Revealing hidden sources of uncertainty in biodiversity trend assessments

IF 5.4 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Ecography Pub Date : 2025-03-06 DOI:10.1111/ecog.07441
Martin A. Wilkes, Morwenna Mckenzie, Andrew Johnson, Christopher Hassall, Martyn Kelly, Nigel Willby, Lee E. Brown
{"title":"Revealing hidden sources of uncertainty in biodiversity trend assessments","authors":"Martin A. Wilkes, Morwenna Mckenzie, Andrew Johnson, Christopher Hassall, Martyn Kelly, Nigel Willby, Lee E. Brown","doi":"10.1111/ecog.07441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Idiosyncratic decisions during the biodiversity trend assessment process may limit reproducibility, whilst ‘hidden' uncertainty due to collection bias, taxonomic incompleteness, and variable taxonomic resolution may limit the reliability of reported trends. We model alternative decisions made during assessment of taxon-level abundance and distribution trends using an 18-year time series covering freshwater fish, invertebrates, and primary producers in England. Through three case studies, we test for collection bias and quantify uncertainty stemming from data preparation and model specification decisions, assess the risk of conflating trends for individual species when aggregating data to higher taxonomic ranks, and evaluate the potential uncertainty stemming from taxonomic incompleteness. Choice of optimizer algorithm and data filtering to obtain more complete time series explained 52.5% of the variation in trend estimates, obscuring the signal from taxon-specific trends. The use of penalized iteratively reweighted least squares, a simplified approach to model optimization, was the most important source of uncertainty. Application of increasingly harsh data filters exacerbated collection bias in the modelled dataset. Aggregation to higher taxonomic ranks was a significant source of uncertainty, leading to conflation of trends among protected and invasive species. We also found potential for substantial positive bias in trend estimation across six fish populations which were not consistently recorded in all operational areas. We complement analyses of observational data with in silico experiments in which monitoring and trend assessment processes were simulated to enable comparison of trend estimates with known underlying trends, confirming that collection bias, data filtering and taxonomic incompleteness have significant negative impacts on the accuracy of trend estimates. Identifying and managing uncertainty in biodiversity trend assessment is crucial for informing effective conservation policy and practice. We highlight several serious sources of uncertainty affecting biodiversity trend analyses and present tools to improve the transparency of decisions made during the trend assessment process.","PeriodicalId":51026,"journal":{"name":"Ecography","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.07441","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Idiosyncratic decisions during the biodiversity trend assessment process may limit reproducibility, whilst ‘hidden' uncertainty due to collection bias, taxonomic incompleteness, and variable taxonomic resolution may limit the reliability of reported trends. We model alternative decisions made during assessment of taxon-level abundance and distribution trends using an 18-year time series covering freshwater fish, invertebrates, and primary producers in England. Through three case studies, we test for collection bias and quantify uncertainty stemming from data preparation and model specification decisions, assess the risk of conflating trends for individual species when aggregating data to higher taxonomic ranks, and evaluate the potential uncertainty stemming from taxonomic incompleteness. Choice of optimizer algorithm and data filtering to obtain more complete time series explained 52.5% of the variation in trend estimates, obscuring the signal from taxon-specific trends. The use of penalized iteratively reweighted least squares, a simplified approach to model optimization, was the most important source of uncertainty. Application of increasingly harsh data filters exacerbated collection bias in the modelled dataset. Aggregation to higher taxonomic ranks was a significant source of uncertainty, leading to conflation of trends among protected and invasive species. We also found potential for substantial positive bias in trend estimation across six fish populations which were not consistently recorded in all operational areas. We complement analyses of observational data with in silico experiments in which monitoring and trend assessment processes were simulated to enable comparison of trend estimates with known underlying trends, confirming that collection bias, data filtering and taxonomic incompleteness have significant negative impacts on the accuracy of trend estimates. Identifying and managing uncertainty in biodiversity trend assessment is crucial for informing effective conservation policy and practice. We highlight several serious sources of uncertainty affecting biodiversity trend analyses and present tools to improve the transparency of decisions made during the trend assessment process.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ecography
Ecography 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
122
审稿时长
8-16 weeks
期刊介绍: ECOGRAPHY publishes exciting, novel, and important articles that significantly advance understanding of ecological or biodiversity patterns in space or time. Papers focusing on conservation or restoration are welcomed, provided they are anchored in ecological theory and convey a general message that goes beyond a single case study. We encourage papers that seek advancing the field through the development and testing of theory or methodology, or by proposing new tools for analysis or interpretation of ecological phenomena. Manuscripts are expected to address general principles in ecology, though they may do so using a specific model system if they adequately frame the problem relative to a generalized ecological question or problem. Purely descriptive papers are considered only if breaking new ground and/or describing patterns seldom explored. Studies focused on a single species or single location are generally discouraged unless they make a significant contribution to advancing general theory or understanding of biodiversity patterns and processes. Manuscripts merely confirming or marginally extending results of previous work are unlikely to be considered in Ecography. Papers are judged by virtue of their originality, appeal to general interest, and their contribution to new developments in studies of spatial and temporal ecological patterns. There are no biases with regard to taxon, biome, or biogeographical area.
×
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