Ben Collen

Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines

Global Biodiversity Target Missed In 2002, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) committed to a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. There has been widespread conjecture that this target has not been met. Butchart et al. (p. 1164, published online 29 April) analyzed over 30 indicators developed within the CBDs framework. These indicators include the condition or state of biodiversity (e.g., species numbers, population sizes), the pressures on biodiversity (e.g., deforestation), and the responses to maintain biodiversity (e.g., protected areas) and were assessed between about 1970 and 2005. Taken together, the results confirm that we have indeed failed to meet the 2010 targets. An analysis of 30 indicators shows that the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2010 targets have not been met. In 2002, world leaders committed, through the Convention on Biological Diversity, to achieve a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. We compiled 31 indicators to report on progress toward this target. Most indicators of the state of biodiversity (covering species’ population trends, extinction risk, habitat extent and condition, and community composition) showed declines, with no significant recent reductions in rate, whereas indicators of pressures on biodiversity (including resource consumption, invasive alien species, nitrogen pollution, overexploitation, and climate change impacts) showed increases. Despite some local successes and increasing responses (including extent and biodiversity coverage of protected areas, sustainable forest management, policy responses to invasive alien species, and biodiversity-related aid), the rate of biodiversity loss does not appear to be slowing.

Defaunation in the Anthropocene

We live amid a global wave of anthropogenically driven biodiversity loss: species and population extirpations and, critically, declines in local species abundance. Particularly, human impacts on animal biodiversity are an under-recognized form of global environmental change. Among terrestrial vertebrates, 322 species have become extinct since 1500, and populations of the remaining species show 25% average decline in abundance. Invertebrate patterns are equally dire: 67% of monitored populations show 45% mean abundance decline. Such animal declines will cascade onto ecosystem functioning and human well-being. Much remains unknown about this “Anthropocene defaunation”; these knowledge gaps hinder our capacity to predict and limit defaunation impacts. Clearly, however, defaunation is both a pervasive component of the planet’s sixth mass extinction and also a major driver of global ecological change.

Mammals on the EDGE: Conservation Priorities Based on Threat and Phylogeny

Conservation priority setting based on phylogenetic diversity has frequently been proposed but rarely implemented. Here, we define a simple index that measures the contribution made by different species to phylogenetic diversity and show how the index might contribute towards species-based conservation priorities. We describe procedures to control for missing species, incomplete phylogenetic resolution and uncertainty in node ages that make it possible to apply the method in poorly known clades. We also show that the index is independent of clade size in phylogenies of more than 100 species, indicating that scores from unrelated taxonomic groups are likely to be comparable. Similar scores are returned under two different species concepts, suggesting that the index is robust to taxonomic changes. The approach is applied to a near-complete species-level phylogeny of the Mammalia to generate a global priority list incorporating both phylogenetic diversity and extinction risk. The 100 highest-ranking species represent a high proportion of total mammalian diversity and include many species not usually recognised as conservation priorities. Many species that are both evolutionarily distinct and globally endangered (EDGE species) do not benefit from existing conservation projects or protected areas. The results suggest that global conservation priorities may have to be reassessed in order to prevent a disproportionately large amount of mammalian evolutionary history becoming extinct in the near future.

A Standard Lexicon for Biodiversity Conservation: Unified Classifications of Threats and Actions

An essential foundation of any science is a standard lexicon. Any given conservation project can be described in terms of the biodiversity targets, direct threats, contributing factors at the project site, and the conservation actions that the project team is employing to change the situation. These common elements can be linked in a causal chain, which represents a theory of change about how the conservation actions are intended to bring about desired project outcomes. If project teams want to describe and share their work and learn from one another, they need a standard and precise lexicon to specifically describe each node along this chain. To date, there have been several independent efforts to develop standard classifications for the direct threats that affect biodiversity and the conservation actions required to counteract these threats. Recognizing that it is far more effective to have only one accepted global scheme, we merged these separate efforts into unified classifications of threats and actions, which we present here. Each classification is a hierarchical listing of terms and associated definitions. The classifications are comprehensive and exclusive at the upper levels of the hierarchy, expandable at the lower levels, and simple, consistent, and scalable at all levels. We tested these classifications by applying them post hoc to 1191 threatened bird species and 737 conservation projects. Almost all threats and actions could be assigned to the new classification systems, save for some cases lacking detailed information. Furthermore, the new classification systems provided an improved way of analyzing and comparing information across projects when compared with earlier systems. We believe that widespread adoption of these classifications will help practitioners more systematically identify threats and appropriate actions, managers to more efficiently set priorities and allocate resources, and most important, facilitate cross-project learning and the development of a systematic science of conservation.

Monitoring change in vertebrate abundance: the living planet index.

The task of measuring the decline of global biodiversity and instituting changes to halt and reverse this downturn has been taken up in response to the Convention on Biological Diversitys 2010 target. It is an undertaking made more difficult by the complex nature of biodiversity and the consequent difficulty in accurately gauging its depletion. In the Living Planet Index, aggregated population trends among vertebrate species indicate the rate of change in the status of biodiversity, and this index can be used to address the question of whether or not the 2010 target has been achieved. We investigated the use of generalized additive models in aggregating large quantities of population trend data, evaluated potential bias that results from collation of existing trends, and explored the feasibility of disaggregating the data (e.g., geographically, taxonomically, regionally, and by thematic area). Our results show strengths in length and completeness of data, little evidence of bias toward threatened species, and the possibility of disaggregation into meaningful subsets. Limitations of the data set are still apparent, in particular the dominance of bird data and gaps in tropical-species population coverage. Population-trend data complement the longer-term, but more coarse-grained, perspectives gained by evaluating species-level extinction rates. To measure progress toward the 2010 target, indicators must be adapted and strategically supplemented with existing data to generate meaningful indicators in time. Beyond 2010, it is critical a strategy be set out for the future development of indicators that will deal with existing data gaps and that is intricately tied to the goals of future biodiversity targets.

Biodiversity Conservation and the Millennium Development Goals

Any near-term gains in reducing extreme poverty will be maintained only if environmental sustainability is also achieved. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are designed to inspire efforts to improve peoples lives by, among other priorities, halving extreme poverty by 2015 (1). Analogously, concern about global decline in biodiversity and degradation of ecosystem services (2) gave rise in 1992 to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The CBD target “to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss” was incorporated into the MDGs in 2002. Our lack of progress toward the 2010 target (3, 4) could undermine achievement of the MDGs and poverty reduction in the long term. With increasing global challenges, such as population growth, climate change, and overconsumption of ecosystem services, we need further integration of the poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation agendas.

Tracking Progress Toward the 2010 Biodiversity Target and Beyond

Biodiversity indicators used by policy-makers are underdeveloped and underinvested. In response to global declines in biodiversity, some 190 countries have pledged, under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 (1, 2). Moreover, this target has recently been incorporated into the Millennium Development Goals in recognition of the impact of biodiversity loss on human well-being (3). Timely information on where and in what ways the target has or has not been met, as well as the likely direction of future trends, depends on a rigorous, relevant, and comprehensive suite of biodiversity indicators with which to track changes over time, to assess the impacts of policy and management responses, and to identify priorities for action. How far have we come in meeting these needs, and is it sufficient?

Improvements to the Red List Index.

The Red List Index uses information from the IUCN Red List to track trends in the projected overall extinction risk of sets of species. It has been widely recognised as an important component of the suite of indicators needed to measure progress towards the international target of significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. However, further application of the RLI (to non-avian taxa in particular) has revealed some shortcomings in the original formula and approach: It performs inappropriately when a value of zero is reached; RLI values are affected by the frequency of assessments; and newly evaluated species may introduce bias. Here we propose a revision to the formula, and recommend how it should be applied in order to overcome these shortcomings. Two additional advantages of the revisions are that assessment errors are not propagated through time, and the overall level extinction risk can be determined as well as trends in this over time.

Global patterns of freshwater species diversity, threat and endemism

Aim Global-scale studies are required to identify broad-scale patterns in the distributions of species, to evaluate the processes that determine diversity and to determine how similar or different these patterns and processes are among different groups of freshwater species. Broad-scale patterns of spatial variation in species distribution are central to many fundamental questions in macroecology and conservation biology. We aimed to evaluate how congruent three commonly used metrics of diversity were among taxa for six groups of freshwater species. Location Global. Methods We compiled geographical range data on 7083 freshwater species of mammals, amphibians, reptiles, fishes, crabs and crayfish to evaluate how species richness, richness of threatened species and endemism are distributed across freshwater ecosystems. We evaluated how congruent these measures of diversity were among taxa at a global level for a grid cell size of just under 1°. Results We showed that although the risk of extinction faced by freshwater decapods is quite similar to that of freshwater vertebrates, there is a distinct lack of spatial congruence in geographical range between different taxonomic groups at this spatial scale, and a lack of congruence among three commonly used metrics of biodiversity. The risk of extinction for freshwater species was consistently higher than for their terrestrial counterparts. Main conclusions We demonstrate that broad-scale patterns of species richness, threatened-species richness and endemism lack congruence among the six freshwater taxonomic groups examined. Invertebrate species are seldom taken into account in conservation planning. Our study suggests that both the metric of biodiversity and the identity of the taxa on which conservation decisions are based require careful consideration. As geographical range information becomes available for further sets of species, further testing will be warranted into the extent to which geographical variation in the richness of these six freshwater groups reflects broader patterns of biodiversity in fresh water.

The Tropical Biodiversity Data Gap: Addressing Disparity in Global Monitoring

Nations around the world are required to measure their progress towards key biodiversity goals. One important example of this, the Convention on Biological Diversitys 2010 target, is soon approaching. The target set is to significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by the year 2010. However, to what extent are the data, especially for tropical countries, available to indicate biodiversity change and to what extent is current knowledge of biodiversity change truly a global picture? While species richness is greatest in the tropics, biodiversity data richness is skewed towards the poles. This not only provides a significant challenge for global indicators to accurately represent biodiversity, but also for individual countries that are responsible under such legislation for measuring their own impact on biodiversity. We examine the coverage of biodiversity data using four global biodiversity datasets, and look at how effective current efforts are at addressing this discrepancy, and what countries might be able to do in time for 2010 and beyond. We conclude by suggesting a number of activities which might provide impetus for improved biodiversity monitoring in tropical nations.