Towards harmonized standards for freshwater biodiversity monitoring and biological assessment using benthic macroinvertebrates

Monitoring programs at sub-national and national scales lack coordination, harmonization, and systematic review and analysis at continental and global scales, and thus fail to adequately assess and evaluate drivers of biodiversity and ecosystem degradation and loss at large spatial scales. Here we review the state of the art, gaps and challenges in the freshwater assessment programs for both the biological condition (bioassessment) and biodiversity monitoring of freshwater ecosystems using the benthic macroinvertebrate community. To assess the existence of nationally- and regionally- (sub-nationally-) accepted freshwater benthic macroinvertebrate protocols that are put in practice/used in each country, we conducted a survey from November 2022 to May 2023. Responses from 110 respondents based in 67 countries were received. Although the responses varied in their consistency, the responses clearly demonstrated a lack of biodiversity monitoring being done at both national and sub-national levels for lakes, rivers and artificial waterbodies. Programs for bioassessment were more widespread, and in some cases even harmonized among several countries. We identified 20 gaps and challenges, which we classed into five major categories, these being (a) field sampling, (b) sample processing and identification, (c) metrics and indices, (d) assessment, and (e) other gaps and challenges. Above all, we identify the lack of harmonization as one of the most important gaps, hindering efficient collaboration and communication. We identify the IUCN SSC Global Freshwater Macroinvertebrate Sampling Protocols Task Force (GLOSAM) as a means to address the lack of globally-harmonized biodiversity monitoring and biological assessment protocols.

The traits of "trait ecologists": An analysis of the use of trait and functional trait terminology

Trait and functional trait approaches have revolutionized ecology improving our understanding of community assembly, species coexistence, and biodiversity loss. Focusing on traits promotes comparability across spatial and organizational scales, but terms must be used consistently. While several papers have offered definitions, it remains unclear how ecologists operationalize "trait" and "functional trait" terms. Here, we evaluate how researchers and the published literatures use these terms and explore differences among subdisciplines and study systems (taxa and biome). By conducting both a survey and a literature review, we test the hypothesis that ecologists' working definition of "trait" is adapted or altered when confronting the realities of collecting, analyzing and presenting data. From 486 survey responses and 712 reviewed papers, we identified inconsistencies in the understanding and use of terminology among researchers, but also limited inclusion of definitions within the published literature. Discrepancies were not explained by subdiscipline, system of study, or respondent characteristics, suggesting there could be an inconsistent understanding even among those working in related topics. Consistencies among survey responses included the use of morphological, phonological, and physiological traits. Previous studies have called for unification of terminology; yet, our study shows that proposed definitions are not consistently used or accepted. Sources of disagreement include trait heritability, defining and interpreting function, and dealing with organisms in which individuals are not clearly recognizable. We discuss and offer guidelines for overcoming these disagreements. The diversity of life on Earth means traits can represent different features that can be measured and reported in different ways, and thus, narrow definitions that work for one system will fail in others. We recommend ecologists embrace the breadth of biodiversity using a simplified definition of "trait" more consistent with its common use. Trait-based approaches will be most powerful if we accept that traits are at least as diverse as trait ecologists.

Testing a global standard for quantifying species recovery and assessing conservation impact

Recognizing the imperative to evaluate species recovery and conservation impact, in 2012 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) called for development of a "Green List of Species" (now the IUCN Green Status of Species). A draft Green Status framework for assessing species' progress toward recovery, published in 2018, proposed 2 separate but interlinked components: a standardized method (i.e., measurement against benchmarks of species' viability, functionality, and preimpact distribution) to determine current species recovery status (herein species recovery score) and application of that method to estimate past and potential future impacts of conservation based on 4 metrics (conservation legacy, conservation dependence, conservation gain, and recovery potential). We tested the framework with 181 species representing diverse taxa, life histories, biomes, and IUCN Red List categories (extinction risk). Based on the observed distribution of species' recovery scores, we propose the following species recovery categories: fully recovered, slightly depleted, moderately depleted, largely depleted, critically depleted, extinct in the wild, and indeterminate. Fifty-nine percent of tested species were considered largely or critically depleted. Although there was a negative relationship between extinction risk and species recovery score, variation was considerable. Some species in lower risk categories were assessed as farther from recovery than those at higher risk. This emphasizes that species recovery is conceptually different from extinction risk and reinforces the utility of the IUCN Green Status of Species to more fully understand species conservation status. Although extinction risk did not predict conservation legacy, conservation dependence, or conservation gain, it was positively correlated with recovery potential. Only 1.7% of tested species were categorized as zero across all 4 of these conservation impact metrics, indicating that conservation has, or will, play a role in improving or maintaining species status for the vast majority of these species. Based on our results, we devised an updated assessment framework that introduces the option of using a dynamic baseline to assess future impacts of conservation over the short term to avoid misleading results which were generated in a small number of cases, and redefines short term as 10 years to better align with conservation planning. These changes are reflected in the IUCN Green Status of Species Standard.

Phylogeny of the Synlestidae (Odonata: Zygoptera), with an emphasis on Chlorolestes Selys and Ecchlorolestes Barnard

The Synlestidae (Odonata: Zygoptera) of southern Africa comprise some highly localized species. All but one species are endemic to South Africa, and many to the Cape Floristic Region. Here we present the first phylogenetic reconstruction of the southern African Synlestidae using nuclear and mitochondrial molecular data. The genera Ecchlorolestes and Chlorolestes are monophyletic, and we propose that the Neotropical family Perilestidae consisting of two genera, Perilestes and Perissolestes, be sunk within Synlestidae. We discuss the intra-familial relationships for the southern African Synlestidae.

Species turnover in plants does not predict turnover in flower-visiting insects

Congruence between plant and insect diversity is considered possibly useful in conservation planning, as the better known plants could be surrogates for the lesser known insects. There has been little quantification of congruence across space, especially in biodiversity rich areas. We compare here species richness, and turnover relationships between plants and flower-visiting insects across space (0.5-80 km) in natural areas of a biodiversity hotspot, the Greater Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. A total of 22,352 anthophile individuals in 198 species and 348 plant species were sampled. A comparison between the plants and anthophiles suggest significant concordance between the two assemblages. However, turnover was weaker in plants than in anthophiles. Plant turnover decreased with greater geographical distance between plot pairs. In contrast, insect turnover remained high with increasing geographical distance between plot pairs. These findings suggest that while patterns of plant diversity and distribution shape flower-visiting insect assemblages, they are not reliable surrogates. The conservation significance of these results is that specialist mutualisms are at greatest risk, and that set-asides on farms would help improve the functional connectivity leading to the maintenance of the full range of mutualisms.

A comparative analysis reveals weak relationships between ecological factors and beta diversity of stream insect metacommunities at two spatial levels

The hypotheses that beta diversity should increase with decreasing latitude and increase with spatial extent of a region have rarely been tested based on a comparative analysis of multiple datasets, and no such study has focused on stream insects. We first assessed how well variability in beta diversity of stream insect metacommunities is predicted by insect group, latitude, spatial extent, altitudinal range, and dataset properties across multiple drainage basins throughout the world. Second, we assessed the relative roles of environmental and spatial factors in driving variation in assemblage composition within each drainage basin. Our analyses were based on a dataset of 95 stream insect metacommunities from 31 drainage basins distributed around the world. We used dissimilarity-based indices to quantify beta diversity for each metacommunity and, subsequently, regressed beta diversity on insect group, latitude, spatial extent, altitudinal range, and dataset properties (e.g., number of sites and percentage of presences). Within each metacommunity, we used a combination of spatial eigenfunction analyses and partial redundancy analysis to partition variation in assemblage structure into environmental, shared, spatial, and unexplained fractions. We found that dataset properties were more important predictors of beta diversity than ecological and geographical factors across multiple drainage basins. In the within-basin analyses, environmental and spatial variables were generally poor predictors of variation in assemblage composition. Our results revealed deviation from general biodiversity patterns because beta diversity did not show the expected decreasing trend with latitude. Our results also call for reconsideration of just how predictable stream assemblages are along ecological gradients, with implications for environmental assessment and conservation decisions. Our findings may also be applicable to other dynamic systems where predictability is low.

Conservation and monitoring of invertebrates in terrestrial protected areas

Invertebrates constitute a substantial proportion of terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity and are critical to ecosystem function. However, their inclusion in biodiversity monitoring and conservation planning and management has lagged behind better-known, more widely appreciated taxa. Significant progress in invertebrate surveys, systematics and bioindication, both globally and locally, means that their use in biodiversity monitoring and conservation is becoming increasingly feasible. Here we outline challenges and solutions to the integration of invertebrates into biodiversity management objectives and monitoring in protected areas in South Africa. We show that such integration is relevant and possible, and assess the relative suitability of seven key taxa in this context. Finally, we outline a series of recommendations for mainstreaming invertebrates in conservation planning, surveys and monitoring in and around protected areas.Conservation implications: Invertebrates constitute a substantial and functionally significant component of terrestrial biodiversity and are valuable indicators of environmental condition. Although consideration of invertebrates has historically been neglected in conservation planning and management, substantial progress with surveys, systematics and bioindication means that it is now both feasible and advisable to incorporate them into protected area monitoring activities.