Effective ecosystem monitoring requires a multi-scaled approach.
biodiversity monitoring
collaboration
ecological questions
ecosystem monitoring
environmental change
environmental monitoring
landscape monitoring
research infrastructure
surveillance monitoring
targeted monitoring
Journal
Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society
ISSN: 1469-185X
Titre abrégé: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0414576
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
received:
28
11
2019
revised:
18
06
2020
accepted:
22
06
2020
pubmed:
11
7
2020
medline:
26
10
2021
entrez:
11
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Ecosystem monitoring is fundamental to our understanding of how ecosystem change is impacting our natural resources and is vital for developing evidence-based policy and management. However, the different types of ecosystem monitoring, along with their recommended applications, are often poorly understood and contentious. Varying definitions and strict adherence to a specific monitoring type can inhibit effective ecosystem monitoring, leading to poor program development, implementation and outcomes. In an effort to develop a more consistent and clear understanding of ecosystem monitoring programs, we here review the main types of monitoring and recommend the widespread adoption of three classifications of monitoring, namely, targeted, surveillance and landscape monitoring. Landscape monitoring is conducted over large areas, provides spatial data, and enables questions relating to where and when ecosystem change is occurring to be addressed. Surveillance monitoring uses standardised field methods to inform on what is changing in our environments and the direction and magnitude of that change, whilst targeted monitoring is designed around testable hypotheses over defined areas and is the best approach for determining the causes of ecosystem change. The classification system is flexible and can incorporate different interests, objectives, targets and characteristics as well as different spatial scales and temporal frequencies, while also providing valuable structure and consistency across distinct ecosystem monitoring programs. To support our argument, we examine the ability of each monitoring type to inform on six key types of questions that are routinely posed for ecosystem monitoring programs, such as where and when change is occurring, what is the magnitude of change, and how can the change be managed? As we demonstrate, each type of ecosystem monitoring has its own strengths and weaknesses, which should be carefully considered relative to the desired results. Using this scheme, scientists and land managers can design programs best suited to their needs. Finally, we assert that for our most serious environmental challenges, it is essential that we include information from each of these monitoring scales to inform on all facets of ecosystem change, and this is best achieved through close collaboration between the scales. With a renewed understanding of the importance of each monitoring type, along with greater commitment to monitor cooperatively, we will be well placed to address some of our greatest environmental challenges.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32648358
doi: 10.1111/brv.12636
pmc: PMC7689690
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1706-1719Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Biological Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Cambridge Philosophical Society.
Références
Environ Monit Assess. 2014 Jun;186(6):3605-17
pubmed: 24488328
Restor Ecol. 2014 May;22(3):336-344
pubmed: 32327918
Science. 2011 Apr 1;332(6025):53-8
pubmed: 21454781
J Environ Manage. 2003 Jun;68(2):121-32
pubmed: 12781752
Ecol Lett. 2010 Nov;13(11):1325-37
pubmed: 20678146
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016 Sep 5;371(1702):
pubmed: 27481789
Sci Total Environ. 2018 Feb 1;613-614:1376-1384
pubmed: 29898505
Trends Ecol Evol. 2010 Oct;25(10):547-50
pubmed: 20727614
Science. 2019 Jul 5;365(6448):76-79
pubmed: 31273120
Glob Chang Biol. 2019 Jan;25(1):174-186
pubmed: 30549201
J Environ Manage. 2006 Jan;78(2):194-9
pubmed: 16112339
C R Biol. 2011 May;334(5-6):370-7
pubmed: 21640945
Nature. 2005 Mar 3;434(7029):45-9
pubmed: 15744293
Science. 2001 Jul 27;293(5530):657-60
pubmed: 11474103
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014 Apr 14;369(1643):20130190
pubmed: 24733945
Science. 2008 Aug 22;321(5892):1044-5
pubmed: 18719268
Ecol Lett. 2017 Feb;20(2):147-157
pubmed: 28029730
Conserv Biol. 2015 Apr;29(2):350-9
pubmed: 25319024
Science. 2013 Jan 18;339(6117):277-8
pubmed: 23329036
Trends Ecol Evol. 2006 Dec;21(12):668-73
pubmed: 16919361
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2018 Feb;93(1):600-625
pubmed: 28766908
Science. 2018 Jun 22;360(6395):1303-1305
pubmed: 29930127
Science. 2013 Nov 15;342(6160):850-3
pubmed: 24233722
PLoS One. 2019 Feb 27;14(2):e0211855
pubmed: 30811515
Environ Pollut. 2002;116 Suppl 1:S233-42
pubmed: 11833910
Nature. 2016 Jun 15;534(7607):326
pubmed: 27306181
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Oct 31;114(44):11615-11620
pubmed: 29078342
Science. 2017 May 12;356(6338):635-638
pubmed: 28495750
J Environ Manage. 2014 Nov 1;144:226-35
pubmed: 24973611
Environ Res. 1989 Oct;50(1):195-205
pubmed: 2676509
Science. 2014 Oct 17;346(6207):301-2
pubmed: 25324372
Nat Ecol Evol. 2018 May;2(5):819-826
pubmed: 29610472
J Environ Manage. 2009 Jul;90(10):2931-42
pubmed: 19501450
Glob Chang Biol. 2015 May;21(5):1980-92
pubmed: 25640302
Nat Ecol Evol. 2018 Aug;2(8):1192-1193
pubmed: 29967486
Nature. 2016 Mar 10;531(7593):181-2
pubmed: 26886792
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 17;12(1):e0170137
pubmed: 28095496
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 14;10(9):e0137811
pubmed: 26368919