Corrected on Jul 20, 2023.

Source: the publisher, via Crossref · checked Oct 26, 2026 · Read the notice

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

Lawrence N. Hudson, Tim Newbold, Sara Contu and 97 more

Ecology and Evolution · 2014 · CC BY

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 – https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/our-work/biodiversity/predicts.html ). We make site‐level summary data available alongside this article. The full database will be publicly available in 2015.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 26, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

1Despite 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.; Mace et al. ). 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.; Jones et al. ). 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. ). 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 ). 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. ). 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.

2The 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 ). 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. ). 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; Pfeifer et al. ), 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.; Pfeifer et al. ), when analyses focus on community‐level summaries rather than individual species (e.g., Algar et al. ), and when the spatial and temporal variations being considered are similar in magnitude (Blois et al. ). 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.

3Openness 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. ). Transparency has already been highlighted as crucial to the credibility of biodiversity indicators and models (e.g., UNEP‐WCMC; Feld et al.; Heink and Kowarik ) but the datasets underpinning previous policy‐relevant analyses have not always been made publicly available.

4We 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 ) and GLOBIO3 (Alkemade et al. ).

5In 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:

6The 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 andHow human impacts alter community composition.

7The responses of biodiversity to human impacts for different countries, biomes and major taxonomic groups;

8The differing responses within and outside protected areas;

9How traits such as body size, range size and ecological specialism mediate responses and

10How human impacts alter community composition.

11The 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.

Criteria for inclusion

12We considered only data that met all of the following criteria:

13Data 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.

14Data are published, in press or were collected using a published methodology;

15The 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;

16Some 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;

17Measurements within each data source were taken using the same sampling procedure, possibly with variation in sampling effort, at each site and time;

18The paper reported, or authors subsequently provided, geographical coordinates for the sites sampled.

19One 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. ). 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.

20Where possible, we also obtained the following (see Site characteristics, below, for more details):

21The 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.

22The identities of the taxa sampled, ideally resolved to species level;

23The date(s) on which each measurement was taken;

24The area of the habitat patch that encompassed each site;

25The maximum linear extent sampled at the site;

26An indication of the land use at each site, e.g. primary, secondary, cropland, pasture;

27Indications of how intensively each site was used by people;

28Descriptions of any transects used in sampling (start point, end point, direction, etc.);

29Other 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

30We 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.; Hudson et al. ). 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

31To 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.

32Most 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

33We 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.

34We 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.

35Where 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

36We 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) ) 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.

37For 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.

38We 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. ) – 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. ) 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. ); 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.

39Given 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 ), 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 ); 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 ).

40Where 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.; Dickman ), 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

41Completed 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.

42We 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.

43Our 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

44In 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:

45Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World (The Nature Conservancy ), giving the ecoregion, biome and biogeographic realm;World Borders 0.3 (Thematic Mapping ), giving the country, United Nations (UN) region and UN subregion;Biodiversity Hotspots (Conservation International Foundation ).

46Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World (The Nature Conservancy ), giving the ecoregion, biome and biogeographic realm;

47World Borders 0.3 (Thematic Mapping ), giving the country, United Nations (UN) region and UN subregion;

48Biodiversity Hotspots (Conservation International Foundation ).

49Global 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.

50We 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. ) and intensity data from the Global Land Systems dataset (van Asselen and Verburg ).

Taxonomic names and classification

51We 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., henceforth COL).

52There was large variation in the form of the taxonomic names presented in the source datasets, for example:

53A 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.

54A Latin binomial, with and without authority, year and other information;

55A generic name, possibly with a number to distinguish morphospecies from congenerics in the same Study (e.g., “Bracon sp. 1”);

56The name of a higher taxonomic rank such as family, order, class;

57A common name (usually for birds), sometimes not in English;

58A textual description, code, letter or number with no further information except an indication of some aspect of higher taxonomy.

59Most 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.

60We 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.

61We 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.

62When 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

63We reviewed:

64Taxa 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.

65Taxa that had no matching COL record;

66Taxa that had a result at a rank higher than species and a “Name entered” that was either a Latin binomial or a common name;

67Cases where the same “Parsed name” in different Studies linked to different COL records;

68Studies 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.

69Where 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.

70Typographical 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.

71Some 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.

72COL 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.

73Some 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 to indicate Falco sparverius, American kestrel) or of Latin binomials (e.g., ACBA was used by Shahabuddin and Kumar to indicate Accipiter badius). Some of these codes are valid taxonomic names in their own right. For example, Shahabuddin and Kumar 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 ) – 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 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

74It 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.

75In 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. Some of the higher taxonomic groups that we computed did not directly relate to the groups presented by Chapman 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.

76For 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”:

77The 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.

78The COL taxon name if the COL rank was Species;

79The first two words of the COL taxon if the rank was Infraspecies;

80The first two words of “Parsed name” if the rank was neither Species nor Infraspecies and “Parsed name” contained two or more words;

81Empty in other cases.

82This 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

83Between 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%).

84Of 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. ).

85The 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., 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.

86The 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.

87The 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 ) – 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.

88Of 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., ).

89Of 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.; Diekötter et al. and Le Féon et al. ).

Discussion

90The 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.; Isbell et al.; Cardinale et al.; Hooper et al. ). 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.

91The 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 ), the IUCN Red List (International Union for Conservation of Nature ) and BIOFRAG (Pfeifer et al. ). 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.

92Intersecting 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.; Norris ), including – despite our efforts toward representativeness – ours.

93The 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.

Conflict of Interest

94None declared.

References 332

1.
Aben, J., M. Dorenbosch, S. K. Herzog, A. J. P. Smolders, and G. Van Der Velde. 2008. Human disturbance affects a deciduous forest bird community in the Andean foothills of Central Bolivia. Bird Conserv. Int., 18:363–380.
Not in our library
2.
Adum, G. B., M. P. Eichhorn, W. Oduro, C. Ofori‐Boateng, and M. O. Rodel. 2013. Two‐stage recovery of amphibian assemblages following selective logging of tropical forests. Conserv. Biol. 27:354–363.
Not in our library10.1111/cobi.12006
3.
Aguilar‐Barquero, V., and F. Jiménez‐Hernández. 2009. Diversidad y distribución de palmas (Arecaceae) en tres fragmentos de bosque muy húmedo en Costa Rica. Rev. Biol. Trop. 57(Supplement 1):83–92.
Not in our library
4.
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].
Not in our library
5.
Alcala, E. L., A. C. Alcala, and C. N. Dolino. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles in tropical rainforest fragments on Negros Island, the Philippines. Environ. Conserv., 31:254–261.
Not in our library
6.
Alcayaga, O. E., J. Pizarro‐Araya, F. M. Alfaro, and J. Cepeda‐Pizarro. 2013. Spiders (Arachnida, Araneae) associated to agroecosystems in the Elqui Valley (Coquimbo Region, Chile). Rev. Colomb. Entomol., 39:150–154.
Not in our library
7.
Algar, A. C., H. M. Kharouba, E. R. Young, and J. T. Kerr. 2009. Predicting the future of species diversity: macroecological theory, climate change, and direct tests of alternative forecasting methods. Ecography 32:22–33.
Not in our library
8.
Alkemade, R., M. van Oorschot, L. Miles, C. Nellemann, M. Bakkenes, and B. ten Brink. 2009. GLOBIO3: a framework to investigate options for reducing global terrestrial biodiversity loss. Ecosystems 12:374–390.
Not in our library
9.
Ancrenaz, M., B. Goossens, O. Gimenez, A. Sawang, and I. Lackman‐Ancrenaz. 2004. 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. 7:375–385.
Not in our library
10.
Arbeláez‐Cortés, E., H. A. Rodríguez‐Correa, and M. Restrepo‐Chica. 2011. Mixed bird flocks: patterns of activity and species composition in a region of the Central Andes of Colombia. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 82:639–651.
Not in our library
11.
Armbrecht, I., I. Perfecto, and E. Silverman. 2006. Limitation of nesting resources for ants in Colombian forests and coffee plantations. Ecol. Entomol. 31:403–410.
Not in our library
12.
Arroyo, J., J. C. Iturrondobeitia, C. Rad, and S. Gonzalez‐Carcedo. 2005. Oribatid mite (Acari) community structure in steppic habitats of Burgos Province, central northern Spain. J. Nat. Hist. 39:3453–3470.
Not in our library
13.
van Asselen, S., and P. H. Verburg. 2012. A Land System representation for global assessments and land‐use modelling. Glob. Change Biol. 18:3125–3148.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02759.x
14.
Azhar, B., D. B. Lindenmayer, J. Wood, J. Fischer, A. Manning, C. McElhinny, et al. 2013. The influence of agricultural system, stand structural complexity and landscape context on foraging birds in oil palm landscapes. Ibis 155:297–312.
Not in our library
15.
Azpiroz, A. B., and J. G. Blake. 2009. Avian assemblages in altered and natural grasslands in the northern Campos of Uruguay. Condor 111:21–35.
Not in our library
16.
Baeten, L., M. Hermy, S. Van Daele, and K. Verheyen. 2010a. Unexpected understorey community development after 30 years in ancient and post‐agricultural forests. J. Ecol. 98:1447–1453.
Not in our library
17.
Baeten, L., D. Velghe, M. Vanhellemont, P. De Frenne, M. Hermy, and K. Verheyen. 2010b. Early trajectories of spontaneous vegetation recovery after intensive agricultural land use. Restor. Ecol. 18:379–386.
Not in our library
18.
Báldi, A., P. Batáry, and S. Erdős. 2005. Effects of grazing intensity on bird assemblages and populations of Hungarian grasslands. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 108:251–263.
Not in our library
19.
Banks, J. E., P. Sandvik, and L. Keesecker. 2007. Beetle (Coleoptera) and spider (Araneae) diversity in a mosaic of farmland, edge, and tropical forest habitats in western Costa Rica. Pan‐Pac. Entomol. 83:152–160.
Not in our library
20.
Barlow, J., T. A. Gardner, I. S. Araujo, T. C. Avila‐Pires, A. B. Bonaldo, J. E. Costa, et al. 2007. Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary, and plantation forests. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 104:18555–18560.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0703333104
21.
Bartolommei, P., A. Mortelliti, F. Pezzo, and L. Puglisi. 2013. 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. 24:13–21.
Not in our library
22.
Basset, Y., O. Missa, A. Alonso, S. E. Miller, G. Curletti, M. De Meyer, et al. 2008. Changes in arthropod assemblages along a wide gradient of disturbance in Gabon. Conserv. Biol. 22:1552–1563.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01017.x
23.
Changing Bee and Hoverfly Pollinator Assemblages along an Urban-Rural Gradient · 2011
No notice
24.
Baur, B., C. Cremene, G. Groza, L. Rakosy, A. A. Schileyko, A. Baur, et al. 2006. Effects of abandonment of subalpine hay meadows on plant and invertebrate diversity in Transylvania, Romania. Biol. Conserv. 132:261–273.
Not in our library
25.
Berg, A., K. Ahrne, E. Ockinger, R. Svensson, and B. Soderstrom. 2011. Butterfly distribution and abundance is affected by variation in the Swedish forest‐farmland landscape. Biol. Conserv. 144:2819–2831.
Not in our library
26.
Bernard, H., J. Fjeldsa, and M. Mohamed. 2009. 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 34:85–96.
Not in our library
27.
Berry, N. J., O. L. Phillips, S. L. Lewis, J. K. Hill, D. P. Edwards, N. B. Tawatao, et al. 2010. The high value of logged tropical forests: lessons from northern Borneo. Biodivers. Conserv. 19:985–997.
Not in our library
28.
Bicknell, J., and C. A. Peres. 2010. Vertebrate population responses to reduced‐impact logging in a neotropical forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 259:2267–2275.
Not in our library
29.
Bihn, J. H., M. Verhaagh, M. Braendle, and R. Brandl. 2008. Do secondary forests act as refuges for old growth forest animals? Recovery of ant diversity in the Atlantic forest of Brazil. Biol. Conserv. 141:733–743.
Not in our library
30.
Billeter, R., J. Liira, D. Bailey, R. Bugter, P. Arens, I. Augenstein, et al. 2008. Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: a pan‐European study. J. Appl. Ecol. 45:141–150.
Not in our library
31.
Blois, J. L., J. W. Williams, M. C. Fitzpatrick, S. T. Jackson, and S. Ferrier. 2013. Space can substitute for time in predicting climate‐change effects on biodiversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110:9374–9379.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1220228110
32.
Bóçon, R. 2010. Riqueza e abundância de aves em três estágios sucessionais da floresta ombrófila densa submontana, Antonina, Paraná. PhD thesis. Universidade Federal do Paraná, Brazil.
Not in our library
33.
Borges, S. H. 2007. Bird assemblages in secondary forests developing after slash‐and‐burn agriculture in the Brazilian Amazon. J. Trop. Ecol. 23:469–477.
Not in our library
34.
Boutin, C., A. Baril, and P. A. Martin. 2008. Plant diversity in crop fields and woody hedgerows of organic and conventional farms in contrasting landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 123:185–193.
Not in our library
35.
Bouyer, J., Y. Sana, Y. Samandoulgou, J. Cesar, L. Guerrini, C. Kabore‐Zoungrana, et al. 2007. Identification of ecological indicators for monitoring ecosystem health in the trans‐boundary W Regional park: a pilot study. Biol. Conserv. 138:73–88.
Not in our library
36.
Bragagnolo, C., A. A. Nogueira, R. Pinto‐da‐Rocha, and R. Pardini. 2007. Harvestmen in an Atlantic forest fragmented landscape: evaluating assemblage response to habitat quality and quantity. Biol. Conserv. 139:389–400.
Not in our library
37.
Brearley, F. Q. 2011. Below‐ground secondary succession in tropical forests of Borneo. J. Trop. Ecol. 27:413–420.
Not in our library
38.
Brito, I., M. J. Goss, M. de Carvalho, O. Chatagnier, and D. van Tuinen. 2012. Impact of tillage system on arbuscular mycorrhiza fungal communities in the soil under Mediterranean conditions. Soil Tillage Res. 121:63–67.
Not in our library
39.
Brunet, J., K. Valtinat, M. L. Mayr, A. Felton, M. Lindbladh, and H. H. Bruun. 2011. Understory succession in post‐agricultural oak forests: habitat fragmentation affects forest specialists and generalists differently. For. Ecol. Manage. 262:1863–1871.
Not in our library
40.
Buczkowski, G. 2010. Extreme life history plasticity and the evolution of invasive characteristics in a native ant. Biol. Invasions 12:3343–3349.
Not in our library
41.
Buczkowski, G., and D. S. Richmond. 2012. The effect of urbanization on ant abundance and diversity: a temporal examination of factors affecting biodiversity. PLoS ONE 7:e41729.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0041729
42.
Buddle, C. M., and D. P. Shorthouse. 2008. Effects of experimental harvesting on spider (Araneae) assemblages in boreal deciduous forests. Can. Entomol. 140:437–452.
Not in our library
43.
Buscardo, E., G. F. Smith, D. L. Kelly, H. Freitas, S. Iremonger, F. J. G. Mitchell, et al. 2008. The early effects of afforestation on biodiversity of grasslands in Ireland. Biodivers. Conserv. 17:1057–1072.
Not in our library
44.
Butchart, S. H. M., M. Walpole, B. Collen, A. van Strien, J. P. W. Scharlemann, R. E. A. Almond, et al. 2010. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164–1168.
Not in our library10.1126/science.1187512
45.
Cabra‐García, J., C. Bermúdez‐Rivas, A. M. Osorio, and P. Chacón. 2012. Cross‐taxon congruence of alpha and beta diversity among five leaf litter arthropod groups in Colombia. Biodivers. Conserv. 21:1493–1508.
Not in our library
46.
Caceres, N. C., R. P. Napoli, J. Casella, and W. Hannibal. 2010. Mammals in a fragmented savannah landscape in south‐western Brazil. J. Nat. Hist. 44:491–512.
Not in our library
47.
Cagle, N. L. 2008. Snake species distributions and temperate grasslands: a case study from the American tallgrass prairie. Biol. Conserv. 141:744–755.
Not in our library
48.
Calviño‐Cancela, M., M. Rubido‐Bará, and E. J. B. van Etten. 2012. Do eucalypt plantations provide habitat for native forest biodiversity? For. Ecol. Manage. 270:153–162.
Not in our library
49.
Cameron, S. A., J. D. Lozier, J. P. Strange, J. B. Koch, N. Cordes, L. F. Solter, et al. 2011. Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108:662–667.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1014743108
50.
Cardinale, B. J., J. E. Duffy, A. Gonzalez, D. U. Hooper, C. Perrings, P. Venail, et al. 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486:59–67.
Not in our library10.1038/nature11148
51.
Cardoso, P., T. L. Erwin, P. A. V. Borges, and T. R. New. 2011. The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation and how to overcome them. Biol. Conserv. 144:2647–2655.
Not in our library
52.
Carrijo, T. F., D. Brandao, D. E. de Oliveira, D. A. Costa, and T. Santos. 2009. Effects of pasture implantation on the termite (Isoptera) fauna in the Central Brazilian Savanna (Cerrado). J. Insect Conserv. 13:575–581.
Not in our library
53.
Carvalho, A. L.d., E. J. L. Ferreira, J. M. T. Lima, and A. L. de Carvalho. 2010. 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., 40:657–666.
Not in our library
54.
Castro, H., V. Lehsten, S. Lavorel, and H. Freitas. 2010. Functional response traits in relation to land use change in the Montado. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 137:183–191.
Not in our library
55.
Castro‐Luna, A. A., V. J. Sosa, and G. Castillo‐Campos. 2007. Bat diversity and abundance associated with the degree of secondary succession in a tropical forest mosaic in south‐eastern Mexico. Anim. Conserv. 10:219–228.
Not in our library
56.
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). 2013a. Multidisciplinary Landscape Assessment – Cameroon [http://www.cifor.org/mla].
Not in our library
57.
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). 2013b. Multidisciplinary Landscape Assessment – Philippines [http://www.cifor.org/mla].
Not in our library
58.
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/].
Not in our library
59.
Cerezo, A., M. Conde, and S. Poggio. 2011. Pasture area and landscape heterogeneity are key determinants of bird diversity in intensively managed farmland. Biodivers. Conserv., 20:2649–2667.
Not in our library
60.
Chapman, A. D. 2009. Numbers of living species in Australia and the world. Pp. 78. Australian Biological Resources Study, Canberra, Australia.
Not in our library
61.
Chapman, K., and P. Reich. 2007. Land use and habitat gradients determine bird community diversity and abundance in suburban, rural and reserve landscapes of Minnesota, USA. Biol. Conserv. 135:527–541.
Not in our library
62.
Chauvat, M., V. Wolters, and J. Dauber. 2007. Response of collembolan communities to land‐use change and grassland succession. Ecography 30:183–192.
Not in our library
63.
Clarke, F. M., L. V. Rostant, and P. A. Racey. 2005. Life after logging: post‐logging recovery of a neotropical bat community. J. Appl. Ecol. 42:409–420.
Not in our library
64.
Cleary, D. F. R., and A. O. Mooers. 2006. Burning and logging differentially affect endemic vs. widely distributed butterfly species in Borneo. Divers. Distrib. 12:409–416.
Not in our library
65.
Cleary, D. F. R., A. O. Mooers, K. A. O. Eichhorn, J. van Tol, R. de Jong, and S. B. J. Menken. 2004. Diversity and community composition of butterflies and odonates in an ENSO‐induced fire affected habitat mosaic: a case study from East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Oikos 105:426–446.
Not in our library
66.
Cockle, K. L., M. L. Leonard, and A. A. Bodrati. 2005. Presence and abundance of birds in an Atlantic forest reserve and adjacent plantation of shade‐grown yerba mate, in Paraguay. Biodivers. Conserv. 14:3265–3288.
Not in our library
67.
Connop, S., T. Hill, J. Steer, and P. Shaw. 2011. Microsatellite analysis reveals the spatial dynamics of Bombus humilis and Bombus sylvarum. Insect Conserv. Divers. 4:212–221.
Not in our library
68.
Conservation International Foundation. 2011. The biodiversity hotspots [http://www.conservation.org/where/priority_areas/hotspots/Pages/hotspots_main.aspx].
Not in our library
69.
D'Aniello, B., I. Stanislao, S. Bonelli, and E. Balletto. 2011. Haying and grazing effects on the butterfly communities of two Mediterranean‐area grasslands. Biodivers. Conserv. 20:1731–1744.
Not in our library
70.
Darvill, B., M. E. Knight, and D. Goulson. 2004. Use of genetic markers to quantify bumblebee foraging range and nest density. Oikos 107:471–478.
Not in our library
71.
Davis, A. L. V., and T. K. Philips. 2005. Effect of deforestation on a southwest Ghana dung beetle assemblage (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) at the periphery of Ankasa conservation area. Environ. Entomol. 34:1081–1088.
Not in our library
72.
Davis, E. S., T. E. Murray, U. Fitzpatrick, M. J. F. Brown, and R. J. Paxton. 2010. Landscape effects on extremely fragmented populations of a rare solitary bee, Colletes floralis. Mol. Ecol. 19:4922–4935.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-294x.2010.04868.x
73.
Dawson, J., C. Turner, O. Pileng, A. Farmer, C. McGary, C. Walsh, et al. 2011. Bird communities of the lower Waria Valley, Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea: a comparison between habitat types. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 4:317–348.
Not in our library
74.
Delabie, J. H. C., R. Cereghino, S. Groc, A. Dejean, M. Gibernau, B. Corbara, et al. 2009. Ants as biological indicators of Wayana Amerindian land use in French Guiana. C.R. Biol. 332:673–684.
Not in our library10.1016/j.crvi.2009.01.006
75.
Dickman, C. R. 1987. Habitat fragmentation and vertebrate species richness in an urban environment. J. Appl. Ecol. 24:337–351.
Not in our library
76.
Diekötter, T., K. Walther‐Hellwig, M. Conradi, M. Suter, and R. Frankl. 2006. Effects of landscape elements on the distribution of the rare bumblebee species Bombus muscorum in an agricultural landscape. Biodivers. Conserv. 15:57–68.
Not in our library
77.
Diekötter, T., R. Billeter, and T. O. Crist. 2008. Effects of landscape connectivity on the spatial distribution of insect diversity in agricultural mosaic landscapes. Basic Appl. Ecol. 9:298–307.
Not in our library
78.
Domínguez, E., N. Bahamonde, and C. Muñoz‐Escobar. 2012. 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) 40:37–45.
Not in our library
79.
Dominguez‐Haydar, Y., and I. Armbrecht. 2010. Response of ants and their seed removal in rehabilitation areas and forests at El Cerrejon coal mine in Colombia. Restor. Ecol. 19:178–184.
Not in our library
80.
Dornelas, M., A. E. Magurran, S. T. Buckland, A. Chao, R. L. Chazdon, R. K. Colwell, et al. 2013. Quantifying temporal change in biodiversity: challenges and opportunities. Proc. Biol. Sci. 280:10.
Not in our library10.1098/rspb.2012.1931
81.
Dumont, B., A. Farruggia, J. P. Garel, P. Bachelard, E. Boitier, and M. Frain. 2009. How does grazing intensity influence the diversity of plants and insects in a species‐rich upland grassland on basalt soils? Grass Forage Sci. 64:92–105.
Not in our library
82.
Dures, S. G., and G. S. Cumming. 2010. The confounding influence of homogenising invasive species in a globally endangered and largely urban biome: does habitat quality dominate avian biodiversity? Biol. Conserv. 143:768–777.
Not in our library
83.
Edenius, L., G. Mikusinski, and J. Bergh. 2011. Can repeated fertilizer applications to young Norway spruce enhance avian diversity in intensively managed forests? Ambio 40:521–527.
Not in our library10.1007/s13280-011-0137-5
84.
Elek, Z., and G. L. Lovei. 2007. Patterns in ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages along an urbanisation gradient in Denmark. Acta Oecol. International Journal of Ecology32:104–111.
Not in our library
85.
Ellis, E. C., K. K. Goldewijk, S. Siebert, D. Lightman, and N. Ramankutty. 2010. Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19:589–606.
Not in our library
86.
Endo, W., C. Peres, E. Salas, S. Mori, J. Sanchez‐Vega, G. Shepard, et al. 2010. Game vertebrate densities in hunted and nonhunted forest sites in Manu National Park, Peru. Biotropica 42:251–261.
Not in our library
87.
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). 2011. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA.
Not in our library
88.
Faruk, A., D. Belabut, N. Ahmad, R. J. Knell, and T. W. J. Garner. 2013. Effects of oil‐palm plantations on diversity of tropical anurans. Conserv. Biol. 27:615–624.
Not in our library10.1111/cobi.12062
89.
Farwig, N., N. Sajita, and K. Boehning‐Gaese. 2008. Conservation value of forest plantations for bird communities in western Kenya. For. Ecol. Manage. 255:3885–3892.
Not in our library
90.
Fayle, T. M., E. C. Turner, J. L. Snaddon, V. K. Chey, A. Y. C. Chung, P. Eggleton, et al. 2010. Oil palm expansion into rain forest greatly reduces ant biodiversity in canopy, epiphytes and leaf‐litter. Basic Appl. Ecol. 11:337–345.
Not in our library
91.
Feld, C. K., J. P. Sousa, P. M. da Silva, and T. P. Dawson. 2010. Indicators for biodiversity and ecosystem services: towards an improved framework for ecosystems assessment. Biodivers. Conserv. 19:2895–2919.
Not in our library
92.
Felton, A. M., L. M. Engstrom, A. Felton, and C. D. Knott. 2003. Orangutan population density, forest structure and fruit availability in hand‐logged and unlogged peat swamp forests in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biol. Conserv. 114:91–101.
Not in our library
93.
Fensham, R., J. Dwyer, T. Eyre, R. Fairfax, and J. Wang. 2012. The effect of clearing on plant composition in mulga (Acacia aneura) dry forest, Australia. Austral Ecol. 37:183–192.
Not in our library
94.
Fermon, H., M. Waltert, R. I. Vane‐Wright, and M. Muhlenberg. 2005. Forest use and vertical stratification in fruit‐feeding butterflies of Sulawesi, Indonesia: impacts for conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 14:333–350.
Not in our library
95.
Ferreira, C., and P. C. Alves. 2005. 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. Pp. 95. Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos (CIBIO), Vairão, Portugal.
Not in our library
96.
Fierro, M. M., L. Cruz‐Lopez, D. Sanchez, R. Villanueva‐Gutierrez, and R. Vandame. 2012. Effect of biotic factors on the spatial distribution of stingless bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Meliponini) in fragmented neotropical habitats. Neotrop. Entomol. 41:95–104.
Not in our library10.1007/s13744-011-0009-5
97.
Filgueiras, B., L. Iannuzzi, and I. Leal. 2011. Habitat fragmentation alters the structure of dung beetle communities in the Atlantic Forest. Biol. Conserv. 144:362–369.
Not in our library
98.
Flaspohler, D. J., C. P. Giardina, G. P. Asner, P. Hart, J. Price, C. K. Lyons, et al. 2010. Long‐term effects of fragmentation and fragment properties on bird species richness in Hawaiian forests. Biol. Conserv. 143:280–288.
Not in our library
99.
Functional Diversity of Plant–Pollinator Interaction Webs Enhances the Persistence of Plant Communities · 2005
No notice
100.
Fukuda, D., O. B. Tisen, K. Momose, and S. Sakai. 2009. Bat diversity in the vegetation mosaic around a lowland dipterocarp forest of Borneo. Raffles Bull. Zool. 57:213–221.
Not in our library
101.
Furlani, D., G. F. Ficetola, G. Colombo, M. Ugurlucan, and F. De Bernardi. 2009. Deforestation and the structure of frog communities in the Humedale Terraba‐Sierpe, Costa Rica. Zoolog. Sci. 26:197–202.
Not in our library10.2108/zsj.26.197
102.
Garden, J. G., C. A. McAlpine, and H. P. Possingham. 2010. Multi‐scaled habitat considerations for conserving urban biodiversity: native reptiles and small mammals in Brisbane, Australia. Landscape Ecol. 25:1013–1028.
Not in our library
103.
Gardner, T. A., M. I. M. Hernandez, J. Barlow, and C. A. Peres. 2008. Understanding the biodiversity consequences of habitat change: the value of secondary and plantation forests for neotropical dung beetles. J. Appl. Ecol. 45:883–893.
Not in our library
104.
Gheler‐Costa, C., C. A. Vettorazzi, R. Pardini, and L. M. Verdade. 2012. The distribution and abundance of small mammals in agroecosystems of southeastern Brazil. Mammalia 76:185–191.
Not in our library
105.
Gibson, L., T. M. Lee, L. P. Koh, B. W. Brook, T. A. Gardner, J. Barlow, et al. 2011. Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 478:378–383.
Not in our library10.1038/nature10425
106.
Giordani, P. 2012. Assessing the effects of forest management on epiphytic lichens in coppiced forests using different indicators. Plant Biosyst. 146:628–637.
Not in our library
107.
Giordano, S., S. Sorbo, P. Adamo, A. Basile, V. Spagnuolo, and R. C. Cobianchi. 2004. Biodiversity and trace element content of epiphytic bryophytes in urban and extraurban sites of southern Italy. Plant Ecol. 170:1–14.
Not in our library
108.
Golodets, C., J. Kigel, and M. Sternberg. 2010. Recovery of plant species composition and ecosystem function after cessation of grazing in a Mediterranean grassland. Plant Soil 329:365–378.
Not in our library
109.
Gottschalk, M. S., D. C. De Toni, V. L. S. Valente, and P. R. P. Hofmann. 2007. Changes in Brazilian Drosophilidae (Diptera) assemblages across an urbanisation gradient. Neotrop. Entomol. 36:848–862.
Not in our library10.1590/s1519-566x2007000600005
110.
Goulson, D., G. C. Lye, and B. Darvill. 2008. Diet breadth, coexistence and rarity in bumblebees. Biodivers. Conserv. 17:3269–3288.
Not in our library
111.
Goulson, D., O. Lepais, S. O'Connor, J. L. Osborne, R. A. Sanderson, J. Cussans, et al. 2010. Effects of land use at a landscape scale on bumblebee nest density and survival. J. Appl. Ecol. 47:1207–1215.
Not in our library
112.
Gove, A. D., J. D. Majer, and V. Rico‐Gray. 2005. Methods for conservation outside of formal reserve systems: the case of ants in the seasonally dry tropics of Veracruz, Mexico. Biol. Conserv. 126:328–338.
Not in our library
113.
Grogan, J., S. B. Jennings, R. M. Landis, M. Schulze, A. M. V. Baima, J.D. C. A. Lopes, et al. 2008. 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., 255:269–281.
Not in our library
114.
Gu, W.‐B., Y. Zhen‐Rong, and H. Dun‐Xiao. 2004. 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. 12:262–268.
Not in our library
115.
Gutierrez‐Lamus, D. L. 2004. Composition and abundance of Anura in two forest types (natural and planted) in the eastern Cordillera of Colombia. Caldasia 26:245–264.
Not in our library
116.
Hanley, M. E. 2005. Unpublished data of bee diversity in UK croplands.
Not in our library
117.
Hanley, M. E. 2011. Unpublished data of bee diversity in UK croplands and urban habitats.
Not in our library
118.
Hanley, M. E., M. Franco, C. E. Dean, E. L. Franklin, H. R. Harris, A. G. Haynes, et al. 2011. Increased bumblebee abundance along the margins of a mass flowering crop: evidence for pollinator spill‐over. Oikos 120:1618–1624.
Not in our library
119.
Hanson, T. R., S. J. Brunsfeld, B. Finegan, and L. P. Waits. 2008. Pollen dispersal and genetic structure of the tropical tree Dipteryx panamensis in a fragmented Costa Rican landscape. Mol. Ecol. 17:2060–2073.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-294x.2008.03726.x
120.
Hashim, N., W. Akmal, W. Jusoh, and M. Nasir. 2010. Ant diversity in a Peninsular Malaysian mangrove forest and oil palm plantation. Asian Myrmecol. 3:5–8.
Not in our library
121.
Hatfield, R. G., and G. LeBuhn. 2007. Patch and landscape factors shape community assemblage of bumble bees, Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae), in montane meadows. Biol. Conserv. 139:150–158.
Not in our library
122.
Hawes, J., C. da Silva Motta, W. L. Overal, J. Barlow, T. A. Gardner, and C. A. Peres. 2009. Diversity and composition of Amazonian moths in primary, secondary and plantation forests. J. Trop. Ecol., 25:281–300.
Not in our library
123.
Heink, U., and I. Kowarik. 2010. What criteria should be used to select biodiversity indicators? Biodivers. Conserv. 19:3769–3797.
Not in our library
124.
Helden, A. J., and S. R. Leather. 2004. Biodiversity on urban roundabouts – Hemiptera, management and the species‐area relationship. Basic Appl. Ecol. 5:367–377.
Not in our library
125.
Hernández, L., L. Delgado, W. Meier, and C. Duran. 2012. Empobrecimiento de bosques fragmentados en el norte de la Gran Sabana, Venezuela. Interciencia 37:891–898.
Not in our library
126.
Herrmann, F., C. Westphal, R. F. A. Moritz, and I. Steffan‐Dewenter. 2007. Genetic diversity and mass resources promote colony size and forager densities of a social bee (Bombus pascuorum) in agricultural landscapes. Mol. Ecol. 16:1167–1178.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-294x.2007.03226.x
127.
Hietz, P. 2005. Conservation of vascular epiphyte diversity in Mexican coffee plantations. Conserv. Biol. 19:391–399.
Not in our library
128.
Higuera, D., and J. H. D. Wolf. 2010. Vascular epiphytes in dry oak forests show resilience to anthropogenic disturbance, Cordillera Oriental, Colombia. Caldasia 32:161–174.
Not in our library
129.
Hilje, B., and T. M. Aide. 2012. Recovery of amphibian species richness and composition in a chronosequence of secondary forests, northeastern Costa Rica. Biol. Conserv. 146:170–176.
Not in our library
130.
Hoffmann, A., and U. Zeller. 2005. Influence of variations in land use intensity on species diversity and abundance of small mammals in the Nama Karoo, Namibia. Belg. J. Zool. 135:91–96.
Not in our library
131.
Hooper, D. U., E. C. Adair, B. J. Cardinale, J. E. K. Byrnes, B. A. Hungate, K. L. Matulich, et al. 2012. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature 486:105–108.
Not in our library10.1038/nature11118
132.
Horgan, F. G. 2009. Invasion and retreat: shifting assemblages of dung beetles amidst changing agricultural landscapes in central Peru. Biodivers. Conserv. 18:3519–3541.
Not in our library
133.
Hu, C., and Z. P. Cao. 2008. Nematode community structure under compost and chemical fertilizer management practice, in the north China plain. Exp. Agric. 44:485–496.
Not in our library
134.
Hudson, L. N., T. Newbold, D. W. Purves, J. P. W. Scharlemann, G. Mace, and A. Purvis. 2013. Projecting responses of ecological diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems (PREDICTS): can you help? BES Bull. 44:36–37.
Not in our library
135.
Hurtt, G. C., L. P. Chini, S. Frolking, R. A. Betts, J. Feddema, G. Fischer, et al. 2011. 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 109:117–161.
Not in our library
136.
Hylander, K., and S. Nemomissa. 2009. Complementary roles of home gardens and exotic tree plantations as alternative habitats for plants of the Ethiopian montane rainforest. Conserv. Biol. 23:400–409.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01097.x
137.
Hylander, K., and H. Weibull. 2012. 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. 49:1316–1324.
Not in our library
138.
Ims, R. A., and J. A. Henden. 2012. Collapse of an arctic bird community resulting from ungulate‐induced loss of erect shrubs. Biol. Conserv. 149:2–5.
Not in our library
139.
International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2013. The IUCN red list of threatened species [http://www.iucnredlist.org/].
Not in our library
140.
Isaacs‐Cubides, P. J., and J. N. Urbina‐Cardona. 2011. Anthropogenic disturbance and edge effects on anuran assemblages inhabiting cloud forest fragments in Colombia. Natureza Conservacao 9:39–46.
Not in our library
141.
Isbell, F., V. Calcagno, A. Hector, J. Connolly, W. S. Harpole, P. B. Reich, et al. 2011. High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature 477:199–203.
Not in our library10.1038/nature10282
142.
Ishitani, M., D. J. Kotze, and J. Niemela. 2003. Changes in carabid beetle assemblages across an urban‐rural gradient in Japan. Ecography 26:481–489.
Not in our library
143.
Jacobs, C. T., C. H. Scholtz, F. Escobar, and A. L. V. Davis. 2010. How might intensification of farming influence dung beetle diversity (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in Maputo Special Reserve (Mozambique)? J. Insect Conserv. 14:389–399.
Not in our library
144.
Johnson, E. A., and K. Miyanishi. 2008. Testing the assumptions of chronosequences in succession. Ecol. Lett. 11:419–431.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01173.x
145.
Johnson, M. F., A. Gómez, and M. Pinedo‐Vasquez. 2008. Land use and mosquito diversity in the Peruvian Amazon. J. Med. Entomol. 45:1023–1030.
Not in our library10.1603/0022-2585(2008)45[1023:luamdi]2.0.co;2
146.
Jones, K. E., J. Bielby, M. Cardillo, S. A. Fritz, J. O'Dell, D. L. Orme, et al. 2009. PanTHERIA: a species‐level database of life history, ecology, and geography of extant and recently extinct mammals. Ecology 90:2648.
Not in our library
147.
Jones, J. P. G., B. Collen, G. Atkinson, P. W. J. Baxter, P. Bubb, J. B. Illian, et al. 2011. The why, what, and how of global biodiversity indicators beyond the 2010 target. Conserv. Biol. 25:450–457.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01605.x
148.
Jonsell, M. 2012. Old park trees as habitat for saproxylic beetle species. Biodivers. Conserv. 21:619–642.
Not in our library
149.
Julier, H. E., and T. H. Roulston. 2009. Wild bee abundance and pollination service in cultivated pumpkins: farm management, nesting behavior and landscape effects. J. Econ. Entomol. 102:563–573.
Not in our library10.1603/029.102.0214
150.
Jung, T. S., and T. Powell. 2011. Spatial distribution of meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius) in logged boreal forest of northwestern Canada. Mammalian Biology 76:678–682.
Not in our library
151.
Justice, C. O., E. Vermote, J. R. G. Townshend, R. Defries, D. P. Roy, D. K. Hall, et al. 1998. The moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer (MODIS): Land remote sensing for global change research. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 36:1228–1249.
Not in our library
152.
Kapoor, V. 2008. Effects of rainforest fragmentation and shade‐coffee plantations on spider communities in the Western Ghats, India. J. Insect Conserv. 12:53–68.
Not in our library
153.
Kappes, H., L. Katzschner, and C. Nowak. 2012. Urban summer heat load: meteorological data as a proxy for metropolitan biodiversity. Meteorol. Z. 21:525–528.
Not in our library
154.
Kati, V., K. Zografou, E. Tzirkalli, T. Chitos, and L. Willemse. 2012. Butterfly and grasshopper diversity patterns in humid Mediterranean grasslands: the roles of disturbance and environmental factors. J. Insect Conserv. 16:807–818.
Not in our library
155.
Katovai, E., A. L. Burley, and M. M. Mayfield. 2012. Understory plant species and functional diversity in the degraded wet tropical forests of Kolombangara Island, Solomon Islands. Biol. Conserv. 145:214–224.
Not in our library
156.
Kattge, J., S. Diaz, S. Lavorel, C. Prentice, P. Leadley, G. Bonisch, et al. 2011. TRY – a global database of plant traits. Glob. Change Biol. 17:2905–2935.
Not in our library
157.
Kessler, M., P. J. A. Kessler, S. R. Gradstein, K. Bach, M. Schmull, and R. Pitopang. 2005. Tree diversity in primary forest and different land use systems in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Biodivers. Conserv. 14:547–560.
Not in our library
158.
Kessler, M., S. Abrahamczyk, M. Bos, D. Buchori, D. D. Putra, S. R. Gradstein, et al. 2009. Alpha and beta diversity of plants and animals along a tropical land‐use gradient. Ecol. Appl. 19:2142–2156.
Not in our library10.1890/08-1074.1
159.
Knight, M. E., J. L. Osborne, R. A. Sanderson, R. J. Hale, A. P. Martin, and D. Goulson. 2009. Bumblebee nest density and the scale of available forage in arable landscapes. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2:116–124.
Not in our library
160.
Knop, E., P. I. Ward, and S. A. Wich. 2004. A comparison of orang‐utan density in a logged and unlogged forest on Sumatra. Biol. Conserv. 120:183–188.
Not in our library
161.
Kohler, F., J. Verhulst, R. van Klink, and D. Kleijn. 2008. At what spatial scale do high‐quality habitats enhance the diversity of forbs and pollinators in intensively farmed landscapes? J. Appl. Ecol. 45:753–762.
Not in our library
162.
Koivula, M., V. Hyyrylainen, and E. Soininen. 2004. Carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) at forest‐farmland edges in southern Finland. J. Insect Conserv. 8:297–309.
Not in our library
163.
Kolb, A., and M. Diekmann. 2004. Effects of environment, habitat configuration and forest continuity on the distribution of forest plant species. J. Veg. Sci. 15:199–208.
Not in our library
164.
Kőrösi, Á., P. Batáry, A. Orosz, D. Rédei, and A. Báldi. 2012. Effects of grazing, vegetation structure and landscape complexity on grassland leafhoppers (Hemiptera: Auchenorrhyncha) and true bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) in Hungary. Insect Conserv. Divers. 5:57–66.
Not in our library
165.
Krauss, J., I. Steffan‐Dewenter, and T. Tscharntke. 2003. How does landscape context contribute to effects of habitat fragmentation on diversity and population density of butterflies? J. Biogeogr. 30:889–900.
Not in our library
166.
Krauss, J., A. M. Klein, I. Steffan‐Dewenter, and T. Tscharntke. 2004. Effects of habitat area, isolation, and landscape diversity on plant species richness of calcareous grasslands. Biodivers. Conserv. 13:1427–1439.
Not in our library
167.
Kumar, R., and G. Shahabuddin. 2005. Effects of biomass extraction on vegetation structure, diversity and composition of forests in Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Environ. Conserv. 32:248–259.
Not in our library
168.
Lachat, T., S. Attignon, J. Djego, G. Goergen, P. Nagel, B. Sinsin, et al. 2006. Arthropod diversity in Lama forest reserve (South Benin), a mosaic of natural, degraded and plantation forests. Biodivers. Conserv. 15:3–23.
Not in our library
169.
Landis, J. R., and G. G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174.
Not in our library
170.
Lantschner, M. V., V. Rusch, and C. Peyrou. 2008. Bird assemblages in pine plantations replacing native ecosystems in NW Patagonia. Biodivers. Conserv. 17:969–989.
Not in our library
171.
Lantschner, M. V., V. Rusch, and J. P. Hayes. 2012. Habitat use by carnivores at different spatial scales in a plantation forest landscape in Patagonia, Argentina. For. Ecol. Manage. 269:271–278.
Not in our library
172.
Latta, S. C., B. A. Tinoco, P. X. Astudillo, and C. H. Graham. 2011. Patterns and magnitude of temporal change in avian communities in the Ecuadorian Andes. Condor 113:24–40.
Not in our library
173.
Le Féon, V., A. Schermann‐Legionnet, Y. Delettre, S. Aviron, R. Billeter, R. Bugter, et al. 2010. Intensification of agriculture, landscape composition and wild bee communities: a large scale study in four European countries. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 137:143–150.
Not in our library
174.
Légaré, J.‐P., C. Hébert, and J. Ruel. 2011. Alternative silvicultural practices in irregular boreal forests: response of beetle assemblages. Silva Fennica. 45:937–956.
Not in our library
175.
Letcher, S. G., and R. L. Chazdon. 2009. Rapid recovery of biomass, species richness, and species composition in a forest chronosequence in northeastern Costa Rica. Biotropica 41:608–617.
Not in our library
176.
Littlewood, N. A., R. J. Pakeman, and G. Pozsgai. 2012. Grazing impacts on Auchenorrhyncha diversity and abundance on a Scottish upland estate. Insect Conserv. Divers. 5:67–74.
Not in our library
177.
Liu, Y. H., J. C. Axmacher, C. L. Wang, L. T. Li, and Z. R. Yu. 2012. Ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages of restored semi‐natural habitats and intensively cultivated fields in northern China. Restor. Ecol. 20:234–239.
Not in our library
178.
Lo‐Man‐Hung, N. F., T. A. Gardner, M. A. Ribeiro‐Júnior, J. Barlow, and A. B. Bonaldo. 2008. The value of primary, secondary, and plantation forests for Neotropical epigeic arachnids. J. Arachnol. 36:394–401.
Not in our library
179.
López‐Quintero, C. A., G. Straatsma, A. E. Franco‐Molano, and T. Boekhout. 2012. Macrofungal diversity in Colombian Amazon forests varies with regions and regimes of disturbance. Biodivers. Conserv. 21:2221–2243.
Not in our library
180.
Louhaichi, M., A. K. Salkini, and S. L. Petersen. 2009. Effect of small ruminant grazing on the plant community characteristics of semiarid Mediterranean ecosystems. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 11:681–689.
Not in our library
181.
Lucas‐Borja, M. E., F. Bastida, J. L. Moreno, C. Nicolas, M. Andres, F. R. Lopez, et al. 2011. The effects of human trampling on the microbiological properties of soil and vegetation in Mediterranean mountain areas. Land Degrad. Dev. 22:383–394.
Not in our library
182.
Luja, V., S. Herrando‐Perez, D. Gonzalez‐Solis, and L. Luiselli. 2008. Secondary rain forests are not havens for reptile species in tropical Mexico. Biotropica 40:747–757.
Not in our library
183.
Luskin, M. S. 2010. Flying foxes prefer to forage in farmland in a tropical dry forest landscape mosaic in Fiji. Biotropica 42:246–250.
Not in our library
184.
Mace, G. M., W. Cramer, S. Diaz, D. P. Faith, A. Larigauderie, P. Le Prestre, et al. 2010. Biodiversity targets after 2010. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2:3–8.
Not in our library
185.
MacSwiney, M. C. G., P. L. Vilchis, F. M. Clarke, and P. A. Racey. 2007. The importance of cenotes in conserving bat assemblages in the Yucatan, Mexico. Biol. Conserv. 136:499–509.
Not in our library
186.
Maeto, K., and S. Sato. 2004. Impacts of forestry on ant species richness and composition in warm‐temperate forests of Japan. For. Ecol. Manage. 187:213–223.
Not in our library
187.
Magura, T., R. Horvath, and B. Tothmeresz. 2010. Effects of urbanization on ground‐dwelling spiders in forest patches, in Hungary. Landscape Ecol. 25:621–629.
Not in our library
188.
Mallari, N. A. D., N. J. Collar, D. C. Lee, P. J. K. McGowan, R. Wilkinson, and S. J. Marsden. 2011. Population densities of understorey birds across a habitat gradient in Palawan, Philippines: implications for conservation. Oryx 45:234–242.
Not in our library
189.
Malone, L., J. Aulsford, B. Howlett, C. Scott‐Dupree, N. Bardol, and B. Donovan. 2010. Observations on bee species visiting white clover in New Zealand pastures. J. Apic. Res. 49:284–286.
Not in our library
190.
Marin‐Spiotta, E., R. Ostertag, and W. L. Silver. 2007. Long‐term patterns in tropical reforestation: plant community composition and aboveground biomass accumulation. Ecol. Appl. 17:828–839.
Not in our library10.1890/06-1268
191.
Marshall, E. J. P., T. M. West, and D. Kleijn. 2006. Impacts of an agri‐environment field margin prescription on the flora and fauna of arable farmland in different landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 113:36–44.
Not in our library
192.
Martin, P. S., C. Gheler‐Costa, P. C. Lopes, L. M. Rosalino, and L. M. Verdade. 2012. Terrestrial non‐volant small mammals in agro‐silvicultural landscapes of Southeastern Brazil. For. Ecol. Manage. 282:185–195.
Not in our library
193.
Matsumoto, T., T. Itioka, S. Yamane, and K. Momose. 2009. 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. 18:3139–3151.
Not in our library
194.
Mayfield, M. M., D. Ackerly, and G. C. Daily. 2006. The diversity and conservation of plant reproductive and dispersal functional traits in human‐dominated tropical landscapes. J. Ecol. 94:522–536.
Not in our library
195.
McFrederick, Q. S., and G. LeBuhn. 2006. Are urban parks refuges for bumble bees Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae)? Biol. Conserv. 129:372–382.
Not in our library
196.
McNamara, S., P. D. Erskine, D. Lamb, L. Chantalangsy, and S. Boyle. 2012. Primary tree species diversity in secondary fallow forests of Laos. For. Ecol. Manage. 281:93–99.
Not in our library
197.
Meyer, B., V. Gaebele, and I. D. Steffan‐Dewenter. 2007. 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 30:173–185.
Not in our library
198.
Meyer, B., F. Jauker, and I. Steffan‐Dewenter. 2009. Contrasting resource‐dependent responses of hoverfly richness and density to landscape structure. Basic Appl. Ecol. 10:178–186.
Not in our library
199.
Mico, E., A. Garcia‐Lopez, H. Brustel, A. Padilla, and E. Galante. 2013. Explaining the saproxylic beetle diversity of a protected Mediterranean area. Biodivers. Conserv. 22:889–904.
Not in our library
200.
Milder, J. C., F. A. J. DeClerck, A. Sanfiorenzo, D. M. Sanchez, D. E. Tobar, and B. Zuckerberg 2010. Effects of farm and landscape management on bird and butterfly conservation in western Honduras. Ecosphere, 1:art2.
Not in our library
201.
Miranda, M. V., N. Politi, and L. O. Rivera. 2010. Unexpected changes in the bird assemblage in areas under selective logging in piedmont forest in northwestern Argentina. Ornitol. Neotrop., 21:323–337.
Not in our library
202.
Mittermeier, R. A., P. R. Gil, and C. G. Mittermeier. 1997. Megadiversity: earth's biologically wealthiest nations. Pp. 501. CEMEX/Agrupación Sierra Madre, Mexico City, Mexico.
Not in our library
203.
Moreno‐Mateos, D., J. M. Rey Benayas, L. Perez‐Camacho, E. de la Montana, S. Rebollo, and L. Cayuela. 2011. Effects of land use on nocturnal birds in a Mediterranean agricultural landscape. Acta Ornithologica. 46:173–182.
Not in our library
204.
Muchane, M. N., D. Karanja, G. M. Wambugu, J. M. Mutahi, C. W. Masiga, C. Mugoya, et al. 2012. Land use practices and their implications on soil macro‐fauna in Maasai Mara ecosystem. Int. J. Biodivers. Conserv. 4:500–514.
Not in our library
205.
Mudri‐Stojnic, S., A. Andric, Z. Jozan, and A. Vujic. 2012. Pollinator diversity (Hymenoptera and Diptera) in semi‐natural habitats in Serbia during summer. Arch. Biol. Sci. 64:777–786.
Not in our library
206.
Naidoo, R. 2004. Species richness and community composition of songbirds in a tropical forest‐agricultural landscape. Anim. Conserv. 7:93–105.
Not in our library
207.
Nakamura, A., H. Proctor, and C. P. Catterall. 2003. Using soil and litter arthropods to assess the state of rainforest restoration. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 4(Supplement):S20–S28.
Not in our library
208.
Naoe, S., S. Sakai, and T. Masaki. 2012. 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. 17:219–223.
Not in our library
209.
Navarrete, D., and G. Halffter. 2008. 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. 17:2869–2898.
Not in our library
210.
Navarro, I. L., A. K. Roman, F. H. Gomez, and H. A. Perez. 2011. Seasonal variation in dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) from Serrania de Coraza, Sucre (Colombia). Revista Colombiana de Ciencia Animal 3:102–110.
Not in our library
211.
Neuschulz, E. L., A. Botzat, and N. Farwig. 2011. Effects of forest modification on bird community composition and seed removal in a heterogeneous landscape in South Africa. Oikos 120:1371–1379.
Not in our library
212.
Newbold, T., L. N. Hudson, D. W. Purves, J. P. W. Scharlemann, G. Mace, and A. Purvis. 2012. PREDICTS: projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity in Changing Terrestrial Systems. Front. Biogeogr. 4:155–156.
Not in our library
213.
Newbold, T., J. P. W. Scharlemann, S. H. M. Butchart, C. H. Sekercioglu, R. Alkemade, H. Booth, et al. 2013. Ecological traits affect the response of tropical forest bird species to land‐use intensity. Proc. Biol. Sci. 280:8.
Not in our library10.1098/rspb.2012.2131
214.
Newbold, T., J. P. W. Scharlemann, S. H. M. Butchart, Ç. H. Şekercioğlu, L. Joppa, R. Alkemade, et al. 2014a. Functional traits, land‐use change and the structure of present and future bird communities in tropical forests. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23:1073–1084.
Not in our library
215.
Newbold, T., L. N. Hudson, H. R. P. Phillips, S. L. L. Hill, S. Contu, I. Lysenko, et al. 2014b. A global model of the response of tropical and sub‐tropical forest biodiversity to anthropogenic pressures. Proc. Biol. Sci. 281:10.
Not in our library10.1098/rspb.2014.1371
216.
Nicolas, V., P. Barriere, A. Tapiero, and M. Colyn. 2009. Shrew species diversity and abundance in Ziama Biosphere Reserve, Guinea: comparison among primary forest, degraded forest and restoration plots. Biodivers. Conserv. 18:2043–2061.
Not in our library
217.
Nielsen, A., I. Steffan‐Dewenter, C. Westphal, O. Messinger, S. G. Potts, S. P. M. Roberts, et al. 2011. Assessing bee species richness in two Mediterranean communities: importance of habitat type and sampling techniques. Ecol. Res. 26:969–983.
Not in our library
218.
Noreika, N. 2009. New records of rare species of Coleoptera found in Ukmerg≐ district in 2004–2005. New and Rare for Lithuania Insect Species 21:68–71.
Not in our library
219.
Noreika, N., and D. J. Kotze. 2012. Forest edge contrasts have a predictable effect on the spatial distribution of carabid beetles in urban forests. J. Insect Conserv. 16:867–881.
Not in our library
220.
Norfolk, O., M. Abdel‐Dayem, and F. Gilbert. 2012. Rainwater harvesting and arthropod biodiversity within an arid agro‐ecosystem. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 162:8–14.
Not in our library
221.
Noriega, J. A., E. Realpe, and G. Fagua. 2007. Diversidad de escarabajos coprofagos (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) en un bosque de galeria con tres estadios de alteracion. Univ. Sci. 12:51–63.
Not in our library
222.
Noriega, J. A., J. M. Palacio, J. D. Monroy‐G, and E. Valencia. 2012. Estructura de un ensamblaje de escarabajos coprofagos (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) en tres sitios con diferente uso del suelo en Antioquia, Colombia. Actualidades Biológicas 34:43–54.
Not in our library
223.
Norris, K. 2012. Biodiversity in the context of ecosystem services: the applied need for systems approaches. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 367:191–199.
Not in our library10.1098/rstb.2011.0176
224.
Nöske, N. M., N. Hilt, F. A. Werner, G. Brehm, K. Fiedler, H. J. M. Sipman, et al. 2008. Disturbance effects on diversity of epiphytes and moths in a montane forest in Ecuador. Basic Appl. Ecol. 9:4–12.
Not in our library
225.
Numa, C., J. R. Verdu, C. Rueda, and E. Galante. 2012. Comparing dung beetle species assemblages between protected areas and adjacent pasturelands in a Mediterranean savanna landscape. Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 65:137–143.
Not in our library
226.
O'Connor, T. G. 2005. Influence of land use on plant community composition and diversity in Highland Sourveld grassland in the southern Drakensberg, South Africa. J. Appl. Ecol. 42:975–988.
Not in our library
227.
O'Dea, N., and R. J. Whittaker. 2007. How resilient are Andean montane forest bird communities to habitat degradation? Biodivers. Conserv. 16:1131–1159.
Not in our library
228.
Ofori‐Boateng, C., W. Oduro, A. Hillers, K. Norris, S. K. Oppong, G. B. Adum, et al. 2013. Differences in the effects of selective logging on amphibian assemblages in three west African forest types. Biotropica 45:94–101.
Not in our library
229.
Oke, C. 2013. Land snail diversity in post extraction secondary forest reserves in Edo State, Nigeria. Afr. J. Ecol. 51:244–254.
Not in our library
230.
Oke, O. C., and J. U. Chokor. 2009. The effect of land use on snail species richness and diversity in the tropical rainforest of south‐western Nigeria. African Sci. 10:95–108.
Not in our library
231.
Oliveira, D. E., T. F. Carrijo, and D. Brandão. 2013. Species composition of termites (Isoptera) in different Cerrado vegetation physiognomies. Sociobiology 60:190–197.
Not in our library
232.
Osgathorpe, L. M., K. Park, and D. Goulson. 2012. The use of off‐farm habitats by foraging bumblebees in agricultural landscapes: implications for conservation management. Apidologie 43:113–127.
Not in our library
233.
Otavo, S. E., A. Parrado‐Rosselli, and J. A. Noriega. 2013. Scarabaeoidea superfamily (Insecta: Coleoptera) as a bioindicator element of anthropogenic disturbance in an amazon national park. Rev. Biol. Trop. 61:735–752.
Not in our library
234.
Otto, C. R. V., and G. J. Roloff. 2012. Songbird response to green‐tree retention prescriptions in clearcut forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 284:241–250.
Not in our library
235.
Paradis, S., and T. T. Work. 2011. Partial cutting does not maintain spider assemblages within the observed range of natural variability in eastern Canadian black spruce forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 262:2079–2093.
Not in our library
236.
Paritsis, J., and M. A. Aizen. 2008. Effects of exotic conifer plantations on the biodiversity of understory plants, epigeal beetles and birds in Nothofagus dombeyi forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 255:1575–1583.
Not in our library
237.
Parra‐H, A., and G. Nates‐Parra. 2007. Variation of the orchid bees community (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in three altered habitats of the Colombian “llano” piedmont. Rev. Biol. Trop. 55:931–941.
Not in our library
238.
Pelegrin, N., and E. H. Bucher. 2012. Effects of habitat degradation on the lizard assemblage in the Arid Chaco, central Argentina. J. Arid Environ. 79:13–19.
Not in our library
239.
Pfeifer, M., V. Lefebvre, T. A. Gardner, V. Arroyo‐Rodriguez, L. Baeten, C. Banks‐Leite, et al. 2014. BIOFRAG – a new database for analyzing BIOdiversity responses to forest FRAGmentation. Ecol. Evol., 4:1524–1537.
Not in our library10.1002/ece3.1036
240.
Phalan, B., M. Onial, A. Balmford, and R. Green. 2011. Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333:1289–1291.
Not in our library10.1126/science.1208742
241.
Pillsbury, F. C., and J. R. Miller. 2008. Habitat and landscape characteristics underlying anuran community structure along an urban‐rural gradient. Ecol. Appl. 18:1107–1118.
Not in our library10.1890/07-1899.1
242.
Pineda, E., and G. Halffter. 2004. Species diversity and habitat fragmentation: frogs in a tropical montane landscape in Mexico. Biol. Conserv. 117:499–508.
Not in our library
243.
Politi, N., M. Jr Hunter, and L. Rivera. 2012. Assessing the effects of selective logging on birds in Neotropical piedmont and cloud montane forests. Biodivers. Conserv. 21:3131–3155.
Not in our library
244.
Poveda, K., E. Martinez, M. Kersch‐Becker, M. Bonilla, and T. Tscharntke. 2012. Landscape simplification and altitude affect biodiversity, herbivory and Andean potato yield. J. Appl. Ecol. 49:513–522.
Not in our library
245.
Power, E. F., and J. C. Stout. 2011. Organic dairy farming: impacts on insect‐flower interaction networks and pollination. J. Appl. Ecol. 48:561–569.
Not in our library
246.
Power, E. F., D. L. Kelly, and J. C. Stout. 2012. Organic farming and landscape structure: effects on insect‐pollinated plant diversity in intensively managed grasslands. PLoS ONE 7:e38073.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0038073
247.
Presley, S. J., M. R. Willig, J. M. Jr Wunderle, and L. N. Saldanha. 2008. Effects of reduced‐impact logging and forest physiognomy on bat populations of lowland Amazonian forest. J. Appl. Ecol. 45:14–25.
Not in our library
248.
Proenca, V. M., H. M. Pereira, J. Guilherme, and L. Vicente. 2010. Plant and bird diversity in natural forests and in native and exotic plantations in NW Portugal. Acta Oecol. International Journal of Ecology 36:219–226.
Not in our library
249.
Quaranta, M., S. Ambroselli, P. Barro, S. Bella, A. Carini, G. Celli, et al. 2004. Wild bees in agroecosystems and semi‐natural landscapes. 1997‐2000 collection period in Italy. Bull. Insectology, 57:11–62.
Not in our library
250.
Quintero, C., C. L. Morales, and M. A. Aizen. 2010. Effects of anthropogenic habitat disturbance on local pollinator diversity and species turnover across a precipitation gradient. Biodivers. Conserv. 19:257–274.
Not in our library
251.
Redpath, N., L. M. Osgathorpe, K. Park, and D. Goulson. 2010. Crofting and bumblebee conservation: the impact of land management practices on bumblebee populations in northwest Scotland. Biol. Conserv. 143:492–500.
Not in our library
252.
Reichman, O. J., M. B. Jones, and M. P. Schildhauer. 2011. Challenges and opportunities of open data in ecology. Science 331:703–705.
Not in our library10.1126/science.1197962
253.
Reid, J. L., J. B. C. Harris, and R. A. Zahawi. 2012. Avian habitat preference in tropical forest restoration in southern Costa Rica. Biotropica 44:350–359.
Not in our library
254.
Reis, Y. T., and E. M. Cancello. 2007. Termite (Insecta, Isoptera) richness in primary and secondary Atlantic Forest in southeastern Bahia. Iheringia Ser. Zool. 97:229–234.
Not in our library
255.
Rey‐Velasco, J. C., and D. R. Miranda‐Esquivel. 2012. Unpublished data of the response of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in the northeastern Colombian Andes to habitat modification.
Not in our library
256.
Ribeiro, D. B., and A. V. L. Freitas. 2012. The effect of reduced‐impact logging on fruit‐feeding butterflies in Central Amazon, Brazil. J. Insect Conserv. 16:733–744.
Not in our library
257.
Richardson, B. A., M. J. Richardson, and F. N. Soto‐Adames. 2005. 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. 74:926–936.
Not in our library
258.
Robles, C. A., C. C. Carmaran, and S. E. Lopez. 2011. Screening of xylophagous fungi associated with Platanus acerifolia in urban landscapes: biodiversity and potential biodeterioration. Landsc. Urban Plan. 100:129–135.
Not in our library
259.
Rodrigues, M. M., M. A. Uchoa, and S. Ide. 2013. Dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) in three landscapes in Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. Braz. J. Biol. 73:211–220.
Not in our library10.1590/s1519-69842013000100023
260.
Römbke, J., P. Schmidt, and H. Höfer. 2009. The earthworm fauna of regenerating forests and anthropogenic habitats in the coastal region of Paraná. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 44:1040–1049.
Not in our library
261.
Romero‐Duque, L. P., V. J. Jaramillo, and A. Perez‐Jimenez. 2007. Structure and diversity of secondary tropical dry forests in Mexico, differing in their prior land‐use history. For. Ecol. Manage. 253:38–47.
Not in our library
262.
Roskov, Y., T. Kunz, L. Paglinawan, T. Orrell, D. Nicolson, A. Culham, et al. 2013. Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life, 2013 Annual Checklist [http://catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2013/].
Not in our library
263.
Rosselli, L. 2011. Factores ambientales relacionados con la presencia y abundancia de las aves de los humedales de la Sabana de Bogotá. PhD thesis. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia.
Not in our library
264.
Rousseau, L., S. J. Fonte, O. Tellez, R. van der Hoek, and P. Lavelle. 2013. Soil macrofauna as indicators of soil quality and land use impacts in smallholder agroecosystems of western Nicaragua. Ecol. Ind. 27:71–82.
Not in our library
265.
Safian, S., G. Csontos, and D. Winkler. 2011. Butterfly community recovery in degraded rainforest habitats in the Upper Guinean forest zone (Kakum forest, Ghana). J. Insect Conserv. 15:351–359.
Not in our library
266.
Sakchoowong, W., S. Nomura, K. Ogata, and J. Chanpaisaeng. 2008. Diversity of pselaphine beetles (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Pselaphinae) in eastern Thailand. Entomol. Sci. 11:301–313.
Not in our library
267.
Saldana‐Vazquez, R. A., V. J. Sosa, J. R. Hernandez‐Montero, and F. Lopez‐Barrera. 2010. Abundance responses of frugivorous bats (Stenodermatinae) to coffee cultivation and selective logging practices in mountainous central Veracruz, Mexico. Biodivers. Conserv. 19:2111–2124.
Not in our library
268.
Samnegård, U., A. S. Persson, and H. G. Smith. 2011. Gardens benefit bees and enhance pollination in intensively managed farmland. Biol. Conserv. 144:2602–2606.
Not in our library
269.
Santana, J., M. Porto, L. Gordinho, L. Reino, and P. Beja. 2012. Long‐term responses of Mediterranean birds to forest fuel management. J. Appl. Ecol. 49:632–643.
Not in our library
270.
Savage, J., T. A. Wheeler, A. M. A. Moores, and A. G. Taillefer. 2011. Effects of habitat size, vegetation cover, and surrounding land use on diptera diversity in temperate nearctic bogs. Wetlands 31:125–134.
Not in our library
271.
Schmidt, A. C., L. H. Fraser, C. N. Carlyle, and E. R. L. Bassett. 2012. Does cattle grazing affect ant abundance and diversity in temperate grasslands? Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 65:292–298.
Not in our library
272.
Schon, N. L., A. D. Mackay, and M. A. Minor. 2011. Soil fauna in sheep‐grazed hill pastures under organic and conventional livestock management and in an adjacent ungrazed pasture. Pedobiologia 54:161–168.
Not in our library
273.
Schüepp, C., J. D. Herrmann, F. Herzog, and M. H. Schmidt‐Entling. 2011. Differential effects of habitat isolation and landscape composition on wasps, bees, and their enemies. Oecologia 165:713–721.
Not in our library10.1007/s00442-010-1746-6
274.
Schüepp, C., S. Rittiner, and M. H. Entling. 2012. High bee and wasp diversity in a heterogeneous tropical farming system compared to protected forest. PLoS ONE 7:e52109.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0052109
275.
Scott, D. M., D. Brown, S. Mahood, B. Denton, A. Silburn, and F. Rakotondraparany. 2006. The impacts of forest clearance on lizard, small mammal and bird communities in the arid spiny forest, southern Madagascar. Biol. Conserv. 127:72–87.
Not in our library
276.
Sedlock, J. L., S. E. Weyandt, L. Cororan, M. Damerow, S. Hwa, and B. Pauli. 2008. Bat diversity in tropical forest and agro‐pastoral habitats within a protected area in the Philippines. Acta Chiropt. 10:349–358.
Not in our library
277.
Shafie, N. J., S. A. M. Sah, N. S. A. Latip, N. M. Azman, and N. L. Khairuddin. 2011. Diversity pattern of bats at two contrasting habitat types along Kerian River, Perak, Malaysia. Trop. Life Sci. Res. 22:13–22.
Not in our library
278.
Shahabuddin, G., and R. Kumar. 2007. Effects of extractive disturbance on bird assemblages, vegetation structure and floristics in tropical scrub forest, Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. For. Ecol. Manage. 246:175–185.
Not in our library
279.
Sheil, D., R. K. Puri, I. Basuki, M. van Heist, M. Wan, N. Liswanti, et al. 2002. Exploring biological diversity, environment and local people's perspectives in forest landscapes: methods for a multidisciplinary landscape assessment. Research, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Jakarta [http://www.cifor.org/mla].
Not in our library
280.
Sheldon, F., A. Styring, and P. Hosner. 2010. Bird species richness in a Bornean exotic tree plantation: a long‐term perspective. Biol. Conserv. 143:399–407.
Not in our library
281.
Shuler, R. E., T. H. Roulston, and G. E. Farris. 2005. Farming practices influence wild pollinator populations on squash and pumpkin. J. Econ. Entomol. 98:790–795.
Not in our library10.1603/0022-0493-98.3.790
282.
da Silva, P. G. 2011. Espécies de Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) de fragmentos florestais com diferentes níveis de alteração em Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul. MSc thesis. Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Brazil.
Not in our library
283.
Silva, F. A. B., C. M. Q. Costa, R. C. Moura, and A. I. Farias. 2010. Study of the dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) community at two sites: atlantic forest and clear‐cut, Pernambuco, Brazil. Environ. Entomol. 39:359–367.
Not in our library10.1603/en09180
284.
Slade, E. M., D. J. Mann, and O. T. Lewis. 2011. Biodiversity and ecosystem function of tropical forest dung beetles under contrasting logging regimes. Biol. Conserv. 144:166–174.
Not in our library
285.
Smith‐Pardo, A., and V. H. Gonzalez. 2007. Bee diversity (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) in a tropical rainforest succession. Acta Bioló. Colomb. 12:43–55.
Not in our library
286.
Sodhi, N. S., D. S. Wilcove, T. M. Lee, C. H. Sekercioglu, R. Subaraj, H. Bernard, et al. 2010. Deforestation and avian extinction on tropical landbridge islands. Conserv. Biol. 24:1290–1298.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01495.x
287.
Sosa, R. A., V. A. Benz, J. M. Galea, and I. V. Poggio Herrero. 2010. 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, 1:101–110.
Not in our library
288.
de Souza, V. M., B. de Souza, and E. F. Morato. 2008. Effect of the forest succession on the anurans (Amphibia: Anura) of the Reserve Catuaba and its periphery, Acre, southwestern Amazonia. Rev. Bras. Zool. 25:49–57.
Not in our library
289.
Sridhar, H., T. R. S. Raman, and D. Mudappa. 2008. Mammal persistence and abundance in tropical rainforest remnants in the southern Western Ghats, India. Curr. Sci. 94:748–757.
Not in our library
290.
St‐Laurent, M. H., J. Ferron, C. Hins, and R. Gagnon. 2007. 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 37:1298–1309.
Not in our library
291.
Ström, L., K. Hylander, and M. Dynesius. 2009. Different long‐term and short‐term responses of land snails to clear‐cutting of boreal stream‐side forests. Biol. Conserv. 142:1580–1587.
Not in our library
292.
Struebig, M. J., T. Kingston, A. Zubaid, A. Mohd‐Adnan, and S. J. Rossiter. 2008. Conservation value of forest fragments to Palaeotropical bats. Biol. Conserv. 141:2112–2126.
Not in our library
293.
Su, Z. M., R. Z. Zhang, and J. X. Qiu. 2011. Decline in the diversity of willow trunk‐dwelling weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea) as a result of urban expansion in Beijing, China. J. Insect Conserv. 15:367–377.
Not in our library
294.
Sugiura, S., T. Tsuru, Y. Yamaura, and H. Makihara. 2009. Small off‐shore islands can serve as important refuges for endemic beetle conservation. J. Insect Conserv. 13:377–385.
Not in our library
295.
Summerville, K. S. 2011. Managing the forest for more than the trees: effects of experimental timber harvest on forest Lepidoptera. Ecol. Appl. 21:806–816.
Not in our library10.1890/10-0715.1
296.
Summerville, K. S., C. J. Conoan, and R. M. Steichen. 2006. Species traits as predictors of lepidopteran composition in restored and remnant tallgrass prairies. Ecol. Appl. 16:891–900.
Not in our library10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[0891:stapol]2.0.co;2
297.
Sung, Y. H., N. E. Karraker, and B. C. H. Hau. 2012. Terrestrial herpetofaunal assemblages in secondary forests and exotic Lophostemon confertus plantations in South China. For. Ecol. Manage. 270:71–77.
Not in our library
298.
The Nature Conservancy. 2009. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world [http://maps.tnc.org/gis_data.html].
Not in our library
299.
Thematic Mapping. 2008. World borders [http://thematicmapping.org/downloads/world_borders.php].
Not in our library
300.
Threlfall, C. G., B. Law, and P. B. Banks. 2012. Sensitivity of insectivorous bats to urbanization: implications for suburban conservation planning. Biol. Conserv. 146:41–52.
Not in our library
301.
Tonietto, R., J. Fant, J. Ascher, K. Ellis, and D. Larkin. 2011. A comparison of bee communities of Chicago green roofs, parks and prairies. Landsc. Urban Plan. 103:102–108.
Not in our library
302.
Turner, E. C., and W. A. Foster. 2009. The impact of forest conversion to oil palm on arthropod abundance and biomass in Sabah, Malaysia. J. Trop. Ecol. 25:23–30.
Not in our library
303.
Tylianakis, J. M., A. M. Klein, and T. Tscharntke. 2005. Spatiotemporal variation in the diversity of hymenoptera across a tropical habitat gradient. Ecology 86:3296–3302.
Not in our library10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[3047:defaso]2.0.co;2
304.
UNEP‐WCMC. 2009. International expert workshop on the 2010 biodiversity indicators and post‐2010 indicator development. Pp. 65. UNEP‐WCMC, Cambridge, U.K.
Not in our library
305.
Vačkář, D. 2012. Ecological footprint, environmental performance and biodiversity: a cross‐national comparison. Ecol. Ind. 16:40–46.
Not in our library
306.
Vanbergen, A. J., B. A. Woodcock, A. D. Watt, and J. Niemela. 2005. Effect of land‐use heterogeneity on carabid communities at the landscape scale. Ecography 28:3–16.
Not in our library
307.
Vassilev, K., H. Pedashenko, S. C. Nikolov, I. Apostolova, and J. Dengler. 2011. Effect of land abandonment on the vegetation of upland semi‐natural grasslands in the Western Balkan Mts., Bulgaria. Plant Biosyst. 145:654–665.
Not in our library
308.
Vázquez, D. P., and D. Simberloff. 2002. Ecological specialization and susceptibility to disturbance: conjectures and refutations. Am. Nat. 159:606–623.
Not in our library10.1086/339991
309.
Verboven, H. A. F., R. Brys, and M. Hermy. 2012. Sex in the city: reproductive success of Digitalis purpurea in a gradient from urban to rural sites. Landsc. Urban Plan. 106:158–164.
Not in our library
310.
Verdasca, M. J., A. S. Leitao, J. Santana, M. Porto, S. Dias, and P. Beja. 2012. Forest fuel management as a conservation tool for early successional species under agricultural abandonment: the case of Mediterranean butterflies. Biol. Conserv. 146:14–23.
Not in our library
311.
Verdú, J. R., C. E. Moreno, G. Sánchez‐Rojas, C. Numa, E. Galante, and G. Halffter. 2007. Grazing promotes dung beetle diversity in the xeric landscape of a Mexican Biosphere Reserve. Biol. Conserv. 140:308–317.
Not in our library
312.
Vergara, C. H., and E. I. Badano. 2009. Pollinator diversity increases fruit production in Mexican coffee plantations: the importance of rustic management systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 129:117–123.
Not in our library
313.
Vergara, P. M., and J. A. Simonetti. 2004. Avian responses to fragmentation of the Maulino Forest in central Chile. Oryx 38:383–388.
Not in our library
314.
Vié, J., C. Hilton‐Taylor, and S. N. Stuart. 2009. Wildlife in a Changing World: an analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Pp. 180. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland.
Not in our library
315.
Walker, T. R., P. D. Crittenden, S. D. Young, and T. Prystina. 2006. An assessment of pollution impacts due to the oil and gas industries in the Pechora basin, north‐eastern European Russia. Ecol. Ind. 6:369–387.
Not in our library
316.
Walpole, M., R. E. A. Almond, C. Besancon, S. H. M. Butchart, D. Campbell‐Lendrum, G. M. Carr, et al. 2009. Tracking Progress Toward the 2010 Biodiversity Target and Beyond. Science 325:1503–1504.
Not in our library10.1126/science.1175466
317.
Wang, Y., Y. Bao, M. Yu, G. Xu, and P. Ding. 2010. Nestedness for different reasons: the distributions of birds, lizards and small mammals on islands of an inundated lake. Divers. Distrib. 16:862–873.
Not in our library
318.
Watling, J. I., K. Gerow, and M. A. Donnelly. 2009. Nested species subsets of amphibians and reptiles on Neotropical forest islands. Anim. Conserv. 12:467–476.
Not in our library
319.
Weller, B., and J. U. Ganzhorn. 2004. Carabid beetle community composition, body size, and fluctuating asymmetry along an urban‐rural gradient. Basic Appl. Ecol. 5:193–201.
Not in our library
320.
Wells, K., E. K. V. Kalko, M. B. Lakim, and M. Pfeiffer. 2007. Effects of rain forest logging on species richness and assemblage composition of small mammals in Southeast Asia. J. Biogeogr. 34:1087–1099.
Not in our library
321.
Wilcove, D. S., C. H. McLellan, and A. P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. Pp. 237–256. in M. E. Soule, ed. Conservation biology. The science of scarcity and diversity, Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.
Not in our library
322.
Williams, C. D., J. Sheahan, and M. J. Gormally. 2009. Hydrology and management of turloughs (temporary lakes) affect marsh fly (Sciomyzidae: Diptera) communities. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2:270–283.
Not in our library
323.
Willig, M. R., S. J. Presley, C. P. Bloch, C. L. Hice, S. P. Yanoviak, M. M. Diaz, et al. 2007. Phyllostomid bats of lowland Amazonia: effects of habitat alteration on abundance. Biotropica 39:737–746.
Not in our library
324.
Winfree, R., T. Griswold, and C. Kremen. 2007. Effect of human disturbance on bee communities in a forested ecosystem. Conserv. Biol. 21:213–223.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00574.x
325.
Woinarski, J. C. Z., B. Rankmore, B. Hill, A. D. Griffiths, A. Stewart, and B. Grace. 2009. Fauna assemblages in regrowth vegetation in tropical open forests of the Northern Territory, Australia. Wildlife Res. 36:675–690.
Not in our library
326.
Woodcock, B. A., S. G. Potts, E. Pilgrim, A. J. Ramsay, T. Tscheulin, A. Parkinson, et al. 2007. The potential of grass field margin management for enhancing beetle diversity in intensive livestock farms. J. Appl. Ecol. 44:60–69.
Not in our library
327.
Wunderle, J. M., L. M. P. Henriques, and M. R. Willig. 2006. Short‐term responses of birds to forest gaps and understory: an assessment of reduced‐impact logging in a lowland Amazon forest. Biotropica 38:235–255.
Not in our library
328.
WWF International. 2012. Living Planet Report 2012. Pp. 160. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.
Not in our library
329.
Yoshikura, S., S. Yasui, and T. Kamijo. 2011. 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 36:189–198.
Not in our library
330.
Zaitsev, A. S., M. Chauvat, A. Pflug, and V. Wolters. 2002. Oribatid mite diversity and community dynamics in a spruce chronosequence. Soil Biol. Biochem. 34:1919–1927.
Not in our library
331.
Zaitsev, A. S., V. Wolters, R. Waldhardt, and J. Dauber. 2006. Long‐term succession of oribatid mites after conversion of croplands to grasslands. Appl. Soil Ecol. 34:230–239.
Not in our library
332.
Zimmerman, G., F. W. Bell, J. Woodcock, A. Palmer, and J. Paloniemi. 2011. Response of breeding songbirds to vegetation management in conifer plantations established in boreal mixedwoods. Forestry Chron. 87:217–224.
Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 4

Relative effects of land conversion and land-use intensity on terrestrial vertebrate diversity · 2022
Not checked
The database of the PREDICTS (Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems) project · 2016
Corrected
Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide · 2016
No notice
The ecological forecast horizon, and examples of its uses and determinants · 2015
No notice

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.