Estimates of local biodiversity change over time stand up to scrutiny
Estimates of local biodiversity change over time stand up to scrutiny
复制标题
DOI：
10.1101/062133
复制
发表时间：
2016-07
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Vellend;M. Dornelas;L. Baeten;R. Beauséjour;Carissa D. Brown;P. De Frenne;S. Elmendorf;N. Gotelli;Faye Moyes;I. Myers-Smith;A. Magurran;B. McGill;Hideyasu Shimadzu;C. Sievers
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Vellend;M. Dornelas;L. Baeten;R. Beauséjour;Carissa D. Brown;P. De Frenne;S. Elmendorf;N. Gotelli;Faye Moyes;I. Myers-Smith;A. Magurran;B. McGill;Hideyasu Shimadzu;C. Sievers
本文件作者最近对地方尺度生物多样性随时间变化的两项荟萃分析受到了严厉的批评。在这里，我们使用新的数据和分析来回应这一批评的要点。首先，批评的一个中心论点是，短期时间序列导致对长期生物多样性变化的有偏见的估计。然而，我们在这里指出，这一结论完全是基于两个基本错误的模拟来支持它：第二，我们指出，评论家的结论，即有时间的生物多样性变化和研究持续时间之间的负关系是完全依赖于：（i）不切实际的假设，生物多样性变化可以是积极的，当研究持续时间= 0;（ii）只使用现有数据的一个子集;（iii）在一项研究中纳入一个离群数据点（在这种情况下是100个数据点中的一个）;和/或（iv）选择使用对数比而不是斜率（如果有的话）作为生物多样性时间变化的衡量标准。简而言之，证据并不支持这样的结论，即持续时间较长的研究往往会发现当地多样性下降。最后，批评强调了一个明显真实的事实，即生态文献中的研究代表了地球上地理上有偏见的样本;这一问题在两篇原始论文中都有提到，并且与所有生态数据合成相关。这一事实被批评者用来质疑我们的结论，即除了被改造成农田或沥青的地区，时间生物多样性趋势的分布集中在零。作为一项科学规则，未来基于更多或不同数据的研究可能会导致我们修改我们的结论，但目前，基于地理偏见论点的替代结论完全依赖于推测。总之，批评提出了所有生态研究的典型不确定性点，但它福尔斯远远没有提供一个基于证据的替代解释，我们的结果，这是现在支持的数百个个体数据集的时间生物多样性变化的综合。
Two recent meta-analyses of local-scale biodiversity change over time, by the authors of the present paper, have been subject to a harsh critique. Here we use new data and analyses to respond to the main points of this critique. First, a central argument of the critique was that short-term time series lead to biased estimates of long-term biodiversity change. However, we show here that this conclusion was based entirely on two fundamental mistakes in the simulations used to support it. Second, we show that the critic's conclusion that there are negative relationships between temporal biodiversity change and study duration is entirely dependent on: (i) the unrealistic assumption that biodiversity change can be positive when study duration = 0; (ii) the use of only a subset of the available data; (iii) inclusion of a single outlier data point in a single study (out of 100 in this case); and/or (iv) a choice to use log ratios rather than slopes (when available) as the metric of temporal biodiversity change. In short, the evidence does not support the conclusion that studies of longer duration tend to find local diversity decline. Finally, the critique highlighted the obviously true fact that studies in the ecological literature represent a geographically biased sample of locations on Earth; this issue was noted in both original papers, and is relevant for all ecological data syntheses. This fact was used by the critics to cast doubt on our conclusion that, outside of areas converted to croplands or asphalt, the distribution of temporal biodiversity trends is centered on zero. As a scientific rule, future studies based on more or different data may cause us to modify our conclusion, but at present, alternative conclusions based on the geographic-bias argument rely entirely on speculation. In sum, the critique raises points of uncertainty typical of all ecological studies, but it falls far short of providing an evidence-based alternative interpretation for our results, which are now supported by syntheses of hundreds of individual data sets of temporal biodiversity change.