School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences - Research Publications

Permanent URI for this collection

http://hdl.handle.net/11343/426

Filters

2021 2
Reset filters

Settings
Statistics
Citations
Author: Bland, Lucie × End date: 2022 × Start date: 2020 × Type: Journal Article ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Combating ecosystem collapse from the tropics to the Antarctic
    Bergstrom, DM ; Wienecke, BC ; van den Hoff, J ; Hughes, L ; Lindenmayer, DB ; Ainsworth, TD ; Baker, CM ; Bland, L ; Bowman, DMJS ; Brooks, ST ; Canadell, JG ; Constable, AJ ; Dafforn, KA ; Depledge, MH ; Dickson, CR ; Duke, NC ; Helmstedt, KJ ; Holz, A ; Johnson, CR ; McGeoch, MA ; Melbourne-Thomas, J ; Morgain, R ; Nicholson, E ; Prober, SM ; Raymond, B ; Ritchie, EG ; Robinson, SA ; Ruthrof, KX ; Setterfield, SA ; Sgro, CM ; Stark, JS ; Travers, T ; Trebilco, R ; Ward, DFL ; Wardle, GM ; Williams, KJ ; Zylstra, PJ ; Shaw, JD (WILEY, 2021-05)
    Globally, collapse of ecosystems-potentially irreversible change to ecosystem structure, composition and function-imperils biodiversity, human health and well-being. We examine the current state and recent trajectories of 19 ecosystems, spanning 58° of latitude across 7.7 M km2 , from Australia's coral reefs to terrestrial Antarctica. Pressures from global climate change and regional human impacts, occurring as chronic 'presses' and/or acute 'pulses', drive ecosystem collapse. Ecosystem responses to 5-17 pressures were categorised as four collapse profiles-abrupt, smooth, stepped and fluctuating. The manifestation of widespread ecosystem collapse is a stark warning of the necessity to take action. We present a three-step assessment and management framework (3As Pathway Awareness, Anticipation and Action) to aid strategic and effective mitigation to alleviate further degradation to help secure our future.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Using decision science to evaluate global biodiversity indices
    Watermeyer, KE ; Bal, P ; Burgass, MJ ; Bland, LM ; Collen, B ; Hallam, C ; Kelly, LT ; McCarthy, MA ; Regan, TJ ; Stevenson, S ; Wintle, BA ; Nicholson, E ; Guillera-Arroita, G (WILEY, 2021-04)
    Global biodiversity indices are used to measure environmental change and progress toward conservation goals, yet few indices have been evaluated comprehensively for their capacity to detect trends of interest, such as declines in threatened species or ecosystem function. Using a structured approach based on decision science, we qualitatively evaluated 9 indices commonly used to track biodiversity at global and regional scales against 5 criteria relating to objectives, design, behavior, incorporation of uncertainty, and constraints (e.g., costs and data availability). Evaluation was based on reference literature for indices available at the time of assessment. We identified 4 key gaps in indices assessed: pathways to achieving goals (means objectives) were not always clear or relevant to desired outcomes (fundamental objectives); index testing and understanding of expected behavior was often lacking; uncertainty was seldom acknowledged or accounted for; and costs of implementation were seldom considered. These gaps may render indices inadequate in certain decision-making contexts and are problematic for indices linked with biodiversity targets and sustainability goals. Ensuring that index objectives are clear and their design is underpinned by a model of relevant processes are crucial in addressing the gaps identified by our assessment. Uptake and productive use of indices will be improved if index performance is tested rigorously and assumptions and uncertainties are clearly communicated to end users. This will increase index accuracy and value in tracking biodiversity change and supporting national and global policy decisions, such as the post-2020 global biodiversity framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity.