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
  • [31] Using multiple lines of evidence to assess the risk of ecosystem collapse
    Bland, Lucie M.
    Regan, Tracey J.
    Minh Ngoc Dinh
    Ferrari, Renata
    Keith, David A.
    Lester, Rebecca
    Mouillot, David
    Murray, Nicholas J.
    Hoang Anh Nguyen
    Nicholson, Emily
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2017, 284 (1863)
  • [32] Existential risk due to ecosystem collapse: Nature strikes back
    Kareiva, Peter
    Carranza, Valerie
    FUTURES, 2018, 102 : 39 - 50
  • [33] Selecting and applying flowmeters
    Belevich, P
    HYDROCARBON PROCESSING, 1996, 75 (05): : 67 - &
  • [34] Use of indicators in ecological risk assessments for persistent, bioaccumulative toxicants
    Nichols, JW
    HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT, 2001, 7 (05): : 1043 - 1057
  • [35] Applying ecosystem services indicators in landscape planning and management: The ES-in-Planning framework
    Albert, Christian
    Galler, Carolin
    Hermes, Johannes
    Neuendorf, Felix
    von Haaren, Christina
    Lovett, Andrew
    ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2016, 61 : 100 - 113
  • [36] Ecosystem Collapse and Recovery
    Dakos, Vasilis
    AFRICAN JOURNAL OF RANGE & FORAGE SCIENCE, 2023, 40 (02) : 244 - 245
  • [37] Selecting Bioassay Test Species at the Screening Level of Soil Ecological Risk Assessments
    Kim, Dokyung
    Lee, Tae-Yang
    Kim, Lia
    Cui, Rongxue
    Kwak, Jin Il
    Kim, Haemi
    Nam, Sun-Hwa
    Kim, Minjin
    Hwang, Wonjae
    Kim, Ji-In
    Hyun, Seunghun
    An, Youn-Joo
    APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL, 2021, 11 (09):
  • [38] Evaluating changes in marine communities that provide ecosystem services through comparative assessments of community indicators
    Kleisner, Kristin M.
    Coll, Marta
    Lynam, Christopher P.
    Bundy, Alida
    Shannon, Lynne
    Shin, Yunne-Jai
    Boldt, Jennifer L.
    Borges, Maria F.
    Diallo, Ibrahima
    Fox, Clive
    Gascuel, Didier
    Heymans, Johanna J.
    Juan Jorda, Maria J.
    Jouffre, Didier
    Large, Scott I.
    Marshall, Kristin N.
    Ojaveer, Henn
    Piroddi, Chiara
    Tam, Jorge
    Torres, Maria A.
    Travers-Trolet, Morgane
    Tsagarakis, Konstantinos
    van der Meeren, Gro I.
    Zador, Stephani
    ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2015, 16 : 413 - 429
  • [39] Fishing impact and environmental status in European seas: a diagnosis from stock assessments and ecosystem indicators
    Gascuel, Didier
    Coll, Marta
    Fox, Clive
    Guenette, Sylvie
    Guitton, Jerome
    Kenny, Andrew
    Knittweis, Leyla
    Nielsen, J. Rasmus
    Piet, Gerjan
    Raid, Tiit
    Travers-Trolet, Morgane
    Shephard, Samuel
    FISH AND FISHERIES, 2016, 17 (01) : 31 - 55
  • [40] Indicators from the global and sub-global Millennium Ecosystem Assessments: An analysis and next steps
    Layke, Christian
    Mapendembe, Abisha
    Brown, Claire
    Walpole, Matt
    Winn, Jonathan
    ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2012, 17 : 77 - 87