Institution
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Nonprofit•Sandy, United Kingdom•
About: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is a nonprofit organization based out in Sandy, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Biodiversity. The organization has 670 authors who have published 1425 publications receiving 88006 citations. The organization is also known as: RSPB & Plumage League.
Topics: Population, Biodiversity, Threatened species, Foraging, Habitat
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: It is concluded that no single index can capture all aspects of biodiversity change, but that a modified Shannon index and the geometric mean of relative abundance have useful properties.
Abstract: The need to monitor trends in biodiversity raises many technical issues. What are the features of a good biodiversity index? How should trends in abundance of individual species be estimated? How should composite indices, possibly spanning very diverse taxa, be formed? At what spatial scale should composite indices be applied? How might change-points—points at which the underlying trend changes—be identified? We address some of the technical issues underlying composite indices, including survey design, weighting of the constituent indices, identification of change-points and estimation of spatially varying time trends. We suggest some criteria that biodiversity measures for use in monitoring surveys should satisfy, and we discuss the problems of implementing rigorous methods. We illustrate the properties of different composite indices using UK farmland bird data. We conclude that no single index can capture all aspects of biodiversity change, but that a modified Shannon index and the geometric mean of relative abundance have useful properties.
365 citations
••
University of Queensland1, University of Salford2, University of Western Australia3, Queensland University of Technology4, University of Lausanne5, Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust6, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society7, University of Évora8, University of Freiburg9, University of Melbourne10, University of Plymouth11, Mississippi State University12, Australian Institute of Marine Science13, Griffith University14, Zurich University of Applied Sciences/ZHAW15, University of British Columbia16, Duke University17, Finnish Environment Institute18, University of Adelaide19, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals20, IFREMER21, University of California, Davis22, Technical University of Madrid23, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research24, Memorial University of Newfoundland25, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds26, University of Kansas27, University of California, Merced28, University of the Sunshine Coast29, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University30, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences31, University of Grenoble32, Oregon State University33, Gulf of Maine Research Institute34, University of Toronto35, University of Georgia36, Newcastle University37, Parks Canada38, Humboldt University of Berlin39
TL;DR: Of high importance is the identification of a widely applicable set of transferability metrics, with appropriate tools to quantify the sources and impacts of prediction uncertainty under novel conditions.
Abstract: Predictive models are central to many scientific disciplines and vital for informing management in a rapidly changing world However, limited understanding of the accuracy and precision of models transferred to novel conditions (their ‘transferability’) undermines confidence in their predictions Here, 50 experts identified priority knowledge gaps which, if filled, will most improve model transfers These are summarized into six technical and six fundamental challenges, which underlie the combined need to intensify research on the determinants of ecological predictability, including species traits and data quality, and develop best practices for transferring models Of high importance is the identification of a widely applicable set of transferability metrics, with appropriate tools to quantify the sources and impacts of prediction uncertainty under novel conditions
358 citations
••
Northern Illinois University1, BirdLife International2, University of California, Santa Cruz3, Oregon State University4, University College Cork5, Massey University6, University of Queensland7, Landcare Research8, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds9, United States Fish and Wildlife Service10, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources11, National Audubon Society12, Wellington Management Company13, Laney College14, Island Conservation Society15, University of Auckland16, University of Otago17, Auckland University of Technology18, University of California19
TL;DR: The global benefits of an increasingly used conservation action to stem biodiversity loss: eradication of invasive mammals on islands are estimated to be 107 highly threatened birds, mammals, and reptiles on the IUCN Red List—6% of all these highly threatened species—likely have benefitted from invasive mammal eradications on islands.
Abstract: More than US$21 billion is spent annually on biodiversity conservation. Despite their importance for preventing or slowing extinctions and preserving biodiversity, conservation interventions are rarely assessed systematically for their global impact. Islands house a disproportionately higher amount of biodiversity compared with mainlands, much of which is highly threatened with extinction. Indeed, island species make up nearly two-thirds of recent extinctions. Islands therefore are critical targets of conservation. We used an extensive literature and database review paired with expert interviews to estimate the global benefits of an increasingly used conservation action to stem biodiversity loss: eradication of invasive mammals on islands. We found 236 native terrestrial insular faunal species (596 populations) that benefitted through positive demographic and/or distributional responses from 251 eradications of invasive mammals on 181 islands. Seven native species (eight populations) were negatively impacted by invasive mammal eradication. Four threatened species had their International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List extinction-risk categories reduced as a direct result of invasive mammal eradication, and no species moved to a higher extinction-risk category. We predict that 107 highly threatened birds, mammals, and reptiles on the IUCN Red List-6% of all these highly threatened species-likely have benefitted from invasive mammal eradications on islands. Because monitoring of eradication outcomes is sporadic and limited, the impacts of global eradications are likely greater than we report here. Our results highlight the importance of invasive mammal eradication on islands for protecting the world's most imperiled fauna.
349 citations
••
International Institute of Minnesota1, The Catholic University of America2, University of Queensland3, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro4, Wageningen University and Research Centre5, Autonomous University of Barcelona6, Federal Fluminense University7, University of Cambridge8, University of Tasmania9, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources10, University of the Philippines Los Baños11, BirdLife International12, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna13, University of São Paulo14, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds15, National University of Cordoba16, World Conservation Monitoring Centre17, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis18, Environmental Change Institute19, University of Vienna20
TL;DR: It is found that restoring 15% of converted lands in priority areas could avoid 60% of expected extinctions while sequestering 299 gigatonnes of CO 2 —30% of the total CO 2 increase in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.
Abstract: Extensive ecosystem restoration is increasingly seen as being central to conserving biodiversity and stabilizing the climate of the Earth. Although ambitious national and global targets have been set, global priority areas that account for spatial variation in benefits and costs have yet to be identified. Here we develop and apply a multicriteria optimization approach that identifies priority areas for restoration across all terrestrial biomes, and estimates their benefits and costs. We find that restoring 15% of converted lands in priority areas could avoid 60% of expected extinctions while sequestering 299 gigatonnes of CO2—30% of the total CO2 increase in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. The inclusion of several biomes is key to achieving multiple benefits. Cost effectiveness can increase up to 13-fold when spatial allocation is optimized using our multicriteria approach, which highlights the importance of spatial planning. Our results confirm the vast potential contributions of restoration to addressing global challenges, while underscoring the necessity of pursuing these goals synergistically.
348 citations
••
TL;DR: This article used data from the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the United Nations Population Division (UNPD) to project plausible values for 2050 for population size, diet, yield, and trade, and then look at their effect on the area needed to meet demand for the 23 most energetically important food crops, for the developing and developed worlds in turn.
Abstract: How can rapidly growing food demands be met with least adverse impact on nature? Two very different sorts of suggestions predominate in the literature: wildlife-friendly farming, whereby on-farm practices are made as benign to wildlife as possible (at the potential cost of decreasing yields); and land-sparing, in which farm yields are increased and pressure to convert land for agriculture thereby reduced (at the potential cost of decreasing wildlife populations on farmland). This paper is about one important aspect of the land-sparing idea – the sensitivity of future requirements for cropland to plausible variation in yield increases, relative to other variables. Focusing on the 23 most energetically important food crops, we use data from the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the United Nations Population Division (UNPD) to project plausible values for 2050 for population size, diet, yield, and trade, and then look at their effect on the area needed to meet demand for the 23 crops, for the developing and developed worlds in turn. Our calculations suggest that across developing countries, the area under those crops will need to increase very considerably by 2050 (by 23% under intermediate projections), and that plausible variation in average yield has as much bearing on the extent of that expansion as does variation in population size or per capita consumption; future cropland area varies far less under foreseeable variation in the net import of food from the rest of the world. By contrast, cropland area in developed countries is likely to decrease slightly by 2050 (by 4% under intermediate projections for those 23 crops), and will be less sensitive to variation in population growth, diet, yield, or trade. Other contentious aspects of the land-sparing idea require further scrutiny, but these results confirm its potential significance and suggest that conservationists should be as concerned about future agricultural yields as they are about population growth and rising per capita consumption.
348 citations
Authors
Showing all 672 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Andrew Balmford | 91 | 290 | 33359 |
Rhys E. Green | 78 | 285 | 30428 |
Richard D. Gregory | 61 | 165 | 18428 |
Richard Evans | 48 | 306 | 10513 |
Rafael Mateo | 46 | 238 | 7091 |
Deborah J. Pain | 46 | 99 | 6717 |
Jeremy D. Wilson | 45 | 123 | 12587 |
Les G. Underhill | 45 | 233 | 8217 |
Richard B. Bradbury | 42 | 113 | 8062 |
Paul F. Donald | 41 | 117 | 11153 |
James W. Pearce-Higgins | 40 | 144 | 5623 |
Jörn P. W. Scharlemann | 40 | 84 | 16393 |
Juliet A. Vickery | 39 | 116 | 8494 |
Mark A. Taggart | 38 | 111 | 3703 |
Patrick W Thompson | 38 | 144 | 6379 |