ArticlePloS one2022
A comprehensive but practical methodology for selecting biological indicators for long-term monitoring.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Semi-Quantitative Monitoring of Plant-Arthropod Interactions by eDNA Metabarcoding of Individual Flowers and Leaves.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- The use of fire to preserve biodiversity under novel fire regimes.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The selection of the many biological indicators described in scientific literature is rarely based on systematic or clear-cut processes, and often takes into account only a single or very few taxa, or even disregards the complex interactions that exist between the components of biodiversity. In certain cases, the particular context of a site-for example in the Mediterranean Basin-makes it difficult to apply the choice of indicators to other regions proposed in the literature. Therefore, the selection of appropriate methodologies for generating relevant indicators for a particular site is of crucial importance. Here, we present a simple quantitative methodology capable of incorporating multidisciplinary information for assessing and selecting appropriate methods and indicators for monitoring local biodiversity. The methodology combines several ecological levels (species, habitats, processes, and ecosystem disturbances), and embraces biological interactions and common functional guilds (detritivores, producers, herbivores, and carnivores). We followed an iterative selection procedure consisting of five phases: 1) collection focal area useful information; 2) classification of this information into interrelated datasets; 3) assessment and selection of the relevant components using a quantitative relevance index; 4) the adding of taxonomic, physiognomic and functional similarities to the relevant components; and 5) the quantitative selection of the priority indicators in the study area. To demonstrate the potential of this methodology, we took as a case study the biodiversity components and their ecological interactions present in a protected area. We show that our methodology can help select appropriate local and long-term indicators, reduce the number of components required for thorough biodiversity monitoring, and underline the importance of ecological processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.