Loughborough University
Leicestershire, UK
LE11 3TU
+44 (0)1509 263171
Loughborough University

Loughborough University Institutional Repository

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/23313

Title: Estimates of local biodiversity change over time stand up to scrutiny
Authors: Vellend, Mark
Dornelas, Maria
Baeten, Lander
Beausejour, Robin
Brown, Carissa D.
De Frenne, Pieter
Elmendorf, Sarah C.
Gotelli, Nicholas J.
Moyes, Faye
Myers-Smith, Isla H.
Magurran, Anne E.
McGill, Brian
Shimadzu, Hideyasu
Sievers, Caya
Keywords: Biodiversity
Meta-analysis
Species richness
Temporal change
Issue Date: 2017
Publisher: Copyright by the Ecological Society of America
Citation: VELLEND, M. ...et al., 2017. Estimates of local biodiversity change over time stand up to scrutiny. Ecology, 98(2), pp.583-590.
Abstract: We present new data and analyses revealing fundamental flaws in a critique of two recent meta-analyses of local-scale temporal biodiversity change. First, the conclusion that short-term time series lead to biased estimates of long-term change was based on two errors in the simulations used to support it. Second, the conclusion of negative relationships between temporal biodiversity change and study duration was entirely dependent on unrealistic model assumptions, the use of a subset of data, and inclusion of one outlier data point in one study. Third, the finding of a decline in local biodiversity, after eliminating post-disturbance studies, is not robust to alternative analyses on the original dataset, and is absent in a larger, updated dataset. Finally, the undebatable point – noted in both original papers – that studies in the ecological literature are geographically biased, was used to cast doubt on the conclusion that, outside of areas converted to croplands or asphalt, the distribution of biodiversity trends is centered approximately on zero. Future studies may modify conclusions, but at present, alternative conclusions based on the geographic-bias argument rely on speculation. In sum, the critique raises points of uncertainty typical of all ecological studies, but does not provide an evidence-based alternative interpretation.
Description: This paper was accepted for publication in the journal Ecology and the definitive published version is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecy.1660
Version: Accepted for publication
DOI: 10.1002/ecy.1660
URI: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/23313
Publisher Link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecy.1660
ISSN: 1939-9170
Appears in Collections:Published Articles (Maths)

Files associated with this item:

File Description SizeFormat
Vellend_etal.pdfAccepted version210.35 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

 

SFX Query

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.