Indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem services: a synthesis across ecosystems and spatial scales

Abstract

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, common indicators are needed to monitor the loss of biodiversity and the implications for the sustainable provision of ecosystem services. However, a variety of indicators are already being used resulting in many, mostly incompatible, monitoring systems. In order to synthesise the different indicator approaches and to detect gaps in the development of common indicator systems, we examined 531 indicators that have been reported in 617 peer‐reviewed journal articles between 1997 and 2007. Special emphasis was placed on comparing indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem services across ecosystems (forests, grass‐ and shrublands, wetlands, rivers, lakes, soils and agro‐ecosystems) and spatial scales (from patch to global scale). The application of biological indicators was found most often focused on regional and finer spatial scales with few indicators applied across ecosystem types. Abiotic indicators, such as physico‐chemical parameters and measures of area and fragmentation, are most frequently used at broader (regional to continental) scales. Despite its multiple dimensions, biodiversity is usually equated with species richness only. The functional, structural and genetic components of biodiversity are poorly addressed despite their potential value across habitats and scales. Ecosystem service indicators are mostly used to estimate regulating and supporting services but generally differ between ecosystem types as they reflect ecosystem‐specific services. Despite great effort to develop indicator systems over the past decade, there is still a considerable gap in the widespread use of indicators for many of the multiple components of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and a need to develop common monitoring schemes within and across habitats. Filling these gaps is a prerequisite for linking biodiversity dynamics with ecosystem service delivery and to achieving the goals of global and sub‐global initiatives to halt the loss of biodiversity.

A framework for the social valuation of ecosystem services

“…Additionally, our review disclosed that the use of the social approach in the valuation of ecosystem services operated with the same type of ecosystems as studies from other approaches (Feld et al 2009;Martin et al 2012), and that there were some ecosystems not addressed at all. For instance, there is not much knowledge concerning the ecosystem services perception of the inhabitants of polar and desert ecosystems.…”

Remote sensing for biodiversity monitoring: a review of methods for biodiversity indicator extraction and assessment of progress towards international targets

“…Various indicators are used to assess the status and trends of components of biodiversity, measure pressures, and quantify biodiversity loss at the level of genes, populations, species, and ecosystems, at various scales (Butchart et al 2010;EEA 2007;Duelli and Obrist 2003). Several sets of such indicators have been proposed by organizations, scientists, and policy makers (Feld et al 2009;Strand et al 2007;EEA 2007;Kati et al 2004;Lindenmayer et al 2000;Jonsson and Jonsell 1999). They can be either directly measured or calculated using statistical models and may have a global, regional, or national applicability.…”

Ecobordure: A flora-based indicator to assess vegetation patterns of field margins and infer its local drivers. Design in Brittany (France)

“…Ecobordure, with appropriate adaptations, can be extended to field margins of a broad spectrum of temperate agricultural and pedoclimatic regions. Referring to Feld et al (2009), the method developed here is an example of how an indicator with a low degree of complexity allows inference on the drivers associated with observed vegetation patterns of field margins. …”

“…Frequently used indicators are based upon physical or landscape descriptors. Feld et al (2009) pinpointed that efforts should be made for the development of indicators based upon biological (e.g. species richness) and functional (e.g.…”