ArticleNature ecology & evolution2021
Random population fluctuations bias the Living Planet Index.
Article in Nature ecology & evolution, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Synthesis of Population Trends Reveals Seascape-Wide Reorganisation of Biodiversity From Microalgae to Birds.Global change biology · 2025Pooled it
- Widespread declines of formerly common species reshape local assemblages over time.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Out of Africa comes no support for global biodiversity catastrophes.Science advances · 2026Article
- Large-scale and long-term wildlife research and monitoring using camera traps: a continental synthesis.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025Review
- The utility of the Living Planet Index as a policy tool and for measuring nature recovery.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Mathematical biases in the calculation of the Living Planet Index lead to overestimation of vertebrate population decline.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Article
- Reply to: Capturing stochasticity properly is key to understanding the nuances of the Living Planet Index.Nature ecology & evolution · 2023Article
- Capturing stochasticity properly is key to understanding the nuances of the Living Planet Index.Nature ecology & evolution · 2023Article
- Looking back on biodiversity change: lessons for the road ahead.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
- Past, present, and future of the Living Planet Index.npj biodiversity · 2023Review
- Species life-history strategies affect population responses to temperature and land-cover changes.Global change biology · 2023Article
- Greater bee diversity is needed to maintain crop pollination over time.Nature ecology & evolution · 2022Article
- Neutral theory reveals the challenge of bending the curve for the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Living Planet Index (LPI) is a standardized indicator for tracking population trends through time. Due to its ability to aggregate many time series in a single metric, the LPI has been proposed as an indicator for the Convention on Biological Diversity's post-2020 Global Biodiversity Strategy. However, here we show that random population fluctuations introduce biases when calculating the LPI. By combining simulated and empirical data, we show how random fluctuations lead to a declining LPI even when overall population trends are stable and imprecise estimates of the LPI when populations increase or decrease nonlinearly. We applied randomization null models that demonstrate how random fluctuations exaggerate declines in the global LPI by 9.6%. Our results confirm substantial declines in the LPI but highlight sources of uncertainty in quantitative estimates. Randomization null models are useful for presenting uncertainty around indicators of progress towards international biodiversity targets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34168337What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.