4.7 Article

Modest recovery of biodiversity in a western European country: The Living Planet Index for the Netherlands

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
卷 200, 期 -, 页码 44-50

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.031

关键词

Biodiversity change; 2020 target; Abundance trends; Occupancy trends; Standardised data; Opportunistic data

资金

  1. Ministry of Economic Affairs in the framework of the Dutch Network Ecological Monitoring program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We calculated a Living Planet Index (LPI) for the Netherlands, based on 361 animal species from seven taxonomic groups occurring in terrestrial and freshwater habitats. Our assessment is basically similar to the global LPI, but the latter includes vertebrate species and trends in population abundance only. To achieve inferences on trends in biodiversity more generally, we added two insect groups (butterflies and dragonflies) and added occupancy trends for species for which we had no abundance trends available. According to the LPI, the state of biodiversity has slightly increased from 1990 to 2014. However, large differences exist between habitat types. We found a considerable increase in freshwater animal populations, probably because of improvement of chemical water quality and rehabilitation of marshland habitats. We found no trend in the LPI for woodland populations. In contrast, populations in farmland and open semi-natural habitats (coastal dunes, heathland and semi-natural grassland) declined, which we attribute to intensive agricultural practices and nitrogen deposition, respectively. The LPI shows that, even in a densely populated western European country, ongoing loss of animal biodiversity is not inevitable and may even be reversed if adequate measures are taken. Our approach enabled us to produce summary statistics beyond the level of species groups to monitor the state of biodiversity in a clear and consistent way. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据