Literature DB >> 30604746

Recognizing the quiet extinction of invertebrates.

Nico Eisenhauer1,2, Aletta Bonn3,4,5, Carlos A Guerra3,6.   

Abstract

Invertebrates are central to the functioning of ecosystems, yet they are underappreciated and understudied. Recent work has shown that they are suffering from rapid decline. Here we call for a greater focus on invertebrates and make recommendations for future investigation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30604746      PMCID: PMC6318294          DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-07916-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nat Commun        ISSN: 2041-1723            Impact factor:   14.919


Invertebrates rule the world as we know it in terms of biodiversity and the functioning of ecosystems[1]. This is why scientists have repeatedly called to assess this essential part of biodiversity as well as its ecosystem effects[2]. In addition to conspicuous changes of ecosystems, such as the decline of charismatic vertebrate populations, the less obvious disappearance of many invertebrates[2,3] also has dramatic consequences for the ecosystem services humankind depends on[2,4]. Recently, a report of alarming declines in invertebrate biomass[3] has triggered broad public attention that is now also percolating into political discussion and decisions in several countries. As a consequence, new national and international biodiversity assessments, monitoring initiatives, and action plans are being discussed, and scientists are asked for guidance. First cross-taxon comparisons indicate that biodiversity loss may be even more pronounced in invertebrates (e.g., butterflies in Britain) than in plants and birds[5]. These studies suggest substantial changes in invertebrate diversity and community composition that have been happening almost unnoticed and indicate that species may become extinct before we even know about their existence[6]. The Red List of Threatened Species of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)[7] is an important reference for the threat of species, but it is still heavily biased towards vertebrates, with invertebrates being particularly underrepresented (Fig. 1). Thus, a broader taxonomic base for threatened species assessments, adequately representing invertebrates, will facilitate more profound conservation and policy decisions[6].
Fig. 1

Underrepresentation of invertebrates on IUCN Red List. Examples for percentages of species assessed on IUCN Red List by 2018 in comparison to the number of described species[7]. Notably, there is high variability in the percentage of evaluated species within these broad categories. For instance, only ~0.8% of all described insect species was evaluated in 2018. Photo credits: panda: Eric Isselée; butterfly: Fotokon; tree: Production Perig; fungi: ksena32 (all Fotolia.de)

Underrepresentation of invertebrates on IUCN Red List. Examples for percentages of species assessed on IUCN Red List by 2018 in comparison to the number of described species[7]. Notably, there is high variability in the percentage of evaluated species within these broad categories. For instance, only ~0.8% of all described insect species was evaluated in 2018. Photo credits: panda: Eric Isselée; butterfly: Fotokon; tree: Production Perig; fungi: ksena32 (all Fotolia.de) It is often the case in biodiversity assessments that there are spatial and taxonomic biases in available data, and this is especially true for invertebrates[4,8]. The majority of the invertebrate taxa that have received most attention in past biodiversity assessments is closely related to pollination. In fact, most animal pollinators are insects (e.g., bees, flies, butterflies, moths, wasps, beetles, and thrips), and bees are the most important pollinator group, visiting >90% of the leading global crop types[4]. Over recent years, public appreciation of pollinators has grown, and bees remain one of the better-understood taxa because of their important contributions to food security. The most recent assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on pollinators, pollination, and food production[4] acknowledges that wild pollinators (mostly invertebrates) have declined in occurrence, abundance, and/or diversity. However, even for these widely-valued species, there are knowledge gaps, such as in regions outside of North-West Europe and North America. These problems only become greater when other invertebrates are considered. While there is spatially and temporarily detailed data for some charismatic indicator taxa, such as butterflies in the European Union[9], information about other invertebrates is lacking. For instance, soil invertebrates and soil-dwelling larval stages of flying insects, which represent a major biodiversity pool in terrestrial ecosystems, have been woefully neglected in many biodiversity databases and assessments, as well as in conservation actions and policies[8]. In addition, while assessments of invertebrate species richness, abundance[2], and biomass[3] provide important information regarding biodiversity changes, they may not capture more subtle yet ubiquitous changes in other biodiversity facets, including genetic, phylogenetic, and functional diversity and community composition.

Monitoring biodiversity and ecosystem functioning

Invertebrates occupy many important trophic niches in natural communities[1]. Decreasing or changing invertebrate diversity and abundance can have strong effects on many ecosystem functions and services ranging from primary productivity, to pollination, and pest control. It adds to the complex picture that invertebrates can also contribute to human harm, e.g., mosquitos and ticks, which may have complex responses to climate change and habitat conversion. At the same time, many important invertebrate taxa that provide critical ecosystem services are still insufficiently represented in biodiversity monitoring. In fact, recent work has demonstrated that the diversity of soil invertebrates is of particular importance for the provisioning of multiple ecosystem functions and services across ecosystem types[10,11], including soil erosion control and nutrient cycling. As the need for improved monitoring of biodiversity becomes clearer, so does the need for comprehensive and widely-adopted strategies. Given that a major fraction of invertebrates lives below the ground, and considering their significant functional role[10,11], biodiversity monitoring urgently needs to include soil organisms and functions[8]. Accordingly, biodiversity monitoring has to go hand in hand with ecosystem function monitoring to be able to recognize the functional consequences of changes in biodiversity. We have the appropriate tools at hand to monitor multiple ecosystem functions in a standardized way, e.g., through rapid ecosystem assessments of functions and ecological interactions that determine the functioning of ecosystems[12]. Biodiversity and ecosystem function monitoring should be partnered with experimental validation of causal relationships and the exploration of process-based mechanisms. For instance, invertebrate effects can be studied under field conditions by manipulating their density and composition using exclosures[13], and mesocosm laboratory experiments can be a promising tool to study multitrophic biodiversity-function relationships and the role of focal invertebrate taxa. However, there have been very few studies exploring the effects of higher trophic level invertebrates such as predators, and those that do exist have been performed almost exclusively in aquatic ecosystems. Biodiversity monitoring also needs to consider multiple facets of biodiversity[14], moving from focusing on the red list status or well-known species to analyzing functional traits (e.g., body mass, feeding type, trophic position, movement mode) and their roles in ecosystems. Accordingly, biodiversity metrics representing intra-kingdom and inter-kingdom interactions (type, network structures), genetic, taxonomic, and functional diversity should be considered. Furthermore, monitoring should address the complexities of spatial scale and wider landscape contexts, as well as the drivers of biodiversity change, such as climate change and land-use change, that may act at different spatial scales. Scientists should agree on representative and repeated sampling methods for different focal taxa and functions and how data from different spatial scales can be integrated to develop clear statements and recommendations for decision makers.

Towards global collaboration on monitoring of invertebrates

Some of the most important and pressing scientific challenges are to appreciate the huge and partly undescribed biodiversity of invertebrates, and their importance for crucial societal benefits. This would require assessing their changes over time, identifying the main underlying drivers, and developing respective conservation actions. At the same time, the decline in taxonomic experts for invertebrates calls for urgent action for capacity building. Crucially, it requires international, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research consortia that guide future monitoring and the synthesis of past and future data. Here, it will be pivotal for different experts from academia, museums, natural history societies, and other NGOs, as well as government agencies to work together to draw on different knowledge domains. We argue for a monitoring scheme that estimates invertebrate biodiversity changes that follows a threefold approach. First, existing data over the past decades needs to be mobilized, archived, and made interoperable to be analyzed for spatio-temporal trends. Here, innovative statistical methods allowing to integrate data of different spatio-temporal resolutions and qualities need to be advanced. Second, targeted resurveys of well-sampled sites will elucidate more in-depth trend analyses. Intersection with environmental data will allow for initial attribution analyses by inference that need to be followed by experimental studies. Third, new monitoring schemes need to be established at the national level. The spatio-temporal dimensions crossed with gradients of global change drivers may, however, lead to an explosion of sample size, and targeted gap analyses are needed to best design these new monitoring schemes and to optimize current ones. Since the causes and consequences of changes in invertebrate communities do not stop at country borders, different national biodiversity and function monitoring initiatives need to be harmonized within and across countries. Fostering capacities of taxonomic skills in society and academia, and jointly working with citizen scientists and volunteers will be pivotal to success. It is of equal importance to make use of recent advances in environmental monitoring, such as barcoding, environmental meta-barcoding, and (semi-) automated acoustic and video monitoring. An important initiative towards this goal is the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON), which aims to foster biodiversity monitoring across a range of Essential Biodiversity Variables by promoting the development of national and thematic biodiversity observation networks[14]. The quiet and underappreciated extinction of invertebrates has important consequences for ecosystem function and human well-being. Novel biodiversity and ecosystem function monitoring initiatives are needed, and these require collaborative efforts from multiple sectors of society and innovative thinking to better understand and protect this significant portion of biodiversity. These will raise public awareness, increase scientific literacy of biodiversity loss, empower participants to support evidence-based decision making, and thereby also foster social and political innovation[15] to combat invertebrate extinctions.
  10 in total

1.  Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis.

Authors:  J A Thomas; M G Telfer; D B Roy; C D Preston; J J D Greenwood; J Asher; R Fox; R T Clarke; J H Lawton
Journal:  Science       Date:  2004-03-19       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Ecology. The barometer of life.

Authors:  S N Stuart; E O Wilson; J A McNeely; R A Mittermeier; J P Rodríguez
Journal:  Science       Date:  2010-04-09       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 3.  Towards a standardized Rapid Ecosystem Function Assessment (REFA).

Authors:  Sebastian T Meyer; Christiane Koch; Wolfgang W Weisser
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2015-05-18       Impact factor: 17.712

Review 4.  Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being.

Authors:  Simon G Potts; Vera Imperatriz-Fonseca; Hien T Ngo; Marcelo A Aizen; Jacobus C Biesmeijer; Thomas D Breeze; Lynn V Dicks; Lucas A Garibaldi; Rosemary Hill; Josef Settele; Adam J Vanbergen
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 5.  Defaunation in the Anthropocene.

Authors:  Rodolfo Dirzo; Hillary S Young; Mauro Galetti; Gerardo Ceballos; Nick J B Isaac; Ben Collen
Journal:  Science       Date:  2014-07-25       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Biodiversity at multiple trophic levels is needed for ecosystem multifunctionality.

Authors:  Santiago Soliveres; Fons van der Plas; Peter Manning; Daniel Prati; Martin M Gossner; Swen C Renner; Fabian Alt; Hartmut Arndt; Vanessa Baumgartner; Julia Binkenstein; Klaus Birkhofer; Stefan Blaser; Nico Blüthgen; Steffen Boch; Stefan Böhm; Carmen Börschig; Francois Buscot; Tim Diekötter; Johannes Heinze; Norbert Hölzel; Kirsten Jung; Valentin H Klaus; Till Kleinebecker; Sandra Klemmer; Jochen Krauss; Markus Lange; E Kathryn Morris; Jörg Müller; Yvonne Oelmann; Jörg Overmann; Esther Pašalić; Matthias C Rillig; H Martin Schaefer; Michael Schloter; Barbara Schmitt; Ingo Schöning; Marion Schrumpf; Johannes Sikorski; Stephanie A Socher; Emily F Solly; Ilja Sonnemann; Elisabeth Sorkau; Juliane Steckel; Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter; Barbara Stempfhuber; Marco Tschapka; Manfred Türke; Paul C Venter; Christiane N Weiner; Wolfgang W Weisser; Michael Werner; Catrin Westphal; Wolfgang Wilcke; Volkmar Wolters; Tesfaye Wubet; Susanne Wurst; Markus Fischer; Eric Allan
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Global gaps in soil biodiversity data.

Authors:  Erin K Cameron; Inês S Martins; Patrick Lavelle; Jérôme Mathieu; Leho Tedersoo; Felix Gottschall; Carlos A Guerra; Jes Hines; Guillaume Patoine; Julia Siebert; Marten Winter; Simone Cesarz; Manuel Delgado-Baquerizo; Olga Ferlian; Noah Fierer; Holger Kreft; Thomas E Lovejoy; Luca Montanarella; Alberto Orgiazzi; Henrique M Pereira; Helen R P Phillips; Josef Settele; Diana H Wall; Nico Eisenhauer
Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 15.460

8.  More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas.

Authors:  Caspar A Hallmann; Martin Sorg; Eelke Jongejans; Henk Siepel; Nick Hofland; Heinz Schwan; Werner Stenmans; Andreas Müller; Hubert Sumser; Thomas Hörren; Dave Goulson; Hans de Kroon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-18       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Biodiversity across trophic levels drives multifunctionality in highly diverse forests.

Authors:  Andreas Schuldt; Thorsten Assmann; Matteo Brezzi; François Buscot; David Eichenberg; Jessica Gutknecht; Werner Härdtle; Jin-Sheng He; Alexandra-Maria Klein; Peter Kühn; Xiaojuan Liu; Keping Ma; Pascal A Niklaus; Katherina A Pietsch; Witoon Purahong; Michael Scherer-Lorenzen; Bernhard Schmid; Thomas Scholten; Michael Staab; Zhiyao Tang; Stefan Trogisch; Goddert von Oheimb; Christian Wirth; Tesfaye Wubet; Chao-Dong Zhu; Helge Bruelheide
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 14.919

10.  Size-dependent loss of aboveground animals differentially affects grassland ecosystem coupling and functions.

Authors:  A C Risch; R Ochoa-Hueso; W H van der Putten; J K Bump; M D Busse; B Frey; D J Gwiazdowicz; D S Page-Dumroese; M L Vandegehuchte; S Zimmermann; M Schütz
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2018-09-11       Impact factor: 14.919

  10 in total
  24 in total

1.  Rarity is a more reliable indicator of land-use impacts on soil invertebrate communities than other diversity metrics.

Authors:  Andrew Dopheide; Andreas Makiola; Kate H Orwin; Robert J Holdaway; Jamie R Wood; Ian A Dickie
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-05-19       Impact factor: 8.140

2.  Soil Organisms - an international open access journal on the taxonomic and functional biodiversity in the soil.

Authors:  Nico Eisenhauer; Willi E R Xylander
Journal:  Soil Org       Date:  2019-08-01

3.  Global maps of soil-dwelling nematode worms.

Authors:  Nico Eisenhauer; Carlos A Guerra
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  The abundance, biomass, and distribution of ants on Earth.

Authors:  Patrick Schultheiss; Sabine S Nooten; Runxi Wang; Mark K L Wong; François Brassard; Benoit Guénard
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-09-19       Impact factor: 12.779

5.  Northward range expansion of rooting ungulates decreases detritivore and predatory mite abundances in boreal forests.

Authors:  Nadia I Maaroufi; Astrid R Taylor; Roswitha B Ehnes; Henrik Andrén; Petter Kjellander; Christer Björkman; Thomas Kätterer; Maartje J Klapwijk
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 3.653

6.  Do pesticide and pathogen interactions drive wild bee declines?

Authors:  Lars Straub; Verena Strobl; Orlando Yañez; Matthias Albrecht; Mark J F Brown; Peter Neumann
Journal:  Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl       Date:  2022-06-13       Impact factor: 2.773

7.  A multitrophic perspective on biodiversity-ecosystem functioning research.

Authors:  Nico Eisenhauer; Holger Schielzeth; Andrew D Barnes; Kathryn Barry; Aletta Bonn; Ulrich Brose; Helge Bruelheide; Nina Buchmann; François Buscot; Anne Ebeling; Olga Ferlian; Grégoire T Freschet; Darren P Giling; Stephan Hättenschwiler; Helmut Hillebrand; Jes Hines; Forest Isbell; Eva Koller-France; Birgitta König-Ries; Hans de Kroon; Sebastian T Meyer; Alexandru Milcu; Jörg Müller; Charles A Nock; Jana S Petermann; Christiane Roscher; Christoph Scherber; Michael Scherer-Lorenzen; Bernhard Schmid; Stefan A Schnitzer; Andreas Schuldt; Teja Tscharntke; Manfred Türke; Nicole M van Dam; Fons van der Plas; Anja Vogel; Cameron Wagg; David A Wardle; Alexandra Weigelt; Wolfgang W Weisser; Christian Wirth; Malte Jochum
Journal:  Adv Ecol Res       Date:  2019-07-23       Impact factor: 7.429

8.  Climate change effects on earthworms - a review.

Authors:  Jaswinder Singh; Martin Schädler; Wilian Demetrio; George G Brown; Nico Eisenhauer
Journal:  Soil Org       Date:  2019-12-01

9.  Protected area networks do not represent unseen biodiversity.

Authors:  Ángel Delso; Javier Fajardo; Jesús Muñoz
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-10       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 10.  Rewilding with invertebrates and microbes to restore ecosystems: Present trends and future directions.

Authors:  Peter Contos; Jennifer L Wood; Nicholas P Murphy; Heloise Gibb
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-05-02       Impact factor: 2.912

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.