How are we monitoring biodiversity? Indicators for evaluating and benchmarking species and habitat monitoring programmes in Europe
Szabolcs, M., Lengyel, S., Kosztyi, B., Schmeller, D., Henry, P. Y., Kotarac, M., Lin, Y. P. and Henle, K. (2018). How are we monitoring biodiversity? Indicators for evaluating and benchmarking species and habitat monitoring programmes in Europe. 5th European Congress of Conservation Biology. doi: 10.17011/conference/eccb2018/107657
© the Authors, 2018
The monitoring of species and habitats is essential to biodiversity conservation. Although guidelines for biodiversity monitoring have been published since at least 1920, we know little on current practices in existing monitoring programmes. To fill this gap, we collected metadata on 646 species and habitat monitoring programmes in Europe and characterised current practices in monitoring. We developed metadata-based indicators for sampling design, sampling effort and data analysis to evaluate current practices, to study the importance of socio-economic factors in monitoring and to provide benchmarks for the comparison of programmes. We find that the starting year, motivation, funding source and geographic scope of monitoring influenced at least one of the indicators in both species and habitat based programmes. More specifically, sampling design scores varied by funding source and motivation in species monitoring and decreased with time (starting year) in habitat monitoring. Sampling effort decreased with time in both species and habitat monitoring and varied by funding source and motivation in species monitoring. Finally, the frequency of using hypothesis-testing statistics was lower in species monitoring than in habitat monitoring and it varied with geographic scope in both. The perception of the minimum change detectable by the programme (‘precision’) matched spatial sampling effort in species monitoring but was rarely estimated in habitat monitoring. We conclude that there are many signs of promising developments in biodiversity monitoring but also that there are options for improvement in sampling design, sampling effort and data analysis. Our results thus partially confirm recent concerns over the quality of biodiversity monitoring programmes. Although monitoring programmes differ greatly in their objectives, our general indicators provide benchmarks for the comparison of programmes that can be used to identify strengths and weaknesses in individual monitoring programmes. This knowledge then can be used to improve current practices, design new monitoring programmes, identify best practices and standardise performance across monitoring programmes. For more details, please see  and references therein. Reference  Lengyel Sz, Kosztyi B, Schmeller DS, Henry P-Y, Kotarac M, Lin Y-P, Henle K. 2018. Evaluating and benchmarking biodiversity monitoring: Metadata-based indicators for sampling design, sampling effort and data analysis. Ecological Indicators 85: 624-633. ...
PublisherOpen Science Centre, University of Jyväskylä
ConferenceECCB2018: 5th European Congress of Conservation Biology. 12th - 15th of June 2018, Jyväskylä, Finland
MetadataShow full item record
- ECCB 2018 
Showing items with similar title or keywords.
The Austrian biodiversity monitoring “ÖBM Kulturlandschaft” and a unified biodiversity number for trend assessments Schindler, Stefan; Zulka, Klaus Peter; Banko, Gebhard; Moser, Dietmar; Grillmayer, Roland; Rabitsch, Wolfgang; Essl, Franz; Paternoster, David; Staudinger, Markus; Zuna-Kratky, Thomas; Gallmetzer, Nina; Pascher, Kathrin; Stejskal-Tiefenbach, Maria (Open Science Centre, University of Jyväskylä, 2018)The Austrian biodiversity monitoring ÖBM-Kulturlandschaft has a focus on habitat and species diversity in Austrian cultural landscapes (including alpine pastures) and started in the year 2017. The stratified random selection ...
Efficacy of a 12-month, monitored home exercise programme compared with normal care commencing 2 months after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial Vuorenmaa, Mirja; Ylinen, Jari; Piitulainen, Kirsi; Salo, Petri; Kautiainen, Hannu; Pesola, Maija; Häkkinen, Arja (Stiftelsen Rehabiliteringsinformation, 2014)Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of a delayed home exercise programme compared with normal care after primary total knee arthroplasty. Design: Single-blind, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Participants: ...
Is integrated forest management effective in conserving biodiversity? The inter-disciplinary ConFoBi research programme Storch, Ilse; Penner, Johannes (Open Science Centre, University of Jyväskylä, 2018)ConFoBi (Conservation of Forest Biodiversity in Multiple-use Landscapes of Central Europe) is a major research and qualification programme of Freiburg University, Germany. ConFoBi combines multi-scale ecological studies ...
Monitoring under the EU habitats directive Evans, Douglas (Open Science Centre, University of Jyväskylä, 2018)The EU Habitats Directive was adopted in 1992 and requires site protection for selected habitats and species (listed in Annexes I & II), strict protection for selected species (Annex IV) and allows for management ...
Habitat suitability models for the Siberian jay (Perisoreus infaustus) from Citizen Science and systematic monitoring data: incorporating information about the reporting process Bradter, Ute; Mair, Louise; Jönsson, Mari; Knape, Jonas; Snäll, Tord (Open Science Centre, University of Jyväskylä, 2018)Opportunistically collected presence-only data contributed by volunteer reporters, so called Citizen Science data, are increasingly available for species and regions that lack systematic surveys. However, it is unclear if ...