Cited by 236Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesWildlife Ecology and ConservationConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 37 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

The Diversity-Weighted Living Planet Index: Controlling for Taxonomic Bias in a Global Biodiversity Indicator

Open access

McRae, Louise, Deinet, Stefanie, Freeman, Robin·2017·PLOS ONE

DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0169156PMC PMC5207715

Open this paper in CoChat — free account Open PDF

Abstract

As threats to species continue to increase, precise and unbiased measures of the impact these pressures are having on global biodiversity are urgently needed. Some existing indicators of the status and trends of biodiversity largely rely on publicly available data from the scientific and grey literature, and are therefore prone to biases introduced through over-representation of well-studied groups and regions in monitoring schemes. This can give misleading estimates of biodiversity trends. Here, we report on an approach to tackle taxonomic and geographic bias in one such indicator (Living Planet Index) by accounting for the estimated number of species within biogeographical realms, and the relative diversity of species within them. Based on a proportionally weighted index, we estimate a global population decline in vertebrate species between 1970 and 2012 of 58% rather than 20% from an index with no proportional weighting. From this data set, comprising 14,152 populations of 3,706 species from 3,095 data sources, we also find that freshwater populations have declined by 81%, marine populations by 36%, and terrestrial populations by 38% when using proportional weighting (compared to trends of -46%, +12% and +15% respectively). These results not only show starker declines than previously estimated, but suggests that those species for which there is poorer data coverage may be declining more rapidly.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper develops a diversity-weighted Living Planet Index (LPI-D) to correct taxonomic and geographic bias in the Living Planet Index by weighting species trends according to estimated species richness across realms and taxa. It estimates a 58% global vertebrate population decline from 1970 to 2012, compared with 20% under the unweighted LPI.

Key findings

The global LPI-D declined by 58% (95% CI: -48.3 to -66.0) between 1970 and 2012, an average annual decline of 2%, versus a 19.7% decline (95% CI: -6.6 to -30.9) and 0.52% annual decline for the unweighted LPI-U.
System-level LPI-D declines were 81.5% for freshwater (95% CI: -68.5 to -89.3), 35.6% for marine (95% CI: -19.5 to -48.8), and 37.9% for terrestrial (95% CI: -20.4 to -51.5); Table 1 gives LPI-U 2012 index values of 0.544 for freshwater, 1.125 for marine, and 0.848 for terrestrial.
For the Palearctic realm, LPI-U showed a 38.4% increase (95% CI: 12.7–66.2), while LPI-D showed a 30.3% decline (95% CI: -1.4 to -50.2).
The database contained 14,152 populations of 3,706 species from 3,095 data sources; representation was biased toward temperate birds and mammals, with under-representation of most tropical realms and marine fishes, and Afrotropical herps representing less than 1% of known species.

Methods

Data came from the Living Planet Database: time series of population size, density, abundance, or abundance proxies for vertebrate species from 1970 to 2012, requiring at least two years of data, consistent methods, and traceable sources.
The LPI-D weighted trends by estimated known species richness across systems, biogeographic realms, and taxonomic groups (birds, mammals, fish, and combined herps), producing 57 subsets; systems were weighted equally, realms were weighted by species proportions within systems, and taxa were weighted by species proportions within realms.
Population trends were modeled with Generalized Additive Models for series with six or more data points and the chain method otherwise; population lambdas were averaged to species trends, and 95% confidence intervals were generated with 10,000 bootstrap iterations. Binomial tests assessed taxonomic over- or under-representation.

Limitations

Stated: the approach relies on reasonable species lists, which change over time and may be lower quality for less studied groups and regions; estimates of undescribed species (57% amphibians, 13% reptiles, 22% fish) suggest these groups could receive even greater weight and that declines may be steeper than estimated.
Stated: LPI-D addresses broad geographic bias but not smaller-scale coverage gaps, such as Palearctic data being largely from Europe, Afrotropical data being better represented in eastern and southern Africa, and marine data clustering near coasts.
Stated and evident: manual data entry is a critical limitation for growing the database; some abundance records are confidential and cannot be made publicly available, and incomplete IUCN assessments for fishes (745 of 1,369 species unassessed, plus 40 Data Deficient) limit the threatened-species representation analysis.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0169156

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 37 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on a proportionally weighted index, we estimate a global population decline in vertebrate species between 1970 and 2012 of 58% rather than 20% from an index with no proportional weighting.”
- Also stated in: § Applying the LPI-D approach to the global living planet index · plain
  “This result shows a greater rate of decline than the index calculated using the LPI-U approach which has an average annual decline of 0.52% per year and an overall decline of 19.7% (95% CI: -6.6 –-30.9), over the 42-year period.”
§ The Diversity-Weighted Living Planet Index: Controlling for Taxonomic Bias in a Global Biodiversity Indicator > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
In the paper
“Our comparison to a study on geographic bias in terrestrial ecological sites revealed that 63% of the terrestrial sites in the LPD occur in a protected area which is the same proportion as found in Martin et al. (χ2 = 0.004, df = 1, p = 0.95), and more than the expected 13% (χ2 = 883.83, df = 1, p = 0.00).”
§ The Diversity-Weighted Living Planet Index: Controlling for Taxonomic Bias in a Global Biodiversity Indicator > Results > Geographic representation within the living planet index
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Martin et al.
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on a proportionally weighted index, we estimate a global population decline in vertebrate species between 1970 and 2012 of 58% rather than 20% from an index with no proportional weighting.”
- Also stated in: § Applying the LPI-D approach to the global living planet index · plain
  “The global index produced using the LPI-D approach shows a decline of 58% (95% CI: -48.3 –-66.0) between 1970 and 2012 (Fig 5) which equates to an average annual decline of 2% per year.”
§ The Diversity-Weighted Living Planet Index: Controlling for Taxonomic Bias in a Global Biodiversity Indicator > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes

Show all 65 claims

It may state two separate claims as one. 42
Probably not a substantial claim. 18

In the paper
“The pattern of representation in wealthy countries was similar to Martin et al. but overall results were mixed with over- und under-representation of high and low income countries compared to the number of sites expected (S4 Table).”
§ The Diversity-Weighted Living Planet Index: Controlling for Taxonomic Bias in a Global Biodiversity Indicator > Results > Geographic representation within the living planet index
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Martin et al.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For the marine system, data tend to be clustered near the coasts which is where most known impact from human activity occurs [41] but also the areas of higher species richness [42].”
§ The Diversity-Weighted Living Planet Index: Controlling for Taxonomic Bias in a Global Biodiversity Indicator > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [41] BS Halpern, 2008, A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems, Science source
- Not checked yetcites [42] DP Tittensor, 2010, Global patterns and predictors of marine biodiversity across taxa, Nature source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These types of bias are a common feature of other global biodiversity databases [10,11], usually with a noticeable gap in data from tropical regions [12].”
§ The Diversity-Weighted Living Planet Index: Controlling for Taxonomic Bias in a Global Biodiversity Indicator > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] EH Boakes, 2010, Distorted Views of Biodiversity: Spatial and Temporal Bias in Species Occurrence Data, PLoS Biol source
- Not checked yetcites [11] C Yesson, 2007, How Global Is the Global Biodiversity Information Facility?, PLoS ONE source
- Not checked yetcites [12] B Collen, 2008, The tropical biodiversity data gap: addressing disparity in global monitoring, Tropical Conservation Science source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the performance of biodiversity indicators such as the LPI can be compromised by the presence of bias in the data and limited in effectiveness as tools in measuring progress towards specific policy targets [1,14].”
§ The Diversity-Weighted Living Planet Index: Controlling for Taxonomic Bias in a Global Biodiversity Indicator > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] B Collen, 2014, Taking the measure of change, Science source
- Not checked yetcites [14] E Nicholson, 2012, Making Robust Policy Decisions Using Global Biodiversity Indicators, PLoS ONE source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Other indicators based on species abundance (e.g. [15,16]) are developed for a selected group of species using a systematic monitoring protocol to collect the data used, so the indicator is spatially and taxonomically representative of the region and taxa in question.”
§ The Diversity-Weighted Living Planet Index: Controlling for Taxonomic Bias in a Global Biodiversity Indicator > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] RD Gregory, 2005, Developing indicators for European birds, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences source
- Not checked yetcites [16] CAM van Swaay, 2008, Butterfly monitoring in Europe: methods, applications and perspectives, Biodiversity and Conservation source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The Living Planet Index (LPI) [7–9], one in the suite of global species indicators used to track progress towards Aichi Target 12, focusses on monitoring the population trends of vertebrate species.”
§ The Diversity-Weighted Living Planet Index: Controlling for Taxonomic Bias in a Global Biodiversity Indicator > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] WWF (2016) Living Planet Report 2016: Risk and resilience in a new era WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.
- Not checked yetcites [8] B Collen, 2009, Monitoring Change in Vertebrate Abundance: the Living Planet Index, Conservation Biology source
- Not checked yetcites [9] J Loh, 2005, The Living Planet Index: using species population time series to track trends in biodiversity, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences source
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The LPI includes available published data, primarily in the scientific and grey literature (e.g. government/NGO reports) taken from the Living Planet Database (LPD) and records trends in 14,152 populations of 3,706 species.”
§ The Diversity-Weighted Living Planet Index: Controlling for Taxonomic Bias in a Global Biodiversity Indicator > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] WWF (2016) Living Planet Report 2016: Risk and resilience in a new era WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.
- Not checked yetcites [8] B Collen, 2009, Monitoring Change in Vertebrate Abundance: the Living Planet Index, Conservation Biology source
- Not checked yetcites [9] J Loh, 2005, The Living Planet Index: using species population time series to track trends in biodiversity, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences source
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Improving the coverage of Data Deficient species, as categorised by the IUCN Red List, might introduce negative trends if these species are likely to be threatened, as has been predicted for terrestrial mammals [43].”
§ The Diversity-Weighted Living Planet Index: Controlling for Taxonomic Bias in a Global Biodiversity Indicator > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [43] LM Bland, 2015, Predicting the conservation status of data-deficient species, Conservation Biology source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, tropical regions tend to have higher richness and a greater proportion of threatened species [34], so this method may introduce another bias by placing a high proportion of weight on groups that may be less well monitored, under-represented, or more likely to be categorized as threatened.”
§ The Diversity-Weighted Living Planet Index: Controlling for Taxonomic Bias in a Global Biodiversity Indicator > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [34] R Grenyer, 2006, Global distribution and conservation of rare and threatened vertebrates, Nature source
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Estimates for the number of as yet unidentified birds and mammals are small (e.g. ~10–15 species), but the number of unidentified amphibians, reptiles and fish are much larger with respective estimates of 57%, 13% and 22% undescribed [44].”
§ The Diversity-Weighted Living Planet Index: Controlling for Taxonomic Bias in a Global Biodiversity Indicator > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44] BR Scheffers, 2012, What we know and don’t know about Earth's missing biodiversity, Trends in Ecology & Evolution source
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Other approaches have been used, for example, to account for the differing proportion of a species’ total population across different countries [15].”
§ The Diversity-Weighted Living Planet Index: Controlling for Taxonomic Bias in a Global Biodiversity Indicator > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] RD Gregory, 2005, Developing indicators for European birds, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences source
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, the bias towards data from protected areas might suggest the LPI would show a greater decline if counterfactuals from unprotected sites were equally monitored, on the assumption that protection has a positive effect on population trends.”
§ The Diversity-Weighted Living Planet Index: Controlling for Taxonomic Bias in a Global Biodiversity Indicator > Discussion
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibrated
Tests✗ Asserted: fails✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: fails
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Protection has a positive effect on population trends.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Trends in abundance of species populations are a crucial indicator of biodiversity [28,29] and can provide early warnings of declines prior to species qualifying for high levels of extinction risk [30].”
§ The Diversity-Weighted Living Planet Index: Controlling for Taxonomic Bias in a Global Biodiversity Indicator > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] L Santini, Assessing the suitability of diversity metrics to detect biodiversity change, Biological Conservation
- Not checked yetcites [29] ST Buckland, 2011, The geometric mean of relative abundance indices: a biodiversity measure with a difference, Ecosphere source
- Not checked yetcites [30] B Collen, 2011, Predicting how populations decline to extinction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Consequently, this metric has been recommended as an Essential Biodiversity Variable [31], and, its use in geometric mean abundance indicators such as the Living Planet Index (LPI), is part of the mechanism to monitor biodiversity and assess progress towards the Aichi Targets.”
§ The Diversity-Weighted Living Planet Index: Controlling for Taxonomic Bias in a Global Biodiversity Indicator > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] HM Pereira, 2013, Essential Biodiversity Variables, Science source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example we know that tropical vertebrate populations are in worse decline than those in temperate regions [45] and that amphibians are threatened with a greater risk of extinction than mammals or birds [46].”
§ The Diversity-Weighted Living Planet Index: Controlling for Taxonomic Bias in a Global Biodiversity Indicator > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [46] SN Stuart, 2004, Status and Trends of Amphibian Declines and Extinctions Worldwide, Science source
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

52 of 52

The authors state this as an assumption.
Protection has a positive effect on population trends.
“on the assumption that protection has a positive effect on population trends.”

1 of 1

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?

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

Abstract reverses the unweighted terrestrial trend
Major
The abstract reports a 15% increase for the unweighted terrestrial index, but Table 1 gives its 2012 value as 0.848 relative to a 1970 baseline of 1-a decline of about 15%.
Marine group with zero representation contradicts removal rationale
Minor
The paper identifies a marine reptile group with 0% representation, then says no marine groups have less than 1% representation.

2 of 2

Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Desa, U. (2018) · Springer Publishing Company eBooks · doi:10.1891/9780826190123.ap02 · Cited by 19,478
A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems
Halpern, B. S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K. A., Kappel, C. V., Micheli, F., D'Agrosa, C., Bruno, J. F., Casey, K. S., Ebert, C., Fox, H. E., et al. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1149345 · Cited by 6,627
Status and Trends of Amphibian Declines and Extinctions Worldwide
Stuart, S. N., Chanson, J. S., Cox, N. A., Young, B. E., Rodrigues, A. S. L., Fischman, D. L., & Waller, R. W. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1103538 · Cited by 4,508
Defaunation in the Anthropocene
Dirzo, R., Young, H. S., Galetti, M., Ceballos, G., Isaac, N. J. B., & Collen, B. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1251817 · Cited by 4,474
Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., Barnosky, A. D., García, A., Pringle, R. M., & Palmer, T. M. (2015) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400253 · Cited by 4,220
The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection
Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N., Abell, R., Brooks, T. M., Gittleman, J. L., Joppa, L. N., Raven, P. H., Roberts, C. M., & Sexton, J. O. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1246752 · Cited by 3,542
Freshwater Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Biogeographic Units for Freshwater Biodiversity Conservation
Abell, R., Thieme, M. L., Revenga, C., Bryer, M., Kottelat, M., Bogutskaya, N., Coad, B., Mandrak, N., Balderas, S. C., Bussing, W., et al. (2008) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/b580507 · Cited by 2,045
Essential Biodiversity Variables
Pereira, H. M., Ferrier, S., Walters, M., Geller, G. N., Jongman, R. H. G., Scholes, R. J., Bruford, M. W., Brummitt, N., Butchart, S. H. M., Cardoso, A. C., et al. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1229931 · Cited by 1,637
Global patterns and predictors of marine biodiversity across taxa
Tittensor, D. P., Mora, C., Jetz, W., Lotze, H. K., Ricard, D., Berghe, E. V., & Worm, B. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature09329 · Cited by 1,524
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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 37 references

Sorted by citations

Bending the Curve of Global Freshwater Biodiversity Loss: An Emergency Recovery Plan
Tickner, D., Opperman, J. J., Abell, R., Acreman, M., Arthington, A. H., Bunn, S. E., Cooke, S. J., Dalton, J., Darwall, W., Edwards, G., et al. (2020) · BioScience · doi:10.1093/biosci/biaa002 · Cited by 1,241
The direct drivers of recent global anthropogenic biodiversity loss
Jaureguiberry, P., Titeux, N., Wiemers, M., Bowler, D. E., Coscieme, L., Golden, A. S., Guerra, C. A., Jacob, U., Takahashi, Y., Settele, J., et al. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abm9982 · Cited by 1,121
Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy
Leclère, D., Obersteiner, M., Barrett, M., Butchart, S. H. M., Chaudhary, A., De Palma, A., DeClerck, F. A. J., Di Marco, M., Doelman, J. C., Dürauer, M., et al. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2705-y · Cited by 922
Self-citation
Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss
Mace, G. M., Barrett, M., Burgess, N. D., Cornell, S. E., Freeman, R., Grooten, M., & Purvis, A. (2018) · Nature Sustainability · doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0130-0 · Cited by 550
Self-citation
Building essential biodiversity variables ( EBV s) of species distribution and abundance at a global scale
Kissling, W. D., Ahumada, J., Bowser, A., Fernández, M., Fernández, N., García, E. A., Guralnick, R., Isaac, N. J. B., Kelling, S., Los, W., et al. (2017) · Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · doi:10.1111/brv.12359 · Cited by 323
“org/data_portal) as well as with the latest publication (McRae et al., 2017) and as part of the Living Planet Report (http://www.”
Self-citation
The global decline of freshwater megafauna
He, F., Zarfl, C., Bremerich, V., David, J. N. W., Hogan, Z. S., Kalinkat, G., Tockner, K., & Jähnig, S. C. (2019) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.14753 · Cited by 302
“The calculation procedure is summarized below (see McRae et al., 2017 for further details).”
MethodInfluential
Role of economics in analyzing the environment and sustainable development
Polasky, S., Kling, C. L., Levin, S. A., Carpenter, S. R., Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. R., Heal, G., & Lubchenco, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1901616116 · Cited by 255
Scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal, milestones and indicators for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework
Nicholson, E., Watermeyer, K. E., Rowland, J. A., Sato, C. F., Stevenson, S., Andrade, Á., Brooks, T. M., Burgess, N. D., Cheng, S., Grantham, H. S., et al. (2021) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-021-01538-5 · Cited by 233
Rapid warming is associated with population decline among terrestrial birds and mammals globally
Spooner, F. E. B., Pearson, R. G., & Freeman, R. (2018) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.14361 · Cited by 232
Self-citation
Complex long-term biodiversity change among invertebrates, bryophytes and lichens
Outhwaite, C. L., Gregory, R. D., Chandler, R. E., Collen, B., & Isaac, N. J. B. (2020) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-020-1111-z · Cited by 209
Improvements to the Wetland Extent Trends (WET) index as a tool for monitoring natural and human-made wetlands
Darrah, S. E., Shennan-Farpón, Y., Loh, J., Davidson, N. C., Finlayson, C. M., Gardner, R. C., & Walpole, M. J. (2019) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.12.032 · Cited by 196
A strategy for the next decade to address data deficiency in neglected biodiversity
Hochkirch, A., Samways, M. J., Gerlach, J., Böhm, M., Williams, P., Cardoso, P., Cumberlidge, N., Stephenson, P. J., Seddon, M. B., Clausnitzer, V., et al. (2020) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.13589 · Cited by 219
“Tracking global population trends: population time-series data and a Living Planet Index for reptiles.”
BackgroundInfluential
Building capacity in biodiversity monitoring at the global scale
Schmeller, D. S., Böhm, M., Arvanitidis, C., Barber-Meyer, S. M., Brummitt, N. A., Chandler, M., Chatzinikolaou, E., Costello, M. J., Ding, H., García‐Moreno, J., et al. (2017) · Biodiversity and Conservation · doi:10.1007/s10531-017-1388-7 · Cited by 188
A quantitative global review of species population monitoring
Moussy, C., Burfield, I. J., Stephenson, P. J., Newton, A. F. E., Butchart, S. H. M., Sutherland, W. J., Gregory, R. D., McRae, L., Bubb, P., Roesler, I., et al. (2021) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.13721 · Cited by 166
Self-citation
Clustered versus catastrophic global vertebrate declines
Leung, B., Hargreaves, A. L., Greenberg, D. A., McGill, B. J., Dornelas, M., & Freeman, R. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2920-6 · Cited by 165
Self-citation
The conservation status of the world’s freshwater molluscs
Böhm, M., Richman, N. I., Seddon, M. B., Ledger, S. E. H., Albrecht, C., Allen, D., Bogan, A. E., Cordeiro, J., Cummings, K. S., Cuttelod, A., et al. (2020) · Hydrobiologia · doi:10.1007/s10750-020-04385-w · Cited by 173
An analysis of trends, uncertainty and species selection shows contrasting trends of widespread forest and farmland birds in Europe
Gregory, R. D., Škorpilová, J., Voříšek, P., & Butler, S. J. (2019) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.04.064 · Cited by 149
Urban Stream and Wetland Restoration in the Global South—A DPSIR Analysis
Wantzen, K., Alves, C., Badiane, S., Bala, R., Blettler, M., Callisto, M., Cao, Y., Kolb, M., Kondolf, G., Leite, M., et al. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11184975 · Cited by 135
“Freshwater ecosystems have suffered the strongest decline of global biodiversity, while their vertebrate populations alone have declined by 83% between 1970 and 2012 [4], with maximum values of 94% in the Neotropics [5].”
Background
Sampling and modelling rare species: Conceptual guidelines for the neglected majority
Jeliazkov, A., Gavish, Y., Marsh, C. J., Geschke, J., Brummitt, N. A., Rocchini, D., Haase, P., Kunin, W. E., & Henle, K. (2022) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.16114 · Cited by 124
“Thus, we might wrongly conclude that the species distribution is deteriorating whilst it may in fact be in an equilibrium state (Magurran et al., 2010) (but see (McRae et al., 2017)).”
Background
Long-term and large-scale multispecies dataset tracking population changes of common European breeding birds
Brlík, V., Šilarová, E., Škorpilová, J., Alonso, H., Anton, M., Auniņš, A., Benkő, Z., Biver, G., Busch, M., Chodkiewicz, T., et al. (2021) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-021-00804-2 · Cited by 130
An inventory of biodiversity data sources for conservation monitoring
Stephenson, P. J., & Stengel, C. J. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242923 · Cited by 124
“These findings reflect recognised global trends, with major gaps in biodiversity data in highbiodiversity tropical countries [13, 29, 30].”
Background
Challenges With Inferring How Land-Use Affects Terrestrial Biodiversity: Study Design, Time, Space and Synthesis
Palma, A. D., Sánchez-Ortiz, K., Martin, P. A., Chadwick, A. J., Gilbert, G., Bates, A. E., Börger, L., Contu, S., Hill, S. L. L., & Purvis, A. (2018) · Advances in ecological research/Advances in Ecological Research · doi:10.1016/bs.aecr.2017.12.004 · Cited by 113
Temporal trends in the spatial bias of species occurrence records
Bowler, D. E., Callaghan, C. T., Bhandari, N., Henle, K., Barth, M. B., Koppitz, C., Klenke, R., Winter, M., Jansen, F., Bruelheide, H., et al. (2022) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.06219 · Cited by 109
We need to talk about nonprobability samples
Boyd, R. J., Powney, G. D., & Pescott, O. L. (2023) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2023.01.001 · Cited by 130
Data justice and biodiversity conservation
Pritchard, R., Sauls, L. A., Oldekop, J. A., Kiwango, W. A., & Brockington, D. (2022) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.13919 · Cited by 93
Monitoring the biodiversity of regions: Key principles and possible pitfalls
Buckland, S. T., & Johnston, A. (2017) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2017.07.034 · Cited by 100
The biased distribution of existing information on biodiversity hinders its use in conservation, and we need an integrative approach to act urgently
García‐Roselló, E., González‐Dacosta, J., & Lobo, J. M. (2023) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110118 · Cited by 85
Drivers of biodiversity loss in freshwater environments: A bibliometric analysis of the recent literature
Williams‐Subiza, E. A., & Epele, L. B. (2021) · Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems · doi:10.1002/aqc.3627 · Cited by 89
Towards a multidimensional biodiversity index for national application
Soto-Navarro, C., Harfoot, M., Hill, S. L. L., Campbell, J., Mora, F., Campos, C., Pretorius, C., Pascual, U., Kapos, V., Allison, H., et al. (2021) · Nature Sustainability · doi:10.1038/s41893-021-00753-z · Cited by 85
Measuring the Impact of Conservation: The Growing Importance of Monitoring Fauna, Flora and Funga
Stephenson, P. J., Londoño, M. C., Borges, P. A. V., Claassens, L., Frisch-Nwakanma, H., Ling, N., McMullan-Fisher, S., Meeuwig, J. J., Unter, K. M. M., Walls, J. L., et al. (2022) · Diversity · doi:10.3390/d14100824 · Cited by 103
Treating gaps and biases in biodiversity data as a missing data problem
Bowler, D. E., Boyd, R. J., Callaghan, C. T., Robinson, R. A., Isaac, N. J. B., & Pocock, M. J. O. (2024) · Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · doi:10.1111/brv.13127 · Cited by 102
“However, some of the approaches we discuss later for dealing with spatio-temporal gaps have been applied to account for taxonomic gaps (e.g. weighting in the Living Planet Index, McRae, Deinet & Freeman, 2017) and missing data thinking could be extended to these types of gaps.”
Rare and common vertebrates span a wide spectrum of population trends
Daskalova, G. N., Myers‐Smith, I. H., & Godlee, J. L. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17779-0 · Cited by 83
Mammal population densities at a global scale are higher in human‐modified areas
Tucker, M. A., Santini, L., Carbone, C., & Mueller, T. (2020) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.05126 · Cited by 75
The undetectability of global biodiversity trends using local species richness
Valdez, J. W., Callaghan, C. T., Junker, J., Purvis, A., Hill, S. L. L., & Pereira, H. M. (2023) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.06604 · Cited by 82
Annual changes in the Biodiversity Intactness Index in tropical and subtropical forest biomes, 2001–2012
Palma, A. D., Hoskins, A. J., Gonzalez, R. E., Börger, L., Newbold, T., Sánchez-Ortiz, K., Ferrier, S., & Purvis, A. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-98811-1 · Cited by 81
Past, present, and future of the Living Planet Index
Ledger, S. E. H., Loh, J., Almond, R. E. A., Böhm, M., Clements, C. F., Currie, J., Deinet, S., Galewski, T., Grooten, M., Jenkins, M. D., et al. (2023) · npj Biodiversity · doi:10.1038/s44185-023-00017-3 · Cited by 71
“This issue is ampli ﬁ ed for regions and taxa which are recognised as underrepresented within the dataset such as tropical regions and ﬁ sh, reptiles and amphibians (Supplementary Tables 7, 8) 27,103 .”
InfluentialSelf-citation
A global perspective on the functional responses of stream communities to flow intermittence
Crabot, J., Mondy, C. P., Usseglio‐Polatera, P., Fritz, K. M., Wood, P. J., Greenwood, M. J., Bogan, M. T., Meyer, E. I., & Datry, T. (2021) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.05697 · Cited by 69
“However, approximately a third of all freshwater species are endangered (Collen et al. 2013) and the reported decline of freshwater vertebrates and insects is much higher than those reported from terrestrial or marine biomes (McRae et al. 2017, Baranov et al. 2020).”
Through the Eye of a Needle: An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy Transition
Seibert, M. K., & Rees, W. E. (2021) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en14154508 · Cited by 67
“McRae et al. [12] estimate that the populations of non-human vertebrate species declined by 58% between 1970 and 2012 alone.”
Background
Migration in the Anthropocene: how collective navigation, environmental system and taxonomy shape the vulnerability of migratory species
Hardesty‐Moore, M., Deinet, S., Freeman, R., Titcomb, G., Dillon, E., Stears, K., Klope, M., Bui, A. Q. T., Orr, D. A., Young, H. S., et al. (2018) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2017.0017 · Cited by 66
Self-citation
The Use of Traditional and Modern Tools for Monitoring Wetlands Biodiversity in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities
Stephenson, P. J., Ntiamoa‐Baidu, Y., & Simaika, J. P. (2020) · Frontiers in Environmental Science · doi:10.3389/fenvs.2020.00061 · Cited by 61
“As a result, many global data sets have taxonomic, temporal, and geographic gaps in coverage (Stephenson et al., 2015a; McRae et al., 2017).”
Background
Monitoring extinction risk and threats of the world’s fishes based on the Sampled Red List Index
Miranda, R., Miqueleiz, I., Darwall, W. R. T., Sayer, C. A., Dulvy, N. K., Carpenter, K. E., Polidoro, B., Richman, N. I., Pollock, C. M., Hilton‐Taylor, C., et al. (2022) · Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries · doi:10.1007/s11160-022-09710-1 · Cited by 63
“…by the Living Planet Index, a measure of the trends of global biodiversity based on population trends of vertebrate species from around the world (McRae et al. 2017), showed an average decline of around 52% for monitored marine vertebrate populations since 1970 (WWF 2015), compared to 84% for…”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Scenarios of Good Anthropocenes in southern Africa
Hamann, M., Biggs, R., Pereira, L. M., Preiser, R., Hichert, T. N., Blanchard, R., Warrington-Coetzee, H., King, N., Merrie, A., Nilsson, W. O., et al. (2020) · Futures · doi:10.1016/j.futures.2020.102526 · Cited by 68
Effects of site‐selection bias on estimates of biodiversity change
Mentges, A., Blowes, S. A., Hodapp, D., Hillebrand, H., & Chase, J. M. (2020) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.13610 · Cited by 62
“However, these estimates can be confounded by sampling biases that influence data availability and analyses that are possible (Gonzalez et al. 2016), including overor underrepresentation of geographic regions, land-use types, and taxonomic groups (Martin et al. 2012; McRae et al. 2017).”
Background
Tracking Global Population Trends: Population Time-Series Data and a Living Planet Index for Reptiles
Saha, A., McRae, L., Dodd, C. K., Gadsden, H., Hare, K. M., Lukoschek, V., & Böhm, M. (2018) · Journal of Herpetology · doi:10.1670/17-076 · Cited by 65
“Population time-series data are included in the LPD if they contain at least two data points, the monitoring method used is the same throughout the time series, the method used is reputable and appropriate for the species, and the units represent the size or abundance of the population being monitored (Collen et al.,…”
InfluentialSelf-citation
Species life‐history strategies affect population responses to temperature and land‐cover changes
Albaladejo‐Robles, G., Böhm, M., & Newbold, T. (2022) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.16454 · Cited by 57
“Similarly, random population fluctuations can compromise the accuracy of the LPI even if, K E Y W O R D S climate, land- use change, life- histories, living planet index, macroecology, population trends, terrestrial vertebrates on average, populations remain stable, especially when populations are small (Buschke et al…”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
A review of deep learning techniques for detecting animals in aerial and satellite images
Xu, Z., Wang, T., Skidmore, A. K., & Lamprey, R. H. (2024) · International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation · doi:10.1016/j.jag.2024.103732 · Cited by 74
“The species population is one of the most fundamental and priority variables to be monitored, as recognized by the EBV framework and supported by subsequent studies (Skidmore et al., 2015; Brummitt et al., 2017; McRae et al., 2017; Jetz et al., 2019; Skidmore et al., 2021).”
Background
Impact of climate change on the small mammal community of the Yukon boreal forest
Krebs, C. J., Boonstra, R., GILBERT, B. S., Kenney, A. J., & Boutin, S. A. (2019) · Integrative Zoology · doi:10.1111/1749-4877.12397 · Cited by 57
“There is a general feeling among conservation biologists that biodiversity is being lost on an ever-increasing scale and that most populations that have been studied are declining in abundance (Estes et al. 2011; McRae et al. 2017; Ripple et al. 2017; but see Vellend 2017).”
Background
The species awareness index as a conservation culturomics metric for public biodiversity awareness
Millard, J. W., Gregory, R. D., Jones, K. E., & Freeman, R. (2021) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.13701 · Cited by 53
“The LPI represents an aggregation of vertebrate population trends (Loh et al. 2005; Collen 2009; McRae et al. 2017), showing the average rate of change for multiple species populations.”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Impacts of loss of free-flowing rivers on global freshwater megafauna
He, F., Thieme, M. L., Zarfl, C., Grill, G., Lehner, B., Hogan, Z. S., Tockner, K., & Jähnig, S. C. (2021) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109335 · Cited by 55
A robust goal is needed for species in the Post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework
Williams, B. A., Watson, J. E. M., Butchart, S. H. M., Ward, M., Brooks, T. M., Butt, N., Bolam, F. C., Stuart, S. N., Mair, L., McGowan, P. J. K., et al. (2020) · Conservation Letters · doi:10.1111/conl.12778 · Cited by 50
“Average population abundance as measured by the Living Planet Index has declined by 60% since 1970 (McRae, Deinet, & Freeman, 2017), which is the earliest time-point with sufficient data for global trends to be assessed.”
Method
Causes and consequences of insect decline in tropical forests
Boyle, M. J. W., Bonebrake, T. C., da Silva, K. D., Dongmo, M. A. K., França, F. M., Gregory, N., Kitching, R. L., Ledger, M. J., Lewis, O. T., Sharp, A. C., et al. (2025) · Nature Reviews Biodiversity · doi:10.1038/s44358-025-00038-9 · Cited by 58
“This bias presents a worrying problem during an era of rapid global change, as biodiversity indices are highly sensitive to spatial and taxonomic coverage 11 .”
Integrating data from different survey types for population monitoring of an endangered species: the case of the Eld’s deer
Bowler, D. E., Nilsen, E. B., Bischof, R., O’Hara, R. B., Yu, T. T., Oo, T., Aung, M., & Linnell, J. D. C. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-44075-9 · Cited by 50
Do not downplay biodiversity loss
Loreau, M., Cardinale, B. J., Isbell, F. I., Newbold, T., O’Connor, M. I., & de Mazancourt, C. (2022) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04179-7 · Cited by 49
Including indigenous and local knowledge in climate research: an assessment of the opinion of Spanish climate change researchers
García‐del‐Amo, D., Mortyn, P. G., & Reyes‐García, V. (2020) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-019-02628-x · Cited by 50
Hunting Wildlife in the Tropics and Subtropics
Fa, J. E., Funk, S. M., & Nasi, R. (2022) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316338704 · Cited by 56
Plant demographic knowledge is biased towards short‐term studies of temperate‐region herbaceous perennials
Römer, G., Dahlgren, J. P., Salguero‐Gómez, R., Stott, I., & Jones, O. R. (2023) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/oik.10250 · Cited by 47
LIFE: A metric for mapping the impact of land-cover change on global extinctions
Eyres, A., Ball, T., Dales, M., Swinfield, T., Arnell, A., Baisero, D., Durán, A. P., Green, J., Green, R. E., Madhavapeddy, A., et al. (2025) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2023.0327 · Cited by 56
“For example, the Living Planet Index [12] uses data only for vertebrates, much of it from Europe and North America, though in this case substantial efforts are made to adjust statistically for differences in the coverage of different classes and regions [13].”
How do we take the pulse of an aquatic ecosystem? Current and historical approaches to measuring ecosystem integrity
Maloney, E. M. (2018) · Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry · doi:10.1002/etc.4308 · Cited by 46
“Recent reports indicate that over the last 30 yr there has been a 58% global population decline in all vertebrate species, and 81, 36, and 38%decreases in freshwater, marine, and terrestrial vertebrate populations, respectively (McRae et al. 2017).”
Background
Choice of baseline affects historical population trends in hunted mammals of North America
Collins, A. C., Böhm, M., & Collen, B. (2020) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108421 · Cited by 43
Using decision science to evaluate global biodiversity indices
Watermeyer, K. E., Guillera‐Arroita, G., Bal, P., Burgass, M. J., Bland, L. M., Collen, B., Hallam, C., Kelly, L. T., Mccarthy, M. A., Regan, T. J., et al. (2020) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.13574 · Cited by 42
“…or missing data could be reduced by broadening databases to reduce taxonomic or geographic bias, using methods, such as the sampled RLI or the diversity-weighted LPI (McRae et al. 2017), or addressing data gaps through simulation approaches, such as archetype models (e.g., Ferrier et al. 2016).”
BackgroundMethod
Integrating Remote Sensing into Wildlife Monitoring for Conservation
Stephenson, P. J. (2019) · Environmental Conservation · doi:10.1017/s0376892919000092 · Cited by 41
“2016), remote sensing can also help fill the data gaps that exist in high-biodiversity tropical countries (McRae et al. 2017) and help build time-series data of higher temporal and spatial resolution.”
Background
Random population fluctuations bias the Living Planet Index
Buschke, F., Hagan, J. G., Santini, L., & Coetzee, B. W. T. (2021) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-021-01494-0 · Cited by 41
Biological determinants of research effort on Australian birds: a comparative analysis
Yarwood, M. R., Weston, M. A., & Symonds, M. R. E. (2018) · Emu - Austral Ornithology · doi:10.1080/01584197.2018.1501274 · Cited by 37
“Uneven sampling of different taxa can create difficulties in comparative and meta-analyses (Hillis 1998; Thomas et al. 2003) and estimating biodiversity decline (McRae et al. 2017).”
Background
A review of planting principles to identify the right place for the right tree for ‘net zero plus’ woodlands: Applying a place‐based natural capital framework for sustainable, efficient and equitable ( SEE ) decisions
Bateman, I. J., Anderson, K., Argles, A. P. K., Belcher, C. M., Betts, R., Binner, A. R., Brazier, R. E., Cho, F. H. T., Collins, R., Day, B., et al. (2022) · People and Nature · doi:10.1002/pan3.10331 · Cited by 41
Ongoing over-exploitation and delayed responses to environmental change highlight the urgency for action to promote vertebrate recoveries by 2030
Cornford, R., Spooner, F. E. B., McRae, L., Purvis, A., & Freeman, R. (2023) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2023.0464 · Cited by 49
Self-citation
Major biases and knowledge gaps on fragmentation research in Brazil: Implications for conservation
Teixido, A. L., Gonçalves, S. R. A., Fernández-Arellano, G., Dáttilo, W., Izzo, T. J., Layme, V. M. G., Moreira, L. F. B., & Quintanilla, L. G. (2020) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108749 · Cited by 40
A systematic review evaluating the performance of eDNA methods relative to conventional methods for biodiversity monitoring
Iacaruso, N. J., Reves, O. P., Merkelz, S. J., Waldrep, C. L., & Davis, M. A. (2025) · Ecography · doi:10.1002/ecog.07952 · Cited by 37
A threatened species index for Australian birds
Bayraktarov, E., Ehmke, G. C., TULLOCH, A. I. T., Chauvenet, A. L. M., Avery‐Gomm, S., McRae, L., Wintle, B. A., O’Connor, J., Driessen, J., Watmuff, J., et al. (2020) · Conservation Science and Practice · doi:10.1111/csp2.322 · Cited by 37
“Based on the Living Planet Index method and containing more than 17,000 time series for 65 bird taxa surveyed systematically, the index at its second iteration shows an average reduction of 59% between 1985 and 2016, and 44% between 2000 and 2016.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citation
Below the canopy: global trends in forest vertebrate populations and their drivers
Green, E. J., McRae, L., Freeman, R., Harfoot, M. B. J., Hill, S. L. L., Baldwin-Cantello, W., & Simonson, W. D. (2020) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2020.0533 · Cited by 38
“By comparison, the terrestrial LPI declined by 41% between 1970 and 2014 (figure 1b; index value: 0.59; range 0.44–0.79), representing an average decline for 5175 monitored terrestrial populations with an annual rate of 1.2% per year.”
MethodInfluentialSelf-citation
Estimating animal density for a community of species using information obtained only from camera‐traps
Wearn, O. R., Bell, T. E. M., Bolitho, A., Durrant, J. R., Haysom, J. K., Nijhawan, S., Thorley, J. B., & Rowcliffe, J. M. (2022) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13930 · Cited by 32
“…not shown to allow use of the same scale across species. explanation for this is that logged forests provide a higher density of resources, in particular resources at ground level for herbivores and omnivores (Meijaard & Sheil, 2008), leading to less time spent travelling and more time foraging.”
Background
From topography to hydrology—The modifiable area unit problem impacts freshwater species distribution models
Friedrichs‐Manthey, M., Langhans, S. D., Hein, T. I. A., Borgwardt, F., Kling, H., Jähnig, S. C., & Domisch, S. (2020) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.6110 · Cited by 31
Drivers and impacts of global seed disperser decline
Fricke, E. C., Bello, C., Chaplin‐Kramer, R., Dent, D. H., Feeley, K. J., Galetti, M., González‐Varo, J. P., Heleno, R., & Reid, J. L. (2025) · Nature Reviews Biodiversity · doi:10.1038/s44358-025-00053-w · Cited by 39
“…across regions 11 , mean decline of range size for seed-dispersing mammals 90 and mean decline in population size across birds and mammals 93 . b , International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List categories for seed-dispersing birds and mammals, other birds and mammals or…”
Advancing causal inference in ecology: Pathways for biodiversity change detection and attribution
Schrodt, F., Beck, M., Estopinan, J., Bowler, D. E., Fontaine, C., Gaüzère, P., Goury, R., Grenié, M., Martins, I. S., Morueta‐Holme, N., et al. (2025) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.70131 · Cited by 40
“Similarly, approaches have been developed to specifically address non-random taxonomic bias (Henriques et al., 2020 ; McRae et al., 2017 ).”
Multispecies assemblages and multiple stressors: Synthesizing the state of experimental research in freshwaters
He, F., Arora, R., & Mansour, I. (2023) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Water · doi:10.1002/wat2.1641 · Cited by 31
“At the same time, freshwater ecosystems have higher percentages of extinct and threatened species and a sharper decline of vertebrate populations than marine or terrestrial realms (Costello, 2015; McRae et al., 2017).”
Background
The future of global river health monitoring
Kuehne, L. M., Dickens, C. W. S., Tickner, D., Messager, M., Olden, J. D., O'Brien, G. C., Lehner, B., & Eriyagama, N. (2023) · PLOS Water · doi:10.1371/journal.pwat.0000101 · Cited by 34
The Living Planet Index does not measure abundance
Puurtinen, M., Elo, M., & Kotiaho, J. S. (2022) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03708-8 · Cited by 29
A simple survey protocol for assessing terrestrial biodiversity in a broad range of ecosystems
Lõhmus, A., Lõhmus, P., & Runnel, K. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0208535 · Cited by 28
A guide to representing variability and uncertainty in biodiversity indicators
Rowland, J. A., Bland, L. M., James, S., & Nicholson, E. (2021) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.13699 · Cited by 28
“The LPI is calculated as the geometric mean of the rate of change in vertebrate species population abundances globally (McRae et al. 2017).”
Method
Changes in species richness and composition of boreal waterbird communities: a comparison between two time periods 25 years apart
Pöysä, H., Holopainen, S., Elmberg, J., Gunnarsson, G., Nummi, P., & Sjöberg, K. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-38167-1 · Cited by 27
More exposure opportunities for promoting freshwater conservation
He, F., Jähnig, S. C., Wetzig, A., & Langhans, S. D. (2021) · Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems · doi:10.1002/aqc.3725 · Cited by 27
A global indicator of utilized wildlife populations: Regional trends and the impact of management
McRae, L., Freeman, R., Geldmann, J., Moss, G. B., Kjær-Hansen, L., & Burgess, N. D. (2022) · One Earth · doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2022.03.014 · Cited by 37
“First, our index builds on data and methods that are already established in research and policy.(16,35,36,38) Second, using population trend data allows integration of site-level information on the type of utilization and management.”
InfluentialSelf-citation
Multiple forms of hotspots of tetrapod biodiversity and the challenges of open-access data scarcity
Grattarola, F., Martínez‐Lanfranco, J. A., Botto, G., Naya, D. E., Maneyro, R., Mai, P., Hernández, D., Laufer, G., Ziegler, L., González, E. M., et al. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-79074-8 · Cited by 31
Testing the performance of ecosystem indices for biodiversity monitoring
Rowland, J. A., Lee, C. K. F., Bland, L. M., & Nicholson, E. (2020) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106453 · Cited by 24
Fast, scalable, and automated identification of articles for biodiversity and macroecological datasets
Cornford, R., Deinet, S., Palma, A. D., Hill, S. L. L., McRae, L., Pettit, B., Marconi, V., Purvis, A., & Freeman, R. (2020) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1111/geb.13219 · Cited by 25
“Given the imbalances that exist within ecological datasets (Gonzalez et al., 2016; McRae et al., 2017), text classifiers like ours could propagate bias, as evidenced by the strong influence of certain terms in the logistic models, for example, ‘forest’ and ‘fish’.”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Global trade in the Anthropocene: A review of trends and direction of environmental factor flows during the Great Acceleration
Brolin, J., & Kander, A. (2020) · The Anthropocene Review · doi:10.1177/2053019620973711 · Cited by 25
“Some suggest increased rates of vertebrate extinction since the late 19th century (Li et al., 2016) and drastically rising rates of extinction (up to 1000 times or more) above background rates for the past 200 years (Ceballos et al., 2015; McRae et al., 2017; Newbold et al., 2015).”
Background
Plant diversity conservation in an agricultural frontier in the Brazilian Cerrado
Santana, J. C. D. O., & Simon, M. F. (2022) · Biodiversity and Conservation · doi:10.1007/s10531-022-02356-2 · Cited by 22
Effects of different management strategies on long‐term trends of Australian threatened and near‐threatened mammals
TULLOCH, A. I. T., Jackson, M. V., Bayraktarov, E., Carey, A. R., Correa, D. F., Driessen, M. M., Gynther, I., Hardie, M., Moseby, K. E., Joseph, L. N., et al. (2022) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.14032 · Cited by 24
“13% annual average decline of terrestrial species estimated by the LPI (McRae et al., 2017).”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Land use and soil characteristics affect soil organisms differently from above-ground assemblages
Burton, V. J., Contu, S., Palma, A. D., Hill, S. L. L., Albrecht, H., Bone, J. S., Carpenter, D., Corstanje, R., SMEDT, P. D., Farrell, M., et al. (2022) · BMC Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1186/s12862-022-02089-4 · Cited by 22
“The most widely used indicators of biodiversity, e.g. the Red List Index [49] and the Living Planet Index [50], include few or no soil taxa [6].”
Method
Extinction risk of the world's freshwater mammals
Sanders, E., Wassens, S. M., Michael, D., Nimmo, D. G., & Turner, J. M. (2023) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.14168 · Cited by 23
“Freshwater vertebrate populations have declined by 81% since 1970, and since 1900 an estimated 71% of the world’s wetlands have been lost (Davidson, 2014; McRae et al., 2017).”
Background
Quantifying reliability and data deficiency in global vertebrate population trends using the Living Planet Index
Dove, S., Böhm, M., Freeman, R., McRae, L., & Murrell, D. J. (2023) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.16841 · Cited by 26
“A non-linear index trend was calculated for each complete, un-degraded dataset (without observation error), following McRae et al. ( 2017 ), as for the sampled trends.”
InfluentialSelf-citation
Sources of confusion in global biodiversity trends
Boënnec, M., Dakos, V., & Devictor, V. (2024) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/oik.10732 · Cited by 21
Nest survival of threatened Eurasian Curlew ( Numenius arquata ) breeding at low densities across a human‐modified landscape
Ewing, H., Franks, S. E., Smart, J., Burton, N. H. K., & Gill, J. A. (2022) · Ibis · doi:10.1111/ibi.13180 · Cited by 19
Agricultural spider decline: long-term trends under constant management conditions
Samu, F., Szita, É., Botos, E., Simon, J., Gallé‐Szpisjak, N., & Gallé, R. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-29003-2 · Cited by 18
Mathematical biases in the calculation of the Living Planet Index lead to overestimation of vertebrate population decline
Tószögyová, A., Smyčka, J., & Štorch, D. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-49070-x · Cited by 18
“3, Supplementary Table 2), the problem of representativeness is accounted by weighting and thus is not as serious.”
Influential
Achieving a real‐time online monitoring system for conservation culturomics
Johnson, T. F., Cornford, R., Dove, S., Freeman, R., & Millard, J. W. (2023) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.14096 · Cited by 17
“Although the Living Planet Index has undergone multiple improvements (Collen et al., 2009; McRae et al., 2017), it is still subject to criticism and suggestions for further improvement (Leung et al.”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Assessing the global vulnerability of dryland birds to heatwaves
Ding, C., Newbold, T., & Ameca, E. I. (2024) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.17136 · Cited by 19
Corroboration and contradictions in global biodiversity indicators
Stevenson, S., Watermeyer, K. E., Ferrier, S., Fulton, E. A., Xiao, H., & Nicholson, E. (2024) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110451 · Cited by 17
An assessment of the state of nature in the United Kingdom: A review of findings, methods and impact
Burns, F., Eaton, M. A., Hayhow, D. B., Outhwaite, C. L., Al‐Fulaij, N., August, T., Boughey, K. L., BRERETON, T. M., Brown, A. F., Bullock, D. J., et al. (2018) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.033 · Cited by 18
Conservation and Genetics.
Fenster, C. B., Ballou, J. D., Dudash, M. R., Eldridge, M. D. B., Frankham, R., Lacy, R. C., Ralls, K., & Sunnucks, P. (2018) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 17
The bii4africa dataset of faunal and floral population intactness estimates across Africa’s major land uses
Clements, H. S., San, E. D. L., Hempson, G. P., Linden, B., Maritz, B., Monadjem, A., Reynolds, C., Siebert, F., Stevens, N., Biggs, R., et al. (2024) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-023-02832-6 · Cited by 17

Authors: McRae, L., Deinet, S., & Freeman, R.
Affiliations: Zoological Society of London (GB)
Corresponding author: McRae, Louise
ORCID: McRae, Louise
Deinet, Stefanie
Freeman, Robin
Venue: PLOS ONE
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published: 2017-01-03
Volume: 12
Issue: 1
Pages: e0169156
ISSN: 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169156
PMC: PMC5207715
OpenAlex: W2493835817
Cited by: 236
References: 37
Citations by year: 2026: 13 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 5
FWCI: 15.55
Type: journal article
Language: en
Open access: gold
doi.org
Licence: cc-by
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Locations: PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
PubMed (publishedVersion)
DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders: WWF International
Topics: Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Keywords: Living Planet Index, biodiversity indicators, taxonomic bias, geographic bias, vertebrates, freshwater biodiversity, marine biodiversity, terrestrial biodiversity, biogeographical realms, data coverage, biodiversity monitoring
MeSH terms: Animals, Conservation of Natural Resources, Fresh Water, Geography, International Cooperation, Marine Biology, Science, Species Specificity, Time Factors, Vertebrates, Databases, Factual, Ecosystem, Earth, Planet, Biodiversity

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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

The Diversity-Weighted Living Planet Index: Controlling for Taxonomic Bias in a Global Biodiversity Indicator

Abstract

Overview

AI snapshot

TL;DR

Key findings

Methods

Limitations

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Claims other papers make about this one

Self-check

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Related

Metadata

Record

About these checks