., Kosmala, M., Lintott, C., Simpson, R., Smith, A., & Packer, C. (2015) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2015.26 · Cited by 510 · see citing works
The 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 · see citing works
Collen, B., Howard, R., Konie, J., Daniel, O., & Rist, J. (2011) · Oryx · doi:10.1017/s0030605310001444 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Palmer, M. S., Huebner, S. E., Willi, M., Fortson, L., & Packer, C. (2021) · Human Computation · doi:10.15346/hc.v8i2.123 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- O'Brien, T. G., Baillie, J. E. M., Krueger, L., & Cuke, M.
- Affiliations
- Zoological Society of London (GB)
- Wildlife Conservation Society (US)
- Venue
- Animal Conservation
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-07-23
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 335-343
- ISSN
- 1367-9430 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-1795
- OpenAlex
- W1827162315
- Cited by
- 151
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 8.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Animal Conservation (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
- Keywords
- biodiversity indicators, medium and large mammals, composite index, Convention on Biological Diversity, biodiversity loss, tropical forest ecosystems, savanna ecosystems, Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park
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