Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,234 studies31 sourcesUpdated 3 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BYScience Advances

Broad-scale evaluations of biodiversity change need reference comparisons

  • James S. Sinclair1
  • Daniela Cortés-Guzmán1
  • Jukka Aroviita2
  • Nathan J. Baker3
  • Libuše Barešová4
  • Catherine Bradley5
  • Miguel Cañedo-Argüelles6
  • David Cunillera-Montcusí7
  • Hugh B. Feeley5
  • Martial Ferréol8
  • Mathieu Floury8,9
  • Marie Anne Eurie Forio10
15 more authors
  • Peter Goethals10
  • Alexia M. González-Ferreras11
  • Kaisa-Leena Huttunen12
  • Ioannis Karaouzas13
  • Aitor Larrañaga14
  • S. Jannicke Moe15
  • Ariane Moulinec16,17
  • Diana Osadčaja3
  • Petr Pařil18
  • Andrés Peredo Arce1
  • Marek Polášek18,19
  • Michal Straka18,19
  • Rudy Vannevel10,20
  • Martin Wilkes21
  • Peter Haase1,16
21 affiliations
  1. 1Senckenberg–Leibniz Institution for Biodiversity and Earth System Research, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Gelnhausen 63571, Germany.
  2. 2Marine and Freshwater Solutions, Finnish Environment Institute, Oulu 90014, Finland.
  3. 3State Scientific Research Institute Nature Research Centre, Vilnius 08412, Lithuania.
  4. 4Czech Hydrometeorological Institute, Praha 143 00, Czech Republic.
  5. 5Environmental Protection Agency, Dublin D14 YR62, Ireland.
  6. 6SHE2 group (Surface Hydrology, Ecology and Erosion), FEHM-Lab, Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research, IDAEA, CSIC, Barcelona, Catalonia 08034, Spain.
  7. 7IFREMER–DYNECO/LEBCO, Centre de Bretagne, Plouzané, France.
  8. 8INRAE, UMR Agroecologie, Centre de Dijon, Dijon, Cedex 21065, France.
  9. 9INRAE, UR RiverLy, Centre de Lyon-Villeurbanne, Villeurbanne, Cedex, France.
  10. 10Department of Animal Sciences and Aquatic Ecology, Ghent University, Gent 9000, Belgium.
  11. 11IHCantabria—Instituto de Hidráulica Ambiental de la Universidad de Cantabria, C/Isabel Torres 15, Santander 39011, Spain.
  12. 12Ecology and Genetics Research Unit, University of Oulu, Oulu 90014, Finland.
  13. 13Institute of Marine Biological Resources and Inland Waters, Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Anavyssos 19013, Greece.
  14. 14Department of Plant Biology and Ecology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Leioa, Bilbao 48940, Spain.
  15. 15Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), Oslo 0579, Norway.
  16. 16Faculty of Biology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen 45141, Germany.
  17. 17Research Center One Health Ruhr, University Alliance Ruhr, Essen 45141, Germany.
  18. 18Department of Botany and Zoology, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Brno 611 37, Czech Republic.
  19. 19T. G. Masaryk Water Research Institute, p. r. i., 160 00 Praha, Czech Republic.
  20. 20Flanders Environment Agency, Aalst 9300, Belgium.
  21. 21School of Life Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester CO4 3SQ, UK.
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

Assessments of broad-scale biodiversity change commonly aggregate communities that differ in their initial impacts and their total degree of change (differing "impact trajectories"). Biodiversity responses may depend on the impact trajectory of a given community; thus, not controlling for these differences could produce a misleading mixture of trends even if all communities degraded or recovered. To evaluate this dependency, we related biodiversity trends for 4062 river invertebrate time series (1971 to 2024) from 23 European countries to impact trajectories for each community, quantified through comparison to least-impacted references. Trends were typically stronger and more consistent in initially more impacted communities that also exhibited more extreme total change. However, responses were weaker when initial impacts were lower and highly inconsistent with lesser total change. Our results show that biodiversity trends should be compared among communities with similar impacts, determined relative to appropriate references. Improving trend comparability is essential to accurately determine how biodiversity generally responds to anthropogenic impacts and conservation actions.

Related

  1. Perceptions of Climate Change Risk and Place Attachment: Parallel Indirect Associations Through In-Visit Evaluations of Memorable Tourism Experience and the Perceived Future Benefits of Edible Insects
    Yusuf Karakuş, Yasin Gökhan Kızıltan, Gökhan Onat
    InsectsPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral biologyEurope PMC
  2. Contrasting responses to climate change in two Dianthus species of the Irano-Anatolian biodiversity hotspot
    Maryam Behroozian
    Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Full textEcologyCrossref
  3. Long-term biodiversity responses to anthropogenic change are spatially and taxonomically heterogeneous across coastal wetlands
    E. Banos, L. Holman, M. Rius +1
    bioRxivPreprintAll rights reservedFull textEcologybioRxiv
  4. Bird co-occurrences remain largely stable despite widespread biodiversity change
    M. Tietje, F. Grattarola, G. Ortega Solis +8
    bioRxivPreprintCC BYFull textEcologybioRxiv
  5. Ancient environmental DNA reveals the distinct fingerprints of whaling and climate change on Antarctic marine biodiversity
    L. E. Holman, M. Mason, L. B. Pedersen +12
    bioRxivPreprintCC BYFull textEcologybioRxiv

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{sinclair2026broadscale,
  title = {{Broad-scale evaluations of biodiversity change need reference comparisons}},
  author = {James S. Sinclair and Daniela Cortés-Guzmán and Jukka Aroviita and Nathan J. Baker and Libuše Barešová and Catherine Bradley and Miguel Cañedo-Argüelles and David Cunillera-Montcusí and Hugh B. Feeley and Martial Ferréol and Mathieu Floury and Marie Anne Eurie Forio and Peter Goethals and Alexia M. González-Ferreras and Kaisa-Leena Huttunen and Ioannis Karaouzas and Aitor Larrañaga and S. Jannicke Moe and Ariane Moulinec and Diana Osadčaja and Petr Pařil and Andrés Peredo Arce and Marek Polášek and Michal Straka and Rudy Vannevel and Martin Wilkes and Peter Haase},
  journal = {Science Advances},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.1126/sciadv.aei1959},
  url = {https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/sciadv.aei1959},
  note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Broad-scale evaluations of biodiversity change need reference comparisons
AU  - James S. Sinclair
AU  - Daniela Cortés-Guzmán
AU  - Jukka Aroviita
AU  - Nathan J. Baker
AU  - Libuše Barešová
AU  - Catherine Bradley
AU  - Miguel Cañedo-Argüelles
AU  - David Cunillera-Montcusí
AU  - Hugh B. Feeley
AU  - Martial Ferréol
AU  - Mathieu Floury
AU  - Marie Anne Eurie Forio
AU  - Peter Goethals
AU  - Alexia M. González-Ferreras
AU  - Kaisa-Leena Huttunen
AU  - Ioannis Karaouzas
AU  - Aitor Larrañaga
AU  - S. Jannicke Moe
AU  - Ariane Moulinec
AU  - Diana Osadčaja
AU  - Petr Pařil
AU  - Andrés Peredo Arce
AU  - Marek Polášek
AU  - Michal Straka
AU  - Rudy Vannevel
AU  - Martin Wilkes
AU  - Peter Haase
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/28
JO  - Science Advances
DO  - 10.1126/sciadv.aei1959
UR  - https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/sciadv.aei1959
AB  - Assessments of broad-scale biodiversity change commonly aggregate communities that differ in their initial impacts and their total degree of change (differing "impact trajectories"). Biodiversity responses may depend on the impact trajectory of a given community; thus, not controlling for these differences could produce a misleading mixture of trends even if all communities degraded or recovered. To evaluate this dependency, we related biodiversity trends for 4062 river invertebrate time series (1971 to 2024) from 23 European countries to impact trajectories for each community, quantified through comparison to least-impacted references. Trends were typically stronger and more consistent in initially more impacted communities that also exhibited more extreme total change. However, responses were weaker when initial impacts were lower and highly inconsistent with lesser total change. Our results show that biodiversity trends should be compared among communities with similar impacts, determined relative to appropriate references. Improving trend comparability is essential to accurately determine how biodiversity generally responds to anthropogenic impacts and conservation actions.
SN  - 2375-2548
ER  -