A simple survey protocol for assessing terrestrial biodiversity in a broad range of ecosystems

Finding standard cost-effective methods for monitoring biodiversity is challenging due to trade-offs between survey costs (including expertise), specificity, and range of applicability. These trade-offs cause a lack of comparability among datasets collected by ecologists and conservationists, which is most regrettable in taxonomically demanding work on megadiverse inconspicuous taxon groups. We have developed a site-scale survey method for diverse sessile land organisms, which can be analyzed over multiple scales and linked with ecological insights and management. The core idea is that field experts can effectively allocate observation effort when the time, area, and priority sequence of tasks are fixed. We present the protocol, explain its specifications (taxon group; expert qualification; plot size; effort) and applications based on >800 original surveys of four taxon groups; and we analyze its effectiveness using data on polypores in hemiboreal and tropical forests. We demonstrate consistent effort-species richness curves and among-survey variation in contrasting ecosystems, and high effectiveness compared with casual observations both at local and regional scales. Bias related to observer experience appeared negligible compared with typical assemblage variation. Being flexible in terms of sampling design, the method has enabled us to compile data from various projects to assess conservation status and habitat requirements of most species (specifically rarities and including discovery of new species); also, when linked with site descriptions, to complete environmental assessments and select indicator species for management. We conclude that simple rules can significantly improve expert-based biodiversity surveys. Ideally, define (i) a common plot size that addresses multiple taxon groups and management goals; (ii) taxon groups based on field expertise and feasible number of species; (iii) sufficient and practical search time; (iv) a procedure for recording within-plot heterogeneity. Such a framework, combined with freedom to allocate effort on-site, helps utilizing full expertise of observers without losing technical rigor.

[1]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  Why biodiversity surveys are good value , 1999, Nature.

[2]  D. Vitt,et al.  The ones we left behind: Comparing plot sampling and floristic habitat sampling for estimating bryophyte diversity , 2005 .

[3]  Ken A. Elliott,et al.  The effects of partial harvest on the understory vegetation of southern Ontario woodlands , 2008 .

[4]  B. McCune,et al.  Repeatability of Community Data: Species Richness Versus Gradient Scores in Large-scale Lichen Studies , 1997 .

[5]  James Mallet,et al.  Taxonomic inflation: its influence on macroecology and conservation. , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[6]  David A. W. Miller,et al.  Improving occupancy estimation when two types of observational error occur: non-detection and species misidentification. , 2011, Ecology.

[7]  A. Lõhmus,et al.  The importance of representative inventories for lichen conservation assessments: the case of Cladonia norvegica and C. parasitica , 2009, The Lichenologist.

[8]  Timed surveys and transect walks as comparable methods for monitoring butterflies in small plots , 2012, Journal of Insect Conservation.

[9]  Brett J Furnas,et al.  Detecting diversity: emerging methods to estimate species diversity. , 2014, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[10]  P. Pirolli Information Foraging Theory: Adaptive Interaction with Information , 2007 .

[11]  O. Holdenrieder,et al.  Wood-decaying fungi in the forest: conservation needs and management options , 2007, European Journal of Forest Research.

[12]  O. W. Purvis,et al.  MAPPING LICHEN DIVERSITY AS AN INDICATOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY , 2002 .

[13]  N. Stork,et al.  Consistency of effects of tropical‐forest disturbance on species composition and richness relative to use of indicator taxa , 2017, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[14]  J. Lobo,et al.  Seven Shortfalls that Beset Large-Scale Knowledge of Biodiversity , 2015 .

[15]  Marti J. Anderson,et al.  Species abundance distributions: moving beyond single prediction theories to integration within an ecological framework. , 2007, Ecology letters.

[16]  M. Bozzano,et al.  Maintenance, conservation and appropriate enhancement of biological diversity in forest ecosystems , 2015 .

[17]  J. Parrotta,et al.  Development of floristic diversity in 10-year-old restoration forests on a bauxite mined site in Amazonia , 1997 .

[18]  A. Lõhmus Factors of species-specific detectability in conservation assessments of poorly studied taxa: The case of polypore fungi , 2009 .

[19]  David M Marsh,et al.  Current Trends in Plant and Animal Population Monitoring , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[20]  JeriLynn E. Peck,et al.  Characterizing structural conditions in mature managed red pine: Spatial dependency of metrics and adequacy of plot size , 2009 .

[21]  Kevin M. Clarke,et al.  Estimating Species Richness , 2005 .

[22]  A. Lõhmus,et al.  Rapid legacy‐dependent succession of lichen assemblages after forest fires: Insights from two boreal regions , 2018 .

[23]  T. Henkel,et al.  Studies in neotropical polypores 15: new and interesting species from Guyana , 2003, Mycologia.

[24]  A. Lõhmus,et al.  Old-Forest Species: the Importance of Specific Substrata vs. Stand Continuity in the Case of Calicioid Fungi , 2011 .

[25]  A. Lõhmus,et al.  Surveying wood-inhabiting fungi: Most molecularly detected polypore species form fruit-bodies within short distances , 2015 .

[26]  A. Komonen,et al.  Conservation ecology of boreal polypores: A review , 2011 .

[27]  Lloyd W. Morrison,et al.  Observer error in vegetation surveys: a review , 2016 .

[28]  R. DeFries,et al.  Anthropogenic Drivers of Ecosystem Change: an Overview , 2006 .

[29]  Richard Margoluis,et al.  Monitoring and Evaluation in Conservation: a Review of Trends and Approaches , 2005 .

[30]  Neil D. Burgess,et al.  Conservation and the botanist effect , 2011 .

[31]  T. Hedderson,et al.  Bryophyte diversity and range size distribution along two altitudinal gradients: Continent vs. island , 2012 .

[32]  R. Swihart,et al.  Absent or undetected? Effects of non-detection of species occurrence on wildlife-habitat models , 2004 .

[33]  Liina Remm,et al.  Long-Term Impacts of Forest Ditching on Non-Aquatic Biodiversity: Conservation Perspectives for a Novel Ecosystem , 2013, PloS one.

[34]  A. Suija,et al.  Intensive local surveys can complement rapid survey techniques to provide insights into the population size and ecology of lichenised fungi , 2013 .

[35]  M. Pärtel,et al.  Estimating dark diversity and species pools: an empirical assessment of two methods , 2016 .

[36]  P. White,et al.  Effects of area on old-growth forest attributes: implications for the equilibrium landscape concept , 1993, Landscape Ecology.

[37]  A. Meiner,et al.  An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 , 2016 .

[38]  Daniel Fink,et al.  Correcting for bias in distribution modelling for rare species using citizen science data , 2018 .

[39]  R. Ferris,et al.  Lichens and bryophyte communities of planted and semi-natural forests in Britain: the influence of site type, stand structure and deadwood , 2002 .

[40]  L. Ryvarden,et al.  Polyporus minutosquamosus sp. nov. from tropical rainforests in French Guiana with a key to neotropical species of Polyporus (Polyporaceae, Basidiomycota) , 2016 .

[41]  A. Lõhmus,et al.  ‘Old-forest fungi’ are not always what they seem: the case of Antrodia crassa , 2014 .

[42]  B. Jonsson,et al.  Modeling dead wood in Fennoscandian old-growth forests dominated by Norway spruce , 2004 .

[43]  W. Kendall,et al.  First-Time Observer Effects in the North American Breeding Bird Survey , 1996 .

[44]  K. Kull,et al.  Necessity and reality of monitoring threatened European vascular plants , 2008, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[45]  F. Danielsen,et al.  Biodiversity monitoring in developing countries: what are we trying to achieve? , 2003, Oryx.

[46]  Taxonomic gap in wood-inhabiting fungi: identifying understudied groups by a systematic survey , 2015 .

[47]  J. Koricheva,et al.  The Design of Experimental Tree Plantations for Functional Biodiversity Research , 2005 .

[48]  J. Römbke,et al.  Soil biodiversity data: Actual and potential use in European and national legislation , 2016 .

[49]  A. Lõhmus,et al.  Lichen communities on treefall mounds depend more on root-plate than stand characteristics , 2010 .

[50]  M. Pärtel,et al.  Characteristic and derived diversity: implementing the species pool concept to quantify conservation condition of habitats , 2015 .

[51]  A. Hausmann,et al.  Testing the Global Malaise Trap Program – How well does the current barcode reference library identify flying insects in Germany? , 2016, Biodiversity data journal.

[52]  J. Nichols,et al.  A DOUBLE-OBSERVER APPROACH FOR ESTIMATING DETECTION PROBABILITY AND ABUNDANCE FROM POINT COUNTS , 2000 .

[53]  Eske Willerslev,et al.  Environmental DNA - An emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity , 2015 .

[54]  R. Pardini,et al.  A conceptual framework for understanding the perspectives on the causes of the science–practice gap in ecology and conservation , 2018, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[55]  A. Suija,et al.  Substrate Specificity Corresponds to Distinct Phylogenetic Lineages: The Case of Chaenotheca brunneola , 2016, Herzogia.

[56]  Louise McRae,et al.  The Diversity-Weighted Living Planet Index: Controlling for Taxonomic Bias in a Global Biodiversity Indicator , 2017, PloS one.

[57]  A. Lõhmus,et al.  Stand structure of hemiboreal old-growth forests: Characteristic features, variation among site types, and a comparison with FSC-certified mature stands in Estonia , 2010 .

[58]  D. Lieberman,et al.  TROPICAL FOREST STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION ON A LARGE-SCALE ALTITUDINAL GRADIENT IN COSTA RICA , 1996 .

[59]  LõhmusAsko,et al.  Orchid abundance in hemiboreal forests: stand-scale effects of clear-cutting, green-tree retention, and artificial drainage , 2011 .

[60]  P. Giordani,et al.  Rapid biodiversity assessment in lichen diversity surveys: implications for quality assurance. , 2009, Journal of environmental monitoring : JEM.

[61]  L. Gustafsson,et al.  Red-listed and indicator lichens in woodland key habitats and production forests in Sweden , 2001 .

[62]  T. Hallingbäck Working with Swedish cryptogam conservation , 2007 .

[63]  G. Mueller,et al.  Applying IUCN red-listing criteria for assessing and reporting on the conservation status of fungal species , 2011 .

[64]  I. Thompson,et al.  Lichen Conservation in Heavily Managed Boreal Forests , 2013, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[65]  Krista A. Ehinger,et al.  When is it time to move to the next map? Optimal foraging in guided visual search , 2016, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[66]  A. Lõhmus,et al.  Assigning indicator taxa based on assemblage patterns: beware of the effort and the objective! , 2018 .

[67]  Anni Arponen,et al.  Projecting Global Biodiversity Indicators under Future Development Scenarios , 2016 .

[68]  Liina Remm,et al.  Bird communities in hemiboreal old-growth forests: The roles of food supply, stand structure, and site type , 2011 .

[69]  William F. Laurance,et al.  Total aboveground biomass in central Amazonian rainforests: a landscape-scale study , 2002 .

[70]  Douglas W. Yu,et al.  Reliable, verifiable and efficient monitoring of biodiversity via metabarcoding. , 2013, Ecology letters.

[71]  Timothy G. O’Connor,et al.  Effective Ecological Monitoring , 2011 .

[72]  Pedro Cardoso,et al.  The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation and how to overcome them , 2011 .

[73]  Aaron M.Ellison PC‐ORD: Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data , 1998, The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America.

[74]  J. Fridman,et al.  Observer bias and random variation in vegetation monitoring data , 2008 .

[75]  A. Lõhmus Collective analyses on “red-listed species” may have limited value for conservation ecology , 2015, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[76]  C. Ellis,et al.  Taxonomic survey compared to ecological sampling: are the results consistent for woodland epiphytes? , 2017, The Lichenologist.

[77]  Mercedes S. Foster,et al.  Biodiversity of Fungi: Inventory and Monitoring Methods , 2004 .

[78]  M. Hunter,et al.  Enlisting Taxonomists to Survey Poorly Known Taxa for Biodiversity Conservation: a Lichen Case Study , 2002 .

[79]  J. Kouki,et al.  Potential biodiversity impacts of forest biofuel harvest: lichen assemblages on stumps and slash of Scots pine , 2015 .

[80]  W. Thompson Sampling rare or elusive species : concepts, designs, and techniques for estimating population parameters , 2004 .

[81]  Liina Remm,et al.  Disentangling the effects of seminatural forestry on an ecosystem good: Bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) in Estonia , 2017 .

[82]  A. Lõhmus,et al.  Conservation management for forest fungi in Estonia: the case of polypores , 2018, Folia Cryptogamica Estonica.

[83]  C. Mora,et al.  How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean? , 2011, PLoS biology.

[84]  Aaron M Ellison,et al.  Observer bias and the detection of low-density populations. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[85]  N. Nadkarni,et al.  A PROTOCOL FOR RAPID AND REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLING OF V ASCULAR AND NON-VASCULAR EPIPHYTE DIVERSITY OF TROPICAL RAIN FORESTS , 2003 .

[86]  William J. Sutherland,et al.  Ecological Census Techniques: Contents , 1996 .

[87]  J. Silvertown A new dawn for citizen science. , 2009, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[88]  Tea Tullus,et al.  Impacts of shelterwood logging on forest bryoflora: Distinct assemblages with richness comparable to mature forests , 2018 .

[89]  Pedro Martins da Silva,et al.  Indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem services: a synthesis across ecosystems and spatial scales , 2009 .

[90]  Andy Purvis,et al.  Challenges With Inferring How Land-Use Affects Terrestrial Biodiversity: Study Design, Time, Space and Synthesis , 2018 .

[91]  Heather J. Lynch,et al.  Using citizen science to estimate lichen diversity , 2014 .

[92]  Douglas W. Yu,et al.  Environmental DNA for wildlife biology and biodiversity monitoring. , 2014, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[93]  Asko Lõhmus,et al.  Just a Ditch in Forest? Reconsidering Draining in the Context of Sustainable Forest Management , 2015 .

[94]  R. May,et al.  Can We Name Earth's Species Before They Go Extinct? , 2013, Science.

[95]  Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria , 2005 .

[96]  J. Oldeland,et al.  The Global Index of Vegetation-Plot Databases (GIVD): a new resource for vegetation science , 2011 .

[97]  W. Thuiller,et al.  Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. , 2005, Ecology letters.

[98]  A. Lõhmus,et al.  Deadwood-rich managed forests provide insights into the old-forest association of wood-inhabiting fungi , 2017 .

[99]  D. R. Cutler,et al.  ASSESSING RARITY OF SPECIES WITH LOW DETECTABILITY: LICHENS IN PACIFIC NORTHWEST FORESTS , 2004 .

[100]  Why taxonomists and ecologists are not, but should be, carpooling? , 2015, Biodiversity and Conservation.