Tittensor, D. P. et al. A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 346, 241–244 (2014).
Google Scholar
McRae, L., Deinet, S. & Freeman, R. The diversity-weighted living planet index: Controlling for taxonomic bias in a global biodiversity indicator. PloS One 12, e0169156 (2017).
Google Scholar
Hortal, J. et al. Seven shortfalls that beset large-scale knowledge of biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evolut. Systemat. 46, 523–549 (2015).
Google Scholar
Meyer, C., Weigelt, P. & Kreft, H. Multidimensional biases, gaps and uncertainties in global plant occurrence information. Ecol. Lett. 19, 992–1006 (2016).
Google Scholar
Dobson, A. Monitoring global rates of biodiversity change: Challenges that arise in meeting the convention on biological diversity (CBD) 2010 goals. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 360, 229–241 (2005).
Google Scholar
Walpole, M. et al. Tracking progress toward the 2010 biodiversity target and beyond. Science 325, 1503–1504 (2009).
Google Scholar
Butchart, S. H. et al. Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science 1164–1168, (2010).
Jones, J. P. et al. The why, what, and how of global biodiversity indicators beyond the 2010 target. Conserv. Biol. 25, 450–457 (2011).
Google Scholar
Lawton, J. H. et al. Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest. Nature 391, 72–76 (1998).
Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. Extinction vulnerability and selectivity: Combining ecological and paleontological views. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Systemat. 28, 495–516 (1997).
Google Scholar
Cardillo, M. et al. The predictability of extinction: Biological and external correlates of decline in mammals. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 275, 1441–1448 (2008).
Newbold, T. et al. A global model of the response of tropical and sub-tropical forest biodiversity to anthropogenic pressures. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 281, 20141371 (2014).
on Biodiversity, I. S.-P. P. & Ecosystem Services, I. The methodological assessment report on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3235429 (2016).
Jetz, W. et al. Essential biodiversity variables for mapping and monitoring species populations. Nat. Ecol. Evolut. 3, 539–551 (2019).
Google Scholar
LPI. Living planet index database. http://www.livingplanetindex.org (2016).
Dornelas, M. et al. Biotime: A database of biodiversity time series for the anthropocene. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 760–786 (2018).
Google Scholar
Blowes, S. A. et al. The geography of biodiversity change in marine and terrestrial assemblages. Science. 366, 339–345. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw1620 (2019).
Google Scholar
Gonzalez, A. et al. Estimating local biodiversity change: A critique of papers claiming no net loss of local diversity. Ecology 97, 1949–1960 (2016).
Google Scholar
Purvis, A. et al. Modelling and projecting the response of local terrestrial biodiversity worldwide to land use and related pressures: The predicts project. Adv. Ecol. Res. 58, 201–241 (2018).
Google Scholar
Leung, B., Greenberg, D. A. & Green, D. M. Trends in mean growth and stability in temperate vertebrate populations. Diversity Distribut. 23, 1372–1380 (2017).
Google Scholar
Scholes, R. & Biggs, R. A biodiversity intactness index. Nature 434, 45–49 (2005).
Google Scholar
Barnosky, A. D. et al. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?. Nature. 471, 51–57 (2011).
Google Scholar
Ceballos, G. & Ehrlich, P. R. Mammal population losses and the extinction crisis. Science 296, 904–907 (2002).
Google Scholar
Pimm, S. L. et al. The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344, 1246752 (2014).
Google Scholar
Hooper, D. U. et al. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature 486, 105–108 (2012).
Google Scholar
Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012).
Google Scholar
Mace, G. M. et al. Approaches to defining a planetary boundary for biodiversity. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 289–297 (2014).
Google Scholar
Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015).
Google Scholar
Mace, G. M. et al. Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nat. Sustain. 1, 448–451 (2018).
Google Scholar
Mandl, N., Lehnert, M., Kessler, M. & Gradstein, S. R. A comparison of alpha and beta diversity patterns of ferns, bryophytes and macrolichens in tropical montane forests of southern ecuador. Biodiversity Conservat. 19, 2359–2369 (2010).
Google Scholar
Socolar, J. B., Gilroy, J. J., Kunin, W. E. & Edwards, D. P. How should beta-diversity inform biodiversity conservation? Trends Ecol. Evolut. 31, 67–80 (2016).
Google Scholar
Hillebrand, H. et al. Biodiversity change is uncoupled from species richness trends: Consequences for conservation and monitoring. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 169–184 (2018).
Google Scholar
Cardinale, B. J., Gonzalez, A., Allington, G. R. & Loreau, M. Is local biodiversity declining or not? A summary of the debate over analysis of species richness time trends. Biol. Conservat. 219, 175–183 (2018).
Google Scholar
Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on earth points to the need for transformative change. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax3100 (2019).
Google Scholar
Newbold, T. et al. Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? a global assessment. Science 353, 288–291 (2016).
Google Scholar
Hudson, L. N. et al. The database of the predicts (projecting responses of ecological diversity in changing terrestrial systems) project. Ecol. Evolut. 7, 145–188 (2017).
Google Scholar
Lewis, S. L., Edwards, D. P. & Galbraith, D. Increasing human dominance of tropical forests. Science 349, 827–832 (2015).
Google Scholar
Jenkins, C. N., Pimm, S. L. & Joppa, L. N. Global patterns of terrestrial vertebrate diversity and conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, E2602–E2610. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1302251110 (2013).
Google Scholar
Bowler, D. E. et al. Mapping human pressures on biodiversity across the planet uncovers anthropogenic threat complexes. People Nat. 2, 380–394. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10071 (2020).
Google Scholar
Sala, O. E. et al. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287, 1770–1774 (2000).
Google Scholar
Geist, H. J. & Lambin, E. F. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation: Tropical forests are disappearing as the result of many pressures, both local and regional, acting in various combinations in different geographical locations. BioScience 52, 143–150 (2002).
Google Scholar
Gibson, L. et al. Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 478, 378–381 (2011).
Google Scholar
Barlow, J. et al. Anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests can double biodiversity loss from deforestation. Nature 535, 144–147 (2016).
Google Scholar
Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).
Google Scholar
Pettorelli, N. et al. Framing the concept of satellite remote sensing essential biodiversity variables: Challenges and future directions. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conservat. 2, 122–131 (2016).
Google Scholar
Benítez-López, A., Santini, L. L., Schipper, A. M., Busana, M. & Huijbregts, M. A. J. Intact but empty forests? Patterns of hunting-induced mammal defaunation in the tropics. PLOS Biol. 17, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000247 (2019).
Google Scholar
Morales-Hidalgo, D., Oswalt, S. N. & Somanathan, E. Status and trends in global primary forest, protected areas, and areas designated for conservation of biodiversity from the global forest resources assessment 2015. Forest Ecol. Manag. 352, 68–77 (2015).
Google Scholar
Sloan, S. & Sayer, J. A. Forest resources assessment of 2015 shows positive global trends but forest loss and degradation persist in poor tropical countries. Forest Ecol. Manag. 352, 134–145 (2015).
Google Scholar
Smith, R. J., Muir, R. D., Walpole, M. J., Balmford, A. & Leader-Williams, N. Governance and the loss of biodiversity. Nature 426, 67 (2003).
Google Scholar
Tilman, D. et al. Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention. Nature 546, 73 (2017).
Google Scholar
Xu, R. Measuring explained variation in linear mixed effects models. Stat. Med. 22, 3527–3541. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1572 (2003).
Google Scholar
Lüdecke, D., Ben-Shachar, M. S., Patil, I., Waggoner, P. & Makowski, D. performance: An R package for assessment, comparison and testing of statistical models. J. Open Source Softw. 6, 3139, 10.21105/joss.03139 (2021).
Google Scholar
Rockström, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).
Google Scholar
Brook, B. W., Ellis, E. C., Perring, M. P., Mackay, A. W. & Blomqvist, L. Does the terrestrial biosphere have planetary tipping points?. Trends Ecol. Evolut. 28, 396–401 (2013).
Google Scholar
Isbell, F. et al. Linking the influence and dependence of people on biodiversity across scales. Nature 546, 65–72 (2017).
Google Scholar
Montoya, J. M., Donohue, I. & Pimm, S. L. Planetary boundaries for biodiversity: Implausible science, pernicious policies. Trends Ecol. Evolut. 33, 71–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.10.004 (2018).
Google Scholar
Homer-Dixon, T. Environment, Scarcity, and Violence (Princeton University Press, 2010).
Google Scholar
Murphy, G. E. & Romanuk, T. N. A meta-analysis of declines in local species richness from human disturbances. Ecol. Evolut. 4, 91–103 (2014).
Google Scholar
Betts, M. G. et al. Extinction filters mediate the global effects of habitat fragmentation on animals. Science 366, 1236–1239. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax9387 (2019) https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6470/1236.full.pdf.
Google Scholar
Laurance, W. F. et al. Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protected areas. Nature 489, 290–294 (2012).
Google Scholar
Leung, B. et al. Clustered versus catastrophic global vertebrate declines. Nature 588, 267–271 (2020).
Google Scholar
Haddad, N. M. et al. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci. Adv. 1, e1500052 (2015).
Google Scholar
Sloan, S., Jenkins, C. N., Joppa, L. N., Gaveau, D. L. & Laurance, W. F. Remaining natural vegetation in the global biodiversity hotspots. Biol. Conservat. 177, 12–24 (2014).
Google Scholar
Venter, O. et al. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat. Commun. 7, 12558 (2016).
Google Scholar
Potapov, P. et al. The last frontiers of wilderness: Tracking loss of intact forest landscapes from 2000 to 2013. Sci. Adv. 3, e1600821 (2017).
Google Scholar
Phillips, H. R., Newbold, T. & Purvis, A. Land-use effects on local biodiversity in tropical forests vary between continents. Biodiversity Conservat. 26, 2251–2270 (2017).
Google Scholar
Newbold, T. et al. Global patterns of terrestrial assemblage turnover within and among land uses. Ecography 39, 1151–1163 (2016).
Google Scholar
Rouget, M., Cowling, R., Vlok, J., Thompson, M. & Balmford, A. Getting the biodiversity intactness index right: The importance of habitat degradation data. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 2032–2036 (2006).
Google Scholar
Koh, L. P. & Wilcove, D. S. Is oil palm agriculture really destroying tropical biodiversity?. Conserv. Lett. 1, 60–64 (2008).
Google Scholar
WWF. In Living planet report 2020 (eds. Almond, R. E. A., Grooten, M., & Petersen, T) (WWF, Gland, Switzerland) (2004).
IPBES. Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment of scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (ed. Ferrier, S), Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany, 348 (2016).
Brauman, K. A. et al. Chapter 2.3. Status and Trends—Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3832036 (2020).
Sanderson, E. W. et al. The human footprint and the last of the wild: the human footprint is a global map of human influence on the land surface, which suggests that human beings are stewards of nature, whether we like it or not. BioScience 52, 891–904 (2002).
Google Scholar
Martin, P., Green, R. E. & Balmford, A. Is biodiversity as intact as we think it is?. PeerJ Preprints 7, e27575v1 (2019).
Newbold, T., Sanchez-Ortiz, K., De Palma, A., Hill, S. L. & Purvis, A. Reply to ‘the biodiversity intactness index may underestimate losses’. Nat. Ecol. Evolut. 3, 864–865 (2019).
Google Scholar
Faith, D. P., Ferrier, S. & Williams, K. J. Getting biodiversity intactness indices right: Ensuring that ‘biodiversity’ reflects ‘diversity’. Glob. Change Biol. 14, 207–217 (2008).
Google Scholar
Jetz, W., Wilcove, D. S. & Dobson, A. P. Projected impacts of climate and land-use change on the global diversity of birds. PLoS Biol. 5, e157 (2007).
Google Scholar
Newbold, T. Future effects of climate and land-use change on terrestrial vertebrate community diversity under different scenarios. Proc. R. Soc. B 285, 20180792 (2018).
Google Scholar
Senior, R. A., Hill, J. K., González del Pliego, P., Goode, L. K. & Edwards, D. P. A pantropical analysis of the impacts of forest degradation and conversion on local temperature. Ecol. Evolut. 7, 7897–7908 (2017).
Google Scholar
De Chazal, J. & Rounsevell, M. D. Land-use and climate change within assessments of biodiversity change: a review. Glob. Environ. Change 19, 306–315 (2009).
Google Scholar
Schipper, A. M. et al. Projecting terrestrial biodiversity intactness with globio 4. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 760–771. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14848 (2020).
Google Scholar
Wearn, O. R., Reuman, D. C. & Ewers, R. M. Extinction debt and windows of conservation opportunity in the Brazilian amazon. Science 337, 228–232 (2012).
Google Scholar
De Palma, A. et al. Challenges with inferring how land-use affects terrestrial biodiversity: Study design, time, space and synthesis. In Advances in Ecological Research, vol. 58, 163–199 (Elsevier, 2018).
De Palma, A. et al. Predicting bee community responses to land-use changes: Effects of geographic and taxonomic biases. Sci. Rep. 6, 31153 (2016).
Google Scholar
Bicknell, J. E., Gaveau, D. L., Davies, Z. G. & Struebig, M. J. Saving logged tropical forests: Closing roads will bring immediate benefits. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13, 73–74 (2015).
Google Scholar
Laurance, W. F., Goosem, M. & Laurance, S. G. Impacts of roads and linear clearings on tropical forests. Trends Ecol. Evolut. 24, 659–669 (2009).
Google Scholar
Lloyd, C. T., Sorichetta, A. & Tatem, A. J. High resolution global gridded data for use in population studies. Sci. Data 4, 170001 (2017).
Google Scholar
Watermeyer, K. E. et al. Using decision science to evaluate global biodiversity indices. Conserv. Biol. 35, 492–501 (2021).
Olsen, E. et al. Ecosystem model skill assessment. Yes we can!. PLoS One 11, e0146467 (2016).
Google Scholar
Hoskins, A. J. et al. Downscaling land-use data to provide global 30 ’ ’estimates of five land-use classes. Ecol. Evolut. 6, 3040–3055 (2016).
Google Scholar
Fulton, E. A., Blanchard, J. L., Melbourne-Thomas, J., Plagányi, É. E. & Tulloch, V. J. Where the ecological gaps remain, a modelers’ perspective. Front. Ecol. Evolut. 7, 424 (2019).
Google Scholar
Watermeyer, K. E. et al. Using decision science to evaluate global biodiversity indices. Conservat. Biol. 35, 492–501 (2021).
Google Scholar
Bradshaw, C. J., Sodhi, N. S. & Brook, B. W. Tropical turmoil: A biodiversity tragedy in progress. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 79–87 (2009).
Google Scholar
De Palma, A., Sanchez-Ortiz, K. & Purvis, A. Calculating the Biodiversity Intactness Index: the PREDICTS implementation (2019). This is the first release of a repository from https://github.com/adrianadepalma/BII_tutorial You can also view the document here. https://adrianadepalma.github.io/BII_tutorial/bii_example.html. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3518067.
Hudson, L. N. et al. The predicts database: A global database of how local terrestrial biodiversity responds to human impacts. Ecol. Evolut. 4, 4701–4735 (2014).
Google Scholar
Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on earth: A new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. BioScience 51, 933–938 (2001).
Google Scholar
Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015).
Google Scholar
for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) Columbia University, C. Gridded Population of the World, Version 4 (GPWv4): Population Density Adjusted to Match 2015 Revision of UN WPP Country Totals (NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC), Palisades, NY, 2016). (Accessed 10 November 2017).
for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) Columbia University, C. & of Georgia, I. T. O. S. I. U. Global Roads Open Access Data Set, Version 1 (gROADSv1) (NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC), Palisades, NY, 2013). (Accessed 19 January 2017).
Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G. & Jarvis, A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 1965–1978 (2005).
Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).
Google Scholar
Crawley, M. J. The R Book (Wiley, Chichester, England, 2007).
Google Scholar
Chao, A., Chazdon, R. L., Colwell, R. K. & Shen, T.-J. A new statistical approach for assessing similarity of species composition with incidence and abundance data. Ecol. Lett. 8, 148–159 (2005).
Google Scholar
Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. An R companion to applied regression (Sage Publications, 2011).
Gower, J. C. A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics. 857–871, (1971).
van der Loo, M. gower: Gower’s distance (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017). R package version 0.1.2. https://www.R-project.org
Lichstein, J. W. Multiple regression on distance matrices: A multivariate spatial analysis tool. Plant Ecol. 188, 117–131 (2007).
Google Scholar
Team, R.C. R: A language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017).
Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N., Saveliev, A. A. & Smith, G. M. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R (Springer New York, 2009).
Google Scholar
Hurtt, G. C. et al. Harmonization of land-use scenarios for the period 1500–2100: 600 years of global gridded annual land-use transitions, wood harvest, and resulting secondary lands. Clim. Change 109, 117–161 (2011).
Google Scholar
Friedl, M. A. et al. Modis collection 5 global land cover: Algorithm refinements and characterization of new datasets. Remote Sens. Environ. 114, 168–182 (2010).
Google Scholar
Goldewijk, K. K. Three centuries of global population growth: A spatial referenced population (density) database for 1700–2000. Populat. Environ. 26, 343–367 (2005).
Google Scholar
Meijer, J. R., Huijbregts, M. A., Schotten, K. C. & Schipper, A. M. Global patterns of current and future road infrastructure. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 064006 (2018).
Google Scholar
van Asselen, S. & Verburg, P. H. Land cover change or land-use intensification: Simulating land system change with a global-scale land change model. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 3648–3667. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12331 (2013).
Google Scholar
Brooks, T. M. et al. Analysing biodiversity and conservation knowledge products to support regional environmental assessments. Sci. Data 3, 160007 (2016).
Google Scholar
World bank national accounts data, and oecd national accounts data files (2017). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD
Pinheiro, J. et al. Package ‘nlme’. Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models, version 3–1 (2017). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme
Bivand, R., Hauke, J. & Kossowski, T. Computing the jacobian in gaussian spatial autoregressive models: An illustrated comparison of available methods. Geogr. Anal. 45, 150–179 (2013).
Google Scholar
Bivand, R. & Piras, G. Comparing implementations of estimation methods for spatial econometrics. J. Stat. Softw. 63, 1–36 (2015).
Hartig, F. DHARMa: Residual Diagnostics for Hierarchical (Multi-Level/Mixed) Regression Models (2017). R package version 0.1.5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DHARMa
Source: Ecology - nature.com
