The utility of the Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators 2010 (SEBI 2010) |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries, Šetalište Ivana Meštrovića 63, 21000 Split, Croatia;2. CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo-France, CNRS, 42 avenue Coriolis, 31057 Toulouse, France;3. ENSTA-ParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, 828 bd des Maréchaux, 91762 Palaiseau cedex, France;4. IPSL/Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, Ecole Polytechnique, ENS, UPMC, ENPC, CNRS, Palaiseau, France;5. IMEDEA (CSIC-UIB), Miquel Marquès 21, 07190 Esporles, Spain;6. Centre for Marine Research, Ruđer Bošković Institute, Rovinj, Croatia;7. Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC), Barcelona, Spain;1. Department of Emergency Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70403, Taiwan;2. Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70403, Taiwan;3. Department of Internal Medicine and Center of Infection Control, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70403, Taiwan;4. Department of Internal Medicine, Tainan Hospital, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Tainan 70043, Taiwan;5. Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Madou Sin-Lau Hospital, Tainan 72152, Taiwan;6. Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, Chang Jung Christian University, Tainan 71101, Taiwan;1. School of Environment Science and Spatial Informatics, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, China;2. School of Geoscience and Info-Physics, Central South University, Changsha, China;3. German Aerospace Center, Remote Sensing Technology Institute, Weßling, Germany;4. Institute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China;5. The 2nd Institute of Surveying and Mapping of Hebei Province, Shijiazhuang, China |
| |
| Abstract: | The development of the Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators 2010 (SEBI 2010) indicator set is described and critically reviewed for coverage and gaps. The indicator set is tested for historical background that would support trend analysis and found to be sensible, but the deficiency of direct biodiversity measurement rather than pressures on biodiversity is problematic. The lack of a freshwater biodiversity indicator is an obvious omission, whereas the analysis shows that two indicators (extent of protected areas and nitrogen deposition) have a central and important role in determining pressures on terrestrial biodiversity. A comparison with the UK Biodiversity Indicator Partnership annual assessment shows that this latter has better coverage at the biodiversity level and a simple method of presentation for an overall review. This has to be viewed with caution since disaggregation of the indicators shows contrary trends and even some misleading trends. Six recent papers proposing critical new indicators (three for invertebrates and three for freshwater ecosystems) are reviewed, and all are found to have deficiencies either in their sampling protocol or in the aim to produce a single headline value for a complex situation. The need for an ecosystem function approach to the measurement of biodiversity and the development of a common currency for measuring is expressed and compared to the results published by Butchardt et al. (2010) and Vačkář et al. (2012). |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
