Do Current Habitat Scoring Metrics Appropriately Reflect Insect Diversity?

当前的栖息地评分指标是否适当反映了昆虫多样性？

• 批准号: 2598402
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University of Oxford
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2021
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2021 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2598402
• 关键词: Do; Current; Habitat; Scoring; Metrics

Both infrastructural development and cessation of biodiversity loss are UN Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2015), presenting a potential conflict, given that much of the world's biodiversity is threatened by the continued development and expansion of human infrastructure (Maxwell et al., 2016) To mitigate this conflict, there is a need to shift toward more sustainable infrastructure development (Spaiser et al., 2017); for example by integrating biodiversity conservation into infrastructure via the "global mitigation hierarchy", which seeks to minimise harm to biodiversity, and offset unavoidable harms and losses to biodiversity (Arlidge et al., 2018). An example of use of this hierarchy comes from the UK government's new "Environment Act 2021" which creates a legal requirement for a biodiversity net gain (BNG) of at least 10% in the planning system, a target which goes beyond just offsetting losses (Environment Act, 2021). To implement this, a metric is used to convert habitats into 'biodiversity value units' pre-development, and then estimate the change in value units post-development (Natural England, 2021). In order to achieve the 10% net gain, developers must act to minimise harm to the habitat, take steps to enhance the habitat, and if necessary carry out off-site habitat enhancements or creation (Natural England, 2021). Projects can then be approved on the basis that the developer's evidence that the 10% net gain is achievable.There is concern that current vegetation-based methods for scoring biodiversity value may not provide general and appropriate proxies for site-level biodiversity (Willis, 2021; zu Ermgassen et al., 2021). Insects and their requirements are absent from current biodiversity calculators, despite their value as ecological indicators for biodiversity more widely (Thomas, 2005; Maleque, Maeto and Ishii, 2009) and their contribution to important ecosystem functions including pollination, decomposition, and carbon cycling (Klatt et al., 2014; Metcalfe et al., 2014; Seibold et al., 2021). For example, the new DEFRA/Natural England Biodiversity Metric 3.0 (an Excel-based biodiversity calculator) has been criticised for its assignment of low values to plants such as bramble and ragwort which are key resources for many insect species (Weston, 2021). To address this concern, I will investigate the relationship between insect biodiversity of different habitat types and metrics, including the Biodiversity Metric 3.0, as well as other available metrics, such as the Pantheon Species Quality indices (Webb et al., 2018).

基础设施发展和停止生物多样性丧失都是联合国可持续发展目标（联合国，2015年），鉴于世界上大部分生物多样性受到人类基础设施的持续发展和扩张的威胁（Maxwell等人，2016年），因此存在潜在的冲突，为了缓解这种冲突，需要转向更可持续的基础设施发展（Spaiser等人，2017年）；例如，通过“全球缓解层级”将生物多样性保护纳入基础设施，力求最大限度地减少对生物多样性的损害，并抵消对生物多样性不可避免的损害和损失（Arlidge等人，2018年）。使用这种层次结构的一个例子来自英国政府新的“2021年环境法”，该法案规定了规划系统中生物多样性净收益（BNG）至少达到10%的法律要求，这一目标不仅仅是抵消损失（环境法，2021）。为了实现这一点，使用一个度量将栖息地转换为开发前的“生物多样性价值单位”，然后估计开发后价值单位的变化（Natural England, 2021）。为了实现10%的净收益，开发商必须采取行动，尽量减少对栖息地的伤害，采取措施改善栖息地，并在必要时进行场外栖息地改善或创造（自然英格兰，2021年）。然后，在开发商证明10%的净收益是可以实现的基础上，项目就可以得到批准。有人担心，目前基于植被的生物多样性价值评分方法可能无法为立地级生物多样性提供通用和适当的代理（Willis, 2021； zu Ermgassen等人，2021）。尽管昆虫作为生物多样性的生态指标具有更广泛的价值（Thomas, 2005; Maleque， Maeto和Ishii， 2009），它们对授粉、分解和碳循环等重要生态系统功能的贡献（Klatt et al., 2014; Metcalfe et al., 2014; Seibold et al., 2021），但目前的生物多样性计算器中缺少昆虫及其需求。例如，新的DEFRA/Natural England生物多样性度量3.0（基于excel的生物多样性计算器）因其对诸如荆棘和ragwort等植物的低值分配而受到批评，这些植物是许多昆虫物种的关键资源（Weston, 2021）。为了解决这一问题，我将研究不同栖息地类型的昆虫生物多样性与指标之间的关系，包括生物多样性指标3.0，以及其他可用的指标，如万神殿物种质量指数（Webb et al., 2018）。