Population declines among Canadian vertebrates: But data of different quality show diverging trends

Marconi, Valentina; McRae, Louise; Müller, Helen; Currie, Jessica; Whitmee, Sarah; Gadallah, Fawziah; Freeman, Robin

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108022

Cited by 7 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As this approach was sensitive to abrupt changes in population trends, generalised additive modelling (GAM) was adopted to better capture long-term nonlinear trends in populations 26 . National variations of modelling have been tailored to the type of species monitoring data in the country in question, for example the use of linear regression for short-term trends in the Canadian Species Index 66,79 .…”

Section: ) the Lpi Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aside from tracking CBD commitments, nations have adapted the LPI method and applied it to suit their state biodiversity indicator needs such as the “Canadian Species Index,” developed by ZSL in partnership with Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) 66,67 . The package in the programming language “R” for calculating the LPI (rlpi), is freely available via GitHub 68 , and has been used by collaborators from around the world to produce their own regional and national indices e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Past, present, and future of the Living Planet Index

Ledger

McRae²,

Böhm

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As we enter the next phase of international policy commitments to halt biodiversity loss (e.g. Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework), biodiversity indicators will play an important role forming the robust basis upon which targeted, and time sensitive conservation actions are developed. Population trend indicators are perhaps the most powerful tool in biodiversity monitoring due to their responsiveness to changes over short timescales and their ability to aggregate species trends from global down to at a sub-national or even local scale. We consider how the project behind the foremost population level indicator - the Living Planet Index - has evolved over the last 25 years, its value to the field of biodiversity monitoring, and how its components have portrayed a compelling account of the changing status of global biodiversity through its application at policy, research and practice levels. We explore ways the project can develop to enhance our understanding of the state of biodiversity and share lessons learned to inform indicator development and mobilise action.

show abstract

Section: ) the Lpi Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Past, present, and future of the Living Planet Index

Ledger

McRae²,

Böhm

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In these instances, taxonomic biases known to exist within published biodiversity data may have been inherited within the compiled datasets for this analysis-including, for example, threatened species (Donaldson et al 2016) or those with public appeal (e.g., charismatic species; Troudet et al 2017). Birds were the best represented taxonomic group for each of the three biotic variables considered, largely attributable to the high representation of this taxonomic group within the dataset itself (Marconi et al 2021). By contrast, the representation of trait data was more variable for fishes, where species with publicly available trait data ranged from 322 (of 1044 native species) for lifespan, to 792 for body size, and to 1018 for trophic level.…”

Section: Dataset Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Living Planet Index (LPI)-conceived nearly 25 years ago-is a biodiversity indicator used to evaluate the state of wildlife by assessing temporal trends in vertebrate population abundance. The indicator has been applied at global (WWF 2020), regional (see for example McRae et al 2012), and national (Bayraktarov et al 2020, Marconi et al 2021) geographic scales and used as a public engagement and advocacy tool to motivate wildlife conservation (Ledger et al 2021;in preparation).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The dataset underlying the C-LPI, largely publicly available via the LPI database (livingplanetindex.org) and continuously augmented, now incorporates thousands of time series from more than 900 vertebrate species, representing 50.9% of native vertebrate species in Canada (CESCC 2016). Marconi et al (2021) analyzed the taxonomic and spatial representation of the dataset behind the indicator and showed that Canadian birds are better represented in comparison to other taxonomic groups. However, it is also important to know whether species currently included in the C-LPI database are representative of the distributions of biological and ecological traits observed in the broader set of vertebrate species that occur in Canada.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing the representation of species included within the Canadian Living Planet Index

Currie

Burant

Marconi

et al. 2022

FACETS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To effectively combat the biodiversity crisis, we need ambitious targets and reliable indicators to accurately track trends and measure conservation impact. In Canada, the Living Planet Index (LPI) has been adapted to produce a national indicator by both World Wildlife Fund-Canada (Canadian Living Planet Index; C-LPI) and Environment and Climate Change Canada (Canadian Species Index) to provide insight into the status of Canadian wildlife, by evaluating temporal trends in vertebrate population abundance. The indicator includes data for just over 50% of Canadian vertebrate species. To assess whether the current dataset is representative of the distribution of life history characteristics of Canadian wildlife, we analyzed the representation of species-specific biotic variables (i.e., body size, trophic level, lifespan) for vertebrates within the C-LPI compared to native vertebrates lacking LPI data. Generally, there was considerable overlap in the distribution of biotic variables for species in the C-LPI compared to native Canadian vertebrate species lacking LPI data. Nevertheless, some differences among distributions were found, driven in large part by discrepancy in the representation of fishes—where the C-LPI included larger-bodied and longer-lived species. We provide recommendations for targeted data collection and additional analyses to further strengthen the applicability, accuracy, and representativity of biodiversity indicators.

show abstract