About
Digital Ecology are developing AVIBIO, an avian integrated biodiversity monitoring approach, to support the prioritisation of ecosystem functionality within conservation. In this blog post, Maddie (Assistant Digital Ecologist) explores the reasons behind the development of the system, and gives a brief overview of what can be expected in the future.
Biodiversity monitoring
Biodiversity is fundamental to human health and well-being, providing as it does vital ecosystem services. From sustaining basic needs such as providing food and purifying water, to enhancing our well-being through recreation, the diverse services offered by our natural environment are essential to both our survival, and our prosperity. Global biodiversity continues to decline at an alarming rate, posing a threat to the delivery of these all-important ecosystem services. In Great Britain alone, for example, there has been a considerable decline amongst nearly 4,500 animal species that provide pollination, pest control, and cultural services (1). As such conserving and enhancing nature is a priority.
Traditionally, taxonomic diversity, specifically species richness, has been the predominant measure of biodiversity (2,3). While useful, species richness does not account for the diverse ecological functions and phylogenetic positions of species, and therefore overlooks vital information about the implications of biodiversity change for ecosystem function (4,5). Recognising this gap, there has been a significant shift in Biodiversity-Ecosystem Functioning research away from sole reliance on taxonomic measures, towards a comprehensive understanding of biodiversity at the taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic levels, known as ‘integrative’ biodiversity conservation (6,7).
Functional diversity
Crucially, both functional and phylogenetic diversity have been suggested to be more efficient ecosystem function predictors than taxonomic diversity, as they account for both species richness, and differences between species (8,9). A broad range of experiments, reviews, and meta-analyses have shown that functional diversity is one of the best predictors of ecosystem function available (10,11,12,13) and should be incorporated alongside species richness within conservation management. Similarly, phylogenetic diversity also encompasses trait variation above the species level (13), not only increasing ecosystem stability, but explaining more variation in ecosystem function and stability than species richness alone (14,15,16).
Beyond single metrics for biodiversity
Despite the potential of functional and phylogenetic diversity to better predict ecosystem function than taxonomic diversity, the latter remains the primary metric in conservation practices. Alarmingly, functional diversity may be under greater threat from anthropogenic activity than taxonomic diversity (17), with one study finding that functional diversity is significantly under-represented in protected areas, whilst taxonomic diversity is significantly overrepresented (7). Furthermore, though increasing species richness is often thought to increase functional diversity, there are cases where increases in species richness co-occur alongside declines in functional diversity (18,19,20). Evaluating species richness alone may therefore not only mask substantial declines in ecosystem function, but lead to inappropriate and inefficient allocation of limited conservation resources (21).
AVIBIO
Addressing the urgent need for multifaceted, ecosystem function-focused biodiversity conservation, Digital Ecology are developing AVIBIO, an Avian Integrated Biodiversity monitoring approach, to comprehensively evaluate British avian biodiversity. AVIBIO contains descriptive measures which break down the functional and community composition at any given site, alongside taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity measures. The functional analyses were made possible thanks to the use of the AVONET database (22), which contains morphological and ecological trait data for over 11,000 species of bird. We hope that AVIBIO can be used to empower conservationists with the necessary information to make informed decisions regarding biodiversity management, ensuring we conserve both species rich and functionally robust ecosystems. As the conservation community calls for integrative biodiversity monitoring, AVIBIO represents a pivotal step towards ensuring the effective protection of ecosystems and the services they provide.
References
Oliver et al., 2015. Declining resilience of ecosystem functions under biodiversity loss. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10122
Jarzyna and Jetz, 2016. Detecting the multiple facets of biodiversity. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.04.002
Magurran and McGill, 2011. Biological diversity: frontiers in measurement and assessment. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/666756
Cardoso et al., 2014. A new frontier in biodiversity inventory: a proposal for estimators of phylogenetic and functional diversity. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12173
Safi et al., 2011. Understanding global patterns of mammalian functional and phylogenetic diversity. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0024
Ali, 2023. Biodiversity–ecosystem functioning research: Brief history, major trends and perspectives. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110210
Devictor et al. 2010. Spatial mismatch and congruence between taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity: the need for integrative conservation strategies in a changing world. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01493.x
Srivastava et al., 2012. Phylogenetic diversity and the functioning of ecosystems. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01795.x
Flynn et al., 2011. Functional and phylogenetic diversity as predictors of biodiversity–ecosystem‐function relationships. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/10-1245.1
Mammola et al., 2021. Concepts and applications in functional diversity. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13882
Jarzyna and Jetz, 2018. Taxonomic and functional diversity change is scale dependent. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04889-z
Cadotte et al., 2011. Beyond species: functional diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and services. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02048.x
Song et al., 2014. Relationships between functional diversity and ecosystem functioning: A review. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chnaes.2014.01.001
Le Bagousse-Pinguet et al., 2019. Phylogenetic, functional, and taxonomic richness have both positive and negative effects on ecosystem multifunctionality. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1815727116
Liu et al., 2021. Phylogenetic and functional diversity could be better indicators of macroinvertebrate community stability. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107892
Cadotte et al., 2012. Phylogenetic diversity promotes ecosystem stability. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/11-0426.1
Flynn et al., 2009. Loss of functional diversity under land use intensification across multiple taxa. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01255.x
Baiser and Lockwood, 2011. The relationship between functional and taxonomic homogenization. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00583.x
Biswas and Malik, 2010. Disturbance effects on species diversity and functional diversity in riparian and upland plant communities. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/08-0887.1
Villéger et al., 2010. Contrasting changes in taxonomic vs. functional diversity of tropical fish communities after habitat degradation. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/09-1310.1
Monnet et al., 2014. Asynchrony of taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity in birds. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12179
Tobias et al., 2022. AVONET: morphological, ecological and geographical data for all birds. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13898