Moussy Caroline, Burfield Ian J, Stephenson P J, Newton Arabella F E, Butchart Stuart H M, Sutherland William J, Gregory Richard D, McRae Louise, Bubb Philip, Roesler Ignacio, Ursino Cynthia, Wu Yanqing, Retief Ernst F, Udin Jihad S, Urazaliyev Ruslan, Sánchez-Clavijo Lina M, Lartey Eric, Donald Paul F
BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.
IUCN SSC Species Monitoring Specialist Group, Gingins, Switzerland.
Conserv Biol. 2022 Feb;36(1):e13721. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13721. Epub 2021 Jun 1.
Species monitoring, defined here as the repeated, systematic collection of data to detect long-term changes in the populations of wild species, is a vital component of conservation practice and policy. We created a database of nearly 1200 schemes, ranging in start date from 1800 to 2018, to review spatial, temporal, taxonomic, and methodological patterns in global species monitoring. We identified monitoring schemes through standardized web searches, an online survey of stakeholders, in-depth national searches in a sample of countries, and a review of global biodiversity databases. We estimated the total global number of monitoring schemes operating at 3300-15,000. Since 2000, there has been a sharp increase in the number of new schemes being initiated in lower- and middle-income countries and in megadiverse countries, but a decrease in high-income countries. The total number of monitoring schemes in a country and its per capita gross domestic product were strongly, positively correlated. Schemes that were active in 2018 had been running for an average of 21 years in high-income countries, compared with 13 years in middle-income countries and 10 years in low-income countries. In high-income countries, over one-half of monitoring schemes received government funding, but this was less than one-quarter in low-income countries. Data collection was undertaken partly or wholly by volunteers in 37% of schemes, and such schemes covered significantly more sites and species than those undertaken by professionals alone. Birds were by far the most widely monitored taxonomic group, accounting for around half of all schemes, but this bias declined over time. Monitoring in most taxonomic groups remains sparse and uncoordinated, and most of the data generated are elusive and unlikely to feed into wider biodiversity conservation processes. These shortcomings could be addressed by, for example, creating an open global meta-database of biodiversity monitoring schemes and enhancing capacity for species monitoring in countries with high biodiversity. Article impact statement: Species population monitoring for conservation purposes remains strongly biased toward a few vertebrate taxa in wealthier countries.
物种监测，在这里定义为对数据进行反复、系统的收集以检测野生物种种群的长期变化，是保护实践和政策的重要组成部分。我们创建了一个包含近1200个监测计划的数据库，起始日期从1800年到2018年，以审视全球物种监测中的空间、时间、分类学和方法学模式。我们通过标准化的网络搜索、对利益相关者的在线调查、在部分国家进行深入的全国性搜索以及对全球生物多样性数据库的审查来确定监测计划。我们估计全球正在运行的监测计划总数在3300 - 15000个之间。自2000年以来，低收入和中等收入国家以及生物多样性丰富的国家启动的新监测计划数量急剧增加，但高收入国家的数量却有所减少。一个国家的监测计划总数与其人均国内生产总值呈强正相关。2018年仍在运行的监测计划在高收入国家平均已实施21年，而在中等收入国家为13年，在低收入国家为10年。在高收入国家，超过一半的监测计划获得政府资助，但在低收入国家这一比例不到四分之一。37%的监测计划部分或全部由志愿者进行数据收集，而且这些计划涵盖的地点和物种比仅由专业人员开展的计划要多得多。鸟类是迄今为止监测最为广泛的分类类群，约占所有监测计划的一半左右，但这种偏差随着时间推移有所下降。大多数分类类群的监测仍然稀疏且缺乏协调，所产生的大部分数据难以获取，不太可能纳入更广泛的生物多样性保护进程。例如，可以通过创建一个开放的全球生物多样性监测计划元数据库以及提高生物多样性丰富国家的物种监测能力来解决这些不足。文章影响声明：出于保护目的的物种种群监测在较富裕国家仍然严重偏向少数脊椎动物类群。
