Relationships between mean species abundance (MSA) and potentially disappeared fraction of species (PDF) are consistent but also uncertain

IF 5.4 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Koen JJ. Kuipers , Adam Melki , Stephane Morel , Aafke M. Schipper
{"title":"Relationships between mean species abundance (MSA) and potentially disappeared fraction of species (PDF) are consistent but also uncertain","authors":"Koen JJ. Kuipers ,&nbsp;Adam Melki ,&nbsp;Stephane Morel ,&nbsp;Aafke M. Schipper","doi":"10.1016/j.indic.2025.100652","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The potentially disappeared fraction of species (PDF) and the loss in mean species abundance (MSA) are two commonly used indicators to quantify losses in local biodiversity integrity associated with production and consumption of goods and services (biodiversity ‘footprints’). However, it is unclear to what extent these two indicators align. Here we explore if and how losses in MSA are related to PDF based on both simulated data from virtual species communities and empirical pairwise comparisons of impacted and reference communities (n = 19,891). We find a significant positive but uncertain relationship between MSA loss and PDF. Based on the empirical data, PDF leaves about half of the variance in MSA loss unexplained. Our results further highlight that MSA loss and PDF reveal distinct aspects of community change. At a PDF of zero, we find an average decline in MSA of 0.20 (95% CI = 0.09–0.42), reflecting that abundance loss precedes species extinction and that MSA loss is a more sensitive indicator of biodiversity change than PDF, particularly at low PDF values. Given the intrinsic differences between the indicators and the large residual heterogeneity in the relationship between them, we conclude that MSA loss and PDF provide complementary information. We recommend either making an informed choice for one of the indicators in view of the goals and scope of the application, or using them in parallel for a more comprehensive assessment.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36171,"journal":{"name":"Environmental and Sustainability Indicators","volume":"26 ","pages":"Article 100652"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental and Sustainability Indicators","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266597272500073X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The potentially disappeared fraction of species (PDF) and the loss in mean species abundance (MSA) are two commonly used indicators to quantify losses in local biodiversity integrity associated with production and consumption of goods and services (biodiversity ‘footprints’). However, it is unclear to what extent these two indicators align. Here we explore if and how losses in MSA are related to PDF based on both simulated data from virtual species communities and empirical pairwise comparisons of impacted and reference communities (n = 19,891). We find a significant positive but uncertain relationship between MSA loss and PDF. Based on the empirical data, PDF leaves about half of the variance in MSA loss unexplained. Our results further highlight that MSA loss and PDF reveal distinct aspects of community change. At a PDF of zero, we find an average decline in MSA of 0.20 (95% CI = 0.09–0.42), reflecting that abundance loss precedes species extinction and that MSA loss is a more sensitive indicator of biodiversity change than PDF, particularly at low PDF values. Given the intrinsic differences between the indicators and the large residual heterogeneity in the relationship between them, we conclude that MSA loss and PDF provide complementary information. We recommend either making an informed choice for one of the indicators in view of the goals and scope of the application, or using them in parallel for a more comprehensive assessment.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators Environmental Science-Environmental Science (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
2.30%
发文量
49
审稿时长
57 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信