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., Rhys E. Green, Eleanor K. Bladon, Philip W. Atkinson, Benjamin T. Phalan, David Williams, Piero Visconti, 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., Rhys E. Green, Eleanor K. Bladon, Philip W. Atkinson, Benjamin T. Phalan, David Williams, Piero Visconti, 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}
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.
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.