The Why, What, and How of Global Biodiversity Indicators Beyond the 2010 Target

Jones, Julia P. G.; Collen, Ben; Atkinson, Giles; Baxter, Peter; Bubb, Philip; Illian, Janine B.; Katzner, Todd E.; Keane, Aidan; Loh, Jonathan; McDonald‐Madden, Eve; Nicholson, Emily; Pereira, Henrique M.; Possingham, Hugh P.; Pullin, Andrew S.; Rodrigues, Ana S. L.; Ruiz‐Gutiérrez, Viviana; Sommerville, Matthew; Milner‐Gulland, E. J.

doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01605.x

Cited by 123 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

126

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Monitoring biodiversity could draw funding away from practical conservation activity (Jones et al, 2010), so methods for estimating N e from available data would be very welcome. At their most basic, such data would be the census numbers (N c ) of breeds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effective population sizes in cattle, sheep, horses, pigs and goats estimated from census and herdbook data

Hall¹

2016

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurate measures of effective population sizes ( N e ) in livestock require good quality data and specialized skills for their computation and analysis. N e can be estimated by Wright's equation N e = 4MF/( M + F) (M, F being sires and dams, respectively), but this requires assumptions which are often not met. Total census sizes N c of livestock breeds are collated globally. This paper investigates whether estimates of N e can be made from N c ; this would facilitate conservation monitoring. Some N e methodologies avoid the assumptions of Wright's equation and permit measurement, rather than estimation, of N e . Those considered here employ, respectively, linkage disequilibrium (LD) of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (yielding N e ( LD)), and genealogical analysis (rate of increase of inbreeding, DF), yielding N e (DF). Considering breeds of cattle, sheep, horses, pigs and goats for which N c and either N e ( LD) or N e ( DF) are known (totals of 203 breeds and 321 breeds, respectively), proportionality has been investigated between N c and these measures of N e . N e ( LD) was found to increase with N c , significantly in sheep and horses, less so in cattle, but not at all in pigs. N e ( DF) was correlated with log 10 ( N c ) in cattle, sheep and horses (53, 56, 43 breeds, respectively). N e ( LD) was correlated in cattle (73 breeds) and pigs (31 breeds) with the log 10 transformation of N e as calculated by Wright's equation.Further verification and refinement are needed, particularly of census data, but credible predictions of N e are obtainable by applying the following multipliers to log 10 ( N c ): cattle 17.61, sheep 97.72, horse 70.78. For cattle and pigs, multiplying log 10 ( N e (Wright)) by, respectively, 40.69 and 60.09, also gives credible predictions. Such census-based estimates of N e could in principle be generated by non-specialists and are likely to be suited to audits of conservation activity when financial resources or availability of data are limiting. The ratio N e /N c varied among species with an overall median value of 0.03, less than a tenth of that typically observed in wild mammals. Characteristics were also investigated of a distinct herdbook-based methodology, namely the development of Wright's equation to take into account variances of progeny numbers to yield what has been termed here N e (Hill). Comparison of these values with N e (Wright) could help to identify breeds with breeding structures conducive or inimical to genetic conservation. However, N e (Hill) requires breed-specific values for these variances, and this restricts its applicability.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effective population sizes in cattle, sheep, horses, pigs and goats estimated from census and herdbook data

Hall¹

2016

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Tracking trends in marine biodiversity in relation to national and international biodiversity conservation targets requires the summary of complex ecological responses to anthropogenic threats with (Jones et al 2011, Smale et al 2011. Thus, information that is multispecies and multidimensional needs to be reduced to comprehensible units that can be mapped or graphed.…”

Section: Trend Indicators For Marine Biodiversity and Associated Threatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Assessment and reporting of ecological condition through state of the environment indicators, including progress of countries towards achieving international targets agreed under the Convention of Biological Diversity (Jones et al 2011).…”

Section: Management Need For Big Ecological Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

New Approaches to Marine Conservation Through the Scaling Up of Ecological Data

Edgar

Bates

Bird

et al. 2016

Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an era of rapid global change, conservation managers urgently need improved tools to track and counter declining ecosystem conditions. This need is particularly acute in the marine realm, where threats are out of sight, inadequately mapped, cumulative, and often poorly understood, thereby generating impacts that are inefficiently managed. Recent advances in macroecology, statistical analysis, and the compilation of global data will play a central role in improving conservation outcomes, provided that global, regional, and local data streams can be integrated to produce locally relevant and interpretable outputs. Progress will be assisted by (a) expanded rollout of systematic surveys that quantify species patterns, including some carried out with help from citizen scientists; (b) coordinated experimental research networks that utilize large-scale manipulations to identify mechanisms underlying these patterns; (c) improved understanding of consequences of threats through the application of recently developed statistical techniques to analyze global species' distributional data and associated environmental and socioeconomic factors; (d) development of reliable ecological indicators for accurate and comprehensible tracking of threats; and (e) improved data-handling and communication tools.

show abstract

“…There are no signs of humanity achieving any reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; on the contrary, they are continuing to grow, and faster than expected (Le Quéré et al 2014). No comprehensive indicators exist to reliably monitor the global biodiversity trend (Jones et al 2011), but there is little to suggest that biodiversity loss is slowing. Evidence is mounting that extinctions are already altering key processes that affect the productivity and functioning of ecosystems worldwide (Hooper et al 2012).…”

Section: Outlook and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Ecology

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Why, What, and How of Global Biodiversity Indicators Beyond the 2010 Target

Abstract: The 2010 biodiversity target agreed by signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity directed the attention of conservation professionals toward the development of indicators with which to measure changes in biological diversity

Cited by 123 publications

References 33 publications

Effective population sizes in cattle, sheep, horses, pigs and goats estimated from census and herdbook data

Effective population sizes in cattle, sheep, horses, pigs and goats estimated from census and herdbook data

New Approaches to Marine Conservation Through the Scaling Up of Ecological Data

Social Ecology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About