Mace, G. M. et al. Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nat. Sustain. 1, 448–451 (2018).
Google Scholar
Leclère, D. et al. Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 585, 551–556 (2020).
Google Scholar
Updated Zero Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020); https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/3064/749a/0f65ac7f9def86707f4eaefa/post2020-prep-02-01-en.pdf
Pereira, H. M. et al. Essential biodiversity variables. Science 339, 277–278 (2013).
Google Scholar
Loh, J. et al. The Living Planet Index: using species population time series to track trends in biodiversity. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 360, 289–295 (2005).
Google Scholar
Collen, B. et al. Monitoring change in vertebrate abundance: the Living Planet Index. Conserv. Biol. 23, 317–327 (2009).
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
Almond, R.E.A., Grooten M. & Petersen, T. (eds) Living Planet Report 2020—Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss (WWF, 2020).
Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019).
Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020).
Jaspers, A. Can a single index track the state of global biodiversity? Biol. Conserv. 246, 108524 (2020).
Google Scholar
Leung, B. et al. Clustered versus catastrophic global vertebrate declines. Nature 588, 267–271 (2020).
Google Scholar
Buckland, S. T., Studeny, A. C., Magurran, A. E., Illian, J. & Newson, S. E. The geometric mean of relative abundance indices: a biodiversity measure with a difference. Ecosphere 2, 100 (2011).
de Valpine, P. & Hastings, A. Fitting population models incorporating process noise and observation error. Ecol. Monogr. 72, 57–76.
Daskalova, G. N., Myers-Smith, I. H. & Godlee, J. L. Rare and common vertebrates span a wide spectrum of population trends. Nat. Commun. 11, 4394 (2020).
Google Scholar
Living Planet Report 2020. Technical Supplement: Living Planet Index (WWF, 2020); https://f.hubspotusercontent20.net/hubfs/4783129/LPR/PDFs/ENGLISH%20-%20TECH%20SUPPLIMENT.pdf
Vellend, M. Conceptual synthesis in community ecology. Quart. Rev. Biol. 85, 183–206 (2010).
Google Scholar
Vellend, M. et al. Assessing the relative importance of neutral stochasticity in ecological communities. Oikos 123, 1420–1430 (2014).
Google Scholar
Lande, R. Risks of population extinction from demographic and environmental stochasticity and random catastrophes. Am. Nat. 142, 911–927 (1993).
Google Scholar
Gravel, D., Guichard, F. & Hochberg, M. E. Species coexistence in a variable world. Ecol. Lett. 14, 828–839 (2011).
Google Scholar
Kotze, D. J., O’Hara, R. B. & Lehvävirta, S. Dealing with varying detection probability, unequal sample sizes and clumped distributions in count data. PLoS ONE 7, e40923 (2012).
Google Scholar
Kellner, K. F. & Swihart, R. K. Accounting for imperfect detection in ecology: a quantitative review. PLoS ONE 9, e111436 (2014).
Google Scholar
Di Fonzo, M., Collen, B. & Mace, G. M. A new method for identifying rapid decline dynamics in wild vertebrate populations. Ecol. Evol. 3, 2378–2391 (2013).
Google Scholar
Maxwell, S. L. et al. Being smart about SMART environmental targets. Science 347, 1075–1076 (2015).
Google Scholar
Butchart, S. H. M., Di Marco, M. & Watson, J. E. M. Formulating SMART commitments on biodiversity: lessons from the Aichi Targets. Conserv Lett. 9, 457–468 (2016).
Google Scholar
Green, E. J. et al. Relating characteristics of global biodiversity targets to reported progress. Conserv. Biol. 33, 1360–1369 (2019).
Google Scholar
Dornelas, M. et al. A balance of winners and losers in the Anthropocene. Ecol. Lett. 22, 847–854 (2019).
Google Scholar
Fournier, A. M. V., White, E. R. & Heard, S. B. Site‐selection bias and apparent population declines in long‐term studies. Conserv. Biol. 33, 1370–1379 (2019).
Google Scholar
Pauly, D. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10, 430 (1995).
Google Scholar
Papworth, S. K., Rist, J., Coad, L. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. Evidence for shifting baseline syndrome in conservation. Conserv Lett. 2, 93–100 (2009).
Barnosky, A. D. et al. Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere. Nature 486, 52–58 (2012).
Google Scholar
Nicholson, E. et al. Scenarios and models to support global conservation targets. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 57–68 (2019).
Google Scholar
Bull, J. W., Strange, N., Smith, R. J. & Gordon, A. Reconciling multiple counterfactuals when evaluating biodiversity conservation impact in social-ecological systems. Conserv. Biol. 35, 510–521 (2021).
Google Scholar
van Strien, A. J. et al. Modest recovery of biodiversity in a western European country: The Living Planet Index for the Netherlands. Biol. Conserv. 200, 44–50 (2016).
Google Scholar
Wauchope, H. S., Amano, T., Sutherland, W. J. & Johnston, A. When can we trust population trends? A method for quantifying the effects of sampling interval and duration. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 2067–2078 (2019).
Google Scholar
Wauchope, H. S. et al. Evaluating impact using time-series data. Trends Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.11.001 (2020).
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).
Buschke, F. T. Biodiversity trajectories and the time needed to achieve no net loss through averted-loss biodiversity offsets. Ecol. Model 352, 54–57 (2017).
Google Scholar
Source: Ecology - nature.com
