Ecology and Evolution

Ecol Evol. 4(24): 4701-4735

The PREDICTS database: a global database of how local terrestrial biodiversity responds to human impacts

Lawrence N Hudson¹*, Tim Newbold²³*, Sara Contu¹, Samantha L L Hill¹², Igor Lysenko⁴, Adriana De Palma¹⁴, Helen R P Phillips¹⁴, Rebecca A Senior², Dominic J Bennett⁴, Hollie Booth²⁵, Argyrios Choimes¹⁴, David L P Correia¹, Julie Day⁴, Susy Echeverría-Londoño¹⁴, Morgan Garon⁴, Michelle L K Harrison⁴, Daniel J Ingram⁶, Martin Jung⁷, Victoria Kemp⁴, Lucinda Kirkpatrick⁸, Callum D Martin⁴, Yuan Pan⁹, Hannah J White¹⁰, Job Aben¹¹, Stefan Abrahamczyk¹², Gilbert B Adum¹³¹⁴, Virginia Aguilar-Barquero¹⁵, Marcelo A Aizen¹⁶, Marc Ancrenaz¹⁷, Enrique Arbeláez-Cortés¹⁸¹⁹, Inge Armbrecht²⁰, Badrul Azhar²¹²², Adrián B Azpiroz²³, Lander Baeten²⁴²⁵, András Báldi²⁶, John E Banks²⁷, Jos Barlow²⁸²⁹, Péter Batáry³⁰, Adam J Bates³¹, Erin M Bayne³², Pedro Beja³³, Åke Berg³⁴, Nicholas J Berry³⁵, Jake E Bicknell³⁶³⁷, Jochen H Bihn³⁸, Katrin Böhning-Gaese³⁹⁴⁰, Teun Boekhout⁴¹, Céline Boutin⁴², Jérémy Bouyer⁴³⁴⁴, Francis Q Brearley⁴⁵, Isabel Brito⁴⁶, Jörg Brunet⁴⁷, Grzegorz Buczkowski⁴⁸, Erika Buscardo⁴⁹⁵⁰⁵¹, Jimmy Cabra-García⁵², María Calviño-Cancela⁵³, Sydney A Cameron⁵⁴, Eliana M Cancello⁵⁵, Tiago F Carrijo⁵⁵, Anelena L Carvalho⁵⁶, Helena Castro⁵⁷, Alejandro A Castro-Luna⁵⁸, Rolando Cerda⁵⁹, Alexis Cerezo⁶⁰, Matthieu Chauvat⁶¹, Frank M Clarke⁶², Daniel F R Cleary⁶³, Stuart P Connop⁶⁴, Biagio D'Aniello⁶⁵, Pedro Giovâni da Silva⁶⁶, Ben Darvill⁶⁷, Jens Dauber⁶⁸, Alain Dejean⁶⁹⁷⁰, Tim Diekötter⁷¹⁷²⁷³, Yamileth Dominguez-Haydar⁷⁴, Carsten F Dormann⁷⁵, Bertrand Dumont⁷⁶, Simon G Dures⁴⁷⁷, Mats Dynesius⁷⁸, Lars Edenius⁷⁹, Zoltán Elek⁸⁰, Martin H Entling⁸¹, Nina Farwig⁸², Tom M Fayle⁴⁸³⁸⁴, Antonio Felicioli⁸⁵, Annika M Felton⁸⁶, Gentile F Ficetola⁸⁷, Bruno K C Filgueiras⁸⁸, Steven J Fonte⁸⁹, Lauchlan H Fraser⁹⁰, Daisuke Fukuda⁹¹, Dario Furlani⁹², Jörg U Ganzhorn⁹³, Jenni G Garden⁹⁴⁹⁵, Carla Gheler-Costa⁹⁶, Paolo Giordani⁹⁷, Simonetta Giordano⁹⁸, Marco S Gottschalk⁹⁹, Dave Goulson⁶, Aaron D Gove¹⁰⁰¹⁰¹, James Grogan¹⁰², Mick E Hanley¹⁰³, Thor Hanson¹⁰⁴, Nor R Hashim¹⁰⁵, Joseph E Hawes¹⁰⁶¹⁰⁷, Christian Hébert¹⁰⁸, Alvin J Helden¹⁰⁹, John-André Henden¹¹⁰, Lionel Hernández¹¹¹, Felix Herzog¹¹², Diego Higuera-Diaz¹¹³, Branko Hilje¹¹⁴¹¹⁵, Finbarr G Horgan¹¹⁶, Roland Horváth¹¹⁷, Kristoffer Hylander¹¹⁸, Paola Isaacs-Cubides¹¹⁹, Masahiro Ishitani¹²⁰, Carmen T Jacobs¹²¹, Víctor J Jaramillo¹²², Birgit Jauker¹²³, Mats Jonsell¹²⁴, Thomas S Jung¹²⁵, Vena Kapoor¹²⁶, Vassiliki Kati¹²⁷, Eric Katovai¹²⁸¹²⁹, Michael Kessler¹³⁰, Eva Knop¹³¹, Annette Kolb¹³², Ádám Kőrösi¹³³¹³⁴, Thibault Lachat¹³⁵, Victoria Lantschner¹³⁶, Violette Le Féon¹³⁷, Gretchen LeBuhn¹³⁸, Jean-Philippe Légaré¹³⁹, Susan G Letcher¹⁴⁰, Nick A Littlewood¹⁴¹, Carlos A López-Quintero¹⁴², Mounir Louhaichi¹⁴³, Gabor L Lövei¹⁴⁴, Manuel Esteban Lucas-Borja¹⁴⁵, Victor H Luja¹⁴⁶, Kaoru Maeto¹⁴⁷, Tibor Magura¹⁴⁸, Neil Aldrin Mallari¹⁴⁹¹⁵⁰, Erika Marin-Spiotta¹⁵¹, E J P Marshall¹⁵², Eliana Martínez¹⁵³, Margaret M Mayfield¹⁵⁴, Grzegorz Mikusinski¹⁵⁵, Jeffrey C Milder¹⁵⁶, James R Miller¹⁵⁷, Carolina L Morales¹⁶, Mary N Muchane¹⁵⁸, Muchai Muchane¹⁵⁹, Robin Naidoo¹⁶⁰, Akihiro Nakamura¹⁶¹, Shoji Naoe¹⁶², Guiomar Nates-Parra¹⁶³, Dario A Navarrete Gutierrez¹⁶⁴, Eike L Neuschulz³⁹, Norbertas Noreika¹⁶⁵, Olivia Norfolk¹⁶⁶, Jorge Ari Noriega¹⁶⁷, Nicole M Nöske¹⁶⁸, Niall O'Dea¹⁶⁹, William Oduro¹³¹⁴, Caleb Ofori-Boateng¹⁷⁰¹⁷¹, Chris O Oke¹⁷², Lynne M Osgathorpe¹⁷³, Juan Paritsis¹⁷⁴, Alejandro Parra-H¹⁷⁵¹⁷⁶, Nicolás Pelegrin¹⁷⁷, Carlos A Peres¹⁷⁸, Anna S Persson¹⁷⁹, Theodora Petanidou¹⁸⁰, Ben Phalan¹⁸¹, T Keith Philips¹⁸², Katja Poveda¹⁸³, Eileen F Power¹⁸⁴, Steven J Presley¹⁸⁵, Vânia Proença¹⁸⁶, Marino Quaranta¹⁸⁷, Carolina Quintero¹⁷⁴, Nicola A Redpath-Downing¹⁸⁸, J Leighton Reid¹⁸⁹, Yana T Reis¹⁹⁰, Danilo B Ribeiro¹⁹¹, Barbara A Richardson¹⁹²¹⁹³, Michael J Richardson¹⁹²¹⁹³, Carolina A Robles¹⁹⁴, Jörg Römbke³⁹¹⁹⁵, Luz Piedad Romero-Duque¹⁹⁶, Loreta Rosselli¹⁹⁶, Stephen J Rossiter¹⁹⁷, T'ai H Roulston¹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹, Laurent Rousseau²⁰⁰, Jonathan P Sadler²⁰¹, Szabolcs Sáfián²⁰², Romeo A Saldaña-Vázquez²⁰³, Ulrika Samnegård²⁰⁴, Christof Schüepp¹³¹, Oliver Schweiger²⁰⁵, Jodi L Sedlock²⁰⁶, Ghazala Shahabuddin²⁰⁷, Douglas Sheil²⁰⁸²⁰⁹, Fernando A B Silva²¹⁰, Eleanor M Slade²¹¹, Allan H Smith-Pardo²¹²²¹³, Navjot S Sodhi²¹⁴, Eduardo J Somarriba⁵⁹, Ramón A Sosa²¹⁵, Jane C Stout²¹⁶, Matthew J Struebig³⁶, Yik-Hei Sung²¹⁷, Caragh G Threlfall²¹⁸, Rebecca Tonietto²¹⁹²²⁰, Béla Tóthmérész²²¹, Teja Tscharntke³⁰, Edgar C Turner²²², Jason M Tylianakis⁴²²³, Adam J Vanbergen²²⁴, Kiril Vassilev²²⁵, Hans A F Verboven²²⁶, Carlos H Vergara²²⁷, Pablo M Vergara²²⁸, Jort Verhulst²²⁹, Tony R Walker¹⁶⁶²³⁰, Yanping Wang²³¹, James I Watling²³², Konstans Wells²³³²³⁴, Christopher D Williams²³⁵, Michael R Willig²³⁶²³⁷, John C Z Woinarski²³⁸, Jan H D Wolf²³⁹, Ben A Woodcock²⁴⁰, Douglas W Yu²⁴¹²⁴², Andrey S Zaitsev²⁴³²⁴⁴, Ben Collen²⁴⁵, Rob M Ewers⁴, Georgina M Mace²⁴⁵, Drew W Purves³, Jörn P W Scharlemann²⁶, Andy Purvis¹⁴

1. Department of Life Sciences, Natural History MuseumCromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K

2. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0DL, U.K

3. Computational Ecology and Environmental Science, Microsoft Research21 Station Road, Cambridge, CB1 2FB, U.K

4. Imperial College LondonSilwood Park Campus, Buckhurst Road, Ascot, SL5 7PY, U.K

5. Frankfurt Zoological Society, Africa Regional OfficePO Box 14935, Arusha, Tanzania

6. School of Life Sciences, University of SussexBrighton, BN1 9QG, U.K

7. Center for Macroecology, Climate and Evolution, the Natural History Museum of DenmarkUniversitetsparken 15, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark

8. School of Biological and Ecological Sciences, University of StirlingBridge of Allan, Stirling, FK9 4LA, U.K

9. Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of SheffieldAlfred Denny Building, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TN, U.K

10. School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7BL, U.K

11. Evolutionary Ecology Group, University of AntwerpGroenenborgerlaan 171, 2020, Antwerp, Belgium

12. Nees Institute for Plant Biodiversity, University of BonnMeckenheimer Allee 170, 53113, Bonn, Germany

13. Department of Wildlife and Range Management, FRNR, CANR, KNUSTKumasi, Ghana

14. SAVE THE FROGS! GhanaBox KS 15924, Adum-Kumasi, Ghana

15. Escuela de Biología, Universidad de Costa Rica2060, San José, Costa Rica

16. CONICET, Lab. INIBIOMA (Universidad Nacional del Comahue-CONICET)Pasaje Gutierrez 1125, 8400, Bariloche, Rio Negro, Argentina

17. HUTAN – Kinabatangan Orang-utan Conservation ProgrammePO Box 17793, 88874, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia

18. Museo de Zoología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMéxico D.F, Mexico

19. Colección de Tejidos, Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von HumboldtKm 17 Cali-Palmira, Valle del Cauca, Colombia

20. Department of Biology, Universidad del ValleCalle 13 #100-00, Cali, Colombia

21. Biodiversity Unit, Institute of Bioscience, Universiti Putra Malaysia43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

22. Faculty of Forestry, Universiti Putra Malaysia43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

23. Laboratorio de Genética de la Conservación, Instituto de Investigaciones Biológicas Clemente EstableMontevideo, Uruguay

24. Department of Forest and Water Management, Forest & Nature Lab, Ghent UniversityGeraardsbergsesteenweg 267, 9090, Gontrode, Belgium

25. Terrestrial Ecology UnitDepartment of Biology, Ghent UniversityK. L. Ledeganckstraat 35, 9000, Gent, Belgium

26. MTA Centre for Ecological ResearchAlkotmány u. 2-4, 2163, Vácrátót, Hungary

27. University of Washington1900 Commerce Street, Tacoma, Washington, 98402, U.K

28. Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster UniversityLancaster, LA1 4YQ, U.K

29. MCT/Museu Paraense Emílio GoeldiBelém, Pará, Brazil

30. Agroecology, Georg-August UniversityGrisebachstrasse 6, 37077, Göttingen, Germany

31. University of BirminghamEdgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, U.K

32. Department of Biological Sciences, University of AlbertaCW 405 – Biological Sciences Centre, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2E9, Canada

33. EDP Biodiversity Chair, CIBIO/InBio, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do PortoCampus Agrário de Vairão, 4485-601, Vairão, Portugal

34. The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, The Swedish Biodiversity CentreSE 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden

35. University of Edinburgh, School of GeoSciencesCrew Building, King's Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JN, U.K

36. Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE), School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of KentCanterbury, CT2 7NR, U.K

37. Iwokrama International Centre for Rainforest Conservation and Development77 High Street, Georgetown, Guyana

38. Department of Animal Ecology, Philipps-University MarburgKarl-von-Frisch Strasse 8, 35032, Marburg, Germany

39. Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (BiK-F), Senckenberg Gesellschaft für NaturforschungSenckenberganlage 25, 60325, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

40. Institute for Ecology, Evolution & Diversity, Biologicum, Goethe University FrankfurtMax von Laue St. 13, D 60439, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

41. CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity CentreUtrecht, The Netherlands

42. Environment Canada, Science & Technology Branch, Carleton University1125 Colonel By Drive, Raven Road, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0H3, Canada

43. Unité Mixte de Recherche Contrôle des Maladies Animales Exotiques et Emergentes, Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD)34398, Montpellier, France

44. Unité Mixte de Recherche 1309 Contrôle des Maladies Animales Exotiques et Emergentes, Institut national de la recherche agronomique (INRA)34398, Montpellier, France

45. School of Science and the Environment, Manchester Metropolitan UniversityChester Street, Manchester, M1 5GD, U.K

46. University of Évora – ICAAMA, Apartado 947002-554, Évora, Portugal

47. Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural SciencesBox 49, 230 53, Alnarp, Sweden

48. Department of Entomology, Purdue University901 W. State Street, West Lafayette, 47907, Indiana, Portugal

49. Centro de Ecologia Funcional, Departamento de Ciências da Vida, Universidade de CoimbraCalçada Martim de Freitas, 3000-456, Coimbra, Portugal

50. Escritório Central do LBA, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisa da AmazôniaAv. André Araújo, 2936, Campus II, Aleixo, CEP 69060-001, Manaus, AM, Brazil

51. Department of Botany, School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College DublinCollege Green, Dublin 2, Ireland

52. Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São PauloSão Paulo, SP, 05508-090, Brazil

53. Department of Ecology and Animal Biology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Vigo36310, Vigo, Spain

54. Department of Entomology, University of IllinoisUrbana, Illinois, 61801, Brazil

55. Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São PauloAv. Nazaré 481, 04263-000, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

56. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da AmazôniaAv. André Araújo, 2.936, Petrópolis, CEP 69067-375, Manaus, AM, Brazil

57. Centre for Functional Ecology, Department of Life Sciences, University of CoimbraCalçada Martim de Freitas, 3000-456, Coimbra, Portugal

58. Instituto de Biotecnologia y Ecologia Aplicada (INBIOTECA), Universidad VeracruzanaAv. de las Culturas Veracruzanas, 101, Col. Emiliano Zapata, CP 91090, Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico

59. Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE), Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center7170, Cartago, Turrialba, 30501, Costa Rica

60. Department of Quantitative Methods and Information Systems, Faculty of Agronomy, University of Buenos AiresAv. San Martín 4453, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina, C.P. 1417, Argentina

61. Normandie Univ., EA 1293 ECODIV-Rouen, SFR SCALE, UFR Sciences et Techniques76821, Mont Saint Aignan Cedex, France

62. University of AberdeenAberdeen, AB24 2TZ, U.K

63. Department of Biology, CESAM, Universidade de AveiroCampus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal

64. Sustainability Research Institute, University of East London4-6 University Way, London, E16 2RD, U.K

65. Department of Biology, University of Naples “Federico II”Naples, Italy

66. Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia, Universidade Federal de Santa CatarinaFlorianópolis, Santa Catarina, CEP 88040-900, Brazil

67. British Trust for Ornithology, University of StirlingStirling, FK9 4LA, U.K

68. Thünen Institute of BiodiversityBundesallee 50, 38116, Braunschweig, Germany

69. CNRS, Écologie des Forêts de Guyane (UMR-CNRS 8172)BP 316, 97379, Kourou cedex, France

70. Université de Toulouse, UPS, INP, Laboratoire Écologie Fonctionnelle et Environnement (Ecolab)118 route de Narbonne, 31062, Toulouse, France

71. Department of Landscape Ecology, Institute for Nature and Resource Conservation, Kiel UniversityOlshausenstrasse 75, 24098, Kiel, Germany

72. Department of Biology, Nature Conservation, University MarburgMarburg, Germany

73. Institute of Integrative BiologyETH Zurich, Switzerland

74. Programa de Biología, Universidad del Atlántico Km7 vía Puerto Colombia, Atlántico, Colombia

75. Biometry and Environmental System Analysis, University of FreiburgTennenbacher Strasse 4, 79106, Freiburg, Germany

76. INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores63122, Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France

77. Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of LondonNuffield Building, Regents Park, London, NW1 4RY, U.K

78. Department of Ecology and Environmental Science, Umeå University901 87, Umeå, Sweden

79. Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences901 83, Umeå, Sweden

80. MTA-ELTE-MTM Ecology Research Group, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, c/o Biological Institute, Eötvös Lóránd UniversityPázmány Péter sétány 1/C., 1117, Budapest, Hungary

81. University of Koblenz-Landau, Institute for Environmental SciencesFortstr. 7, 76829, Landau, Germany

82. Department of Ecology – Conservation Ecology, Faculty of Biology, Philipps-Universität MarburgKarl-von-Frisch-Street 8, 35032, Marburg, Germany

83. Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia and Institute of Entomology, Biology Centre of Academy of Sciences Czech RepublicBranišovská 31, 370 05, České Budějovice, Czech Republic

84. Institute for Tropical Biology and Conservation, Universiti Malaysia Sabah88999, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia

85. Dipartimento di Scienze Veterinarie, Università di PisaViale delle Piagge, n°2, 56124, Pisa, Italy

86. The Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, The Swedish University of Agricultural SciencesPO Box 49, 23453, Alnarp, Sweden

87. Laboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine (LECA), Université Grenoble AlpesF-38000, Grenoble, France

88. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Animal, Universidade Federal de PernambucoRecife, PE 50670-901, Brazil

89. Department of Plant Sciences, University of CaliforniaDavis, California, 95616, Canada

90. Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Thompson Rivers University900 McGill Road, Kamloops, BC, V2C 0C8, Canada

91. IDEA Consultants IncOkinawa Branch Office, Aja 2-6-19, Naha, Okinawa, 900-0003, Japan

92. Carl Zeiss Microscopy GmbHKönigsallee 9 – 21, 37081, Göttingen, Germany

93. University of Hamburg, Biocentre GrindelMartin-Luther-King Platz 3, 20146, Hamburg, Germany

94. Seed Consulting Services106 Gilles Street, Adelaide, 5000, SA, Australia

95. School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, The University of QueenslandSt Lucia, 4072, Qld, Australia

96. Ecologia Aplicada/Applied Ecology, Universidade Sagrado Coração (USC)Rua Irmã Arminda, 10-50, Jardim Brasil, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil

97. DISTAV, University of GenovaCorso Dogali 1M, 16136, Genova, Italy

98. Dipartimento di Biologia, Università di Napoli Federico IICampus Monte S. Angelo, Via Cinthia 4, 80126, Napoli, Italy

99. Universidade Federal de Pelotas (UFPel)PO Box 354, CEP 96010-900, Pelotas, RS, Brazil

100. Astron Environmental Services129 Royal Street, East Perth, WA, 6004, Australia

101. Department of Environment and Agriculture, Curtin UniversityKent Street, Bentley, WA, 6102, Australia

102. Mount Holyoke College, Department of Biological SciencesSouth Hadley, Massachusetts, 01075, U.K

103. School of Biological Science, University of PlymouthDrake's Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, U.K

104. 351 False Bay Drive, Friday Harbor, Washington, 98250, Malaysia

105. International University of Malaya-WalesJalan Tun Ismail, 50480, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

106. Coordenação de Botânica, Museu Paraense Emílio GoeldiCaixa Postal 399, CEP 66040-170, Belém, Pará, Brazil

107. School of Environmental Sciences, University of East AngliaNorwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K

108. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Laurentian Forestry Centre1055 du P.E.P.S., PO Box 10380, Québec, QC, G1V 4C7, Canada

109. Animal & Environmental Research Group, Department of Life Sciences, Anglia Ruskin UniversityEast Road, Cambridge, CB1 1PT, U.K

110. University of Tromsø, Department of Arctic and Marine Biology9037, Tromsø, Norway

111. Universidad Nacional Experimental de GuayanaApdo. Postal 8050, Puerto Ordaz, 8015, Estado Bolívar, Venezuela

112. AgroscopeReckenholzstr. 191, 8046, Zurich, Switzerland

113. Corporación Sentido NaturalCarrera 70H No. 122 – 98, Apartamento 101, Bogotá, Colombia

114. Escuela de Ingeniería Forestal, Tecnológico de Costa RicaApartado, 159-7050, Cartago, Costa Rica

115. Asociación para la Conservación y el Estudio de la Biodiversidad (ACEBIO)Casa 15, Barrio Los Abogados, Zapote, San José, Costa Rica

116. International Rice Research InstituteDAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, The Philippines

117. University of Debrecen, Department of EcologyPO Box 71, 4010, Debrecen, Hungary

118. Department of Ecology, Environment and Plant Sciences, Stockholm University106 91, Stockholm, Sweden

119. Instituto de Investigaciones y Recursos Biológicos Alexander von HumboldtBogotá, Colombia

120. Hiroshima University, Graduate School of Education1-1-1, Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima, 739-8524, Japan

121. Scarab Research Group, University of PretoriaPretoria, South Africa

122. Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoA.P. 27-3 Santa María de Guido, Morelia, Michoacán,, México C.P. 58090, Mexico

123. Department of Animal Ecology, Justus-Liebig UniversityHeinrich-Buff-Ring 26-32, 35392, Giessen, Germany

124. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of EcologyBox 7044, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden

125. Yukon Department of EnvironmentP.O. Box 2703, Whitehorse, YT, Y1A 2C6, Canada

126. Nature Conservation FoundationMysore, India

127. Department of Environmental & Natural Resources Management, University of PatrasSeferi 2, 30100, Agrinio, Greece

128. Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science (TESS) and School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook UniversityCairns, Qld, Australia

129. School of Science and Technology, Pacific Adventist UniversityPort Moresby, Papua New Guinea

130. Institute of Systematic Botany, University of ZurichZollikerstrasse 107, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland

131. Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of BernBaltzerstrasse 6, 3012, Bern, Switzerland

132. Institute of Ecology, University of BremenFB2, Leobener Str., 28359, Bremen, Germany

133. MTA-ELTE-MTM Ecology Research GroupPázmány Péter s. 1/c, Budapest, 1117, Hungary, Germany

134. Field Station Fabrikschleichach, Biocenter, University of WürzburgGlasshüttenstr. 5, 96181, Rauhenebrach, Germany

135. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSLZürcherstrasse 11, 8903, Birmensdorf, Switzerland

136. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología AgropecuariaEEA Bariloche, 8400, Bariloche, Argentina

137. INRA, UR 406 Abeilles et EnvironnementF-84914, Avignon, France

138. Department of Biology, San Francisco State University1600 Holloway Ave, San Francisco, California, 94132

139. Laboratoire de diagnostic en phytoprotection, Ministère de l'agriculture, des pêcheries et de l'alimentation du Québec2700 rue Einstein, QC, G1P 3W8, Canada

140. Purchase College (State University of New York)735 Anderson Hill Road, Purchase, New York, 10577, U.K

141. The James Hutton InstituteCraigiebuckler, Aberdeen,, AB15 8QH, U.K

142. Universidad de AntioquiaCalle 67 No. 53 – 108, Medellín, Colombia

143. International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA)P.O. Box 950764, Amman, 11195, Jordan

144. Aarhus University, Department of Agroecology, Flakkebjerg Research CentreForsøgsvej 1, 4200, Slagelse, Denmark

145. Castilla La Mancha University, School of Advanced Agricultural Engineering, Department of Agroforestry Technology and Science and GeneticsCampus Universitario s/n, C.P. 02071, Albacete, Spain

146. Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit, Unidad Académica de Turismo, Coordinación de Investigación y PosgradoCiudad de la Cultura Amado Nervo s/n, C.P. 63155, Tepic, Nayarit, Mexico

147. Graduate School of Agricultural Science, Kobe UniversityKobe, 657-8501, Japan

148. Hortobágy National Park Directorate, 4002, Debrecen, P.O.Box 216, Hungary

149. Fauna & Flora International Philippines#8 Foggy Heights Subdivision San Jose, Tagaytay City, 4120, Philippines

150. De La Salle University-DasmariñasWest Ave, Dasmariñas, 4115, Philippines

151. Department of Geography, University of Wisconsin-Madison550 North Park Street, Madison, Wisconsin, 53706, U.K

152. Marshall Agroecology Ltd, 2Nut Tree Cottages, Barton, Winscombe,, BS25 1DU, U.K

153. Escuela de Posgrados, Facultad de Agronomía, Doctorado en Agroecología, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Cra 30 No. 45-03, Ciudad UniversitariaBogotá, Colombia

154. The University of Queensland, School of Biological SciencesBrisbane, Qld, 4120, Australia

155. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of EcologyGrimsö Wildlife Research Station, 730 91, Riddarhyttan, Sweden

156. Rainforest Alliance233 Broadway, 28th Floor, New York City, New York, 10279, Kenya

157. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental SciencesN-407 Turner Hall, MC-047, 1102 South Goodwin Ave., Urbana, Illinois, 61801, Kenya

158. National Museums of Kenya, Botany DepartmentP.O. Box 40658, 00100, Nairobi, Kenya

159. Department of Zoology, National Museums of KenyaP.O. Box 40658, 00100, Nairobi, Kenya

160. WWF1250 24th Street NW, Washington, District of Columbia, 20037, China

161. Key Laboratory of Tropical Forest Ecology, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical GardenCAS, Menglun, Mengla, Yunnan, 666303, China

162. Forestry and Forest Products Research InstituteMatsunosato 1, Tsukuba Ibaraki, 305–8687, Japan

163. Laboratorio de Investigaciones en Abejas, Departamento de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional de ColombiaSede Bogotá, Colombia

164. El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Carretera Panamericana y PeriféricoSur S/N. 29290, Chiapas, Mexico

165. Department of Biosciences and Department of Environmental Sciences, Urban Ecology Research Group, University of HelsinkiViikinkaari 2a, P.O. Box 65, FI-00014, Helsinki, Finland

166. School of Biology, The University of NottinghamUniversity Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, U.K

167. Laboratorio de Zoología y Ecología Acuática – LAZOEA, Universidad de Los AndesBogotá, Colombia

168. BIO-DiverseLießemer Str. 32 a, 53179 Bonn, Germany

169. Oxford University Centre for the Environment, University of OxfordSouth Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QY, U.K

170. Department of Wildlife and Range Management, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and TechnologyKumasi, Ghana

171. Forestry Research Institute of GhanaKumasi, Ghana

172. Department of Animal & Environmental Biology, University of BeninBenin City, Nigeria

173. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), The LodgeSandy, Bedfordshire,, SG19 2DL, U.K

174. Laboratorio Ecotono, CONICET–INIBIOMA, Universidad Nacional del ComahueQuintral 1250, Bariloche, 8400, Argentina

175. Departamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Filosofia Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São PauloAvenida. Bandeirantes, 3900 – CEP 14040-901 – Bairro Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil

176. Laboratorio de Investigaciones en Abejas-LABUN, Departamento de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional de ColombiaCarrera 45 N° 26-85, Edificio Uriel Gutiérrez, Bogotá, DC, Colombia, Argentina

177. Instituto de Diversidad y Ecología Animal (CONICET-UNC) and Centro de Zoología Aplicada (UNC)Rondeau 798 X5000AVP, Córdoba, Argentina

178. School of Environmental Sciences, University of East AngliaNorwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K

179. Lund University, Department of Biology/BiodiversityEcology Building, 223 62, Lund, Sweden

180. Laboratory of Biogeography & Ecology, Department of Geography, University of the Aegean81100, Mytilene, Greece

181. Department of Zoology, University of CambridgeCambridge, CB2 3EJ, U.K

182. Department of Biology, Western Kentucky University1906 College Heights Blvd., Bowling Green, Kentucky, 42101, Ireland

183. Entomology, Cornell University4126 Comstock Hall, Ithaca, New York, 14850, Ireland

184. School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College DublinCollege Green, Dublin 2, Ireland

185. Center for Environmental Sciences and Engineering & Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut3107 Horsebarn Hill Road, Storrs, Connecticut, 06269-4210, Portugal

186. IN+, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de LisboaAv. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001, Lisboa, Portugal

187. CRA-ABP, Consiglio per la Ricerca e la sperimentazione in Agricoltura, Centro di ricerca per l'agrobiologia e la pedologiaVia Lanciola 12/A, 50125 – Cascine del Riccio, Firenze, Italy

188. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)2 Lochside View, Edinburgh Park, Edinburgh, EH12 9DH, U.K

189. Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State UniversityCorvallis, Oregon, 97331, Brazil

190. Universidade Federal de Sergipe, Cidade Universitária Prof. José Aloísio de CamposJardim Rosa Elze, São Cristóvão, Brazil

191. Centro de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do SulP.O Box 549, 79070-900, Campo Grande, Brazil

192. 165 Braid Road, Edinburgh, EH10 6JE, U.K

193. Associate Scientist, Luquillo LTER, Institute for Tropical Ecosystem Studies, College of Natural Sciences, University of Puerto Rico at Rio PiedrasP.O. Box 70377, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00936-8377, Argentina

194. PROPLAME-PRHIDEB-CONICET, Departamento de Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Ciudad UniversitariaPB II, 4to piso, (CP1428EHA), Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina

195. ECT Oekotoxikologie GmbHBöttgerstr. 2-14, 65439, Flörsheim, Germany

196. Universidad de Ciencias Aplicadas y Ambientales U.D.C.A.Cl 222 No. 55-37, Bogotá, Colombia

197. School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of LondonMile End Road, London, E3 5GN, U.K

198. Department of Environmental Sciences, University of VirginiaCharlottesville, Virginia, 22904-4123, Canada

199. Blandy Experimental Farm400 Blandy Farm Lane, Boyce, Virginia, 22620, Canada

200. Département des sciences biologiques, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)Case postale 8888, Succursale Centre-ville, Montréal, QC, H3C 3P8, Canada

201. School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of BirminghamBirmingham, B15 2TT, U.K

202. Institute of Silviculture and Forest Protection, University of West HungaryBajcsy-Zsilinszky u. 4., 9400, Sopron, Hungary

203. Red de Ecología Funcional, Instituto de Ecología A.C. Carretera Antigua a CoatepecN° 351 El Haya, CP, 91070, Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico

204. Stockholm University, Department of Ecology, Environment and Plant SciencesSE, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden

205. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZTheodor-Lieser-Strasse 4, 06120, Halle, Germany

206. Lawrence University711 E. Boldt Way, Appleton, Wisconsin, 54911, India

207. School of Human Ecology, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar UniversityLothian Road, Delhi, 110006, India

208. Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management (INA), Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU)Box 5003, 1432, Ås, Norway

209. Center for International Forestry ResearchBogor, 16000, Indonesia

210. Universidade Federal do Pará, Instituto de Ciências BiológicasRua Augusto Correa, 01, Belém, 66075-110, Pará, Brazil

211. Department of Zoology, University of OxfordSouth Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PS, U.K

212. USDA – APHIS – PPQ389 Oyster Point Blvd. Suite 2, South San Francisco, California, 94080, Colombia, Republic of Singapore

213. Universidad Nacional de ColombiaCra. 64 X Cll. 65. Bloque 11, Oficina 207, Medellin, Colombia, Republic of Singapore

214. Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore14 Science Drive 4, Singapore City, 117543, Republic of Singapore

215. EComAS (Grupo de Investigación en Ecología de Comunidades Áridas y Semiáridas), Dpto. de Recursos Naturales, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de La PampaSanta Rosa, Argentina

216. School of Natural Sciences and Trinity Centre for Biodiversity Research, Trinity College DublinCollege Green, Dublin 2, Ireland

217. Kadoorie Conservation China, Kadoorie Farm and Botanic GardenLam Kam Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China

218. Department of Resource Management and Geography, The University of Melbourne500 Yarra Boulevard, Richmond, VIC, 3121, Australia

219. Northwestern University Program in Plant Biology and Conservation2205 Tech Drive, O.T. Hogan Hall, Room 2-144, Evanston, Illinois, 60208, Hungary

220. Chicago Botanic Garden1000 Lake Cook Road, Glencoe, Illinois, 60022, Hungary

221. MTA-DE Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Research GroupEgyetem ter 1, Debrecen, 4032, Hungary

222. University Museum of ZoologyDowning Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EJ, U.K

223. University of CanterburyPrivate bag 4800, Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand

224. NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Bush EstatePenicuik, Edinburgh, EH26 0QB, U.K

225. Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian Academy of Science23 Akademik Georgi Bonchev str., Block 23, 1113, Sofia, Bulgaria

226. Department of Earth and Environmental Science, Division Forest, Nature and Landscape, KU LeuvenCelestijnenlaan 200E, 3001, Leuven, Belgium

227. Departamento de Ciencias Químico-Biológicas, Universidad de las Américas Puebla72810, Cholula, Puebla, Mexico

228. Universidad de Santiago de ChileAvenida Alameda Libertador Bernardo O'Higgins 3363, Estación Central, Santiago, Chile

229. Spotvogellaan 68, 2566 PN, The Hague, The Netherlands

230. Dillon Consulting Limited137 Chain Lake Drive, Halifax, NS, B3S 1B3, Canada

231. The Key Laboratory of Conservation Biology for Endangered Wildlife of the Ministry of Education, College of Life Sciences, Zhejiang UniversityHangzhou, 310058, China

232. University of Florida3205 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33314, Australia

233. The Environment Institute and School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of AdelaideSA, 5005, Australia

234. Institute of Experimental Ecology, University of UlmAlbert-Einstein-Allee 11, 89069, Ulm, Germany

235. Behavioural Ecology and Biocontrol, Department of Biology, National University of IrelandMaynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland

236. Center for Environmental Sciences & Engineering, University of Connecticut3107 Horsebarn Hill Road, Storrs, Connecticut, 06269-4210, Australia

237. Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut3107 Horsebarn Hill Road, Storrs, Connecticut, 06269-4210, Australia

238. Charles Darwin University7 Ellengowan Dr, Brinkin, NT, 0810, Australia

239. University of Amsterdam, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (IBED)P.O. Box 94248, 1090 GE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

240. NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Crowmarsh GiffordWallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8BB, U.K

241. University of East AngliaNorwich Research Park, Norwich, Norfolk,, NR4 7TJ, U.K

242. Kunming Institute of ZoologyKunming, Yunnan,, 650023, China

243. Institute of Animal Ecology, Justus-Liebig-UniversityHeinrich-Buff-Ring 26, 35392, Giessen, Germany

244. A. N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and EvolutionLeninsky Prospekt 33, 119071, Moscow, Russia

245. Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research, Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College LondonGower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, U.K

Lawrence Hudson, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. Tel: +44 (0)20 7942 5819; Fax: +44 (0)20 7942 5175; E-mail: l.hudson@nhm.ac.uk and Tim Newbold, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0DL, U.K. Tel: +44 (0)1223 277 314; Fax: +44 (0)1223 277 136; E-mail: tim.newbold@unep-wcmc.org

Funding Information The PREDICTS project was supported by the U.K. Natural Environment Research Council (Grant Number NE/J011193/1) and is a contribution from the Imperial College Grand Challenges in Ecosystems and the Environment initiative. Adriana De Palma was supported by the U.K. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (Grant Number BB/F017324/1). Helen Philips was supported by a Hans Rausing PhD Scholarship.

*. These authors contributed equally to this paper.

© 2014 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/ece3.1303

Published in print: December 2014

Published online: 02 December 2014

Abstract

Biodiversity continues to decline in the face of increasing anthropogenic pressures such as habitat destruction, exploitation, pollution and introduction of alien species. Existing global databases of species’ threat status or population time series are dominated by charismatic species. The collation of datasets with broad taxonomic and biogeographic extents, and that support computation of a range of biodiversity indicators, is necessary to enable better understanding of historical declines and to project – and avert – future declines. We describe and assess a new database of more than 1.6 million samples from 78 countries representing over 28,000 species, collated from existing spatial comparisons of local-scale biodiversity exposed to different intensities and types of anthropogenic pressures, from terrestrial sites around the world. The database contains measurements taken in 208 (of 814) ecoregions, 13 (of 14) biomes, 25 (of 35) biodiversity hotspots and 16 (of 17) megadiverse countries. The database contains more than 1% of the total number of all species described, and more than 1% of the described species within many taxonomic groups – including flowering plants, gymnosperms, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, beetles, lepidopterans and hymenopterans. The dataset, which is still being added to, is therefore already considerably larger and more representative than those used by previous quantitative models of biodiversity trends and responses. The database is being assembled as part of the PREDICTS project (Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems – http://www.predicts.org.uk). We make site-level summary data available alongside this article. The full database will be publicly available in 2015.

Introduction

Despite the commitment made by the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010, global biodiversity indicators show continued decline at steady or accelerating rates, while the pressures behind the decline are steady or intensifying (Butchart et al. 2010; Mace et al. 2010). Evaluations of progress toward the CBD's 2010 target highlighted the need for datasets with broader taxonomic and geographic coverage than existing ones (Walpole et al. 2009; Jones et al. 2011). Taxonomic breadth is needed because species’ ability to tolerate human impacts – destruction, degradation and fragmentation of habitats, the reduction of individual survival and fecundity through exploitation, pollution and introduction of alien species – varies among major taxonomic groups (Vié et al. 2009). For instance, the proportion of species listed as threatened in the IUCN Red List is much higher in amphibians than in birds (International Union for Conservation of Nature 2013). Geographic breadth is needed because human impacts show strong spatial variation: most of Western Europe has long been dominated by human land use, for example, whereas much of the Amazon basin is still close to a natural state (Ellis et al. 2010). Thus, in the absence of broad coverage, any pattern seen in a dataset is prone to reflect the choice of taxa and region as much as true global patterns and trends.

The most direct way to capture the effects of human activities on biodiversity is by analysis of time-series data from ecological communities, assemblages or populations, relating changes in biodiversity to changes in human activity (Vačkář 2012). However, long-term data suitable for such modeling have limited geographic and taxonomic coverage, and often record only the presence or absence of species (e.g., Dornelas et al. 2013). Time-series data are also seldom linked to site-level information on drivers of change, making it hard to use such data to model biodiversity responses or to project responses into the future. Ecologists have therefore more often analyzed spatial comparisons among sites that differ in the human impacts they face. Although the underlying assumption that biotic differences among sites are caused by human impacts has been criticized (e.g., Johnson and Miyanishi 2008; Pfeifer et al. 2014), it is more likely to be reasonable when the sites being compared are surveyed in the same way, when they are well matched in terms of other potentially important variables (e.g., Blois et al. 2013; Pfeifer et al. 2014), when analyses focus on community-level summaries rather than individual species (e.g., Algar et al. 2009), and when the spatial and temporal variations being considered are similar in magnitude (Blois et al. 2013). Collations of well-matched site surveys therefore offer the possibility of analyzing how biodiversity is responding to human impacts without losing taxonomic and geographic breadth.

Openness of data is a further important consideration. The reproducibility and transparency that open data can confer offer benefits to all areas of scientific research, and are particularly important to research that is potentially relevant to policy (Reichman et al. 2011). Transparency has already been highlighted as crucial to the credibility of biodiversity indicators and models (e.g., UNEP-WCMC 2009; Feld et al. 2010; Heink and Kowarik 2010) but the datasets underpinning previous policy-relevant analyses have not always been made publicly available.

We present a new database that collates published, in-press and other quality-assured spatial comparisons of community composition and site-level biodiversity from terrestrial sites around the world. The underlying data are made up of abundance, presence/absence and species-richness measures of a wide range of taxa that face many different anthropogenic pressures. As of March 2014, the dataset contains more than 1.6 million samples from 78 countries representing over 28,000 species. The dataset, which is still being added to, is being assembled as part of the PREDICTS project (Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems – http://www.predicts.org.uk), the primary purpose of which is to model and project how biodiversity in terrestrial communities responds to human activity. The dataset is already considerably larger and more representative than those used in existing quantitative models of biodiversity trends such as the Living Planet Index (WWF International 2012) and GLOBIO3 (Alkemade et al. 2009).

In this paper we introduce the database, describe in detail how it was collated, validated and curated, and assess its taxonomic, geographic and temporal coverage. We make available a summary dataset that contains, for each sampling location, the predominant land use, land-use intensity, type of habitat fragmentation, geographic coordinates, sampling dates, country, biogeographic realm, ecoregion, biome, biodiversity hotspot, taxonomic group studied and the number of measurements taken. The full dataset constitutes a large evidence base for the analysis of:

The responses of biodiversity to human impacts for different countries, biomes and major taxonomic groups;

The differing responses within and outside protected areas;

How traits such as body size, range size and ecological specialism mediate responses and

How human impacts alter community composition.

The summary dataset permits analysis of geographic and taxonomic variation in study size and design. The complete database, which will be made freely available at the end of the current phase of the project in 2015, will be of use to all researchers interested in producing models of how biodiversity responds to human pressures.

Methods

Criteria for inclusion

We considered only data that met all of the following criteria:

Data are published, in press or were collected using a published methodology;

The paper or report presents data about the effect of one or more human activities on one or more named taxa, and where the degree of human activity differed among sampling locations and/or times;

Some measure of overall biodiversity, or of the abundance or occurrence of the named taxa, was made at two or more sampling locations and/or times;

Measurements within each data source were taken using the same sampling procedure, possibly with variation in sampling effort, at each site and time;

The paper reported, or authors subsequently provided, geographical coordinates for the sites sampled.

One of the modeling approaches used by PREDICTS is to relate diversity measurements to remotely sensed data, specifically those gathered by NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instruments (Justice et al. 1998). MODIS data are available from early 2000 onwards so, after a short initial data collation stage, we additionally required that diversity sampling had been completed after the beginning of 2000.

Where possible, we also obtained the following (see Site characteristics, below, for more details):

The identities of the taxa sampled, ideally resolved to species level;

The date(s) on which each measurement was taken;

The area of the habitat patch that encompassed each site;

The maximum linear extent sampled at the site;

An indication of the land use at each site, e.g. primary, secondary, cropland, pasture;

Indications of how intensively each site was used by people;

Descriptions of any transects used in sampling (start point, end point, direction, etc.);

Other information about each site that might be relevant to modeling responses of biodiversity to human activity, such as any pressures known to be acting on the site, descriptions of agriculture taking place and, for spatially blocked designs, which block each site was in.

Searches

We collated data by running sub-projects that investigated different regions, taxonomic groups or overlapping anthropogenic pressures: some focused on particular taxa (e.g., bees), threatening processes (e.g., habitat fragmentation, urbanization), land-cover classes (e.g., comparing primary, secondary and plantation tropical forests), or regions (e.g., Colombia). We introduced the project and requested data at conferences and in journals (Newbold et al. 2012; Hudson et al. 2013). After the first six months of broad searching, we increasingly targeted efforts toward under-represented taxa, habitat types, biomes and regions. In addition to articles written in English, we also considered those written in Mandarin, Spanish and Portuguese – languages in which one or more of our data compilers were proficient.

Data collection

To maximize consistency in how incoming data were treated, we developed customized metadata and data capture tools – a PDF form and a structured Excel file – together with detailed definitions and instructions on their usage. The PDF form was used to capture bibliographic information, corresponding author contact details and meta-data such as the country or countries in which data were collected, the number of taxa sampled, the number of sampling locations and the approximate geographical center(s) of the study area(s). The Excel file was used to capture details of each sampling site and the diversity measurements themselves. The PDF form and Excel file are available in Supplementary Information. We wrote software that comprehensively validates pairs of PDF and Excel files for consistency; details are in the “Database” section.

Most papers that we considered did not publish all the information that we required; in particular, site coordinates and species names were frequently not published. We contacted authors for these data and to request permission to include their contributed data in the PREDICTS database. We used the insightly customer relationship management application (https://www.insightly.com/) to manage contact with authors.

Structure of data

We structured data into Data Sources, Studies, and Sites. The highest level of organization is the Data Source. A Data Source typically represents data from a single published paper, although in some cases the data were taken from more than one paper, from a non-governmental organization report or from a PhD or MSc thesis. A Data Source contains one or more Studies. A Study contains two or more Sites, a list of taxa that were sampled and a site-by-species matrix of observations (e.g., presence/absence or abundance). All diversity measurements within a Study must have been collected using the same sampling method. For example, a paper might present, for the same set of Sites, data from pitfall traps and from Malaise traps. We would structure these data into a single Data Source containing two Studies – one for each trapping technique. It is therefore reasonable to directly compare observations within a Study but not, because of methodological differences, among Studies. Sometimes, the data presented in a paper were aggregates of data from multiple sampling methods. In these cases, provided that the same set of sampling methods was applied at each Site, we placed the data in a single Study.

We classified the diversity observations as abundance, occurrence or species richness. Some of the site-by-species matrices that we received contained empty cells, which we interpreted as follows: (1) where the filled-in values in the matrix were all non-zero, we interpreted blanks as zeros or (2) where some of the values in the matrix were zero, we took empty cells as an indication that the taxa concerned were not looked for at those Sites, and interpreted empty cells as missing values.

Where possible, we recorded the sampling effort expended at each Site and allowed the units of sampling effort to vary among Studies. For example, if transects had been used, the (Study-level) sampling effort units might be meters or kilometers and the (Site-level) sampling efforts might be the length of the transects. If pitfall traps had been used, the (Study-level) sampling effort units might be “number of trap nights” and the (Site-level) sampling efforts might be the number of traps used multiplied by the number of nights that sampling took place. Where possible, we also recorded an estimate of the maximum linear extent encompassed by the sampling at each Site – the distance covered by a transect, the distance between two pitfall traps or the greatest linear extent of a more complex sampling design (see Figure S1 in Supplementary Information for details).

Site characteristics

We recorded each Site's coordinates as latitude and longitude (WGS84 datum), converting where necessary from local grid-based coordinate systems. Where precise coordinates for Sites were not available, we georeferenced them from maps or schemes available from the published sources or provided by authors. We converted each map to a semi-transparent image that was georeferenced using either ArcGIS (Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) 2011) or Google Earth (http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en_uk/earth/ ), by positioning and resizing the image on the top of ArcGIS Online World Imagery or Google Maps until we achieved the best possible match of mapped geographical features with the base map. We then obtained geographic coordinates using geographic information systems (GIS) for each Site center or point location. We also recorded authors’ descriptions of the habitat at each Site and of any transects walked.

For each Site we recorded the dates during which sampling took place. Not all authors presented precise sampling dates – some gave them to the nearest month or year. We therefore recorded the earliest possible start date, the latest possible end date and the resolution of the dates that were given to us. Where dates were given to the nearest month or year, we recorded the start and end dates as the earliest and latest possible day, respectively. For example, if the authors reported that sampling took place between June and August of 2007, we recorded the date resolution as “month,” the start of sampling as June 1, 2007 and end of sampling as August 31, 2007. This scheme meant that we could store sampling dates using regular database structures (which require that the year, month, and day are all present), while retaining information about the precision of sampling dates that were given to us.

We assigned classifications of predominant land use and land-use intensity to each Site. Because of PREDICTS’ aim of making projections about the future of biodiversity under alternative scenarios, our land-use classification was based on five classes defined in the Representative Concentration Pathways harmonized land-use estimates (Hurtt et al. 2011) – primary vegetation, secondary vegetation, cropland, pasture and urban – with the addition of plantation forest to account for the likely differences in the biodiversity of natural forest and plantation forest (e.g., Gibson et al. 2011) and a “Cannot decide” category for when insufficient information was available. Previous work has suggested that both the biodiversity and community composition differ strongly between sites in secondary vegetation of different maturity (Barlow et al. 2007); therefore, we subdivided secondary vegetation by stage – young, intermediate, mature and (when information was lacking) indeterminate – by considering vegetation structure (not diversity). We used authors’ descriptions of Sites, when provided, to classify land-use intensity as minimal, light or intense, depending on the land use in question, again with “Cannot decide” as an option for when information was lacking. A detailed description of how classifications are assigned is in the Supplementary section “Notes on assigning predominant land use and use intensity” and Tables S1 and S2.

Given the likely importance of these classifications as explanatory variables in modeling responses of biodiversity to human impacts, we conducted a blind repeatability study in which one person (the last author, who had not originally scored any Sites) rescored both predominant land use and use intensity for 100 Sites chosen at random. Exact matches of predominant land use were achieved for 71 Sites; 15 of the remaining 29 were “near misses” specified in advance (i.e., primary vegetation versus mature secondary; adjacent stages of secondary vegetation; indeterminate secondary versus any other secondary stage; and cannot decide versus any other class). Cohen's kappa provides a measure of inter-rate agreement, ranging from 0 (agreement no better than random) to 1 (perfect agreement). For predominant land use, Cohen's kappa = 0.662 (if only exact agreement gets credit) or 0.721 (if near misses are scored as 0.5); values in the range 0.6–0.8 indicate “substantial agreement” (Landis and Koch 1977), indicating that our categories, criteria and training are sufficiently clear for users to score Sites reliably. Moving to use intensity, we found exact agreement for 57 of 100 Sites, with 39 of the remaining 43 being “near misses” (adjacent intensity classes, or cannot decide versus any other class), giving Cohen's kappa values of 0.363 (exact agreement only) or 0.385 (near misses scored as 0.5), representing “fair agreement” (Landis and Koch 1977); agreement is slightly higher among the 71 Sites for which predominant land use was matched (exact agreement in 44 of 71 Sites, kappa = 0.428, indicating “moderate agreement”: Landis and Koch 1977).

Where known, we recorded the number of years since conversion to the present predominant land use. If the Site's previous land use was primary habitat, we recorded the number of years since it was converted to the current land use. If the habitat was converted to secondary forest (clear-felled forest or abandoned agricultural land), we recorded the number of years since it was converted/clear-felled/abandoned. Where ranges were reported, we used mid-range values; if papers reported times as “greater than N years” or “at least N years,” we recorded a value of N × 1.25. Based on previous work (Wilcove et al. 1986; Dickman 1987), we assigned one of five habitat fragmentation classes: (1) well within unfragmented habitat, (2) within unfragmented habitat but at or near its edge, (3) within a remnant patch (perhaps at its edge) that is surrounded by other habitats, (4) representative part of a fragmented landscape and (5) part of the matrix surrounding remnant patches. These are described and illustrated in Table S3 and Figure S2. We also recorded the area of the patch of predominant habitat within which the Site was located, where this information was available. We recorded a value of −1 if the patch area was unknown but large, extending far beyond the sampled Site.

Database

Completed PDF and Excel files were uploaded to a PostgreSQL 9.1 database (PostgreSQL Global Development Group, http://www.postgresql.org/) with the PostGIS 2.0.1 spatial extension (Refractions Research Inc, http://www.postgis.net/). The database schema is shown in Figure S3.

We wrote software in the Python programming language (http://www.python.org/) to perform comprehensive data validation; files were fully validated before their data were added to the database. Examples of lower level invalid data included missing values for mandatory fields, a negative time since conversion, a latitude given as 1° 61’, a date given as 32nd January, duplicated Site names and duplicated taxon names. Commonly encountered higher level problems included mistakes in coordinates, such as latitude and longitude swapped, decimal latitude and longitude incorrectly assembled from DD/MM/SS components, and direction (north/south, east/west) swapped round. These mistakes typically resulted in coordinates that plotted in countries not matching those given in the metadata and/or out to sea. The former was detected automatically by validation software, which required that the GIS-matched country for each Site (see “Biogeographical coverage ” below) matched the country name entered in the PDF file for the Study; where a Study spanned several countries, we set the country name to “Multiple countries.” We visually inspected all Site locations on a map and compared them to maps presented in the source article or given to us by the authors, catching coordinates that were mistakenly out to sea and providing a check of accuracy.

Our database linked each Data Source to the relevant record in our Insightly contact management database. This allows us to trace each datum back to the email that granted permission for us to include it in our database.

Biogeographical coverage

In order to assess the data's geographical and biogeographical coverage, we matched each Site's coordinates to GIS datasets that were loaded into our database:

Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World (The Nature Conservancy 2009), giving the ecoregion, biome and biogeographic realm;

World Borders 0.3 (Thematic Mapping 2008), giving the country, United Nations (UN) region and UN subregion;

Biodiversity Hotspots (Conservation International Foundation 2011).

Global GIS layers appear coarse at local scales and we anticipated that Sites on coasts or on islands could fall slightly outside the relevant polygons. Our software therefore matched Sites to the nearest ecoregion and nearest country polygons, and recorded the distance in meters to that polygon, with a value of zero for Sites that fell within a polygon; we reviewed Sites with non-zero distances. The software precisely matched Sites to hotspot polygons. The relative coarseness of GIS polygons might result in small errors in our assessments of coverage (i.e., at borders between biomes, ecoregions and countries, and at the edges of hotspots) – we expect that these errors should be small in number and unbiased.

We also estimated the yearly value of total net primary production (TNPP) for biomes and five-degree latitudinal belts, using 2010 spatial (0.1-degree resolution) monthly datasets “NPP – Net Primary Productivity 1 month-Terra/MODIS” compiled and distributed by NASA Earth Observations (http://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=MOD17A2_M_PSN&year=2010). We used the NPP values (average for each month assimilation measured in grams of carbon per square meter per day) to estimate monthly and annual NPP. We then derived TNPP values by multiplying NPP values by the total terrestrial area for that ecoregion/latitudinal belt. We assessed the representativeness of land use and land-use intensity combinations by comparing the proportion of Sites in each combination to a corresponding estimate of the proportion of total terrestrial area for 2005, computed using land-use data from the HYDE historical reconstruction (Hurtt et al. 2011) and intensity data from the Global Land Systems dataset (van Asselen and Verburg 2012).

Taxonomic names and classification

We wanted to identify taxa in our database as precisely as possible and to place them in higher level groups, which required relating the taxonomic names presented in our datasets to a stable and authoritative resource for nomenclature. We used the Catalogue of Life (http://www.catalogueoflife.org/) for three main reasons. First, it provides broad taxonomic coverage. Second, Catalogue of Life publishes Annual Checklists. Third, Catalogue of Life provides a single accepted taxonomic classification for each species that is represented. Not all databases provide this guarantee; for example, Encyclopedia of Life (http://www.eol.org/) provides zero, one or more taxonomic classifications for each represented species. We therefore matched taxonomic names to the Catalogue of Life 2013 Annual Checklist (Roskov et al. 2013, henceforth COL).

There was large variation in the form of the taxonomic names presented in the source datasets, for example:

A Latin binomial, with and without authority, year and other information;

A generic name, possibly with a number to distinguish morphospecies from congenerics in the same Study (e.g., “Bracon sp. 1”);

The name of a higher taxonomic rank such as family, order, class;

A common name (usually for birds), sometimes not in English;

A textual description, code, letter or number with no further information except an indication of some aspect of higher taxonomy.

Most names were Latin binomials, generic names or morphospecies names. Few binomials were associated with an authority – even when they were, time constraints mean that it would not have been practical to make use of this information. Many names contained typographical errors.

We represented each taxon by three different names: “Name entered,” “Parsed name,” and “COL query name.” “Name entered” was the name assigned to the taxon in the dataset provided to us by the investigators who collected the data. We used the Global Names Architecture's biodiversity package (https://github.com/GlobalNamesArchitecture/biodiversity) to parse “Name entered” and extract a putative Latin binomial, which we assigned to both “Parsed name” and “COL query name.” For example, the result of parsing the name “Ancistrocerus trifasciatus Müll.” was “Ancistrocerus trifasciatus.” The parser treated all names as if they were scientific taxonomic names, so the result of parsing common names was not sensible: e.g. “Black and White Casqued Hornbill” was parsed as “Black and.” We expected that common names would be rare – where they did arise, they were detected and corrected as part of our curation process, which is described below. Other examples of the parser's behavior are shown in Table S4.

We queried COL with each “COL query name” and stored the matching COL ID, taxonomic name, rank and classification (kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species and infraspecies). We assumed that the original authors gave the most authoritative identification of species. Therefore, when a COL search returned more than one result, and the results were made up of one accepted name together with one or more synonyms and/or ambiguous synonyms and/or common names and/or misapplied names, our software recorded the accepted name. For example, COL returns three results for the salticid spider Euophrys frontalis – one accepted name and two synonyms.

When a COL search returned more than one result, and the results included zero or two or more accepted names, we used the lowest level of classification common to all results. For example, COL lists Notiophilus as an accepted genus in two beetle families – Carabidae and Erirhinidae. This is a violation of the rules of nomenclature, but taxonomic databases are imperfect and such violations are to be expected. In this case, the lowest rank common to both families is the order Coleoptera.

Curating names

We reviewed:

Taxa that had no matching COL record;

Taxa that had a result at a rank higher than species and a “Name entered” that was either a Latin binomial or a common name;

Cases where the same “Parsed name” in different Studies linked to different COL records;

Studies for which the lowest common taxonomic rank did not seem appropriate; for example, a Study of birds should have a lowest common taxonomic rank of class Aves or lower rank within Aves.

Where a change was required, we altered “COL query name”, recording the reason why the change was made, and reran the COL query. Sometimes, this curation step had to be repeated multiple times. In all cases, we retained the names given to us by the authors, in the “Name entered” and “Parsed name” columns.

Typographical errors were the most common cause for failed COL searches; for example, the hymenopteran Diphaglossa gayi was given as Diphaglosa gayi. Such errors were detected by visual inspection and by performing manual searches on services that perform fuzzy matching and suggest alternatives, such as Google and Encyclopedia of Life. In cases where “Parsed name” was a binomial without typographical errors but that was not recognized by COL, we searched web sites such as Encyclopedia of Life and The Plant List (http://www.theplantlist.org/) for synonyms and alternative spellings and queried COL with the results. Where there were no synonyms or where COL did not recognize the synonyms, we searched COL for just the genus. If the genus was not recognized by COL, we used the same web services to obtain higher level ranks, until we found a rank that COL recognized.

Some names matched COL records in two different kingdoms. For example, Bellardia, Dracaena and Ficus are all genera of plants and of animals. In such cases, we instructed our software to consider only COL records from the expected kingdom. We also constrained results when a name matched COL records in two different branches within the same kingdom; for example, considering the Notiophilus example given above – if the Study was of carabid beetles, we would instruct of software to consider only results within family Carabidae.

COL allows searches for common names. Where “Name entered” was a common name that was not recognized by COL, we searched web sites as described above and set “COL query name” to the appropriate Latin binomial.

Some studies of birds presented additional complications. Some authors presented taxon names as four-letter codes that are contractions of common names (e.g., AMKE was used by Chapman and Reich (2007) to indicate Falco sparverius, American kestrel) or of Latin binomials (e.g., ACBA was used by Shahabuddin and Kumar (2007) to indicate Accipiter badius). Some of these codes are valid taxonomic names in their own right. For example, Shahabuddin and Kumar (2007) used the code TEPA to indicate the passerine Terpsiphone paradisi. However, Tepa is also a genus of Hemiptera. Left uncurated, COL recognized TEPA as the hemipteran genus and the Study consequently had a lowest common taxonomic rank of kingdom Animalia, not of class Aves or a lower rank within Aves, as we would expect. Some codes did not appear on published lists (e.g., http://www.birdpop.org/alphacodes.htm, http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbl/manual/speclist.cfm, http://www.carolinabirdclub.org/bandcodes.html and http://infohost.nmt.edu/∼shipman/z/nom/bbs.html) or in the files provided by the authors, either because of typographical errors, omissions or incomplete coverage. Fortunately, codes are constructed by following a simple set of rules – the first two letters of the genus and species of binomials, and a slightly more complex method for common names of North American birds (http://infohost.nmt.edu/∼shipman/z/nom/bblrules.html). We cautiously reverse-engineered unrecognized codes by following the appropriate rules and then searched lists of birds of the country concerned for possible matches. For example, we deduced from the Wikipedia list of birds of India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_of_India) that KEZE – used in a study of birds in Rajasthan, northwestern India (Shahabuddin and Kumar 2007) – most likely indicates Ketupa zeylonensis. Another problem is that collisions occur – the same code can apply to more than one taxon. For example, PEPT is the accepted code for Atalotriccus pilaris (pale-eyed pygmy tyrant – http://www.birdpop.org/alphacodes.htm), a species that occurs in the Neotropics. The same code was used by the Indian study of Shahabuddin and Kumar (2007) to indicate Pernis ptilorhynchus (crested honey buzzard). We therefore reverse-engineered bird codes on a case-by-case basis. Where a code could represent more than one species, we set “COL query name” as the lowest taxonomic rank common to all matching species.

Counting the number of species

It was not possible to precisely count the number of species represented in our database because of ambiguity inherent in the taxon names provided with the data. We estimated the number of species as follows. Names with a COL result at either species or infraspecies level were counted once per name. Names with a COL result resolved to higher taxonomic ranks were counted once per Study. To illustrate this scheme, consider the bat genus Eonycteris, which contains three species. Suppose that Study A sampled all three species and that the investigators could distinguish individuals as belonging to three separate species but could not assign them to named species, reporting them as Eonycteris sp. 1, Eonycteris sp. 2 and Eonycteris sp. 3. Study B also sampled all three species of Eonycteris and again reported Eonycteris sp. 1, Eonycteris sp. 2 and Eonycteris sp. 3. We would erroneously consider these taxa to be six different species. We did not attempt to determine how often, if at all, such inflation occurred.

In order to assess the taxonomic coverage of our data, we computed a higher taxonomic grouping for each taxon as: (1) order where class was Insecta or Entognatha; (2) class where phylum was Arthropoda (excluding Insecta), Chordata or Tracheophyta; otherwise 3) phylum. So the higher taxonomic group of a bee is order Hymenoptera (following rule 1), the higher taxonomic group of a wolf is class Mammalia (rule 2), and the higher taxonomic group of a snail is phylum Gastropoda (rule 3). For each higher taxonomic group, we compared the numbers of species in our database to the estimated number of described species presented by Chapman (2009). Some of the higher taxonomic groups that we computed did not directly relate to the groups presented by Chapman (2009) so, in order to compare counts, we computed Magnoliophyta as the sum of Magnoliopsida and Liliopsida; Gymnosperms as the sum of Pinopsida and Gnetopsida; Ferns and allies as the sum of Polypodiopsida, Lycopodiopsida, Psilotopsida, Equisetopsida and Marattiopsida; and Crustacea as Malacostraca.

For some of our analyses, we related taxonomic names to databases of species’ traits. To do this, we synthesized, for each taxon, a “Best guess binomial”:

The COL taxon name if the COL rank was Species;

The first two words of the COL taxon if the rank was Infraspecies;

The first two words of “Parsed name” if the rank was neither Species nor Infraspecies and “Parsed name” contained two or more words;

Empty in other cases.

This scheme meant that even though COL did not recognize all of the Latin binomials that were given to us, we could maximize matches between names in our databases with names in the species’ trait databases.

Results

Between March 2012 and March 2014, we collated data from 284 Data Sources, 407 Studies and 13,337 Sites in 78 countries and 208 (of 814) ecoregions (Fig. 1). The best-represented UN-defined subregions are North America (17.51% of Sites), Western Europe (14.14%) and South America (13.37%). As of March 31, 2014, the database contained 1,624,685 biodiversity samples – 1,307,947 of abundance, 316,580 of occurrence and 158 of species richness. The subregions with the most samples are Southeast Asia (24.66%), Western Europe (11.36%) and North America (10.88%).

Figure 1View larger versionFigure 1. Site locations. Colors indicate biomes, taken from The Nature Conservancy's (2009) terrestrial ecoregions of the world dataset, shown in a geographic (WGS84) projection. Circle radii are proportional to log₁₀ of the number of samples at that Site. All circles have the same degree of partial transparency.

Of the world's 35 biodiversity hotspots, 25 are represented (Table 1). Hotspots together account for just 16% of the world's terrestrial surface, yet 47.67% of our measurements were taken in hotspots. The vast majority of measurements in hotspots were taken in the Sundaland hotspot (Southeast Asia) and the latitudinal band with the most samples is 0° to 5° N (Fig. 2); many of these data come from two studies of higher plants from Indonesia that between them contribute just 284 sites but over 320,000 samples (Sheil et al. 2002).

See full tableTable 1. Coverage of hotspots.

Figure 2View larger versionFigure 2. Latitudinal coverage. The percentage of Studies (circles), Sites (crosses) and samples (pluses) in five-degree bands of latitude. We computed each Study's latitude as the median of its Sites’ latitudes. The solid and dashed lines show the percentage of total terrestrial area and percentage of total terrestrial NPP, respectively, in each five-degree band (see “ Biogeographical coverage ” in Methods). The dotted horizontal lines indicate the extent of the tropics.

The best-represented biomes are “Temperate Broadleaf and Mixed Forests” and “Tropical and Subtropical Moist Broadleaf Forests” (Figs 3, 4). “Flooded Grasslands and Savannas” is the only biome that is unrepresented in our database (Figs 3, 4); although this biome is responsible for only 0.7% of global terrestrial net primary productivity, it is nevertheless ecologically important and will be a priority for future collation efforts. Two biomes – “Tundra” and “Deserts and Xeric Shrublands” – are underrepresented relative to their areas. Of the world's 17 megadiverse countries identified by Mittermeier et al. (1997), only Democratic Republic of Congo is not represented (Figure S4). The vast majority of sampling took place after the year 2000 (Fig. 3), reflecting our desire to collate diversity data that can be related to MODIS data, which are available from early 2000 onwards. The database's coverage of realms, biomes, countries, regions and subregions is shown in Supplementary Tables S5–S11.

Figure 3View larger versionFigure 3. Spatiotemporal sampling coverage. Site sampling dates by biome (A) and absolute latitude (B). Each Site is represented by a circle and line. Circle radii are proportional to log₁₀ of the number of samples at that Site. Circle centers are at the midpoints of Site sampling dates; lines indicate the start and end dates of sampling. Y-values in (A) have been jittered at the study level. Circles and lines have the same degree of partial transparency. Biome colors and letters in (A) are as in Fig. 1. Colors in (B) indicate biogeographic realm.

Figure 4View larger versionFigure 4. Coverage of biomes. The percentage of Studies (A and B), Sites (C and D) and samples (E and F) against percentages of terrestrial NPP (A, C and E) and terrestrial area (B, D and F). Biome colors and letters are as in Fig. 1.

The distribution of Site-level predominant land use and use intensity is different from the distribution of the estimated total terrestrial area in each land use/land-use intensity combination for 2005 (χ2 = 28,243.21, df = 16, P < 2.2 × 10⁻¹⁶; we excluded “Urban”/”Light use” from this test because the HYDE and Global Land Systems datasets did not allow us to compute an estimate for this combination). The main discrepancies are that the database has far fewer than expected Sites that are classified as “Primary habitat”/“Minimal use”, “Secondary vegetation”/“Light use” and “Pasture”/“Light use” (Fig. 5). We were unable to assign a classification of predominant land use to 3.34% of Sites and of use intensity to 12.09% of Sites. The most common fragmentation layout was “Representative part of a fragmented landscape” (27.95% of Sites; Table S12) – a classification that indicates either that a Site is large enough to encompass multiple habitat types or that the Site is of a particular habitat type that is inherently fragmented and dominates the landscape e.g., the site is in an agricultural field and the landscape is comprised of many fields. We were unable to assign a fragmentation layout to 15.47% of Sites. We were able to determine the maximum linear extent of sampling for 60.09% of Sites – values range from 0.2 m to 39.15 km; median 120 m (Figure S5). The precise sampling days are known for 45.44% of Sites; 42.19% are known to the nearest month and 12.37% to the nearest year. The median sampling duration was 91 days; sampling lasted for 1 day or less at 9.90% of Sites (Figure S6). The area of habitat containing the site is known for 25.49% of Sites – values are approximately log-normally distributed (median 40,000 square meters; Figure S7). We reviewed all cases of Sites falling outside the GIS polygons for countries (0.82% of Sites; Figure S8) and ecoregions (0.52% of Sites; Figure S9). These Sites were either on coasts and/or on islands too small to be included in the GIS dataset in question.

Figure 5View larger versionFigure 5. Representativeness of predominant land use and land-use intensity classes. Numbers are the percentage of Sites assigned to each combination of land use and intensity. Numbers in brackets and colors are the differences between these and the proportional estimated total terrestrial area of each combination of land use and land-use intensity for 2005, computed from the HYDE (Hurtt et al. 2011) and Global Land Systems datasets (van Asselen and Verburg 2012); no difference is shown for “Urban”/”Light use” because these datasets did not allow us to compute an estimate for this combination. The 12.15% of Sites that could not be assigned a classification for predominant land use and/or land-use intensity are not shown.

The database contains measurements of approximately 28,735 species (see “ Counting the number of species ” in Methods) – 17,733 animals, 10,201 plants, 800 fungi and 1 protozoan. We were unable to place 97 taxa in a higher taxonomic group because they were not sufficiently well resolved. The database contains more than 1% as many species as have been described within 20 higher taxonomic groups (Fig. 6). Birds are particularly well represented, reflecting the sampling bias in favor of this charismatic group. Our database contains measurements of 2,479 species of birds – 24.81% of those described (Chapman 2009) – and 2,368 of these are resolved to either species or infraspecies levels. A total of 228,644 samples – more than 14% of the entire database – are of birds. In contrast, just 397 species of mammals are represented, but even this constitutes 7.24% of described species. Chiroptera (bats) are the best-represented mammalian order with 188 species. Of the 115,000 estimated described species of Hymenoptera, 3,556 (3.09%) are represented in the database, the best representation of an invertebrate group. The hymenopteran family with the most species in the database is Formicidae with 2,060 species. The database contains data for 4,056 species of Coleoptera – 1.07% of described beetles. Carabidae is the best-represented beetle family with 2,060 species. Some higher taxonomic groups have well below 1% representation and, as might be expected, the database has poor coverage of groups for which the majority of species are marine – nematodes, crustaceans and molluscs.

Figure 6View larger versionFigure 6. Taxonomic coverage. The number of species in our database against the number of described species as estimated by Chapman (2009). Vertebrates are shown in red, arthropods in pink, other animals in gray, plants in green and fungi in blue. The dashed, solid and dotted lines indicate 10, 1 and 0.1% representation, respectively. Groups with just a single species in the database – Diplura, Mycetozoa, Onychophora, Pauropoda, Phasmida, Siphonaptera, Symphyla and Zoraptera – are not shown.

Of the 28,735 species, 43.26% are matched to a COL record with a rank of species or infraspecies, 37.47% to a COL record with a rank of genus and 19.27% to a COL record with a higher taxonomic rank (Fig. 7). The species with the largest number of measurements – 1,305 – is Bombus pascuorum (the common carder bee), and bees constitute 35 of the top 100 most frequently sampled species: this results from a PREDICTS subproject that is examining pollinators. Birds make up most of the remaining top 100, with 36 species. Of the 407 Studies, 126 sampled within a single order (Fig. 8); just 12 Studies examined a single species. The six most commonly examined higher taxonomic groups are Tracheophyta (12.04% of Studies), Aves (11.06%), Hymenoptera (7.86%), Arthropoda (4.67%), Formicidae (4.67%) and Insecta (4.42%). The database contains 17,802 unique values of “Best guess binomial”. The overlap with species attribute databases is often much higher than would be expected by chance (Table 2), greatly facilitating analyses that integrate PREDICTS data with species attributes (Newbold et al. 2013, 2014a).

See full tableTable 2. Names represented in species attribute databases.

Figure 7View larger versionFigure 7. Cumulative percentage of species in the database, by the taxonomic rank at which the name was matched to COL.

Figure 8View larger versionFigure 8. Number of Studies by lowest common taxonomic group. Bars show the number of Studies within each lowest common taxon (so, one Study examined the species Swietenia macrophylla, three Studies examined the species Bombus pascuorum, ten Studies examined multiple species within the genus Bombus, and so on). Colors are as in Figure 6. Numbers on the right are the primary references from which data were taken: 1 López-Quintero et al. 2012; 2 Buscardo et al. 2008; 3 Domínguez et al. 2012; 4 Nöske et al. 2008; 5 Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) 2013a; 6 Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) 2013b; 7 Sheil et al. 2002; 8 Dumont et al. 2009; 9 Proenca et al. 2010; 10 Baeten et al. 2010a,b; 11 Richardson et al. 2005; 12 Schon et al. 2011; 13 Muchane et al. 2012; 14 Vázquez and Simberloff 2002; 15 Bouyer et al. 2007; 16 O'Connor 2005; 17 Higuera and Wolf 2010; 18 Kati et al. 2012; 19 Lucas-Borja et al. 2011; 20 Louhaichi et al. 2009; 21 Power et al. 2012; 22 Brearley 2011; 23 Baeten et al. 2010a; 24 Williams et al. 2009; 25 Mayfield et al. 2006; 26 Kolb and Diekmann 2004; 27 Phalan et al. 2011; 28 Vassilev et al. 2011; 29 Paritsis and Aizen 2008; 30 Boutin et al. 2008; 31 Baur et al. 2006; 32 Fensham et al. 2012; 33 Brunet et al. 2011; 34 Kessler et al. 2009; 35 Hylander and Nemomissa 2009; 36 Barlow et al. 2007; 37 Kumar and Shahabuddin 2005; 38 Kessler et al. 2005; 39 Hietz 2005; 40 Krauss et al. 2004; 41 Hernández et al. 2012; 42 Calviño-Cancela et al. 2012; 43 Golodets et al. 2010; 44 Castro et al. 2010; 45 Milder et al. 2010; 46 Helden and Leather 2004; 47 McNamara et al. 2012; 48 Katovai et al. 2012; 49 Berry et al. 2010; 50 Letcher and Chazdon 2009; 51 Romero-Duque et al. 2007; 52 Marin-Spiotta et al. 2007; 53 Power and Stout 2011; 54 Norfolk et al. 2012; 55 Poveda et al. 2012; 56 Cabra-García et al. 2012; 57 Turner and Foster 2009; 58 Woodcock et al. 2007; 59 Lachat et al. 2006; 60 Rousseau et al. 2013; 61 Nakamura et al. 2003; 62 Basset et al. 2008; 63 Hanley 2011; 64 Billeter et al. 2008; Diekötter et al. 2008; Le Féon et al. 2010; 65 Sung et al. 2012; 66 St-Laurent et al. 2007; 67 Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE) 2010; 68 Endo et al. 2010; 69 Alcala et al. 2004; 70 Bicknell and Peres 2010; 71 Woinarski et al. 2009; 72 Garden et al. 2010; 73 Hylander and Weibull 2012; 74 Giordano et al. 2004; 75 Ström et al. 2009; 76 Römbke et al. 2009; 77 Giordani 2012; 78 Hu and Cao 2008; 79 Edenius et al. 2011; 80 O'Dea and Whittaker 2007; 81 Ims and Henden 2012; 82 Rosselli 2011; 83 Arbeláez-Cortés et al. 2011; 84 Santana et al. 2012; 85 Sheldon et al. 2010; 86 Wang et al. 2010; 87 Sodhi et al. 2010; 88 Naoe et al. 2012; 89 Cerezo et al. 2011; 90 Lantschner et al. 2008; 91 Chapman and Reich 2007; 92 Báldi et al. 2005; 93 Farwig et al. 2008; 94 Shahabuddin and Kumar 2007; 95 Borges 2007; 96 Wunderle et al. 2006; 97 Politi et al. 2012; 98 Moreno-Mateos et al. 2011; 99 Mallari et al. 2011; 100 Latta et al. 2011; 101 Sosa et al. 2010; 102 Miranda et al. 2010; 103 Flaspohler et al. 2010; 104 Bóçon 2010; 105 Azpiroz and Blake 2009; 106 Aben et al. 2008; 107 Cockle et al. 2005; 108 Vergara and Simonetti 2004; 109 Azhar et al. 2013; 110 Reid et al. 2012; 111 Neuschulz et al. 2011; 112 Dawson et al. 2011; 113 Naidoo 2004; 114 Dures and Cumming 2010; 115 Meyer et al. 2009; 116 Summerville 2011; 117 Cleary et al. 2004; 118 Mudri-Stojnic et al. 2012; 119 Schüepp et al. 2011; 120 Bates et al. 2011; 121 Quintero et al. 2010; 122 Vergara and Badano 2009; 123 Kohler et al. 2008; 124 Meyer et al. 2007, 125 Hoffmann and Zeller 2005; 126 Caceres et al. 2010; 127 Lantschner et al. 2012; 128 Wells et al. 2007; 129 Bernard et al. 2009; 130 Martin et al. 2012; 131 Gheler-Costa et al. 2012; 132 Sridhar et al. 2008; 133 Scott et al. 2006; 134 Oke 2013; 135 Oke and Chokor 2009; 136 Kappes et al. 2012; 137 Walker et al. 2006; 138 Lo-Man-Hung et al. 2008; 139 Zaitsev et al. 2002; 140 Robles et al. 2011; 141 Brito et al. 2012; 142 Luja et al. 2008; 143 Smith-Pardo and Gonzalez 2007; 144 Schüepp et al. 2012; 145 Tylianakis et al. 2005; 146 Verboven et al. 2012; 147 Osgathorpe et al. 2012; 148 Tonietto et al. 2011; 149 Samnegård et al. 2011; 150 Cameron et al. 2011; 151 Malone et al. 2010; 152 Marshall et al. 2006; 153 Shuler et al. 2005; 154 Quaranta et al. 2004; 155 Légaré et al. 2011; 156 Noreika 2009; 157 Otavo et al. 2013; 158 Numa et al. 2012; 159 Jonsell 2012; 160 Mico et al. 2013; 161 Rodrigues et al. 2013; 162 Sugiura et al. 2009; 163 Verdú et al. 2007; 164 Banks et al. 2007; 165 Elek and Lovei 2007; 166 Fukuda et al. 2009; 167 Castro-Luna et al. 2007; 168 Shafie et al. 2011; 169 Struebig et al. 2008; 170 Threlfall et al. 2012; 171 Presley et al. 2008; 172 Willig et al. 2007; 173 MacSwiney et al. 2007; 174 Clarke et al. 2005; 175 Sedlock et al. 2008; 176 Verdasca et al. 2012; 177 D'Aniello et al. 2011; 178 Berg et al. 2011; 179 Summerville et al. 2006; 180 Hawes et al. 2009; 181 Cleary and Mooers 2006; 182 Krauss et al. 2003; 183 Ishitani et al. 2003; 184 Safian et al. 2011; 185 Furlani et al. 2009; 186 Isaacs-Cubides and Urbina-Cardona 2011; 187 Gutierrez-Lamus 2004; 188 Adum et al. 2013; 189 Watling et al. 2009; 190 Pillsbury and Miller 2008; 191 Pineda and Halffter 2004; 192 Ofori-Boateng et al. 2013; 193 de Souza et al. 2008; 194 Faruk et al. 2013; 195 Hilje and Aide 2012; 196 Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI) 2013; 197 Zaitsev et al. 2006; 198 Arroyo et al. 2005; 199 Paradis and Work 2011; 200 Buddle and Shorthouse 2008; 201 Kapoor 2008; 202 Alcayaga et al. 2013; 203 Magura et al. 2010; 204 Littlewood et al. 2012; 205 Kőrösi et al. 2012; 206 Oliveira et al. 2013; 207 Carrijo et al. 2009; 208 Reis and Cancello 2007; 209 Chauvat et al. 2007; 210 Otto and Roloff 2012; 211 Zimmerman et al. 2011; 212 Pelegrin and Bucher 2012; 213 Savage et al. 2011; 214 Bragagnolo et al. 2007; 215 Jung and Powell 2011; 216 Bartolommei et al. 2013; 217 Dominguez-Haydar and Armbrecht 2010; 218 Armbrecht et al. 2006; 219 Hashim et al. 2010; 220 Schmidt et al. 2012; 221 Maeto and Sato 2004; 222 Bihn et al. 2008; 223 Delabie et al. 2009; 224 Fayle et al. 2010; 225 Gove et al. 2005; 226 Buczkowski and Richmond 2012; 227 Buczkowski 2010; 228 Noriega et al. 2012; 229 Navarro et al. 2011; 230 Noriega et al. 2007; 231 Horgan 2009; 232 Gardner et al. 2008; 233 da Silva 2011; 234 Silva et al. 2010; 235 Jacobs et al. 2010; 236 Slade et al. 2011; 237 Filgueiras et al. 2011; 238 Navarrete and Halffter 2008; 239 Davis and Philips 2005; 240 Parra-H and Nates-Parra 2007; 241 Fierro et al. 2012; 242 Nielsen et al. 2011; 243 Julier and Roulston 2009; 244 Winfree et al. 2007; 245 Hanley 2005; 246 Liu et al. 2012; 247 Gu et al. 2004; 248 Noreika and Kotze 2012; 249 Rey-Velasco and Miranda-Esquivel 2012; 250 Vanbergen et al. 2005; 251 Koivula et al. 2004; 252 Weller and Ganzhorn 2004; 253 Carvalho et al. 2010; 254 Aguilar-Barquero and Jiménez-Hernández 2009; 255 Fermon et al. 2005; 256 Ribeiro and Freitas 2012; 257 Gottschalk et al. 2007; 258 Cagle 2008; 259 Johnson et al. 2008; 260 Su et al. 2011; 261 Saldana-Vazquez et al. 2010; 262 Nicolas et al. 2009; 263 Sakchoowong et al. 2008; 264 Yoshikura et al. 2011; 265 Hanley et al. 2011; 266 Connop et al. 2011; 267 Redpath et al. 2010; 268 Goulson et al. 2010; 269 Goulson et al. 2008; 270 Hatfield and LeBuhn 2007; 271 McFrederick and LeBuhn 2006; 272 Diekötter et al. 2006; 273 Darvill et al. 2004; 274 Matsumoto et al. 2009; 275 Knight et al. 2009; 276 Herrmann et al. 2007; 277 Ancrenaz et al. 2004; 278 Felton et al. 2003; 279 Knop et al. 2004; 280 Davis et al. 2010; 281 Hanson et al. 2008; 282 Ferreira and Alves 2005; 283 Luskin 2010; 284 Grogan et al. 2008.

Of the 284 Data Sources, 271 were taken from articles published in scientific peer-reviewed journals; the rest came from unpublished data (5), internet databases (3), PhD theses (2), agency reports (1) and other sources (2). The vast majority – 273 (96.13%) – of Data Sources are taken from English articles; the remainder are in Mandarin (0.35%), Portuguese (1.06%) or Spanish (2.46%). 29.15% of Data Sources come from just four journals (Fig. 9): Biological Conservation (11.07%), Biodiversity and Conservation (8.86%), Forest Ecology & Management (5.17%) and Journal of Applied Ecology (4.06%). The Journal of Applied Ecology contributed many more Studies, Sites and samples than expected from the number of Data Sources (Fig. 9) because of a single Data Source that contributed 21 pan-European Studies and over 140,000 samples (data taken from Billeter et al. 2008; Diekötter et al. 2008 and Le Féon et al. 2010).

Figure 9View larger versionFigure 9. Data contributions by journal. The percentage of Data Sources (bars), Studies (circles), Sites (crosses) and samples (pluses) taken from each journal. Only journals from which more than one Data Source was taken are shown.

Discussion

The coverage of the PREDICTS dataset illustrates the large number of published articles that are based on local-scale empirical data of the responses of diversity either to a difference in land-use type or along a gradient of land-use intensity or other human pressure. Such data can be used to model spatial responses of local communities to anthropogenic pressures and thus changes over time. This is essential for understanding the impact of biodiversity loss on ecosystem function and ecosystem services, which operate at the local level (Fontaine et al. 2006; Isbell et al. 2011; Cardinale et al. 2012; Hooper et al. 2012). Regardless of scale, no single Study is or could ever be representative, but the sheer number and diversity of Studies means that a collation of these data can provide relatively representative coverage of biodiversity. The majority of Data Sources (271 of 284) come from peer-reviewed publications and all data have used peer-reviewed sampling procedures. There are doubtless very many more published data than we have so far acquired and been given permission to use. For the majority of Data Sources (225), it was necessary to contact the author(s) in order to get more information such as the Site coordinates or the names of the taxa studied: even now that supplementary data are commonplace and often extensive, we usually had to request more detail than had been published.

The database currently lacks Sites in ten biodiversity hotspots and one megadiverse country (Democratic Republic of the Congo). It also has no data from many large tropical or partially tropical countries such as Angola, Tanzania and Zambia. Many countries are underrepresented given their area and/or the distinctiveness of their biota e.g., Australia, China, Madagascar, New Zealand, Russia and South Africa. We have few data from islands and just 57 Sites from the biogeographic realm of Oceania (Fig. 3 and Table S8): we have not yet directly targeted Oceania or island biota more generally. The database contains no studies of microbial diversity and few of parasites – major shortcomings that also apply to other large biodiversity databases such as the Living Planet Index (WWF International 2012), the IUCN Red List (International Union for Conservation of Nature 2013) and BIOFRAG (Pfeifer et al. 2014). Fewer than 50% of the taxa in our database are matched to a Catalogue of Life record with a rank of species or infraspecies (Fig. 6). The quality and coverage of taxonomic databases continues to improve and we hope to improve our database's coverage by making use of new Catalogue of Life checklists as they become available. Improved software would permit the use of fuzzy searches to reduce the current manual work required to curate taxonomic names.

Intersecting our data with datasets of species attributes (Table 2) indicates much greater overlap among large-scale data resources than might be expected simply based on overall numbers of species. This suggests that the same species are being studied for different purposes, because of either ubiquity, abundance, interest or location. In one sense this is useful, allowing a thorough treatment of certain groups of species, for example by incorporating trait data in analyses. On the other hand, it highlights the fact that many species are poorly studied in terms of distribution, traits and responses to environmental change. Indeed, many taxonomic groups that matter greatly for ecosystem functions (e.g., earthworms, fungi) are routinely underrepresented in data compilations (Cardoso et al. 2011; Norris 2012), including – despite our efforts toward representativeness – ours.

The PREDICTS database is a work in progress, but already represents the most comprehensive database of its kind of which we are aware. Associated with this article is a site-level extract of the data: columns are described in Table S13. The complete database will be made publicly available in 2015, before which we will attempt to improve all aspects of its coverage by targeting underrepresented hotspots, realms, biomes, countries and taxonomic groups. In addition to taking data from published articles, we will integrate measurements from existing large published datasets, where possible. We welcome and greatly value all contributions of suitable data; please contact us at enquiries@predicts.org.uk.

Acknowledgments

We thank the following who either contributed or collated data: The Nature Conservation Foundation, E.L. Alcala, Paola Bartolommei, Yves Basset, Bruno Baur, Felicity Bedford, Roberto Bóçon, Sergio Borges, Cibele Bragagnolo, Christopher Buddle, Rob Bugter, Nilton Caceres, Nicolette Cagle, Zhi Ping Cao, Kim Chapman, Kristina Cockle, Giorgio Colombo, Adrian Davis, Emily Davis, Jeff Dawson, Moisés Barbosa de Souza, Olivier Deheuvels, Jiménez Hernández Fabiola, Aisyah Faruk, Roderick Fensham, Heleen Fermon, Catarina Ferreira, Toby Gardner, Carly Golodets, Wei Bin Gu, Doris Gutierrez-Lamus, Mike Harfoot, Farina Herrmann, Peter Hietz, Anke Hoffmann, Tamera Husseini, Juan Carlos Iturrondobeitia, Debbie Jewitt, M.F. Johnson, Heike Kappes, Daniel L. Kelly, Mairi Knight, Matti Koivula, Jochen Krauss, Patrick Lavelle, Yunhui Liu, Nancy Lo-Man-Hung, Matthew S. Luskin, Cristina MacSwiney, Takashi Matsumoto, Quinn S. McFrederick, Sean McNamara, Estefania Mico, Daniel Rafael Miranda-Esquivel, Elder F. Morato, David Moreno-Mateos, Luis Navarro, Violaine Nicolas, Catherine Numa, Samuel Eduardo Otavo, Clint Otto, Simon Paradis, Finn Pillsbury, Eduardo Pineda, Jaime Pizarro-Araya, Martha P. Ramirez-Pinilla, Juan Carlos Rey-Velasco, Alex Robinson, Marino Rodrigues, Jean-Claude Ruel, Watana Sakchoowong, Jade Savage, Nicole Schon, Dawn Scott, Nur Juliani Shafie, Frederick Sheldon, Hari Sridhar, Martin-Hugues St-Laurent, Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter, Zhimin Su, Shinji Sugiura, Keith Summerville, Henry Tiandun, Diego Vázquez, José Verdú, Rachael Winfree, Volkmar Wolters, Joseph Wunderle, Sakato Yoshikura and Gregory Zimmerman.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Supplementary Material

Open In Web Browser

Articles from Ecology and Evolution are provided here courtesy of Wiley-Blackwell

PMC Copyright Notice

The articles available from the PMC site are protected by copyright, even though access is free. Copyright is held by the respective authors or publishers who provide these articles to PMC. Users of PMC are responsible for complying with the terms and conditions defined by the copyright holder.

Users should assume that standard copyright protection applies to articles in PMC, unless an article contains an explicit license statement that gives a user additional reuse or redistribution rights. PMC does not allow automated/bulk downloading of articles that have standard copyright protection.

See the copyright notice on the PMC site, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/copyright/, for further details and specific exceptions.

References

Aben J, Dorenbosch M, Herzog SK, Smolders AJP, Van Der Velde G, authors. Human disturbance affects a deciduous forest bird community in the Andean foothills of Central Bolivia. Bird Conserv. Int. 2008;18:363–380

Adum GB, Eichhorn MP, Oduro W, Ofori-Boateng C, Rodel MO, authors. Two-stage recovery of amphibian assemblages following selective logging of tropical forests. Conserv. Biol. 2013;27:354–363. [PubMed]

Aguilar-Barquero V, Jiménez-Hernández F, authors. Diversidad y distribución de palmas (Arecaceae) en tres fragmentos de bosque muy húmedo en Costa Rica. Rev. Biol. Trop. 2009;57(Supplement 1):83–92

Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI). 2013. . The raw soil arthropods dataset and the raw trees & snags dataset from Prototype Phase (2003–2006) and Rotation 1 (2007-2012) [http://www.abmi.ca].

Alcala EL, Alcala AC, Dolino CN, authors. Amphibians and reptiles in tropical rainforest fragments on Negros Island, the Philippines. Environ. Conserv. 2004;31:254–261

Alcayaga OE, Pizarro-Araya J, Alfaro FM, Cepeda-Pizarro J, authors. Spiders (Arachnida, Araneae) associated to agroecosystems in the Elqui Valley (Coquimbo Region, Chile). Rev. Colomb. Entomol. 2013;39:150–154

Algar AC, Kharouba HM, Young ER, Kerr JT, authors. Predicting the future of species diversity: macroecological theory, climate change, and direct tests of alternative forecasting methods. Ecography. 2009;32:22–33

Alkemade R, van Oorschot M, Miles L, Nellemann C, Bakkenes M, ten Brink B, authors. GLOBIO3: a framework to investigate options for reducing global terrestrial biodiversity loss. Ecosystems. 2009;12:374–390

Ancrenaz M, Goossens B, Gimenez O, Sawang A, Lackman-Ancrenaz I, authors. Determination of ape distribution and population size using ground and aerial surveys: a case study with orang-utans in lower Kinabatangan, Sabah, Malaysia. Anim. Conserv. 2004;7:375–385

Arbeláez-Cortés E, Rodríguez-Correa HA, Restrepo-Chica M, authors. Mixed bird flocks: patterns of activity and species composition in a region of the Central Andes of Colombia. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 2011;82:639–651

Armbrecht I, Perfecto I, Silverman E, authors. Limitation of nesting resources for ants in Colombian forests and coffee plantations. Ecol. Entomol. 2006;31:403–410

Arroyo J, Iturrondobeitia JC, Rad C, Gonzalez-Carcedo S, authors. Oribatid mite (Acari) community structure in steppic habitats of Burgos Province, central northern Spain. J. Nat. Hist. 2005;39:3453–3470

van Asselen S, Verburg PH, authors. A Land System representation for global assessments and land-use modelling. Glob. Change Biol. 2012;18:3125–3148

Azhar B, Lindenmayer DB, Wood J, Fischer J, Manning A, McElhinny C, et al., authors. The influence of agricultural system, stand structural complexity and landscape context on foraging birds in oil palm landscapes. Ibis. 2013;155:297–312

Azpiroz AB, Blake JG, authors. Avian assemblages in altered and natural grasslands in the northern Campos of Uruguay. Condor. 2009;111:21–35

Baeten L, Hermy M, Van Daele S, Verheyen K, authors. Unexpected understorey community development after 30 years in ancient and post-agricultural forests. J. Ecol. 2010a;98:1447–1453

Baeten L, Velghe D, Vanhellemont M, De Frenne P, Hermy M, Verheyen K, authors. Early trajectories of spontaneous vegetation recovery after intensive agricultural land use. Restor. Ecol. 2010b;18:379–386

Báldi A, Batáry P, Erdős S, authors. Effects of grazing intensity on bird assemblages and populations of Hungarian grasslands. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2005;108:251–263

Banks JE, Sandvik P, Keesecker L, authors. Beetle (Coleoptera) and spider (Araneae) diversity in a mosaic of farmland, edge, and tropical forest habitats in western Costa Rica. Pan-Pac. Entomol. 2007;83:152–160

Barlow J, Gardner TA, Araujo IS, Avila-Pires TC, Bonaldo AB, Costa JE, et al., authors. Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary, and plantation forests. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2007;104:18555–18560. [PubMed]

Bartolommei P, Mortelliti A, Pezzo F, Puglisi L, authors. Distribution of nocturnal birds (Strigiformes and Caprimulgidae) in relation to land-use types, extent and configuration in agricultural landscapes of Central Italy. Rend. Lincei. Sci. Fis. Nat. 2013;24:13–21

Basset Y, Missa O, Alonso A, Miller SE, Curletti G, De Meyer M, et al., authors. Changes in arthropod assemblages along a wide gradient of disturbance in Gabon. Conserv. Biol. 2008;22:1552–1563. [PubMed]

Bates AJ, Sadler JP, Fairbrass AJ, Falk SJ, Hale JD, Matthews TJ, authors. Changing bee and hoverfly pollinator assemblages along an urban-rural gradient. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e23459 [PubMed]

Baur B, Cremene C, Groza G, Rakosy L, Schileyko AA, Baur A, et al., authors. Effects of abandonment of subalpine hay meadows on plant and invertebrate diversity in Transylvania, Romania. Biol. Conserv. 2006;132:261–273

Berg A, Ahrne K, Ockinger E, Svensson R, Soderstrom B, authors. Butterfly distribution and abundance is affected by variation in the Swedish forest-farmland landscape. Biol. Conserv. 2011;144:2819–2831

Bernard H, Fjeldsa J, Mohamed M, authors. A case study on the effects of disturbance and conversion of tropical lowland rain forest on the non-volant small mammals in north Borneo: management implications. Mammal Study. 2009;34:85–96

Berry NJ, Phillips OL, Lewis SL, Hill JK, Edwards DP, Tawatao NB, et al., authors. The high value of logged tropical forests: lessons from northern Borneo. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010;19:985–997

Bicknell J, Peres CA, authors. Vertebrate population responses to reduced-impact logging in a neotropical forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 2010;259:2267–2275

Bihn JH, Verhaagh M, Braendle M, Brandl R, authors. Do secondary forests act as refuges for old growth forest animals? Recovery of ant diversity in the Atlantic forest of Brazil. Biol. Conserv. 2008;141:733–743

Billeter R, Liira J, Bailey D, Bugter R, Arens P, Augenstein I, et al., authors. Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: a pan-European study. J. Appl. Ecol. 2008;45:141–150

Blois JL, Williams JW, Fitzpatrick MC, Jackson ST, Ferrier S, authors. Space can substitute for time in predicting climate-change effects on biodiversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2013;110:9374–9379. [PubMed]

Bóçon R, author. 2010. . Brazil Universidade Federal do Paraná Riqueza e abundância de aves em três estágios sucessionais da floresta ombrófila densa submontana, Antonina, Paraná. PhD thesis.

Borges SH, author. Bird assemblages in secondary forests developing after slash-and-burn agriculture in the Brazilian Amazon. J. Trop. Ecol. 2007;23:469–477

Boutin C, Baril A, Martin PA, authors. Plant diversity in crop fields and woody hedgerows of organic and conventional farms in contrasting landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008;123:185–193

Bouyer J, Sana Y, Samandoulgou Y, Cesar J, Guerrini L, Kabore-Zoungrana C, et al., authors. Identification of ecological indicators for monitoring ecosystem health in the trans-boundary W Regional park: a pilot study. Biol. Conserv. 2007;138:73–88

Bragagnolo C, Nogueira AA, Pinto-da-Rocha R, Pardini R, authors. Harvestmen in an Atlantic forest fragmented landscape: evaluating assemblage response to habitat quality and quantity. Biol. Conserv. 2007;139:389–400

Brearley FQ, author. Below-ground secondary succession in tropical forests of Borneo. J. Trop. Ecol. 2011;27:413–420

Brito I, Goss MJ, de Carvalho M, Chatagnier O, van Tuinen D, authors. Impact of tillage system on arbuscular mycorrhiza fungal communities in the soil under Mediterranean conditions. Soil Tillage Res. 2012;121:63–67

Brunet J, Valtinat K, Mayr ML, Felton A, Lindbladh M, Bruun HH, authors. Understory succession in post-agricultural oak forests: habitat fragmentation affects forest specialists and generalists differently. For. Ecol. Manage. 2011;262:1863–1871

Buczkowski G, author. Extreme life history plasticity and the evolution of invasive characteristics in a native ant. Biol. Invasions. 2010;12:3343–3349

Buczkowski G, Richmond DS, authors. The effect of urbanization on ant abundance and diversity: a temporal examination of factors affecting biodiversity. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e41729 [PubMed]

Buddle CM, Shorthouse DP, authors. Effects of experimental harvesting on spider (Araneae) assemblages in boreal deciduous forests. Can. Entomol. 2008;140:437–452

Buscardo E, Smith GF, Kelly DL, Freitas H, Iremonger S, Mitchell FJG, et al., authors. The early effects of afforestation on biodiversity of grasslands in Ireland. Biodivers. Conserv. 2008;17:1057–1072

Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, van Strien A, Scharlemann JPW, Almond REA, et al., authors. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science. 2010;328:1164–1168. [PubMed]

Cabra-García J, Bermúdez-Rivas C, Osorio AM, Chacón P, authors. Cross-taxon congruence of alpha and beta diversity among five leaf litter arthropod groups in Colombia. Biodivers. Conserv. 2012;21:1493–1508

Caceres NC, Napoli RP, Casella J, Hannibal W, authors. Mammals in a fragmented savannah landscape in south-western Brazil. J. Nat. Hist. 2010;44:491–512

Cagle NL, author. Snake species distributions and temperate grasslands: a case study from the American tallgrass prairie. Biol. Conserv. 2008;141:744–755

Calviño-Cancela M, Rubido-Bará M, van Etten EJB, authors. Do eucalypt plantations provide habitat for native forest biodiversity? For. Ecol. Manage. 2012;270:153–162

Cameron SA, Lozier JD, Strange JP, Koch JB, Cordes N, Solter LF, et al., authors. Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2011;108:662–667. [PubMed]

Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, et al., authors. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature. 2012;486:59–67. [PubMed]

Cardoso P, Erwin TL, Borges PAV, New TR, authors. The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation and how to overcome them. Biol. Conserv. 2011;144:2647–2655

Carrijo TF, Brandao D, de Oliveira DE, Costa DA, Santos T, authors. Effects of pasture implantation on the termite (Isoptera) fauna in the Central Brazilian Savanna (Cerrado). J. Insect Conserv. 2009;13:575–581

Carvalho ALd, Ferreira EJL, Lima JMT, de Carvalho AL, authors. Floristic and structural comparisons among palm communities in primary and secondary forest fragments of the Raimundo Irineu Serra Environmental Protection Area – Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil. Acta Amazon. 2010;40:657–666

Castro H, Lehsten V, Lavorel S, Freitas H, authors. Functional response traits in relation to land use change in the Montado. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010;137:183–191

Castro-Luna AA, Sosa VJ, Castillo-Campos G, authors. Bat diversity and abundance associated with the degree of secondary succession in a tropical forest mosaic in south-eastern Mexico. Anim. Conserv. 2007;10:219–228

Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). 2013a. . Multidisciplinary Landscape Assessment – Cameroon [http://www.cifor.org/mla].

Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). 2013b. . Multidisciplinary Landscape Assessment – Philippines [http://www.cifor.org/mla].

Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE). 2010. . Unpublished data of reptilian and amphibian diversity in six countries in Central America [http://catie.ac.cr/].

Cerezo A, Conde M, Poggio S, authors. Pasture area and landscape heterogeneity are key determinants of bird diversity in intensively managed farmland. Biodivers. Conserv. 2011;20:2649–2667

Chapman AD, author. Numbers of living species in Australia and the world. 2009. Canberra, Australia: Australian Biological Resources Study; p. 78

Chapman K, Reich P, authors. Land use and habitat gradients determine bird community diversity and abundance in suburban, rural and reserve landscapes of Minnesota, USA. Biol. Conserv. 2007;135:527–541

Chauvat M, Wolters V, Dauber J, authors. Response of collembolan communities to land-use change and grassland succession. Ecography. 2007;30:183–192

Clarke FM, Rostant LV, Racey PA, authors. Life after logging: post-logging recovery of a neotropical bat community. J. Appl. Ecol. 2005;42:409–420

Cleary DFR, Mooers AO, authors. Burning and logging differentially affect endemic vs. widely distributed butterfly species in Borneo. Divers. Distrib. 2006;12:409–416

Cleary DFR, Mooers AO, Eichhorn KAO, van Tol J, de Jong R, Menken SBJ, authors. Diversity and community composition of butterflies and odonates in an ENSO-induced fire affected habitat mosaic: a case study from East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Oikos. 2004;105:426–446

Cockle KL, Leonard ML, Bodrati AA, authors. Presence and abundance of birds in an Atlantic forest reserve and adjacent plantation of shade-grown yerba mate, in Paraguay. Biodivers. Conserv. 2005;14:3265–3288

Connop S, Hill T, Steer J, Shaw P, authors. Microsatellite analysis reveals the spatial dynamics of Bombus humilis and Bombus sylvarum. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2011;4:212–221

Conservation International Foundation. 2011. . The biodiversity hotspots [http://www.conservation.org/where/priority_areas/hotspots/Pages/hotspots_main.aspx].

D'Aniello B, Stanislao I, Bonelli S, Balletto E, authors. Haying and grazing effects on the butterfly communities of two Mediterranean-area grasslands. Biodivers. Conserv. 2011;20:1731–1744

Darvill B, Knight ME, Goulson D, authors. Use of genetic markers to quantify bumblebee foraging range and nest density. Oikos. 2004;107:471–478

Davis ALV, Philips TK, authors. Effect of deforestation on a southwest Ghana dung beetle assemblage (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) at the periphery of Ankasa conservation area. Environ. Entomol. 2005;34:1081–1088

Davis ES, Murray TE, Fitzpatrick U, Brown MJF, Paxton RJ, authors. Landscape effects on extremely fragmented populations of a rare solitary bee, Colletes floralis. Mol. Ecol. 2010;19:4922–4935. [PubMed]

Dawson J, Turner C, Pileng O, Farmer A, McGary C, Walsh C, et al., authors. Bird communities of the lower Waria Valley, Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea: a comparison between habitat types. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2011;4:317–348

Delabie JHC, Cereghino R, Groc S, Dejean A, Gibernau M, Corbara B, et al., authors. Ants as biological indicators of Wayana Amerindian land use in French Guiana. C.R. Biol. 2009;332:673–684. [PubMed]

Dickman CR, author. Habitat fragmentation and vertebrate species richness in an urban environment. J. Appl. Ecol. 1987;24:337–351

Diekötter T, Walther-Hellwig K, Conradi M, Suter M, Frankl R, authors. Effects of landscape elements on the distribution of the rare bumblebee species Bombus muscorum in an agricultural landscape. Biodivers. Conserv. 2006;15:57–68

Diekötter T, Billeter R, Crist TO, authors. Effects of landscape connectivity on the spatial distribution of insect diversity in agricultural mosaic landscapes. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2008;9:298–307

Domínguez E, Bahamonde N, Muñoz-Escobar C, authors. Efectos de la extracción de turba sobre la composición y estructura de una turbera de Sphagnum explotada y abandonada hace 20 años, Chile. Anales Instituto Patagonia (Chile). 2012;40:37–45

Dominguez-Haydar Y, Armbrecht I, authors. Response of ants and their seed removal in rehabilitation areas and forests at El Cerrejon coal mine in Colombia. Restor. Ecol. 2010;19:178–184

Dornelas M, Magurran AE, Buckland ST, Chao A, Chazdon RL, Colwell RK, et al., authors. Quantifying temporal change in biodiversity: challenges and opportunities. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2013;280:10

Dumont B, Farruggia A, Garel JP, Bachelard P, Boitier E, Frain M, authors. How does grazing intensity influence the diversity of plants and insects in a species-rich upland grassland on basalt soils? Grass Forage Sci. 2009;64:92–105

Dures SG, Cumming GS, authors. The confounding influence of homogenising invasive species in a globally endangered and largely urban biome: does habitat quality dominate avian biodiversity? Biol. Conserv. 2010;143:768–777

Edenius L, Mikusinski G, Bergh J, authors. Can repeated fertilizer applications to young Norway spruce enhance avian diversity in intensively managed forests? Ambio. 2011;40:521–527. [PubMed]

Elek Z, Lovei GL, authors. Patterns in ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages along an urbanisation gradient in Denmark. Acta Oecol. 2007;32:104–111. . International Journal of Ecology.

Ellis EC, Goldewijk KK, Siebert S, Lightman D, Ramankutty N, authors. Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2010;19:589–606

Endo W, Peres C, Salas E, Mori S, Sanchez-Vega J, Shepard G, et al., authors. Game vertebrate densities in hunted and nonhunted forest sites in Manu National Park, Peru. Biotropica. 2010;42:251–261

Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. 2011. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute;

Faruk A, Belabut D, Ahmad N, Knell RJ, Garner TWJ, authors. Effects of oil-palm plantations on diversity of tropical anurans. Conserv. Biol. 2013;27:615–624. [PubMed]

Farwig N, Sajita N, Boehning-Gaese K, authors. Conservation value of forest plantations for bird communities in western Kenya. For. Ecol. Manage. 2008;255:3885–3892

Fayle TM, Turner EC, Snaddon JL, Chey VK, Chung AYC, Eggleton P, et al., authors. Oil palm expansion into rain forest greatly reduces ant biodiversity in canopy, epiphytes and leaf-litter. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2010;11:337–345

Feld CK, Sousa JP, da Silva PM, Dawson TP, authors. Indicators for biodiversity and ecosystem services: towards an improved framework for ecosystems assessment. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010;19:2895–2919

Felton AM, Engstrom LM, Felton A, Knott CD, authors. Orangutan population density, forest structure and fruit availability in hand-logged and unlogged peat swamp forests in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biol. Conserv. 2003;114:91–101

Fensham R, Dwyer J, Eyre T, Fairfax R, Wang J, authors. The effect of clearing on plant composition in mulga (Acacia aneura) dry forest, Australia. Austral Ecol. 2012;37:183–192

Fermon H, Waltert M, Vane-Wright RI, Muhlenberg M, authors. Forest use and vertical stratification in fruit-feeding butterflies of Sulawesi, Indonesia: impacts for conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 2005;14:333–350

Ferreira C, Alves PC, authors. Impacto da implementação de medidas de gestão do habitat nas populações de coelho-bravo (Oryctolagus cuniculus algirus) no Parque Natural do Sudoeste Alentejano e Costa Vicentina. 2005. Vairão, Portugal: Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos (CIBIO); p. 95

Fierro MM, Cruz-Lopez L, Sanchez D, Villanueva-Gutierrez R, Vandame R, authors. Effect of biotic factors on the spatial distribution of stingless bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Meliponini) in fragmented neotropical habitats. Neotrop. Entomol. 2012;41:95–104. [PubMed]

Filgueiras B, Iannuzzi L, Leal I, authors. Habitat fragmentation alters the structure of dung beetle communities in the Atlantic Forest. Biol. Conserv. 2011;144:362–369

Flaspohler DJ, Giardina CP, Asner GP, Hart P, Price J, Lyons CK, et al., authors. Long-term effects of fragmentation and fragment properties on bird species richness in Hawaiian forests. Biol. Conserv. 2010;143:280–288

Fontaine C, Dajoz I, Meriguet J, Loreau M, authors. Functional diversity of plant-pollinator interaction webs enhances the persistence of plant communities. PLoS Biol. 2006;4:129–135

Fukuda D, Tisen OB, Momose K, Sakai S, authors. Bat diversity in the vegetation mosaic around a lowland dipterocarp forest of Borneo. Raffles Bull. Zool. 2009;57:213–221

Furlani D, Ficetola GF, Colombo G, Ugurlucan M, De Bernardi F, authors. Deforestation and the structure of frog communities in the Humedale Terraba-Sierpe, Costa Rica. Zoolog. Sci. 2009;26:197–202. [PubMed]

Garden JG, McAlpine CA, Possingham HP, authors. Multi-scaled habitat considerations for conserving urban biodiversity: native reptiles and small mammals in Brisbane, Australia. Landscape Ecol. 2010;25:1013–1028

Gardner TA, Hernandez MIM, Barlow J, Peres CA, authors. Understanding the biodiversity consequences of habitat change: the value of secondary and plantation forests for neotropical dung beetles. J. Appl. Ecol. 2008;45:883–893

Gheler-Costa C, Vettorazzi CA, Pardini R, Verdade LM, authors. The distribution and abundance of small mammals in agroecosystems of southeastern Brazil. Mammalia. 2012;76:185–191

Gibson L, Lee TM, Koh LP, Brook BW, Gardner TA, Barlow J, et al., authors. Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature. 2011;478:378–383. [PubMed]

Giordani P, author. Assessing the effects of forest management on epiphytic lichens in coppiced forests using different indicators. Plant Biosyst. 2012;146:628–637

Giordano S, Sorbo S, Adamo P, Basile A, Spagnuolo V, Cobianchi RC, authors. Biodiversity and trace element content of epiphytic bryophytes in urban and extraurban sites of southern Italy. Plant Ecol. 2004;170:1–14

Golodets C, Kigel J, Sternberg M, authors. Recovery of plant species composition and ecosystem function after cessation of grazing in a Mediterranean grassland. Plant Soil. 2010;329:365–378

Gottschalk MS, De Toni DC, Valente VLS, Hofmann PRP, authors. Changes in Brazilian Drosophilidae (Diptera) assemblages across an urbanisation gradient. Neotrop. Entomol. 2007;36:848–862. [PubMed]

Goulson D, Lye GC, Darvill B, authors. Diet breadth, coexistence and rarity in bumblebees. Biodivers. Conserv. 2008;17:3269–3288

Goulson D, Lepais O, O'Connor S, Osborne JL, Sanderson RA, Cussans J, et al., authors. Effects of land use at a landscape scale on bumblebee nest density and survival. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010;47:1207–1215

Gove AD, Majer JD, Rico-Gray V, authors. Methods for conservation outside of formal reserve systems: the case of ants in the seasonally dry tropics of Veracruz, Mexico. Biol. Conserv. 2005;126:328–338

Grogan J, Jennings SB, Landis RM, Schulze M, Baima AMV, Lopes JDCA, et al., authors. What loggers leave behind: impacts on big-leaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) commercial populations and potential for post-logging recovery in the Brazilian Amazon. For. Ecol. Manage. 2008;255:269–281

Gu W-B, Zhen-Rong Y, Dun-Xiao H, authors. Carabid community and its fluctuation in farmland of salinity transforming area in the North China Plain: a case study in Quzhou County, Hebei Province. Biodivers. Sci. 2004;12:262–268

Gutierrez-Lamus DL, author. Composition and abundance of Anura in two forest types (natural and planted) in the eastern Cordillera of Colombia. Caldasia. 2004;26:245–264

Hanley ME, author. 2005. . Unpublished data of bee diversity in UK croplands.

Hanley ME, author. 2011. . Unpublished data of bee diversity in UK croplands and urban habitats.

Hanley ME, Franco M, Dean CE, Franklin EL, Harris HR, Haynes AG, et al., authors. Increased bumblebee abundance along the margins of a mass flowering crop: evidence for pollinator spill-over. Oikos. 2011;120:1618–1624

Hanson TR, Brunsfeld SJ, Finegan B, Waits LP, authors. Pollen dispersal and genetic structure of the tropical tree Dipteryx panamensis in a fragmented Costa Rican landscape. Mol. Ecol. 2008;17:2060–2073. [PubMed]

Hashim N, Akmal W, Jusoh W, Nasir M, authors. Ant diversity in a Peninsular Malaysian mangrove forest and oil palm plantation. Asian Myrmecol. 2010;3:5–8

Hatfield RG, LeBuhn G, authors. Patch and landscape factors shape community assemblage of bumble bees, Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae), in montane meadows. Biol. Conserv. 2007;139:150–158

Hawes J, da Silva Motta C, Overal WL, Barlow J, Gardner TA, Peres CA, authors. Diversity and composition of Amazonian moths in primary, secondary and plantation forests. J. Trop. Ecol. 2009;25:281–300

Heink U, Kowarik I, authors. What criteria should be used to select biodiversity indicators? Biodivers. Conserv. 2010;19:3769–3797

Helden AJ, Leather SR, authors. Biodiversity on urban roundabouts – Hemiptera, management and the species-area relationship. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2004;5:367–377

Hernández L, Delgado L, Meier W, Duran C, authors. Empobrecimiento de bosques fragmentados en el norte de la Gran Sabana, Venezuela. Interciencia. 2012;37:891–898

Herrmann F, Westphal C, Moritz RFA, Steffan-Dewenter I, authors. Genetic diversity and mass resources promote colony size and forager densities of a social bee (Bombus pascuorum) in agricultural landscapes. Mol. Ecol. 2007;16:1167–1178. [PubMed]

Hietz P, author. Conservation of vascular epiphyte diversity in Mexican coffee plantations. Conserv. Biol. 2005;19:391–399

Higuera D, Wolf JHD, authors. Vascular epiphytes in dry oak forests show resilience to anthropogenic disturbance, Cordillera Oriental, Colombia. Caldasia. 2010;32:161–174

Hilje B, Aide TM, authors. Recovery of amphibian species richness and composition in a chronosequence of secondary forests, northeastern Costa Rica. Biol. Conserv. 2012;146:170–176

Hoffmann A, Zeller U, authors. Influence of variations in land use intensity on species diversity and abundance of small mammals in the Nama Karoo, Namibia. Belg. J. Zool. 2005;135:91–96

Hooper DU, Adair EC, Cardinale BJ, Byrnes JEK, Hungate BA, Matulich KL, et al., authors. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature. 2012;486:105–108. [PubMed]

Horgan FG, author. Invasion and retreat: shifting assemblages of dung beetles amidst changing agricultural landscapes in central Peru. Biodivers. Conserv. 2009;18:3519–3541

Hu C, Cao ZP, authors. Nematode community structure under compost and chemical fertilizer management practice, in the north China plain. Exp. Agric. 2008;44:485–496

Hudson LN, Newbold T, Purves DW, Scharlemann JPW, Mace G, Purvis A, authors. Projecting responses of ecological diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems (PREDICTS): can you help? BES Bull. 2013;44:36–37

Hurtt GC, Chini LP, Frolking S, Betts RA, Feddema J, Fischer G, et al., authors. Harmonization of land-use scenarios for the period 1500-2100: 600 years of global gridded annual land-use transitions, wood harvest, and resulting secondary lands. Clim. Change. 2011;109:117–161

Hylander K, Nemomissa S, authors. Complementary roles of home gardens and exotic tree plantations as alternative habitats for plants of the Ethiopian montane rainforest. Conserv. Biol. 2009;23:400–409. [PubMed]

Hylander K, Weibull H, authors. Do time-lagged extinctions and colonizations change the interpretation of buffer strip effectiveness? – a study of riparian bryophytes in the first decade after logging. J. Appl. Ecol. 2012;49:1316–1324

Ims RA, Henden JA, authors. Collapse of an arctic bird community resulting from ungulate-induced loss of erect shrubs. Biol. Conserv. 2012;149:2–5

International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2013. . The IUCN red list of threatened species [http://www.iucnredlist.org/].

Isaacs-Cubides PJ, Urbina-Cardona JN, authors. Anthropogenic disturbance and edge effects on anuran assemblages inhabiting cloud forest fragments in Colombia. Natureza Conservacao. 2011;9:39–46

Isbell F, Calcagno V, Hector A, Connolly J, Harpole WS, Reich PB, et al., authors. High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature. 2011;477:199–203. [PubMed]

Ishitani M, Kotze DJ, Niemela J, authors. Changes in carabid beetle assemblages across an urban-rural gradient in Japan. Ecography. 2003;26:481–489

Jacobs CT, Scholtz CH, Escobar F, Davis ALV, authors. How might intensification of farming influence dung beetle diversity (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in Maputo Special Reserve (Mozambique)? J. Insect Conserv. 2010;14:389–399

Johnson EA, Miyanishi K, authors. Testing the assumptions of chronosequences in succession. Ecol. Lett. 2008;11:419–431. [PubMed]

Johnson MF, Gómez A, Pinedo-Vasquez M, authors. Land use and mosquito diversity in the Peruvian Amazon. J. Med. Entomol. 2008;45:1023–1030. [PubMed]

Jones KE, Bielby J, Cardillo M, Fritz SA, O'Dell J, Orme DL, et al., authors. PanTHERIA: a species-level database of life history, ecology, and geography of extant and recently extinct mammals. Ecology. 2009;90:2648

Jones JPG, Collen B, Atkinson G, Baxter PWJ, Bubb P, Illian JB, et al., authors. The why, what, and how of global biodiversity indicators beyond the 2010 target. Conserv. Biol. 2011;25:450–457. [PubMed]

Jonsell M, author. Old park trees as habitat for saproxylic beetle species. Biodivers. Conserv. 2012;21:619–642

Julier HE, Roulston TH, authors. Wild bee abundance and pollination service in cultivated pumpkins: farm management, nesting behavior and landscape effects. J. Econ. Entomol. 2009;102:563–573. [PubMed]

Jung TS, Powell T, authors. Spatial distribution of meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius) in logged boreal forest of northwestern Canada. Mammalian Biology. 2011;76:678–682

Justice CO, Vermote E, Townshend JRG, Defries R, Roy DP, Hall DK, et al., authors. The moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer (MODIS): Land remote sensing for global change research. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 1998;36:1228–1249

Kapoor V, author. Effects of rainforest fragmentation and shade-coffee plantations on spider communities in the Western Ghats, India. J. Insect Conserv. 2008;12:53–68

Kappes H, Katzschner L, Nowak C, authors. Urban summer heat load: meteorological data as a proxy for metropolitan biodiversity. Meteorol. Z. 2012;21:525–528

Kati V, Zografou K, Tzirkalli E, Chitos T, Willemse L, authors. Butterfly and grasshopper diversity patterns in humid Mediterranean grasslands: the roles of disturbance and environmental factors. J. Insect Conserv. 2012;16:807–818

Katovai E, Burley AL, Mayfield MM, authors. Understory plant species and functional diversity in the degraded wet tropical forests of Kolombangara Island, Solomon Islands. Biol. Conserv. 2012;145:214–224

Kattge J, Diaz S, Lavorel S, Prentice C, Leadley P, Bonisch G, et al., authors. TRY – a global database of plant traits. Glob. Change Biol. 2011;17:2905–2935

Kessler M, Kessler PJA, Gradstein SR, Bach K, Schmull M, Pitopang R, authors. Tree diversity in primary forest and different land use systems in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Biodivers. Conserv. 2005;14:547–560

Kessler M, Abrahamczyk S, Bos M, Buchori D, Putra DD, Gradstein SR, et al., authors. Alpha and beta diversity of plants and animals along a tropical land-use gradient. Ecol. Appl. 2009;19:2142–2156. [PubMed]

Knight ME, Osborne JL, Sanderson RA, Hale RJ, Martin AP, Goulson D, authors. Bumblebee nest density and the scale of available forage in arable landscapes. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2009;2:116–124

Knop E, Ward PI, Wich SA, authors. A comparison of orang-utan density in a logged and unlogged forest on Sumatra. Biol. Conserv. 2004;120:183–188

Kohler F, Verhulst J, van Klink R, Kleijn D, authors. At what spatial scale do high-quality habitats enhance the diversity of forbs and pollinators in intensively farmed landscapes? J. Appl. Ecol. 2008;45:753–762

Koivula M, Hyyrylainen V, Soininen E, authors. Carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) at forest-farmland edges in southern Finland. J. Insect Conserv. 2004;8:297–309

Kolb A, Diekmann M, authors. Effects of environment, habitat configuration and forest continuity on the distribution of forest plant species. J. Veg. Sci. 2004;15:199–208

Kőrösi Á, Batáry P, Orosz A, Rédei D, Báldi A, authors. Effects of grazing, vegetation structure and landscape complexity on grassland leafhoppers (Hemiptera: Auchenorrhyncha) and true bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) in Hungary. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2012;5:57–66

Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T, authors. How does landscape context contribute to effects of habitat fragmentation on diversity and population density of butterflies? J. Biogeogr. 2003;30:889–900

Krauss J, Klein AM, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T, authors. Effects of habitat area, isolation, and landscape diversity on plant species richness of calcareous grasslands. Biodivers. Conserv. 2004;13:1427–1439

Kumar R, Shahabuddin G, authors. Effects of biomass extraction on vegetation structure, diversity and composition of forests in Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Environ. Conserv. 2005;32:248–259

Lachat T, Attignon S, Djego J, Goergen G, Nagel P, Sinsin B, et al., authors. Arthropod diversity in Lama forest reserve (South Benin), a mosaic of natural, degraded and plantation forests. Biodivers. Conserv. 2006;15:3–23

Landis JR, Koch GG, authors. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174. [PubMed]

Lantschner MV, Rusch V, Peyrou C, authors. Bird assemblages in pine plantations replacing native ecosystems in NW Patagonia. Biodivers. Conserv. 2008;17:969–989

Lantschner MV, Rusch V, Hayes JP, authors. Habitat use by carnivores at different spatial scales in a plantation forest landscape in Patagonia, Argentina. For. Ecol. Manage. 2012;269:271–278

Latta SC, Tinoco BA, Astudillo PX, Graham CH, authors. Patterns and magnitude of temporal change in avian communities in the Ecuadorian Andes. Condor. 2011;113:24–40

Le Féon V, Schermann-Legionnet A, Delettre Y, Aviron S, Billeter R, Bugter R, et al., authors. Intensification of agriculture, landscape composition and wild bee communities: a large scale study in four European countries. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010;137:143–150

Légaré J-P, Hébert C, Ruel J, authors. Alternative silvicultural practices in irregular boreal forests: response of beetle assemblages. Silva Fennica. 2011;45:937–956

Letcher SG, Chazdon RL, authors. Rapid recovery of biomass, species richness, and species composition in a forest chronosequence in northeastern Costa Rica. Biotropica. 2009;41:608–617

Littlewood NA, Pakeman RJ, Pozsgai G, authors. Grazing impacts on Auchenorrhyncha diversity and abundance on a Scottish upland estate. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2012;5:67–74

Liu YH, Axmacher JC, Wang CL, Li LT, Yu ZR, authors. Ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages of restored semi-natural habitats and intensively cultivated fields in northern China. Restor. Ecol. 2012;20:234–239

Lo-Man-Hung NF, Gardner TA, Ribeiro-Júnior MA, Barlow J, Bonaldo AB, authors. The value of primary, secondary, and plantation forests for Neotropical epigeic arachnids. J. Arachnol. 2008;36:394–401

López-Quintero CA, Straatsma G, Franco-Molano AE, Boekhout T, authors. Macrofungal diversity in Colombian Amazon forests varies with regions and regimes of disturbance. Biodivers. Conserv. 2012;21:2221–2243

Louhaichi M, Salkini AK, Petersen SL, authors. Effect of small ruminant grazing on the plant community characteristics of semiarid Mediterranean ecosystems. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2009;11:681–689

Lucas-Borja ME, Bastida F, Moreno JL, Nicolas C, Andres M, Lopez FR, et al., authors. The effects of human trampling on the microbiological properties of soil and vegetation in Mediterranean mountain areas. Land Degrad. Dev. 2011;22:383–394

Luja V, Herrando-Perez S, Gonzalez-Solis D, Luiselli L, authors. Secondary rain forests are not havens for reptile species in tropical Mexico. Biotropica. 2008;40:747–757

Luskin MS, author. Flying foxes prefer to forage in farmland in a tropical dry forest landscape mosaic in Fiji. Biotropica. 2010;42:246–250

Mace GM, Cramer W, Diaz S, Faith DP, Larigauderie A, Le Prestre P, et al., authors. Biodiversity targets after 2010. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2010;2:3–8

MacSwiney MCG, Vilchis PL, Clarke FM, Racey PA, authors. The importance of cenotes in conserving bat assemblages in the Yucatan, Mexico. Biol. Conserv. 2007;136:499–509

Maeto K, Sato S, authors. Impacts of forestry on ant species richness and composition in warm-temperate forests of Japan. For. Ecol. Manage. 2004;187:213–223

Magura T, Horvath R, Tothmeresz B, authors. Effects of urbanization on ground-dwelling spiders in forest patches, in Hungary. Landscape Ecol. 2010;25:621–629

Mallari NAD, Collar NJ, Lee DC, McGowan PJK, Wilkinson R, Marsden SJ, authors. Population densities of understorey birds across a habitat gradient in Palawan, Philippines: implications for conservation. Oryx. 2011;45:234–242

Malone L, Aulsford J, Howlett B, Scott-Dupree C, Bardol N, Donovan B, authors. Observations on bee species visiting white clover in New Zealand pastures. J. Apic. Res. 2010;49:284–286

Marin-Spiotta E, Ostertag R, Silver WL, authors. Long-term patterns in tropical reforestation: plant community composition and aboveground biomass accumulation. Ecol. Appl. 2007;17:828–839. [PubMed]

Marshall EJP, West TM, Kleijn D, authors. Impacts of an agri-environment field margin prescription on the flora and fauna of arable farmland in different landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006;113:36–44

Martin PS, Gheler-Costa C, Lopes PC, Rosalino LM, Verdade LM, authors. Terrestrial non-volant small mammals in agro-silvicultural landscapes of Southeastern Brazil. For. Ecol. Manage. 2012;282:185–195

Matsumoto T, Itioka T, Yamane S, Momose K, authors. Traditional land use associated with swidden agriculture changes encounter rates of the top predator, the army ant, in Southeast Asian tropical rain forests. Biodivers. Conserv. 2009;18:3139–3151

Mayfield MM, Ackerly D, Daily GC, authors. The diversity and conservation of plant reproductive and dispersal functional traits in human-dominated tropical landscapes. J. Ecol. 2006;94:522–536

McFrederick QS, LeBuhn G, authors. Are urban parks refuges for bumble bees Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae)? Biol. Conserv. 2006;129:372–382

McNamara S, Erskine PD, Lamb D, Chantalangsy L, Boyle S, authors. Primary tree species diversity in secondary fallow forests of Laos. For. Ecol. Manage. 2012;281:93–99

Meyer B, Gaebele V, Steffan-Dewenter ID, authors. Patch size and landscape effects on pollinators and seed set of the horseshoe vetch, Hippocrepis comosa, in an agricultural landscape of central Europe. Entomologia Generalis. 2007;30:173–185

Meyer B, Jauker F, Steffan-Dewenter I, authors. Contrasting resource-dependent responses of hoverfly richness and density to landscape structure. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2009;10:178–186

Mico E, Garcia-Lopez A, Brustel H, Padilla A, Galante E, authors. Explaining the saproxylic beetle diversity of a protected Mediterranean area. Biodivers. Conserv. 2013;22:889–904

Milder JC, DeClerck FAJ, Sanfiorenzo A, Sanchez DM, Tobar DE, Zuckerberg B, authors. Effects of farm and landscape management on bird and butterfly conservation in western Honduras. Ecosphere. 2010;1:art2

Miranda MV, Politi N, Rivera LO, authors. Unexpected changes in the bird assemblage in areas under selective logging in piedmont forest in northwestern Argentina. Ornitol. Neotrop. 2010;21:323–337

Mittermeier RA, Gil PR, Mittermeier CG, authors. Megadiversity: earth's biologically wealthiest nations. 1997. Mexico City, Mexico: CEMEX/Agrupación Sierra Madre; p. 501

Moreno-Mateos D, Rey Benayas JM, Perez-Camacho L, de la Montana E, Rebollo S, Cayuela L, authors. Effects of land use on nocturnal birds in a Mediterranean agricultural landscape. Acta Ornithologica. 2011;46:173–182

Muchane MN, Karanja D, Wambugu GM, Mutahi JM, Masiga CW, Mugoya C, et al., authors. Land use practices and their implications on soil macro-fauna in Maasai Mara ecosystem. Int. J. Biodivers. Conserv. 2012;4:500–514

Mudri-Stojnic S, Andric A, Jozan Z, Vujic A, authors. Pollinator diversity (Hymenoptera and Diptera) in semi-natural habitats in Serbia during summer. Arch. Biol. Sci. 2012;64:777–786

Naidoo R, author. Species richness and community composition of songbirds in a tropical forest-agricultural landscape. Anim. Conserv. 2004;7:93–105

Nakamura A, Proctor H, Catterall CP, authors. Using soil and litter arthropods to assess the state of rainforest restoration. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 2003;4(Supplement):S20–S28

Naoe S, Sakai S, Masaki T, authors. Effect of forest shape on habitat selection of birds in a plantation-dominant landscape across seasons: comparison between continuous and strip forests. J. For. Res. 2012;17:219–223

Navarrete D, Halffter G, authors. Dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) diversity in continuous forest, forest fragments and cattle pastures in a landscape of Chiapas, Mexico: the effects of anthropogenic changes. Biodivers. Conserv. 2008;17:2869–2898

Navarro IL, Roman AK, Gomez FH, Perez HA, authors. Seasonal variation in dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) from Serrania de Coraza, Sucre (Colombia). Revista Colombiana de Ciencia Animal. 2011;3:102–110

Neuschulz EL, Botzat A, Farwig N, authors. Effects of forest modification on bird community composition and seed removal in a heterogeneous landscape in South Africa. Oikos. 2011;120:1371–1379

Newbold T, Hudson LN, Purves DW, Scharlemann JPW, Mace G, Purvis A, authors. PREDICTS: projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity in Changing Terrestrial Systems. Front. Biogeogr. 2012;4:155–156

Newbold T, Scharlemann JPW, Butchart SHM, Sekercioglu CH, Alkemade R, Booth H, et al., authors. Ecological traits affect the response of tropical forest bird species to land-use intensity. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2013;280:8

Newbold T, Scharlemann JPW, Butchart SHM, Şekercioğlu ÇH, Joppa L, Alkemade R, et al., authors. Functional traits, land-use change and the structure of present and future bird communities in tropical forests. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2014a;23:1073–1084

Newbold T, Hudson LN, Phillips HRP, Hill SLL, Contu S, Lysenko I, et al., authors. A global model of the response of tropical and sub-tropical forest biodiversity to anthropogenic pressures. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2014b;281:10

Nicolas V, Barriere P, Tapiero A, Colyn M, authors. Shrew species diversity and abundance in Ziama Biosphere Reserve, Guinea: comparison among primary forest, degraded forest and restoration plots. Biodivers. Conserv. 2009;18:2043–2061

Nielsen A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Westphal C, Messinger O, Potts SG, Roberts SPM, et al., authors. Assessing bee species richness in two Mediterranean communities: importance of habitat type and sampling techniques. Ecol. Res. 2011;26:969–983

Noreika N, author. New records of rare species of Coleoptera found in Ukmerg≐ district in 2004–2005. New and Rare for Lithuania Insect Species. 2009;21:68–71

Noreika N, Kotze DJ, authors. Forest edge contrasts have a predictable effect on the spatial distribution of carabid beetles in urban forests. J. Insect Conserv. 2012;16:867–881

Norfolk O, Abdel-Dayem M, Gilbert F, authors. Rainwater harvesting and arthropod biodiversity within an arid agro-ecosystem. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012;162:8–14

Noriega JA, Realpe E, Fagua G, authors. Diversidad de escarabajos coprofagos (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) en un bosque de galeria con tres estadios de alteracion. Univ. Sci. 2007;12:51–63

Noriega JA, Palacio JM, Monroy-G JD, Valencia E, authors. Estructura de un ensamblaje de escarabajos coprofagos (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) en tres sitios con diferente uso del suelo en Antioquia, Colombia. Actualidades Biológicas. 2012;34:43–54

Norris K, author. Biodiversity in the context of ecosystem services: the applied need for systems approaches. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2012;367:191–199. [PubMed]

Nöske NM, Hilt N, Werner FA, Brehm G, Fiedler K, Sipman HJM, et al., authors. Disturbance effects on diversity of epiphytes and moths in a montane forest in Ecuador. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2008;9:4–12

Numa C, Verdu JR, Rueda C, Galante E, authors. Comparing dung beetle species assemblages between protected areas and adjacent pasturelands in a Mediterranean savanna landscape. Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 2012;65:137–143

O'Connor TG, author. Influence of land use on plant community composition and diversity in Highland Sourveld grassland in the southern Drakensberg, South Africa. J. Appl. Ecol. 2005;42:975–988

O'Dea N, Whittaker RJ, authors. How resilient are Andean montane forest bird communities to habitat degradation? Biodivers. Conserv. 2007;16:1131–1159

Ofori-Boateng C, Oduro W, Hillers A, Norris K, Oppong SK, Adum GB, et al., authors. Differences in the effects of selective logging on amphibian assemblages in three west African forest types. Biotropica. 2013;45:94–101

Oke C, author. Land snail diversity in post extraction secondary forest reserves in Edo State, Nigeria. Afr. J. Ecol. 2013;51:244–254

Oke OC, Chokor JU, authors. The effect of land use on snail species richness and diversity in the tropical rainforest of south-western Nigeria. African Sci. 2009;10:95–108

Oliveira DE, Carrijo TF, Brandão D, authors. Species composition of termites (Isoptera) in different Cerrado vegetation physiognomies. Sociobiology. 2013;60:190–197

Osgathorpe LM, Park K, Goulson D, authors. The use of off-farm habitats by foraging bumblebees in agricultural landscapes: implications for conservation management. Apidologie. 2012;43:113–127

Otavo SE, Parrado-Rosselli A, Noriega JA, authors. Scarabaeoidea superfamily (Insecta: Coleoptera) as a bioindicator element of anthropogenic disturbance in an amazon national park. Rev. Biol. Trop. 2013;61:735–752. [PubMed]

Otto CRV, Roloff GJ, authors. Songbird response to green-tree retention prescriptions in clearcut forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 2012;284:241–250

Paradis S, Work TT, authors. Partial cutting does not maintain spider assemblages within the observed range of natural variability in eastern Canadian black spruce forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 2011;262:2079–2093

Paritsis J, Aizen MA, authors. Effects of exotic conifer plantations on the biodiversity of understory plants, epigeal beetles and birds in Nothofagus dombeyi forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 2008;255:1575–1583

Parra-H A, Nates-Parra G, authors. Variation of the orchid bees community (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in three altered habitats of the Colombian “llano” piedmont. Rev. Biol. Trop. 2007;55:931–941. [PubMed]

Pelegrin N, Bucher EH, authors. Effects of habitat degradation on the lizard assemblage in the Arid Chaco, central Argentina. J. Arid Environ. 2012;79:13–19

Pfeifer M, Lefebvre V, Gardner TA, Arroyo-Rodriguez V, Baeten L, Banks-Leite C, et al., authors. BIOFRAG – a new database for analyzing BIOdiversity responses to forest FRAGmentation. Ecol. Evol. 2014;4:1524–1537. [PubMed]

Phalan B, Onial M, Balmford A, Green R, authors. Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science. 2011;333:1289–1291. [PubMed]

Pillsbury FC, Miller JR, authors. Habitat and landscape characteristics underlying anuran community structure along an urban-rural gradient. Ecol. Appl. 2008;18:1107–1118. [PubMed]

Pineda E, Halffter G, authors. Species diversity and habitat fragmentation: frogs in a tropical montane landscape in Mexico. Biol. Conserv. 2004;117:499–508

Politi N, Rivera M Jr, Hunter L, authors. Assessing the effects of selective logging on birds in Neotropical piedmont and cloud montane forests. Biodivers. Conserv. 2012;21:3131–3155

Poveda K, Martinez E, Kersch-Becker M, Bonilla M, Tscharntke T, authors. Landscape simplification and altitude affect biodiversity, herbivory and Andean potato yield. J. Appl. Ecol. 2012;49:513–522

Power EF, Stout JC, authors. Organic dairy farming: impacts on insect-flower interaction networks and pollination. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011;48:561–569

Power EF, Kelly DL, Stout JC, authors. Organic farming and landscape structure: effects on insect-pollinated plant diversity in intensively managed grasslands. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e38073 [PubMed]

Presley SJ, Willig MR, Saldanha JM Jr, Wunderle LN, authors. Effects of reduced-impact logging and forest physiognomy on bat populations of lowland Amazonian forest. J. Appl. Ecol. 2008;45:14–25

Proenca VM, Pereira HM, Guilherme J, Vicente L, authors. Plant and bird diversity in natural forests and in native and exotic plantations in NW Portugal. Acta Oecol. 2010;36:219–226. . International Journal of Ecology .

Quaranta M, Ambroselli S, Barro P, Bella S, Carini A, Celli G, et al., authors. Wild bees in agroecosystems and semi-natural landscapes. 1997-2000 collection period in Italy. Bull. Insectology. 2004;57:11–62

Quintero C, Morales CL, Aizen MA, authors. Effects of anthropogenic habitat disturbance on local pollinator diversity and species turnover across a precipitation gradient. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010;19:257–274

Redpath N, Osgathorpe LM, Park K, Goulson D, authors. Crofting and bumblebee conservation: the impact of land management practices on bumblebee populations in northwest Scotland. Biol. Conserv. 2010;143:492–500

Reichman OJ, Jones MB, Schildhauer MP, authors. Challenges and opportunities of open data in ecology. Science. 2011;331:703–705. [PubMed]

Reid JL, Harris JBC, Zahawi RA, authors. Avian habitat preference in tropical forest restoration in southern Costa Rica. Biotropica. 2012;44:350–359

Reis YT, Cancello EM, authors. Termite (Insecta, Isoptera) richness in primary and secondary Atlantic Forest in southeastern Bahia. Iheringia Ser. Zool. 2007;97:229–234

Rey-Velasco JC, Miranda-Esquivel DR, authors. 2012. . Unpublished data of the response of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in the northeastern Colombian Andes to habitat modification.

Ribeiro DB, Freitas AVL, authors. The effect of reduced-impact logging on fruit-feeding butterflies in Central Amazon, Brazil. J. Insect Conserv. 2012;16:733–744

Richardson BA, Richardson MJ, Soto-Adames FN, authors. Separating the effects of forest type and elevation on the diversity of litter invertebrate communities in a humid tropical forest in Puerto Rico. J. Anim. Ecol. 2005;74:926–936

Robles CA, Carmaran CC, Lopez SE, authors. Screening of xylophagous fungi associated with Platanus acerifolia in urban landscapes: biodiversity and potential biodeterioration. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011;100:129–135

Rodrigues MM, Uchoa MA, Ide S, authors. Dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) in three landscapes in Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. Braz. J. Biol. 2013;73:211–220. [PubMed]

Römbke J, Schmidt P, Höfer H, authors. The earthworm fauna of regenerating forests and anthropogenic habitats in the coastal region of Paraná. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 2009;44:1040–1049

Romero-Duque LP, Jaramillo VJ, Perez-Jimenez A, authors. Structure and diversity of secondary tropical dry forests in Mexico, differing in their prior land-use history. For. Ecol. Manage. 2007;253:38–47

Roskov Y, Kunz T, Paglinawan L, Orrell T, Nicolson D, Culham A, et al., authors. 2013. . Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life, 2013 Annual Checklist [http://catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2013/].

Rosselli L, author. 2011. . Colombia Universidad Nacional de Colombia Factores ambientales relacionados con la presencia y abundancia de las aves de los humedales de la Sabana de Bogotá. PhD thesis.

Rousseau L, Fonte SJ, Tellez O, van der Hoek R, Lavelle P, authors. Soil macrofauna as indicators of soil quality and land use impacts in smallholder agroecosystems of western Nicaragua. Ecol. Ind. 2013;27:71–82

Safian S, Csontos G, Winkler D, authors. Butterfly community recovery in degraded rainforest habitats in the Upper Guinean forest zone (Kakum forest, Ghana). J. Insect Conserv. 2011;15:351–359

Sakchoowong W, Nomura S, Ogata K, Chanpaisaeng J, authors. Diversity of pselaphine beetles (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Pselaphinae) in eastern Thailand. Entomol. Sci. 2008;11:301–313

Saldana-Vazquez RA, Sosa VJ, Hernandez-Montero JR, Lopez-Barrera F, authors. Abundance responses of frugivorous bats (Stenodermatinae) to coffee cultivation and selective logging practices in mountainous central Veracruz, Mexico. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010;19:2111–2124

Samnegård U, Persson AS, Smith HG, authors. Gardens benefit bees and enhance pollination in intensively managed farmland. Biol. Conserv. 2011;144:2602–2606

Santana J, Porto M, Gordinho L, Reino L, Beja P, authors. Long-term responses of Mediterranean birds to forest fuel management. J. Appl. Ecol. 2012;49:632–643

Savage J, Wheeler TA, Moores AMA, Taillefer AG, authors. Effects of habitat size, vegetation cover, and surrounding land use on diptera diversity in temperate nearctic bogs. Wetlands. 2011;31:125–134

Schmidt AC, Fraser LH, Carlyle CN, Bassett ERL, authors. Does cattle grazing affect ant abundance and diversity in temperate grasslands? Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 2012;65:292–298

Schon NL, Mackay AD, Minor MA, authors. Soil fauna in sheep-grazed hill pastures under organic and conventional livestock management and in an adjacent ungrazed pasture. Pedobiologia. 2011;54:161–168

Schüepp C, Herrmann JD, Herzog F, Schmidt-Entling MH, authors. Differential effects of habitat isolation and landscape composition on wasps, bees, and their enemies. Oecologia. 2011;165:713–721. [PubMed]

Schüepp C, Rittiner S, Entling MH, authors. High bee and wasp diversity in a heterogeneous tropical farming system compared to protected forest. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e52109 [PubMed]

Scott DM, Brown D, Mahood S, Denton B, Silburn A, Rakotondraparany F, authors. The impacts of forest clearance on lizard, small mammal and bird communities in the arid spiny forest, southern Madagascar. Biol. Conserv. 2006;127:72–87

Sedlock JL, Weyandt SE, Cororan L, Damerow M, Hwa S, Pauli B, authors. Bat diversity in tropical forest and agro-pastoral habitats within a protected area in the Philippines. Acta Chiropt. 2008;10:349–358

Shafie NJ, Sah SAM, Latip NSA, Azman NM, Khairuddin NL, authors. Diversity pattern of bats at two contrasting habitat types along Kerian River, Perak, Malaysia. Trop. Life Sci. Res. 2011;22:13–22. [PubMed]

Shahabuddin G, Kumar R, authors. Effects of extractive disturbance on bird assemblages, vegetation structure and floristics in tropical scrub forest, Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. For. Ecol. Manage. 2007;246:175–185

Sheil D, Puri RK, Basuki I, van Heist M, Wan M, Liswanti N, et al., authors. Exploring biological diversity, environment and local people's perspectives in forest landscapes: methods for a multidisciplinary landscape assessment. 2002. Jakarta: Research, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). . [http://www.cifor.org/mla].

Sheldon F, Styring A, Hosner P, authors. Bird species richness in a Bornean exotic tree plantation: a long-term perspective. Biol. Conserv. 2010;143:399–407

Shuler RE, Roulston TH, Farris GE, authors. Farming practices influence wild pollinator populations on squash and pumpkin. J. Econ. Entomol. 2005;98:790–795. [PubMed]

da Silva PG, author. 2011. . Brazil Universidade Federal de Santa Maria Espécies de Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) de fragmentos florestais com diferentes níveis de alteração em Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul. MSc thesis.

Silva FAB, Costa CMQ, Moura RC, Farias AI, authors. Study of the dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) community at two sites: atlantic forest and clear-cut, Pernambuco, Brazil. Environ. Entomol. 2010;39:359–367. [PubMed]

Slade EM, Mann DJ, Lewis OT, authors. Biodiversity and ecosystem function of tropical forest dung beetles under contrasting logging regimes. Biol. Conserv. 2011;144:166–174

Smith-Pardo A, Gonzalez VH, authors. Bee diversity (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) in a tropical rainforest succession. Acta Bioló. Colomb. 2007;12:43–55

Sodhi NS, Wilcove DS, Lee TM, Sekercioglu CH, Subaraj R, Bernard H, et al., authors. Deforestation and avian extinction on tropical landbridge islands. Conserv. Biol. 2010;24:1290–1298. [PubMed]

Sosa RA, Benz VA, Galea JM, Poggio Herrero IV, authors. Efecto del grado de disturbio sobre el ensamble de aves en la reserva provincial Parque Luro, La Pampa, Argentina. Revista de la Asociación Argentina de Ecología de Paisajes. 2010;1:101–110

de Souza VM, de Souza B, Morato EF, authors. Effect of the forest succession on the anurans (Amphibia: Anura) of the Reserve Catuaba and its periphery, Acre, southwestern Amazonia. Rev. Bras. Zool. 2008;25:49–57

Sridhar H, Raman TRS, Mudappa D, authors. Mammal persistence and abundance in tropical rainforest remnants in the southern Western Ghats, India. Curr. Sci. 2008;94:748–757

St-Laurent MH, Ferron J, Hins C, Gagnon R, authors. Effects of stand structure and landscape characteristics on habitat use by birds and small mammals in managed boreal forest of eastern Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne de Recherche Forestiere. 2007;37:1298–1309

Ström L, Hylander K, Dynesius M, authors. Different long-term and short-term responses of land snails to clear-cutting of boreal stream-side forests. Biol. Conserv. 2009;142:1580–1587

Struebig MJ, Kingston T, Zubaid A, Mohd-Adnan A, Rossiter SJ, authors. Conservation value of forest fragments to Palaeotropical bats. Biol. Conserv. 2008;141:2112–2126

Su ZM, Zhang RZ, Qiu JX, authors. Decline in the diversity of willow trunk-dwelling weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea) as a result of urban expansion in Beijing, China. J. Insect Conserv. 2011;15:367–377

Sugiura S, Tsuru T, Yamaura Y, Makihara H, authors. Small off-shore islands can serve as important refuges for endemic beetle conservation. J. Insect Conserv. 2009;13:377–385

Summerville KS, author. Managing the forest for more than the trees: effects of experimental timber harvest on forest Lepidoptera. Ecol. Appl. 2011;21:806–816. [PubMed]

Summerville KS, Conoan CJ, Steichen RM, authors. Species traits as predictors of lepidopteran composition in restored and remnant tallgrass prairies. Ecol. Appl. 2006;16:891–900. [PubMed]

Sung YH, Karraker NE, Hau BCH, authors. Terrestrial herpetofaunal assemblages in secondary forests and exotic Lophostemon confertus plantations in South China. For. Ecol. Manage. 2012;270:71–77

The Nature Conservancy. 2009. . Terrestrial ecoregions of the world [http://maps.tnc.org/gis_data.html].

Thematic Mapping. 2008. . World borders [http://thematicmapping.org/downloads/world_borders.php].

Threlfall CG, Law B, Banks PB, authors. Sensitivity of insectivorous bats to urbanization: implications for suburban conservation planning. Biol. Conserv. 2012;146:41–52

Tonietto R, Fant J, Ascher J, Ellis K, Larkin D, authors. A comparison of bee communities of Chicago green roofs, parks and prairies. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011;103:102–108

Turner EC, Foster WA, authors. The impact of forest conversion to oil palm on arthropod abundance and biomass in Sabah, Malaysia. J. Trop. Ecol. 2009;25:23–30

Tylianakis JM, Klein AM, Tscharntke T, authors. Spatiotemporal variation in the diversity of hymenoptera across a tropical habitat gradient. Ecology. 2005;86:3296–3302

UNEP-WCMC. International expert workshop on the 2010 biodiversity indicators and post-2010 indicator development. 2009. Cambridge, U.K: UNEP-WCMC; p. 65

Vačkář D, author. Ecological footprint, environmental performance and biodiversity: a cross-national comparison. Ecol. Ind. 2012;16:40–46

Vanbergen AJ, Woodcock BA, Watt AD, Niemela J, authors. Effect of land-use heterogeneity on carabid communities at the landscape scale. Ecography. 2005;28:3–16

Vassilev K, Pedashenko H, Nikolov SC, Apostolova I, Dengler J, authors. Effect of land abandonment on the vegetation of upland semi-natural grasslands in the Western Balkan Mts., Bulgaria. Plant Biosyst. 2011;145:654–665

Vázquez DP, Simberloff D, authors. Ecological specialization and susceptibility to disturbance: conjectures and refutations. Am. Nat. 2002;159:606–623. [PubMed]

Verboven HAF, Brys R, Hermy M, authors. Sex in the city: reproductive success of Digitalis purpurea in a gradient from urban to rural sites. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012;106:158–164

Verdasca MJ, Leitao AS, Santana J, Porto M, Dias S, Beja P, authors. Forest fuel management as a conservation tool for early successional species under agricultural abandonment: the case of Mediterranean butterflies. Biol. Conserv. 2012;146:14–23

Verdú JR, Moreno CE, Sánchez-Rojas G, Numa C, Galante E, Halffter G, authors. Grazing promotes dung beetle diversity in the xeric landscape of a Mexican Biosphere Reserve. Biol. Conserv. 2007;140:308–317

Vergara CH, Badano EI, authors. Pollinator diversity increases fruit production in Mexican coffee plantations: the importance of rustic management systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009;129:117–123

Vergara PM, Simonetti JA, authors. Avian responses to fragmentation of the Maulino Forest in central Chile. Oryx. 2004;38:383–388

Vié J, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart SN, authors. Wildlife in a Changing World: an analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2009. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature; p. 180

Walker TR, Crittenden PD, Young SD, Prystina T, authors. An assessment of pollution impacts due to the oil and gas industries in the Pechora basin, north-eastern European Russia. Ecol. Ind. 2006;6:369–387

Walpole M, Almond REA, Besancon C, Butchart SHM, Campbell-Lendrum D, Carr GM, et al., authors. Tracking Progress Toward the 2010 Biodiversity Target and Beyond. Science. 2009;325:1503–1504. [PubMed]

Wang Y, Bao Y, Yu M, Xu G, Ding P, authors. Nestedness for different reasons: the distributions of birds, lizards and small mammals on islands of an inundated lake. Divers. Distrib. 2010;16:862–873

Watling JI, Gerow K, Donnelly MA, authors. Nested species subsets of amphibians and reptiles on Neotropical forest islands. Anim. Conserv. 2009;12:467–476

Weller B, Ganzhorn JU, authors. Carabid beetle community composition, body size, and fluctuating asymmetry along an urban-rural gradient. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2004;5:193–201

Wells K, Kalko EKV, Lakim MB, Pfeiffer M, authors. Effects of rain forest logging on species richness and assemblage composition of small mammals in Southeast Asia. J. Biogeogr. 2007;34:1087–1099

Wilcove DS, McLellan CH, authors; Soule ME, Dobson AP, editors. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. Conservation biology. 1986. Sunderland, MA: The science of scarcity and diversity, Sinauer Associates, Inc; p. 237–256

Williams CD, Sheahan J, Gormally MJ, authors. Hydrology and management of turloughs (temporary lakes) affect marsh fly (Sciomyzidae: Diptera) communities. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2009;2:270–283

Willig MR, Presley SJ, Bloch CP, Hice CL, Yanoviak SP, Diaz MM, et al., authors. Phyllostomid bats of lowland Amazonia: effects of habitat alteration on abundance. Biotropica. 2007;39:737–746

Winfree R, Griswold T, Kremen C, authors. Effect of human disturbance on bee communities in a forested ecosystem. Conserv. Biol. 2007;21:213–223. [PubMed]

Woinarski JCZ, Rankmore B, Hill B, Griffiths AD, Stewart A, Grace B, authors. Fauna assemblages in regrowth vegetation in tropical open forests of the Northern Territory, Australia. Wildlife Res. 2009;36:675–690

Woodcock BA, Potts SG, Pilgrim E, Ramsay AJ, Tscheulin T, Parkinson A, et al., authors. The potential of grass field margin management for enhancing beetle diversity in intensive livestock farms. J. Appl. Ecol. 2007;44:60–69

Wunderle JM, Henriques LMP, Willig MR, authors. Short-term responses of birds to forest gaps and understory: an assessment of reduced-impact logging in a lowland Amazon forest. Biotropica. 2006;38:235–255

WWF International. Living Planet Report 2012. 2012. Gland, Switzerland: WWF International; p. 160

Yoshikura S, Yasui S, Kamijo T, authors. Comparative study of forest-dwelling bats’ abundances and species richness between old-growth forests and conifer plantations in Nikko National Park, central Japan. Mammal Study. 2011;36:189–198

Zaitsev AS, Chauvat M, Pflug A, Wolters V, authors. Oribatid mite diversity and community dynamics in a spruce chronosequence. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2002;34:1919–1927

Zaitsev AS, Wolters V, Waldhardt R, Dauber J, authors. Long-term succession of oribatid mites after conversion of croplands to grasslands. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2006;34:230–239

Zimmerman G, Bell FW, Woodcock J, Palmer A, Paloniemi J, authors. Response of breeding songbirds to vegetation management in conifer plantations established in boreal mixedwoods. Forestry Chron. 2011;87:217–224

[Back]

Figure 1.

Site locations. Colors indicate biomes, taken from The Nature Conservancy's (2009) terrestrial ecoregions of the world dataset, shown in a geographic (WGS84) projection. Circle radii are proportional to log₁₀ of the number of samples at that Site. All circles have the same degree of partial transparency.

[Back]

[Back]

Table 1.

Coverage of hotspots.

Hotspot | Studies (%) | Sites (%) | Samples (%) | Terrestrial area (%)
None | 50.72 | 63.63 | 52.33 | 84.01
Nearctic
 California Floristic Province | 0.96 | 1.30 | 0.12 | 0.20
 Madrean Pine–Oak Woodlands | 0.24 | 0.01 | <0.01 | 0.31
Neotropic
 Atlantic Forest | 3.11 | 1.16 | 0.28 | 0.83
 Caribbean Islands | 0.48 | 0.67 | 2.59 | 0.15
 Cerrado | 1.91 | 0.66 | 0.11 | 1.37
 Chilean Winter Rainfall and Valdivian Forests | 2.39 | 1.69 | 0.32 | 0.27
 Mesoamerica | 8.13 | 7.83 | 8.94 | 0.76
 Tropical Andes | 6.46 | 3.02 | 4.11 | 1.04
 Tumbes-Choco-Magdalena | 0.48 | 0.37 | 0.10 | 0.18
Palearctic
 Caucasus | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.36
 Irano-Anatolian | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.61
 Japan | 1.67 | 0.60 | 0.17 | 0.25
 Mediterranean Basin | 5.98 | 5.52 | 2.63 | 1.41
 Mountains of Central Asia | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.58
 Mountains of Southwest China | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.18
Afrotropic
 Cape Floristic Region | 0.24 | 0.29 | 0.20 | 0.05
 Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.20
 Eastern Afromontane | 1.20 | 1.27 | 0.83 | 0.07
 Guinean Forests of West Africa | 2.15 | 1.04 | 0.54 | 0.42
 Horn of Africa | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.12
 Madagascar and the Indian Ocean Islands | 0.48 | 0.18 | 0.01 | 0.40
 Maputaland–Pondoland–Albany | 0.72 | 0.52 | 0.50 | 0.18
 Succulent Karoo | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.07
Indo-Malay
 Himalaya | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.50
 Indo-Burma | 0.72 | 0.23 | 0.10 | 1.60
 Philippines | 1.20 | 0.77 | 0.44 | 0.20
 Sundaland | 6.46 | 6.12 | 23.55 | 1.01
 Western Ghats and Sri Lanka | 0.48 | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.13
Australasia
 East Melanesian Islands | 0.24 | 0.36 | 1.13 | 0.68
 Forests of East Australia | 0.72 | 1.45 | 0.31 | 0.17
 New Caledonia | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01
 New Zealand | 0.72 | 0.10 | 0.01 | 0.18
 Southwest Australia | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.24
 Wallacea | 1.67 | 0.69 | 0.58 | 0.23
Oceania
 Polynesia–Micronesia | 0.48 | 0.38 | 0.01 | 0.03

Hotspots are shown grouped by realm.

[Back]

[Back]

Figure 2.

Latitudinal coverage. The percentage of Studies (circles), Sites (crosses) and samples (pluses) in five-degree bands of latitude. We computed each Study's latitude as the median of its Sites’ latitudes. The solid and dashed lines show the percentage of total terrestrial area and percentage of total terrestrial NPP, respectively, in each five-degree band (see “ Biogeographical coverage ” in Methods). The dotted horizontal lines indicate the extent of the tropics.

[Back]

[Back]

Figure 3.

Spatiotemporal sampling coverage. Site sampling dates by biome (A) and absolute latitude (B). Each Site is represented by a circle and line. Circle radii are proportional to log₁₀ of the number of samples at that Site. Circle centers are at the midpoints of Site sampling dates; lines indicate the start and end dates of sampling. Y-values in (A) have been jittered at the study level. Circles and lines have the same degree of partial transparency. Biome colors and letters in (A) are as in Fig. 1. Colors in (B) indicate biogeographic realm.

[Back]

[Back]

Figure 4.

Coverage of biomes. The percentage of Studies (A and B), Sites (C and D) and samples (E and F) against percentages of terrestrial NPP (A, C and E) and terrestrial area (B, D and F). Biome colors and letters are as in Fig. 1.

[Back]

[Back]

Figure 5.

Representativeness of predominant land use and land-use intensity classes. Numbers are the percentage of Sites assigned to each combination of land use and intensity. Numbers in brackets and colors are the differences between these and the proportional estimated total terrestrial area of each combination of land use and land-use intensity for 2005, computed from the HYDE (Hurtt et al. 2011) and Global Land Systems datasets (van Asselen and Verburg 2012); no difference is shown for “Urban”/”Light use” because these datasets did not allow us to compute an estimate for this combination. The 12.15% of Sites that could not be assigned a classification for predominant land use and/or land-use intensity are not shown.

[Back]

[Back]

Figure 6.

Taxonomic coverage. The number of species in our database against the number of described species as estimated by Chapman (2009). Vertebrates are shown in red, arthropods in pink, other animals in gray, plants in green and fungi in blue. The dashed, solid and dotted lines indicate 10, 1 and 0.1% representation, respectively. Groups with just a single species in the database – Diplura, Mycetozoa, Onychophora, Pauropoda, Phasmida, Siphonaptera, Symphyla and Zoraptera – are not shown.

[Back]

[Back]

Table 2.

Names represented in species attribute databases.

Attribute database | Trait | Group | Best guess binomials | Attribute database names | Species matches | Genus matches | Total matches
GBIF | Range size | All taxa | 17,801 |  | 14,514 |  | 14,514
IUCN | Red list status | All taxa | 17,801 |  | 3,521 |  | 3,521
CITES | CITES appendix | All taxa | 17,801 | 20,094 | 467 |  | 467
PanTHERIA | Body mass | Mammalia | 376 | 3,542 | 310 | 62 | 372
TRY | Seed mass | Plantae | 6,924 | 26,107 | 2,017 | 2,820 | 4,837
TRY | Vegetative height | Plantae | 6,924 | 2,822 | 772 | 768 | 1,540
TRY | Generative height | Plantae | 6,924 | 9,911 | 1,633 | 2,546 | 4,179

GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility, http://www.gbif.org/, queried 2014-03-31), IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature, http://www.iucn.org/, queried 2014-03-31), CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, http://www.cites.org/, downloaded 2014-01-27), PanTHERIA (Jones et al. 2009), TRY (Kattge et al. 2011). Best guess binomials: the number of unique “Best guess binomials” in the PREDICTS database within that taxonomic group. Attribute database names: the number of unique binomials and trinomials for that attribute in attribute database. Species matches: the number of “Best guess binomials” that exactly match a record in the attribute database. Genus matches: the number of generic names in the PREDICTS database with a matching record in the attribute database (only for binomials for which there was not a species match). Total matches: sum of species matches and genus matches. We did not match generic names for GBIF range size, IUCN category or CITES appendix because we did not expect these traits to be highly conserved within genera.

[Back]

[Back]

Figure 7.

Cumulative percentage of species in the database, by the taxonomic rank at which the name was matched to COL.

[Back]

[Back]

Figure 8.

Number of Studies by lowest common taxonomic group. Bars show the number of Studies within each lowest common taxon (so, one Study examined the species Swietenia macrophylla, three Studies examined the species Bombus pascuorum, ten Studies examined multiple species within the genus Bombus, and so on). Colors are as in Figure 6. Numbers on the right are the primary references from which data were taken: 1 López-Quintero et al. 2012; 2 Buscardo et al. 2008; 3 Domínguez et al. 2012; 4 Nöske et al. 2008; 5 Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) 2013a; 6 Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) 2013b; 7 Sheil et al. 2002; 8 Dumont et al. 2009; 9 Proenca et al. 2010; 10 Baeten et al. 2010a,b; 11 Richardson et al. 2005; 12 Schon et al. 2011; 13 Muchane et al. 2012; 14 Vázquez and Simberloff 2002; 15 Bouyer et al. 2007; 16 O'Connor 2005; 17 Higuera and Wolf 2010; 18 Kati et al. 2012; 19 Lucas-Borja et al. 2011; 20 Louhaichi et al. 2009; 21 Power et al. 2012; 22 Brearley 2011; 23 Baeten et al. 2010a; 24 Williams et al. 2009; 25 Mayfield et al. 2006; 26 Kolb and Diekmann 2004; 27 Phalan et al. 2011; 28 Vassilev et al. 2011; 29 Paritsis and Aizen 2008; 30 Boutin et al. 2008; 31 Baur et al. 2006; 32 Fensham et al. 2012; 33 Brunet et al. 2011; 34 Kessler et al. 2009; 35 Hylander and Nemomissa 2009; 36 Barlow et al. 2007; 37 Kumar and Shahabuddin 2005; 38 Kessler et al. 2005; 39 Hietz 2005; 40 Krauss et al. 2004; 41 Hernández et al. 2012; 42 Calviño-Cancela et al. 2012; 43 Golodets et al. 2010; 44 Castro et al. 2010; 45 Milder et al. 2010; 46 Helden and Leather 2004; 47 McNamara et al. 2012; 48 Katovai et al. 2012; 49 Berry et al. 2010; 50 Letcher and Chazdon 2009; 51 Romero-Duque et al. 2007; 52 Marin-Spiotta et al. 2007; 53 Power and Stout 2011; 54 Norfolk et al. 2012; 55 Poveda et al. 2012; 56 Cabra-García et al. 2012; 57 Turner and Foster 2009; 58 Woodcock et al. 2007; 59 Lachat et al. 2006; 60 Rousseau et al. 2013; 61 Nakamura et al. 2003; 62 Basset et al. 2008; 63 Hanley 2011; 64 Billeter et al. 2008; Diekötter et al. 2008; Le Féon et al. 2010; 65 Sung et al. 2012; 66 St-Laurent et al. 2007; 67 Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE) 2010; 68 Endo et al. 2010; 69 Alcala et al. 2004; 70 Bicknell and Peres 2010; 71 Woinarski et al. 2009; 72 Garden et al. 2010; 73 Hylander and Weibull 2012; 74 Giordano et al. 2004; 75 Ström et al. 2009; 76 Römbke et al. 2009; 77 Giordani 2012; 78 Hu and Cao 2008; 79 Edenius et al. 2011; 80 O'Dea and Whittaker 2007; 81 Ims and Henden 2012; 82 Rosselli 2011; 83 Arbeláez-Cortés et al. 2011; 84 Santana et al. 2012; 85 Sheldon et al. 2010; 86 Wang et al. 2010; 87 Sodhi et al. 2010; 88 Naoe et al. 2012; 89 Cerezo et al. 2011; 90 Lantschner et al. 2008; 91 Chapman and Reich 2007; 92 Báldi et al. 2005; 93 Farwig et al. 2008; 94 Shahabuddin and Kumar 2007; 95 Borges 2007; 96 Wunderle et al. 2006; 97 Politi et al. 2012; 98 Moreno-Mateos et al. 2011; 99 Mallari et al. 2011; 100 Latta et al. 2011; 101 Sosa et al. 2010; 102 Miranda et al. 2010; 103 Flaspohler et al. 2010; 104 Bóçon 2010; 105 Azpiroz and Blake 2009; 106 Aben et al. 2008; 107 Cockle et al. 2005; 108 Vergara and Simonetti 2004; 109 Azhar et al. 2013; 110 Reid et al. 2012; 111 Neuschulz et al. 2011; 112 Dawson et al. 2011; 113 Naidoo 2004; 114 Dures and Cumming 2010; 115 Meyer et al. 2009; 116 Summerville 2011; 117 Cleary et al. 2004; 118 Mudri-Stojnic et al. 2012; 119 Schüepp et al. 2011; 120 Bates et al. 2011; 121 Quintero et al. 2010; 122 Vergara and Badano 2009; 123 Kohler et al. 2008; 124 Meyer et al. 2007, 125 Hoffmann and Zeller 2005; 126 Caceres et al. 2010; 127 Lantschner et al. 2012; 128 Wells et al. 2007; 129 Bernard et al. 2009; 130 Martin et al. 2012; 131 Gheler-Costa et al. 2012; 132 Sridhar et al. 2008; 133 Scott et al. 2006; 134 Oke 2013; 135 Oke and Chokor 2009; 136 Kappes et al. 2012; 137 Walker et al. 2006; 138 Lo-Man-Hung et al. 2008; 139 Zaitsev et al. 2002; 140 Robles et al. 2011; 141 Brito et al. 2012; 142 Luja et al. 2008; 143 Smith-Pardo and Gonzalez 2007; 144 Schüepp et al. 2012; 145 Tylianakis et al. 2005; 146 Verboven et al. 2012; 147 Osgathorpe et al. 2012; 148 Tonietto et al. 2011; 149 Samnegård et al. 2011; 150 Cameron et al. 2011; 151 Malone et al. 2010; 152 Marshall et al. 2006; 153 Shuler et al. 2005; 154 Quaranta et al. 2004; 155 Légaré et al. 2011; 156 Noreika 2009; 157 Otavo et al. 2013; 158 Numa et al. 2012; 159 Jonsell 2012; 160 Mico et al. 2013; 161 Rodrigues et al. 2013; 162 Sugiura et al. 2009; 163 Verdú et al. 2007; 164 Banks et al. 2007; 165 Elek and Lovei 2007; 166 Fukuda et al. 2009; 167 Castro-Luna et al. 2007; 168 Shafie et al. 2011; 169 Struebig et al. 2008; 170 Threlfall et al. 2012; 171 Presley et al. 2008; 172 Willig et al. 2007; 173 MacSwiney et al. 2007; 174 Clarke et al. 2005; 175 Sedlock et al. 2008; 176 Verdasca et al. 2012; 177 D'Aniello et al. 2011; 178 Berg et al. 2011; 179 Summerville et al. 2006; 180 Hawes et al. 2009; 181 Cleary and Mooers 2006; 182 Krauss et al. 2003; 183 Ishitani et al. 2003; 184 Safian et al. 2011; 185 Furlani et al. 2009; 186 Isaacs-Cubides and Urbina-Cardona 2011; 187 Gutierrez-Lamus 2004; 188 Adum et al. 2013; 189 Watling et al. 2009; 190 Pillsbury and Miller 2008; 191 Pineda and Halffter 2004; 192 Ofori-Boateng et al. 2013; 193 de Souza et al. 2008; 194 Faruk et al. 2013; 195 Hilje and Aide 2012; 196 Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI) 2013; 197 Zaitsev et al. 2006; 198 Arroyo et al. 2005; 199 Paradis and Work 2011; 200 Buddle and Shorthouse 2008; 201 Kapoor 2008; 202 Alcayaga et al. 2013; 203 Magura et al. 2010; 204 Littlewood et al. 2012; 205 Kőrösi et al. 2012; 206 Oliveira et al. 2013; 207 Carrijo et al. 2009; 208 Reis and Cancello 2007; 209 Chauvat et al. 2007; 210 Otto and Roloff 2012; 211 Zimmerman et al. 2011; 212 Pelegrin and Bucher 2012; 213 Savage et al. 2011; 214 Bragagnolo et al. 2007; 215 Jung and Powell 2011; 216 Bartolommei et al. 2013; 217 Dominguez-Haydar and Armbrecht 2010; 218 Armbrecht et al. 2006; 219 Hashim et al. 2010; 220 Schmidt et al. 2012; 221 Maeto and Sato 2004; 222 Bihn et al. 2008; 223 Delabie et al. 2009; 224 Fayle et al. 2010; 225 Gove et al. 2005; 226 Buczkowski and Richmond 2012; 227 Buczkowski 2010; 228 Noriega et al. 2012; 229 Navarro et al. 2011; 230 Noriega et al. 2007; 231 Horgan 2009; 232 Gardner et al. 2008; 233 da Silva 2011; 234 Silva et al. 2010; 235 Jacobs et al. 2010; 236 Slade et al. 2011; 237 Filgueiras et al. 2011; 238 Navarrete and Halffter 2008; 239 Davis and Philips 2005; 240 Parra-H and Nates-Parra 2007; 241 Fierro et al. 2012; 242 Nielsen et al. 2011; 243 Julier and Roulston 2009; 244 Winfree et al. 2007; 245 Hanley 2005; 246 Liu et al. 2012; 247 Gu et al. 2004; 248 Noreika and Kotze 2012; 249 Rey-Velasco and Miranda-Esquivel 2012; 250 Vanbergen et al. 2005; 251 Koivula et al. 2004; 252 Weller and Ganzhorn 2004; 253 Carvalho et al. 2010; 254 Aguilar-Barquero and Jiménez-Hernández 2009; 255 Fermon et al. 2005; 256 Ribeiro and Freitas 2012; 257 Gottschalk et al. 2007; 258 Cagle 2008; 259 Johnson et al. 2008; 260 Su et al. 2011; 261 Saldana-Vazquez et al. 2010; 262 Nicolas et al. 2009; 263 Sakchoowong et al. 2008; 264 Yoshikura et al. 2011; 265 Hanley et al. 2011; 266 Connop et al. 2011; 267 Redpath et al. 2010; 268 Goulson et al. 2010; 269 Goulson et al. 2008; 270 Hatfield and LeBuhn 2007; 271 McFrederick and LeBuhn 2006; 272 Diekötter et al. 2006; 273 Darvill et al. 2004; 274 Matsumoto et al. 2009; 275 Knight et al. 2009; 276 Herrmann et al. 2007; 277 Ancrenaz et al. 2004; 278 Felton et al. 2003; 279 Knop et al. 2004; 280 Davis et al. 2010; 281 Hanson et al. 2008; 282 Ferreira and Alves 2005; 283 Luskin 2010; 284 Grogan et al. 2008.

[Back]

[Back]

Figure 9.

Data contributions by journal. The percentage of Data Sources (bars), Studies (circles), Sites (crosses) and samples (pluses) taken from each journal. Only journals from which more than one Data Source was taken are shown.

[Back]