A quantitative global review of species population monitoring

Autores
Moussy, Caroline; Burfield, Ian J.; Stephenson, P. J.; Newton, Arabella F. E.; Butchart, Stuart H. M.; Sutherland, William J.; Gregory, Richard D.; McRae, Louise; Bubb, Philip; Roesler, Carlos Ignacio; Ursino, Cynthia Alejandra; Wu, Yanqing; Retief, Ernst F.; Udin, Jihad S.; Urazaliyev, Ruslan; Sánchez Clavijo, Lina M.; Lartey, Eric; Donald, Paul F.
Año de publicación
2022
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Species monitoring, defined here as the repeated, systematic collection of data to detect long-term changes in the populations of wild species, is a vital component of conservation practice and policy. We created a database of nearly 1200 schemes, ranging in start date from 1800 to 2018, to review spatial, temporal, taxonomic, and methodological patterns in global species monitoring. We identified monitoring schemes through standardized web searches, an online survey of stakeholders, in-depth national searches in a sample of countries, and a review of global biodiversity databases. We estimated the total global number of monitoring schemes operating at 3300–15,000. Since 2000, there has been a sharp increase in the number of new schemes being initiated in lower- and middle-income countries and in megadiverse countries, but a decrease in high-income countries. The total number of monitoring schemes in a country and its per capita gross domestic product were strongly, positively correlated. Schemes that were active in 2018 had been running for an average of 21 years in high-income countries, compared with 13 years in middle-income countries and 10 years in low-income countries. In high-income countries, over one-half of monitoring schemes received government funding, but this was less than one-quarter in low-income countries. Data collection was undertaken partly or wholly by volunteers in 37% of schemes, and such schemes covered significantly more sites and species than those undertaken by professionals alone. Birds were by far the most widely monitored taxonomic group, accounting for around half of all schemes, but this bias declined over time. Monitoring in most taxonomic groups remains sparse and uncoordinated, and most of the data generated are elusive and unlikely to feed into wider biodiversity conservation processes. These shortcomings could be addressed by, for example, creating an open global meta-database of biodiversity monitoring schemes and enhancing capacity for species monitoring in countries with high biodiversity. Article impact statement: Species population monitoring for conservation purposes remains strongly biased toward a few vertebrate taxa in wealthier countries.
Fil: Moussy, Caroline. No especifíca;
Fil: Burfield, Ian J.. No especifíca;
Fil: Stephenson, P. J.. No especifíca;
Fil: Newton, Arabella F. E.. No especifíca;
Fil: Butchart, Stuart H. M.. University of Cambridge; Estados Unidos
Fil: Sutherland, William J.. University of Cambridge; Estados Unidos
Fil: Gregory, Richard D.. Colegio Universitario de Londres; Reino Unido
Fil: McRae, Louise. Institute of Zoology; Reino Unido
Fil: Bubb, Philip. Environment World Conservation Monitoring; Reino Unido
Fil: Roesler, Carlos Ignacio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina
Fil: Ursino, Cynthia Alejandra. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina
Fil: Wu, Yanqing. Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences; China
Fil: Retief, Ernst F.. No especifíca;
Fil: Udin, Jihad S.. No especifíca;
Fil: Urazaliyev, Ruslan. Association for the Conservation of Biodiversity of Kazakhstan; Kazajistán
Fil: Sánchez Clavijo, Lina M.. Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humbold; Colombia
Fil: Lartey, Eric. No especifíca;
Fil: Donald, Paul F.. University of Cambridge; Estados Unidos
Materia
BIODIVERSITY SURVEILLANCE
CIENCIA CIUDADANA
CITIZEN SCIENCE
MEGADIVERSE COUNTRIES
PAÍSES MEGADIVERSOS
POPULATION TRENDS
SESGO TAXONÓMICO
TAXONOMIC BIAS
TENDENCIAS POBLACIONALES
VIGILANCIA DE LA BIODIVERSIDAD
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/188218

id CONICETDig_660c4e13cd8ba4a57aff63e1f36ce26b
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/188218
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling A quantitative global review of species population monitoringMoussy, CarolineBurfield, Ian J.Stephenson, P. J.Newton, Arabella F. E.Butchart, Stuart H. M.Sutherland, William J.Gregory, Richard D.McRae, LouiseBubb, PhilipRoesler, Carlos IgnacioUrsino, Cynthia AlejandraWu, YanqingRetief, Ernst F.Udin, Jihad S.Urazaliyev, RuslanSánchez Clavijo, Lina M.Lartey, EricDonald, Paul F.BIODIVERSITY SURVEILLANCECIENCIA CIUDADANACITIZEN SCIENCEMEGADIVERSE COUNTRIESPAÍSES MEGADIVERSOSPOPULATION TRENDSSESGO TAXONÓMICOTAXONOMIC BIASTENDENCIAS POBLACIONALESVIGILANCIA DE LA BIODIVERSIDADhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1Species monitoring, defined here as the repeated, systematic collection of data to detect long-term changes in the populations of wild species, is a vital component of conservation practice and policy. We created a database of nearly 1200 schemes, ranging in start date from 1800 to 2018, to review spatial, temporal, taxonomic, and methodological patterns in global species monitoring. We identified monitoring schemes through standardized web searches, an online survey of stakeholders, in-depth national searches in a sample of countries, and a review of global biodiversity databases. We estimated the total global number of monitoring schemes operating at 3300–15,000. Since 2000, there has been a sharp increase in the number of new schemes being initiated in lower- and middle-income countries and in megadiverse countries, but a decrease in high-income countries. The total number of monitoring schemes in a country and its per capita gross domestic product were strongly, positively correlated. Schemes that were active in 2018 had been running for an average of 21 years in high-income countries, compared with 13 years in middle-income countries and 10 years in low-income countries. In high-income countries, over one-half of monitoring schemes received government funding, but this was less than one-quarter in low-income countries. Data collection was undertaken partly or wholly by volunteers in 37% of schemes, and such schemes covered significantly more sites and species than those undertaken by professionals alone. Birds were by far the most widely monitored taxonomic group, accounting for around half of all schemes, but this bias declined over time. Monitoring in most taxonomic groups remains sparse and uncoordinated, and most of the data generated are elusive and unlikely to feed into wider biodiversity conservation processes. These shortcomings could be addressed by, for example, creating an open global meta-database of biodiversity monitoring schemes and enhancing capacity for species monitoring in countries with high biodiversity. Article impact statement: Species population monitoring for conservation purposes remains strongly biased toward a few vertebrate taxa in wealthier countries.Fil: Moussy, Caroline. No especifíca;Fil: Burfield, Ian J.. No especifíca;Fil: Stephenson, P. J.. No especifíca;Fil: Newton, Arabella F. E.. No especifíca;Fil: Butchart, Stuart H. M.. University of Cambridge; Estados UnidosFil: Sutherland, William J.. University of Cambridge; Estados UnidosFil: Gregory, Richard D.. Colegio Universitario de Londres; Reino UnidoFil: McRae, Louise. Institute of Zoology; Reino UnidoFil: Bubb, Philip. Environment World Conservation Monitoring; Reino UnidoFil: Roesler, Carlos Ignacio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; ArgentinaFil: Ursino, Cynthia Alejandra. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; ArgentinaFil: Wu, Yanqing. Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences; ChinaFil: Retief, Ernst F.. No especifíca;Fil: Udin, Jihad S.. No especifíca;Fil: Urazaliyev, Ruslan. Association for the Conservation of Biodiversity of Kazakhstan; KazajistánFil: Sánchez Clavijo, Lina M.. Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humbold; ColombiaFil: Lartey, Eric. No especifíca;Fil: Donald, Paul F.. University of Cambridge; Estados UnidosWiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc2022-02info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/188218Moussy, Caroline; Burfield, Ian J.; Stephenson, P. J.; Newton, Arabella F. E.; Butchart, Stuart H. M.; et al.; A quantitative global review of species population monitoring; Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Conservation Biology; 36; 1; 2-2022; 1-140888-8892CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1111/cobi.13721info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-10T13:03:26Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/188218instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-10 13:03:26.334CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv A quantitative global review of species population monitoring
title A quantitative global review of species population monitoring
spellingShingle A quantitative global review of species population monitoring
Moussy, Caroline
BIODIVERSITY SURVEILLANCE
CIENCIA CIUDADANA
CITIZEN SCIENCE
MEGADIVERSE COUNTRIES
PAÍSES MEGADIVERSOS
POPULATION TRENDS
SESGO TAXONÓMICO
TAXONOMIC BIAS
TENDENCIAS POBLACIONALES
VIGILANCIA DE LA BIODIVERSIDAD
title_short A quantitative global review of species population monitoring
title_full A quantitative global review of species population monitoring
title_fullStr A quantitative global review of species population monitoring
title_full_unstemmed A quantitative global review of species population monitoring
title_sort A quantitative global review of species population monitoring
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Moussy, Caroline
Burfield, Ian J.
Stephenson, P. J.
Newton, Arabella F. E.
Butchart, Stuart H. M.
Sutherland, William J.
Gregory, Richard D.
McRae, Louise
Bubb, Philip
Roesler, Carlos Ignacio
Ursino, Cynthia Alejandra
Wu, Yanqing
Retief, Ernst F.
Udin, Jihad S.
Urazaliyev, Ruslan
Sánchez Clavijo, Lina M.
Lartey, Eric
Donald, Paul F.
author Moussy, Caroline
author_facet Moussy, Caroline
Burfield, Ian J.
Stephenson, P. J.
Newton, Arabella F. E.
Butchart, Stuart H. M.
Sutherland, William J.
Gregory, Richard D.
McRae, Louise
Bubb, Philip
Roesler, Carlos Ignacio
Ursino, Cynthia Alejandra
Wu, Yanqing
Retief, Ernst F.
Udin, Jihad S.
Urazaliyev, Ruslan
Sánchez Clavijo, Lina M.
Lartey, Eric
Donald, Paul F.
author_role author
author2 Burfield, Ian J.
Stephenson, P. J.
Newton, Arabella F. E.
Butchart, Stuart H. M.
Sutherland, William J.
Gregory, Richard D.
McRae, Louise
Bubb, Philip
Roesler, Carlos Ignacio
Ursino, Cynthia Alejandra
Wu, Yanqing
Retief, Ernst F.
Udin, Jihad S.
Urazaliyev, Ruslan
Sánchez Clavijo, Lina M.
Lartey, Eric
Donald, Paul F.
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv BIODIVERSITY SURVEILLANCE
CIENCIA CIUDADANA
CITIZEN SCIENCE
MEGADIVERSE COUNTRIES
PAÍSES MEGADIVERSOS
POPULATION TRENDS
SESGO TAXONÓMICO
TAXONOMIC BIAS
TENDENCIAS POBLACIONALES
VIGILANCIA DE LA BIODIVERSIDAD
topic BIODIVERSITY SURVEILLANCE
CIENCIA CIUDADANA
CITIZEN SCIENCE
MEGADIVERSE COUNTRIES
PAÍSES MEGADIVERSOS
POPULATION TRENDS
SESGO TAXONÓMICO
TAXONOMIC BIAS
TENDENCIAS POBLACIONALES
VIGILANCIA DE LA BIODIVERSIDAD
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Species monitoring, defined here as the repeated, systematic collection of data to detect long-term changes in the populations of wild species, is a vital component of conservation practice and policy. We created a database of nearly 1200 schemes, ranging in start date from 1800 to 2018, to review spatial, temporal, taxonomic, and methodological patterns in global species monitoring. We identified monitoring schemes through standardized web searches, an online survey of stakeholders, in-depth national searches in a sample of countries, and a review of global biodiversity databases. We estimated the total global number of monitoring schemes operating at 3300–15,000. Since 2000, there has been a sharp increase in the number of new schemes being initiated in lower- and middle-income countries and in megadiverse countries, but a decrease in high-income countries. The total number of monitoring schemes in a country and its per capita gross domestic product were strongly, positively correlated. Schemes that were active in 2018 had been running for an average of 21 years in high-income countries, compared with 13 years in middle-income countries and 10 years in low-income countries. In high-income countries, over one-half of monitoring schemes received government funding, but this was less than one-quarter in low-income countries. Data collection was undertaken partly or wholly by volunteers in 37% of schemes, and such schemes covered significantly more sites and species than those undertaken by professionals alone. Birds were by far the most widely monitored taxonomic group, accounting for around half of all schemes, but this bias declined over time. Monitoring in most taxonomic groups remains sparse and uncoordinated, and most of the data generated are elusive and unlikely to feed into wider biodiversity conservation processes. These shortcomings could be addressed by, for example, creating an open global meta-database of biodiversity monitoring schemes and enhancing capacity for species monitoring in countries with high biodiversity. Article impact statement: Species population monitoring for conservation purposes remains strongly biased toward a few vertebrate taxa in wealthier countries.
Fil: Moussy, Caroline. No especifíca;
Fil: Burfield, Ian J.. No especifíca;
Fil: Stephenson, P. J.. No especifíca;
Fil: Newton, Arabella F. E.. No especifíca;
Fil: Butchart, Stuart H. M.. University of Cambridge; Estados Unidos
Fil: Sutherland, William J.. University of Cambridge; Estados Unidos
Fil: Gregory, Richard D.. Colegio Universitario de Londres; Reino Unido
Fil: McRae, Louise. Institute of Zoology; Reino Unido
Fil: Bubb, Philip. Environment World Conservation Monitoring; Reino Unido
Fil: Roesler, Carlos Ignacio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina
Fil: Ursino, Cynthia Alejandra. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina
Fil: Wu, Yanqing. Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences; China
Fil: Retief, Ernst F.. No especifíca;
Fil: Udin, Jihad S.. No especifíca;
Fil: Urazaliyev, Ruslan. Association for the Conservation of Biodiversity of Kazakhstan; Kazajistán
Fil: Sánchez Clavijo, Lina M.. Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humbold; Colombia
Fil: Lartey, Eric. No especifíca;
Fil: Donald, Paul F.. University of Cambridge; Estados Unidos
description Species monitoring, defined here as the repeated, systematic collection of data to detect long-term changes in the populations of wild species, is a vital component of conservation practice and policy. We created a database of nearly 1200 schemes, ranging in start date from 1800 to 2018, to review spatial, temporal, taxonomic, and methodological patterns in global species monitoring. We identified monitoring schemes through standardized web searches, an online survey of stakeholders, in-depth national searches in a sample of countries, and a review of global biodiversity databases. We estimated the total global number of monitoring schemes operating at 3300–15,000. Since 2000, there has been a sharp increase in the number of new schemes being initiated in lower- and middle-income countries and in megadiverse countries, but a decrease in high-income countries. The total number of monitoring schemes in a country and its per capita gross domestic product were strongly, positively correlated. Schemes that were active in 2018 had been running for an average of 21 years in high-income countries, compared with 13 years in middle-income countries and 10 years in low-income countries. In high-income countries, over one-half of monitoring schemes received government funding, but this was less than one-quarter in low-income countries. Data collection was undertaken partly or wholly by volunteers in 37% of schemes, and such schemes covered significantly more sites and species than those undertaken by professionals alone. Birds were by far the most widely monitored taxonomic group, accounting for around half of all schemes, but this bias declined over time. Monitoring in most taxonomic groups remains sparse and uncoordinated, and most of the data generated are elusive and unlikely to feed into wider biodiversity conservation processes. These shortcomings could be addressed by, for example, creating an open global meta-database of biodiversity monitoring schemes and enhancing capacity for species monitoring in countries with high biodiversity. Article impact statement: Species population monitoring for conservation purposes remains strongly biased toward a few vertebrate taxa in wealthier countries.
publishDate 2022
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2022-02
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/188218
Moussy, Caroline; Burfield, Ian J.; Stephenson, P. J.; Newton, Arabella F. E.; Butchart, Stuart H. M.; et al.; A quantitative global review of species population monitoring; Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Conservation Biology; 36; 1; 2-2022; 1-14
0888-8892
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/188218
identifier_str_mv Moussy, Caroline; Burfield, Ian J.; Stephenson, P. J.; Newton, Arabella F. E.; Butchart, Stuart H. M.; et al.; A quantitative global review of species population monitoring; Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Conservation Biology; 36; 1; 2-2022; 1-14
0888-8892
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1111/cobi.13721
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1842980083122307072
score 12.993085