Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33159828›Full record

ArticleGlobal change biology2021

What's hot and what's not: Making sense of biodiversity 'hotspots'.

Murray S A Thompson, Elena Couce, Thomas J Webb, Miriam Grace, Keith M Cooper, Michaela Schratzberger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global change biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Murray S A ThompsonCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Lowestoft Laboratory, Lowestoft, Suffolk, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9567-175X
Elena CouceCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Lowestoft Laboratory, Lowestoft, Suffolk, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3945-462X
Thomas J WebbDepartment of Animal & Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3183-8116
Miriam GraceDepartment of Animal & Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2787-6996
Keith M CooperCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Lowestoft Laboratory, Lowestoft, Suffolk, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0625-6333
Michaela SchratzbergerCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Lowestoft Laboratory, Lowestoft, Suffolk, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4973-6698

Funding

Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science DP410Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs MB0129Natural Environment Research Council NE/L003279/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conserving biogeographic regions with especially high biodiversity, known as biodiversity 'hotspots', is intuitive because finite resources can be focussed towards manageable units. Yet, biodiversity, environmental conditions and their relationship are more complex with multidimensional properties. Assessments which ignore this risk failing to detect change, identify its direction or gauge the scale of appropriate intervention. Conflicting concepts which assume assemblages as either sharply delineated communities or loosely collected species have also hampered progress in the way we assess and conserve biodiversity. We focus on the marine benthos where delineating manageable areas for conservation is an attractive prospect because it holds most marine species and constitutes the largest single ecosystem on earth by area. Using two large UK marine benthic faunal datasets, we present a spatially gridded data sampling design to account for survey effects which would otherwise be the principal drivers of diversity estimates. We then assess γ-diversity (regional richness) with diversity partitioned between α (local richness) and β (dissimilarity), and their change in relation to covariates to test whether defining and conserving biodiversity hotspots is an effective conservation strategy in light of the prevailing forces structuring those assemblages. α-, β- and γ-diversity hotspots were largely inconsistent with each metric relating uniquely to the covariates, and loosely collected species generally prevailed with relatively few distinct assemblages. Hotspots could therefore be an unreliable means to direct conservation efforts if based on only a component part of diversity. When assessed alongside environmental gradients, α-, β- and γ-diversity provide a multidimensional but still intuitive perspective of biodiversity change that can direct conservation towards key drivers and the appropriate scale for intervention. Our study also highlights possible temporal declines in species richness over 30 years and thus the need for future integrated monitoring to reveal the causal drivers of biodiversity change.

Indexed as

BiodiversityEcosystemConservation of Natural Resourcesbiodiversitybiodiversity hotspotconservationdiversity partitioningmarine benthic faunaRandom Forest analysisrarefaction and extrapolationspecies richness

Identifiers

PMID33159828
PMCPMC7839497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.