Reply to: Emphasizing declining populations in the Living Planet Report

Looking back on biodiversity change: lessons for the road ahead

Estimating biodiversity change across the planet in the context of widespread human modification is a critical challenge. Here, we review how biodiversity has changed in recent decades across scales and taxonomic groups, focusing on four diversity metrics: species richness, temporal turnover, spatial beta-diversity and abundance. At local scales, change across all metrics includes many examples of both increases and declines and tends to be centred around zero, but with higher prevalence of declining trends in beta-diversity (increasing similarity in composition across space or biotic homogenization) and abundance. The exception to this pattern is temporal turnover, with changes in species composition through time observed in most local assemblages. Less is known about change at regional scales, although several studies suggest that increases in richness are more prevalent than declines. Change at the global scale is the hardest to estimate accurately, but most studies suggest extinction rates are probably outpacing speciation rates, although both are elevated. Recognizing this variability is essential to accurately portray how biodiversity change is unfolding, and highlights how much remains unknown about the magnitude and direction of multiple biodiversity metrics at different scales. Reducing these blind spots is essential to allow appropriate management actions to be deployed. This article is part of the theme issue 'Detecting and attributing the causes of biodiversity change: needs, gaps and solutions'.

Unravelling insect declines: can space replace time?

Temporal trends in insect numbers vary across studies and habitats, but drivers are poorly understood. Suitable long-term data are scant and biased, and interpretations of trends remain controversial. By contrast, there is substantial quantitative evidence for drivers of spatial variation. From observational and experimental studies, we have gained a profound understanding of where insect abundance and diversity is higher-and identified underlying environmental conditions, resource change and disturbances. We thus propose an increased consideration of spatial evidence in studying the causes of insect decline. This is because for most time series available today, the number of sites and thus statistical power strongly exceed the number of years studied. Comparisons across sites allow quantifying insect population risks, impacts of land use, habitat destruction, restoration or management, and stressors such as chemical and light pollution, pesticides, mowing or harvesting, climatic extremes or biological invasions. Notably, drivers may not have to change in intensity to have long-term effects on populations, e.g. annually repeated disturbances or mortality risks such as those arising from agricultural practices. Space-for-time substitution has been controversially debated. However, evidence from well-replicated spatial data can inform on urgent actions required to halt or reverse declines-to be implemented in space.

Assessing the representation of species included within the Canadian Living Planet Index

To effectively combat the biodiversity crisis, we need ambitious targets and reliable indicators to accurately track trends and measure conservation impact. In Canada, the Living Planet Index (LPI) has been adapted to produce a national indicator by both World Wildlife Fund-Canada (Canadian Living Planet Index; C-LPI) and Environment and Climate Change Canada (Canadian Species Index) to provide insight into the status of Canadian wildlife, by evaluating temporal trends in vertebrate population abundance. The indicator includes data for just over 50% of Canadian vertebrate species. To assess whether the current dataset is representative of the distribution of life history characteristics of Canadian wildlife, we analyzed the representation of species-specific biotic variables (i.e., body size, trophic level, lifespan) for vertebrates within the C-LPI compared to native vertebrates lacking LPI data. Generally, there was considerable overlap in the distribution of biotic variables for species in the C-LPI compared to native Canadian vertebrate species lacking LPI data. Nevertheless, some differences among distributions were found, driven in large part by discrepancy in the representation of fishes—where the C-LPI included larger-bodied and longer-lived species. We provide recommendations for targeted data collection and additional analyses to further strengthen the applicability, accuracy, and representativity of biodiversity indicators.