Search

Governments have committed to global targets to slow biodiversity loss and sustain ecosystem services. Biodiversity state indicators that measure progress toward these targets mostly focus on species, while indicators synthesizing ecosystem change are largely lacking. We fill this gap with three indices quantifying past and projected changes in ecosystems using data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Ecosystems. Our indices quantify changes in risk of ecosystem collapse, ecosystem area and ecological processes, and capture variation in underlying patterns among ecosystems. We apply the indices to three case studies of regional and national assessments (American/Caribbean forests, terrestrial ecosystems of Colombia, and terrestrial ecosystems of South Africa) to illustrate the indices’ complementarity and versatility in revealing patterns of interest for users across sectors. Our indices have the potential to fill the recognized need for ecosystem indicators to inform conservation targets, guide policy, and prioritize management actions.

The Convention on Biological Diversity uses six indicators to assess progress toward Aichi Biodiversity Target 14 (ecosystem services), leaving many elements of the target untracked. We identify 13 ecosystem services as directly essential for human well-being, and select a set of 21 datasets as indicators of the state of natural capital underpinning those services, the benefits derived from them, and distribution of access to those benefits. Analysis of these indicators supports previous conclusions that there is no overall progress toward Target 14. Sixty percent of our “benefit” indicators have positive trends, whereas 86% of our “state” indicators show a decline in natural capital. This suggests that well-being is increasing in the near-term despite environmental degradation, and that unsustainable use of natural capital may fuel human development. As regulating services such as “soil fertility” continue to decline, however, it seems unlikely that this trend can continue without future negative impacts on humanity.

Land-use intensification is a key driver of biodiversity change. However, little is known about how it alters relationships between the diversities of different taxonomic groups, which are often correlated due to shared environmental drivers and trophic interactions. Using data from 150 grassland sites, we examined how land-use intensification (increased fertilization, higher livestock densities, and increased mowing frequency) altered correlations between the species richness of 15 plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate taxa. We found that 54% of pairwise correlations between taxonomic groups were significant and positive among all grasslands, while only one was negative. Higher land-use intensity substantially weakened these correlations (35% decrease in r and 43% fewer significant pairwise correlations at high intensity), a pattern which may emerge as a result of biodiversity declines and the breakdown of specialized relationships in these conditions. Nevertheless, some groups (Coleoptera, Heteroptera, Hymenoptera and Orthoptera) were consistently correlated with multidiversity, an aggregate measure of total biodiversity comprised of the standardized diversities of multiple taxa, at both high and low land-use intensity. The form of intensification was also important; increased fertilization and mowing frequency typically weakened plant–plant and plant–primary consumer correlations, whereas grazing intensification did not. This may reflect decreased habitat heterogeneity under mowing and fertilization and increased habitat heterogeneity under grazing. While these results urge caution in using certain taxonomic groups to monitor impacts of agricultural management on biodiversity, they also suggest that the diversities of some groups are reasonably robust indicators of total biodiversity across a range of conditions. Read More: http://www.esajournals.org/doi/10.1890/14-1307.1

1. As measuring biodiversity in its entirety is impractical, there is a need for bioindicators. This study tested the hypothesis that parasitoid Hymenoptera are potential bioindicators that provide a useful means to assess the wider biodiversity of arthropod populations in agro-ecosystems. There are a range of theoretical arguments to support such a claim, including the high trophic position of these taxa within the arthropod communities in which they occur, and the unique nature of their biological relationships with the majority of terrestrial arthropod groups.\ud \ud \ud 2. A survey of 48 commercial farms was conducted and Generalized Linear Models used to investigate relationships between six taxa—parasitoid Hymenoptera, Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Diptera, Araneae and plants (species richness and sward height)—in agricultural grasslands. As well as relationships between these groups, the relationship of each individual group to the overall biodiversity of all other arthropod groups was explored.\ud \ud \ud 3. Both abundance (r2 = 0·58) and taxon richness (r2 = 0·54) of parasitoid Hymenoptera had stronger relationships with overall arthropod taxon richness than any other arthropod group investigated. Parasitoid abundance also had a positive relationship with species richness of Coleoptera (r2 = 0·23) and Hemiptera (r2 = 0·47).\ud \ud \ud 4. An historical data set demonstrated how the relationship between parasitoid abundance and overall arthropod taxon richness changes over the growing season. July, when the relationship was strongest, is potentially the most useful time to sample.\ud \ud \ud 5. For use in routine monitoring, it is important that an effort be made to understand the seasonal influence on the relationship in the context being studied. Equal sampling effort must be made for all sites being compared and sites should be sampled as close together in the season as is possible.\ud \ud \ud 6. Synthesis and applications. We show that, within agricultural grasslands, both the abundance and taxon richness of parasitoid Hymenoptera are more closely related with overall arthropod diversity than any other arthropod group investigated. The use of parasitoid abundance provides a simple and practicable monitoring tool for tracking change in wider arthropod diversity in agro-ecosystems.