Indices for monitoring biodiversity change: Are some more effective than others?

Lamb, Eric G.; Bayne, Erin M.; Holloway, Gillian L.; Schieck, Jim; Boutin, Stan; Herbers, Jim; Haughland, Diane L.

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.06.001

Cited by 104 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, studies using number of species alone cannot describe community properties adequately. The relationship between species and community function should thus be explored using various biological indices as descried by Lamb et al (2009). Biodiversity based on species richness (number of species) and evenness (species distribution) can reflect phytoplankton community composition and also can describe the impacts of water pollution on biotic communities (Hooper et al, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative study of the impact of species composition on a freshwater phytoplankton community using two contrasting biotic indices

Guo

Liu

et al. 2010

Ecological Indicators

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative study of the impact of species composition on a freshwater phytoplankton community using two contrasting biotic indices

Guo

Liu

et al. 2010

Ecological Indicators

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A major drawback is that such indicators are only quantitative and do not take into account the nature of species. An increase of biodiversity can also be due to invasive species (Lamb et al, 2009 et al (1999) in the Netherlands, which assesses biodiversity at farm level, each species is weighted by a factor addressing its rarity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing biodiversity in arable farmland by means of indicators: an overview

Bockstaller

Lasserre-Joulin

Slezack‐Deschaumes

et al. 2011

OCL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some important considerations in conservation management that are not captured by traditional diversity measures are phylogenetic diversity (Magurran 2004;Chiarucci et al 2011), as well as species intactness across a landscape and community structure relative to reference conditions (Lamb et al 2009). Consideration of the mathematical properties of measures of diversity is also important in choosing an appropriate metric (Van Strien et al 2012;Buckland et al 2005).…”

Section: Issues In Biological Diversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological integrity assessment as a metric of biodiversity: are we measuring what we say we are?

Brown

Williams

2016

Biodivers Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the recognition of the importance of biological diversity in biological conservation grows, an ongoing challenge is to develop metrics that can be used for effective conservation and management. The ecological integrity assessment has been proposed as such a metric. It is held by some to measure species composition, diversity, and habitat quality, as well as ecosystem structure, composition, and function. The methodology relies on proxy variables that include data on landscape characteristics such as patch size, abiotic factors such as hydrology, and some features of vegetation structure and composition. We suggest that the measure is flawed on four levels. First, its putative representation of general ecological form and function, and its lack of specific detail about how it actually represents those attributes, leaves the metric without the focus needed to be useful for measuring ecological features on the ground and testing associated hypotheses and predictions. Second, the proxy variables used to represent biological diversity, such as habitat (vegetation) metrics and vascular plant species diversity, are not empirically correlated with diversity of a range of taxa or of other components of the biota. Third, like other ecological indices that integrate many distinct features, the ecological integrity index is subject to the loss of information in its condensation of multi-dimensional variability into a one-dimensional index, and it may be subject to systematic bias from the conversion of raw data into categorical scores. Fourth, the sampling protocols are at risk of sampling bias, observer bias, and measurement error, any of which can confound the estimation of conservation value. In terms of biological diversity, the methodology produces an unreliable estimate of the number of vascular plant species and their relative percentages of occurrence, and an absence of any protocols for taxa other than plants. For these reasons 123Biodivers Conserv (2016) 25:1011-1035 DOI 10.1007/s10531-016-1111 we believe that ecological integrity assessment is currently of limited value as a measure of site-specific biological diversity and its change over time. A considerable amount of investigation is needed in order to have confidence in the results of an ecological integrity assessment, especially if it is to be used for regulatory purposes. We suggest further refinements and discuss alternative measures of biological diversity that provide reliable metrics for assessing change. A thoughtful choice among measures can help to identify the most appropriate assessment for conservation decisions.

show abstract

Indices for monitoring biodiversity change: Are some more effective than others?

Cited by 104 publications

References 24 publications

A comparative study of the impact of species composition on a freshwater phytoplankton community using two contrasting biotic indices

A comparative study of the impact of species composition on a freshwater phytoplankton community using two contrasting biotic indices

Assessing biodiversity in arable farmland by means of indicators: an overview

Ecological integrity assessment as a metric of biodiversity: are we measuring what we say we are?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About