Testing the performance of ecosystem indices for biodiversity monitoring
Testing the performance of ecosystem indices for biodiversity monitoring
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106453
复制
发表时间：
2020-09
影响因子：
6.9
通讯作者：
J. A. Rowland;Calvin K. F. Lee;L. Bland;Emily Nicholson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. A. Rowland;Calvin K. F. Lee;L. Bland;Emily Nicholson
了解生物多样性是如何变化的，是减轻我们对环境影响的关键一步。生物多样性指标综合和传达生物多样性的现状和趋势，包括实现全球目标的进展情况。尽管它们在决策中很重要，但很少有指标对它们的表现和行为进行测试。在这里，我们测试了综合生态系统崩溃风险、空间分布和健康状况和趋势的三个指数(即IUCN生态系统红色清单指数、生态系统面积指数和生态系统健康指数)的敏感性、响应性和互补性。我们使用随机珊瑚礁生态系统模型来评估这些指数在各种未来情景下检测生物多样性变化的能力。我们的目标是：i)测试指数对检测低威胁和高威胁下变化的敏感性；ii)检查它们在检测威胁水平开始时的变化和变化方面的响应性；iii)评估指数趋势和值之间的互补性；以及iv)探索对指数对抽样决定的敏感性和响应性的影响，包括生态系统分类的规模、计算时使用的生态变量以及报告的频率。我们的研究表明，生态系统指数是敏感的、反应灵敏的，并提供了关于生态系统变化的补充信息，尽管生态系统的红色清单指数有时表现出与直觉相反的行为。这些指数的敏感性和响应性取决于威胁的性质，可能会受到评估过程中所作决定的不利影响；在生态系统评估过程的红色清单中仔细选择变量对于可靠地检测生态系统变化至关重要。我们的结果表明，生态系统评估的5年间隔可以揭示信息趋势，这表明目前的重新评估指南是足够的。我们的研究是对生物多样性指标绩效进行系统评估的少数几个例子之一。我们的发现将有助于我们更好地理解这些生态系统指数作为决策支持工具在当地和全球范围内的可靠性。
Understanding how biodiversity is changing is a crucial step in mitigating our environmental impacts. Biodiversity indicators synthesise and communicate status and trends in biodiversity, including progress towards global targets. Despite their importance in decision making, few indicators have been tested for their performance and behaviour. Here, we tested the sensitivity, responsiveness and complementarity of three indices synthesising status and trends in collapse risk, spatial distribution and health of ecosystems (i.e., the IUCN Red List Index of Ecosystems, the Ecosystem Area index, and the Ecosystem Health Index). We used a stochastic coral reef ecosystem model to evaluate the indices’ ability to detect changes in biodiversity under various future scenarios. We aimed to: i) test the indices’ sensitivity to detecting change under low and high threat; ii) examine their responsiveness in detecting changes at the onset of and changes in threat levels; iii) assess complementarity among the indices’ trends and values; and iv) explore the impact on the indices’ sensitivity and responsiveness to sampling decisions, including the scale of ecosystem classification, ecological variables used in their calculation, and frequency of reporting. Our study revealed that the ecosystem indices are sensitive, responsive and offer complementary information on changes in ecosystems, although the Red List Index of Ecosystems sometimes behaved counter-intuitively. The indices’ sensitivity and responsiveness depended on the nature of the threats and could be adversely affected by decisions made in the assessment process; careful variable selection in the Red List of Ecosystems assessment process is critical to reliability detecting ecosystem change. Our results suggest that that 5-year intervals in ecosystem assessment can reveal informative trends, suggesting that current guidelines for reassessment are sufficient. Our study is one of the few examples of a systematic evaluation of biodiversity indicator performance. Our findings will help improve our understanding of the reliability of these ecosystem indices as decision-support tools in local to global contexts.