超越物种丰富度的生物保护

IF 7.7 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Robert J. Fletcher Jr., Rhys E. Green, Eleanor K. Bladon, Philip W. Atkinson, Benjamin T. Phalan, David Williams, Piero Visconti, Andrew Balmford
{"title":"超越物种丰富度的生物保护","authors":"Robert J. Fletcher Jr.,&nbsp;Rhys E. Green,&nbsp;Eleanor K. Bladon,&nbsp;Philip W. Atkinson,&nbsp;Benjamin T. Phalan,&nbsp;David Williams,&nbsp;Piero Visconti,&nbsp;Andrew Balmford","doi":"10.1111/conl.13124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Recent global policy developments have highlighted the need for straightforward, robust, and meaningful biodiversity metrics. However, much of conservation science is dominated by the use of a single metric, species richness, despite several known limitations. Here, we review and synthesize why species richness (i.e., the number of species in a local area) is a poor metric for a variety of topical- and policy-relevant conservation problems. We identify the following three key issues: (1) increasing evidence emphasizes that species richness is often not a robust metric for identifying biodiversity change, (2) species richness ignores species identity and so may often not reflect impacts on species of concern, and (3) species richness does not provide information needed on the persistence of biodiversity or the provision of ecosystem services. We highlight the unappreciated practical outcomes of these limitations with examples from three ongoing conservation debates: whether local biodiversity is declining, how habitat fragmentation affects biodiversity, and the extent to which land sharing or sparing is more beneficial for biodiversity conservation. To address these limitations, we offer a set of guidelines for the use of biodiversity metrics in conservation policy and practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"18 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.13124","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond Species Richness for Biological Conservation\",\"authors\":\"Robert J. Fletcher Jr.,&nbsp;Rhys E. Green,&nbsp;Eleanor K. Bladon,&nbsp;Philip W. Atkinson,&nbsp;Benjamin T. Phalan,&nbsp;David Williams,&nbsp;Piero Visconti,&nbsp;Andrew Balmford\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/conl.13124\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Recent global policy developments have highlighted the need for straightforward, robust, and meaningful biodiversity metrics. However, much of conservation science is dominated by the use of a single metric, species richness, despite several known limitations. Here, we review and synthesize why species richness (i.e., the number of species in a local area) is a poor metric for a variety of topical- and policy-relevant conservation problems. We identify the following three key issues: (1) increasing evidence emphasizes that species richness is often not a robust metric for identifying biodiversity change, (2) species richness ignores species identity and so may often not reflect impacts on species of concern, and (3) species richness does not provide information needed on the persistence of biodiversity or the provision of ecosystem services. We highlight the unappreciated practical outcomes of these limitations with examples from three ongoing conservation debates: whether local biodiversity is declining, how habitat fragmentation affects biodiversity, and the extent to which land sharing or sparing is more beneficial for biodiversity conservation. To address these limitations, we offer a set of guidelines for the use of biodiversity metrics in conservation policy and practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":157,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Conservation Letters\",\"volume\":\"18 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.13124\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Conservation Letters\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.13124\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Letters","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.13124","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

摘要

最近的全球政策发展突出了对直接、有力和有意义的生物多样性指标的需求。然而,尽管存在一些已知的局限性,但保护科学的大部分都是使用单一的度量标准——物种丰富度。在这里,我们回顾并综合了为什么物种丰富度(即局部地区的物种数量)对于各种主题和政策相关的保护问题来说是一个糟糕的指标。我们发现了以下三个关键问题:(1)越来越多的证据强调物种丰富度通常不是识别生物多样性变化的可靠指标;(2)物种丰富度忽略了物种身份,因此可能通常不能反映对关注物种的影响;(3)物种丰富度不能提供生物多样性持久性或生态系统服务提供所需的信息。我们通过三个正在进行的保护辩论的例子来强调这些限制的未被重视的实际结果:当地生物多样性是否正在下降,栖息地破碎化如何影响生物多样性,以及土地共享或保留在多大程度上更有利于生物多样性保护。为了解决这些限制,我们提供了一套在保护政策和实践中使用生物多样性指标的指导方针。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Beyond Species Richness for Biological Conservation

Beyond Species Richness for Biological Conservation

Beyond Species Richness for Biological Conservation

Beyond Species Richness for Biological Conservation

Beyond Species Richness for Biological Conservation

Recent global policy developments have highlighted the need for straightforward, robust, and meaningful biodiversity metrics. However, much of conservation science is dominated by the use of a single metric, species richness, despite several known limitations. Here, we review and synthesize why species richness (i.e., the number of species in a local area) is a poor metric for a variety of topical- and policy-relevant conservation problems. We identify the following three key issues: (1) increasing evidence emphasizes that species richness is often not a robust metric for identifying biodiversity change, (2) species richness ignores species identity and so may often not reflect impacts on species of concern, and (3) species richness does not provide information needed on the persistence of biodiversity or the provision of ecosystem services. We highlight the unappreciated practical outcomes of these limitations with examples from three ongoing conservation debates: whether local biodiversity is declining, how habitat fragmentation affects biodiversity, and the extent to which land sharing or sparing is more beneficial for biodiversity conservation. To address these limitations, we offer a set of guidelines for the use of biodiversity metrics in conservation policy and practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Conservation Letters
Conservation Letters BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
2.40%
发文量
70
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Conservation Letters is a reputable scientific journal that is devoted to the publication of both empirical and theoretical research that has important implications for the conservation of biological diversity. The journal warmly invites submissions from various disciplines within the biological and social sciences, with a particular interest in interdisciplinary work. The primary aim is to advance both pragmatic conservation objectives and scientific knowledge. Manuscripts are subject to a rapid communication schedule, therefore they should address current and relevant topics. Research articles should effectively communicate the significance of their findings in relation to conservation policy and practice.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信