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

Items 201–236 of 236

Sostenibilidad de la Agroindustria Nacional en términos de recursos naturales
Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal. Lima, P., Dueñas, A., Allende, J. C., Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal. Lima, P., Lozano, M. M. H., Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal. Lima, P., Inga, D., & Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal. Lima, P. (2019) · Campus · doi:10.24265/campus.2019.v24n28.04 · Cited by 1
“Algunos consideran medir la que se bio-diversidad (McRae, Deinet, & Freeman, 2017).”
Background
Sustainable Sanitation as a Tool to Reduce Land Degradation
Schofield, H. K. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4445-0_37 · Cited by 1
Freshwater corridors in the conterminous United States: A coarse‐filter approach based on lake‐stream networks
McCullough, I. M., Hanly, P. J., King, K. B. S., & Wagner, T. (2022) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1002/ecs2.4326 · Cited by 1
Bioregionalization: From Wallace and Humboldt to deep-time paleoregion dynamicsPreprint
Briega‐Álvarez, A., Siebert, H., Rodríguez, M. Á., & Varela, S. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.03.28.534545 · Cited by 1
Toward a Sustainable Future: An Exploratory Approach to the Dynamics of Europe’s Urban Morphology and Sustainability
Lovie, J. (2023) · doi:10.32920/23276549.v1 · Cited by 1
Mediated Landscapes: Technology and Environment in Recent Canadian Cinema
Browne, D. (2023) · doi:10.32920/23302199.v1 · Cited by 1
Development of Environmentally Sustainable Materials
Wells, M. (2018) · EcoWISE · doi:10.1007/978-981-13-0149-0_1
A More Precise Living Planet Index (LPI)
Hébert, K. (2019) · Biodiversity Information Science and Standards · doi:10.3897/biss.3.36517
Effective design and use of indicators for marine conservation
Burgass, M. J. (2019) · doi:10.25560/76025
“It contains trends for 14,152 populations of 3,706 species from across marine, terrestrial and freshwater realms and has had its methods and data continuously updated since its inception in 1998 (McRae et al. 2017).”
Background
The untapped potential of conservation journals to promote freshwater biodiversityPreprint
He, F., Jähnig, S. C., Wetzig, A., & Langhans, S. D. (2020) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2020.07.21.214288
Biodiversity Loss and Countermeasures
Funk, S. M. (2020) · Encyclopedia of the UN sustainable development goals · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-71065-5_88-1
A metric driving local action for global biodiversity conservationPreprint
Rossberg, A. G., O'Sullivan, J., Terry, J. C. D., & Shnerb, N. M. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1291460/v1
“To overcome technical and conceptual problems arising when populations of species entering the LPI approach zero [2, 3], we propose a regularised variant of this indicator.”
Background
Biodiversity Loss and Countermeasures
Funk, S. M. (2020) · Encyclopedia of the UN sustainable development goals · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-95981-8_88
References
(2022) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316338704.012
Recovering birds and mammals across Europe continue to be negatively impacted by threats but benefit from conservation measuresPreprint
Gray, C. L., McRae, L., Deinet, S., Ledger, S. E. H., Benham, C., Burfield, I. J., Eaton, M. A., Scott‐Gatty, K., Puleston, H., Rutherford, C., et al. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.09.01.506271 · Cited by 1
Self-citation
Realising the potential of real-time online monitoring for conservation culturomicsPreprint
Johnson, T. F., Cornford, R., Dove, S., Freeman, R., & Millard, J. W. (2022) · doi:10.32942/osf.io/r3ysc
Self-citation
Editorial: It is Raining Status Reports
Sundar, K. S. G. (2023) · Waterbirds · doi:10.1675/063.045.0201
“The methodology used has been carefully assessed and statistical improvements have been developed (McRae et al. 2017).”
Method
Dramatic improvements of terrestrial biodiversity in the Yangtze River Basin, ChinaPreprint
Xu, H., Liu, W., Yi, J., Mu, T., Yu, D., Li, J., Ma, F., Chen, J., & Wilcove, D. S. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2799008/v1
Mediated Landscapes: Technology and Environment in Recent Canadian Cinema
Browne, D. (2023) · doi:10.32920/23302199 · Cited by 1
Mise en place d’un suivi à long terme des populations de Lézard de Bonnal Iberolacerta bonnali (Lantz, 1927) dans le Parc national des Pyrénées : méthodologie retenue, faisabilité et premiers résultats
THIRION, U. J.-M., Vollette, J., LAFFITE, J., & Cheylan, M. (2024) · Naturae · doi:10.5852/naturae2024a6
“La mise en place de suivis protocolés chez les reptiles pose toutefois des difficultés particulières de par leur mode de vie souvent discret (Mazerolle et al. 2007), d’où le peu de suivis mis en place actuellement dans ce groupe (McRae et al. 2017 ; Ward et al. 2017).”
Background
Pelagic Environment and Its Biocoenosis
Błachowiak‐Samołyk, K., Linkowski, T., Stempniewicz, L., Tomczak, M., Węsławski, J. M., & Kotrys, B. (2024) · GeoPlanet: earth and planetary sciences · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-51865-2_4
Response of Freshwater Zooplankton Communities to Chronic Anthropogenic Noise
Rojas, E., Desjonquères, C., Agostini, S., Fiorini, S., Decencière, B., Danger, M., Felten, V., & Médoc, V. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-50256-9_139
Frequency of adult amphibian abnormalities and consequences for fitness-related traits in an uncontaminated environment
Gao, G. H. Y., Moldowan, P. D., LeGros, D. L., Sahar, M., Tattersall, G. J., & Rollinson, N. (2024) · Canadian Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1139/cjz-2024-0063
Representing biodiversity decline data by manipulating familiar audio files to create emotional responses: A novel sonification method of soundwave-level deletion
Martin, E. J., Meagher, T. R., & Barker, D. (2024) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110852
Shaping the Anthropocene: Understanding and Evaluating Human Impact on the Global Ecosystem
Ding, Y. (2025) · Environmental Quality Management · doi:10.1002/tqem.70104
Focused aquifer regeneration produced outsized gains for a threatened fish in a populated, dryland watershed
Boughton, D. A., & Ohms, H. A. (2025) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1002/ecs2.70376
Linking rivers, mixing faunas: How artificial connectivity between the Middle and Upper Paraná River basins shapes fish diversity in a tributary of the Itaipu Reservoir, Brazil
Kampfert, L. E. P., Maicrovicz, J. C., Blanco, D. R., Lange, D., Pavanelli, C. S., & Brandão, H. (2025) · Journal of Fish Biology · doi:10.1111/jfb.70249
“Global assessments indicate an alarming 81% decline in freshwater vertebrate populations (McRae et al., 2017).”
Biodiversité endémique insulaire face aux changements globaux : état des lieux dans un contexte de conservation
Leclerc, C. (2019) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/b904df63z6b64z4ee8za1beze28092d9379f
Gestion et restauration écologique des espaces naturels protégés de la bande rhénane : construction d'une méthodologie participative
Osorio, A. (2022) · doi:10.70675/67f5eeeaz969fz4d26z94ddzc2e566fd0fa2
Occurrence-based models reveal greater spatial details in tropical species richness
de Oliveira, U., & Soares-Filho, B. S. (2026) · Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.3389/fevo.2026.1927830
Harnessing the Wildlife Animal Detection Using Proposed CNN and ResNet50 Deep Learning Model
Chowdhury, S., & Das, D. K. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-08600-6_23
Long‐Term Population Declines of Habitat‐Shifting Species in the City: A Living Planet Index Approach for Berlin, Germany
Keinath, S., Griesbaum, F., Sommerwerk, N., Petzold, F., Kühnel, K.-D., & Freyhof, J. (2026) · Global Change Biology Communications · doi:10.1002/gcb4.70039
Metals and Metalloids Contamination Patterns in Abiotic and Biotic Compartments Along an Urban Mediterranean Stream
Fanton, H., Franquet, É., Affre, L., Angeletti, B., Bertrand, C., Cavalli, L., Dumas, E., Farnet, A., Kaldonski, N., Meineri, É., et al. (2026) · Water Air & Soil Pollution · doi:10.1007/s11270-026-09742-4
“( Collen et al., 2014; Collier et al., 2016; McRae et al., 2017).”
Three sampling strategies reveal spatial and methodological patterns in macroinvertebrate diversity in freshwater habitats
Li, L., Wan, Q., Pu, T., Yin, X., & Han, J. (2026) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2026.117360
A global perspective on the land-freshwater-sea continuum is urgently needed for preserving aquatic biodiversity and associated services
PETIT, E. J., Brind’Amour, A., Danet, A., Dézerald, O., Fabri‐Ruiz, S., Faillettaz, R., Gascuel, D., Lasne, É., Lebigre, C., Nevoux, M., et al. (2026) · BioScience · doi:10.1093/biosci/biag134
A standardized workflow for compiling and harmonizing first records of non-native species
Truong, T. R., Essl, F., & Seebens, H. (2026) · NeoBiota · doi:10.3897/neobiota.110.198728
“0 of the FirstRecords dataset, with vascular plants remaining the most documented group, reflecting taxonomic biases in biodiversity data in general (McRae et al. 2017; Hughes et al. 2021; García-Roselló et al. 2023).”

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