The Progress and Challenges of Measuring Biodiversity

Biodiversity is currently measured and monitored by analysing data collected at site, such as field data or species records, as well as from observations of Earth, such as images taken from satellites or from the air (Anderson 2018). Additionally, recent measurement efforts have been aided by inter alia developments in molecular biology and the existence of more global and regional data sets (The Royal Society 2003).

In 2003, the Royal Society proposed a 3-part purpose-driven framework – scoping, design, and implementation/reporting – aimed at measuring biological diversity, with an explicit understanding and recognition of the relevant stakeholders, the characteristics in which those stakeholders are interested in, the magnitude of extant salient information, methods to be applied, and relevant assumptions and limitations (The Royal Society 2003). In my view, this framework, being a methodological and theoretical approach, with limited demands on financing and technological capacity, is viable and applicable across the world.

More recently, Anderson (2018) outlined a multi-scalar framework for the integration of in situ data and Earth observation (“EO”) data in monitoring biodiversity. The author suggested that any scale mismatches between the two could be bridged by utilizing “intermediate-scale data sources that capture the extent-wide variation in EO features” (Anderson 2018:1579). In my opinion, the implementation of this framework may require investment in technical ability as well as large-scale informational coordination of data sources which, in terms of financing and manpower, may not be wholly feasible in many countries.

Reliability in the measurement of biodiversity change could be improved by increasing in situ field measurements, using alternative forms of data and open data, and directing EO models to fill current knowledge gaps using current data (Anderson 2018). There have also been recommendations to focus on collecting abundance data in a more taxonomically representative way (Fraixedas et al 2022), and to employ artificial intelligence in prioritizing areas of conservation (see for example Silvestro et al 2022).

(314 words)

References:

• Anderson, C.B., (2018). ‘Biodiversity monitoring, earth observations and the ecology of scale’. Ecology letters, 21(10), pp.1572–1585.

• Fraixedas, S., Roslin, T., Antão, L.H., Pöyry, J., and Laine, A-L. (2022). ‘Nationally reported metrics can’t adequately guide transformative change in biodiversity policy’. PNAS 119 (9) e2117299119 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2117299119

• Silvestro, D., Goria, S., Sterner, T., and Antonelli, A. (2022). ‘Improving biodiversity protection through artificial intelligence’. Nat Sustain 5, 415–424 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00851-6

• The Royal Society. (2003). ‘Measuring biodiversity for conservation’ (2003). https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2003/4294967955.pdf