Selecting and applying indicators of ecosystem collapse for risk assessments

被引:32
|
作者
Rowland, Jessica A. [1 ]
Nicholson, Emily [1 ]
Murray, Nicholas J. [2 ]
Keith, David A. [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Lester, Rebecca E. [5 ]
Bland, Lucie M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Deakin Univ, Sch Life & Environm Sci, Ctr Integrat Ecol, Burwood, Vic 3125, Australia
[2] Univ New South Wales, Sch Biol Earth & Environm Sci, Ctr Ecosyst Sci, Kensington, NSW 2052, Australia
[3] New South Wales Off Environm & Heritage, Hurstville, NSW 2220, Australia
[4] Australian Natl Univ, Long Term Ecol Res Network, Terr Ecosyst Res Network, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
[5] Deakin Univ, Ctr Reg & Rural Futures, Geelong, Vic 3220, Australia
基金
澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
collapse; indicator selection; IUCN Red List of Ecosystems; CLIMATE; CONSERVATION; BIODIVERSITY; FRAMEWORK; FOREST; ELICITATION; CRITERIA; HELP;
D O I
10.1111/cobi.13107
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Ongoing ecosystem degradation and transformation are major threats to biodiversity. Measuring ecosystem change toward collapse relies on monitoring indicators that quantify key ecological processes. Yet little guidance is available on selection and use of indicators for ecosystem risk assessment. We reviewed indicator use in ecological studies of ecosystem collapse in marine pelagic and temperate forest ecosystems. We examined indicator-selection methods, indicator types (geographic distribution, abiotic, biotic), methods of assessing multiple indicators, and temporal quality of time series. We compared how these factors were applied in the ecological studies with how they were applied in risk assessments by using the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List of Ecosystems (RLE), for which indicators are used to estimate risk of ecosystem collapse. Ecological studies and RLE assessments rarely reported how indicators were selected, particularly in terrestrial ecosystems. Few ecological studies and RLE assessments quantified ecosystem change based on all 3 indicator types, and indicators types used differed between marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Several studies used indices or multivariate analyses to assess multiple indicators simultaneously, but RLE assessments did not because as RLE guidelines advise against them. Most studies and RLE assessments used time-series data that spanned at least 30 years, which increases the probability of reliably detecting change. Limited use of indicator-selection protocols and infrequent use of all 3 indicator types may hamper accurate detection of change. To improve the value of risk assessments for informing policy and management, we recommend using explicit protocols, including conceptual models, to identify and select indicators; a range of indicators spanning distributional, abiotic, and biotic features; indices and multivariate analyses with extreme care until guidelines are developed; time series with sufficient data to increase ability to accurately diagnose directional change; data from multiple sources to support assessments; and explicitly reporting steps in the assessment process.
引用
收藏
页码:1233 / 1245
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Assessments of ecosystem service indicators and stakeholder's willingness to pay for selected ecosystem services in the Chure region of Nepal
    Bhandari, Pratima
    Mohan, K. C.
    Shrestha, Sujata
    Aryal, Achyut
    Shrestha, Uttam Babu
    APPLIED GEOGRAPHY, 2016, 69 : 25 - 34
  • [22] Selecting ecological indicators to compare maintenance costs related to the compensation of damaged ecosystem services
    Vaissiere, Anne-Charlotte
    Levrel, Harold
    Hily, Christian
    Le Guyader, Damien
    ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2013, 29 : 255 - 269
  • [23] A quantitative and qualitative decision-making process for selecting indicators to track ecosystem condition
    Montenero, Kelly
    Kelble, Chris
    Broughton, Kathy
    MARINE POLICY, 2021, 129
  • [24] Do explicit criteria help in selecting indicators for ecosystem-based fisheries management?
    Rochet, MJ
    Rice, JC
    ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE, 2005, 62 (03) : 528 - 539
  • [25] Developing and applying ecosystem service indicators in decision-support at various scales
    Hauck, Jennifer
    Albert, Christian
    Fuerst, Christine
    Geneletti, Davide
    La Rosa, Daniele
    Lorz, Carsten
    Spyra, Marcin
    ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2016, 61 : 1 - 5
  • [26] Seeing beyond the smoke: Selecting waterpipe wastewater chemicals for risk assessments
    Termeh-Zonoozi, Yasmin
    Venugopal, P. Dilip
    Patel, Vyomesh
    Gagliano, Gregory
    JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS LETTERS, 2023, 4
  • [27] Groundtruthing cumulative impact assessments with biodiversity data: Testing indicators and methods for marine ecosystem condition assessments in South Africa
    Smit, Kaylee P.
    Sink, Kerry J.
    Shannon, Lynne J.
    Bernard, Anthony T. F.
    Lombard, Amanda T.
    AQUATIC CONSERVATION-MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS, 2024, 34 (02)
  • [28] Integrating Ecosystem Services into Risk Assessments for Drinking Water Protection
    Gaertner, Nadine
    Lindhe, Andreas
    Wahtra, Julia
    Soederqvist, Tore
    Lang, Lars-Ove
    Nordzell, Henrik
    Norrman, Jenny
    Rosen, Lars
    WATER, 2022, 14 (08)
  • [29] The role of satellite remote sensing in structured ecosystem risk assessments
    Murray, Nicholas J.
    Keith, David A.
    Bland, Lucie M.
    Ferrari, Renata
    Lyons, Mitchell B.
    Lucas, Richard
    Pettorelli, Nathalie
    Nicholson, Emily
    SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2018, 619 : 249 - 257
  • [30] Organophosphate esters in the mariculture ecosystem: Environmental occurrence and risk assessments
    Zhang, Ze-Ming
    Dou, Wen-Ke
    Zhang, Xiao-Qian
    Sun, Ai-Li
    Chen, Jiong
    Shi, Xi-Zhi
    JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, 2022, 436