<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>

COPY SCRIPT

For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eu

Revisiting global trends in freshwater insect biodiversity

descriptionPublicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Other literature type , Journal 31 Dec 2020Embargo end date: 31 Dec 2020 Germany, Switzerland, Germany, Germany, Finland Publisher:WileyJournal:WIREs Water, volume 8 (issn: 2049-1948, eissn: 2049-1948,

Authors: Gregor Kalinkat; Martin Friedrichs-Manthey; Martin Friedrichs-Manthey; Jonathan D. Tonkin; Florian Leese; Ralf B. Schäfer; Florian Altermatt; +18 Authors

doi: 10.1002/wat2.1506 , 10.5167/uzh-199170 , 10.18452/23639 , 10.23689/fidgeo-4032

handle: 10138/336136

Revisiting global trends in freshwater insect biodiversity

- Summary
- Subjects
- Metrics

Abstract

AbstractA recent global meta‐analysis reported a decrease in terrestrial but increase in freshwater insect abundance and biomass (van Klink et al., Science 368, p. 417). The authors suggested that water quality has been improving, thereby challenging recent reports documenting drastic global declines in freshwater biodiversity. We raise two major concerns with the meta‐analysis and suggest that these account for the discrepancy with the declines reported elsewhere. First, total abundance and biomass alone are poor indicators of the status of freshwater insect assemblages, and the observed differences may well have been driven by the replacement of sensitive species with tolerant ones. Second, many of the datasets poorly represent global trends and reflect responses to local conditions or nonrandom site selection. We conclude that the results of the meta‐analysis should not be considered indicative of an overall improvement in the condition of freshwater ecosystems.This article is categorized under: Water and Life > Conservation, Management, and Awareness

Countries

Germany, Switzerland, Germany, Germany, Finland

Related Organizations

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Germany
Technical University of Munich
Germany
Goethe University Frankfurt
Germany
University of Duisburg-Essen
Germany
FWF Austrian Science Fund
Austria

View all View all

Keywords

insect assemblages, 333.7 Landflächen, Naturräume für Freizeit und Erholung, Naturreservate, Energie, makean veden ekosysteemi, kritiikki, decrease, 590, water quality, decline, term research, 2308 Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, pitkäaikainen tutkimus, terrestrinen, eroavuudet, 1910 Oceanography, discrepancy, sites, dataset, tolerant species, hyönteisten määrä, insects, freshwater, 2212 Ocean Engineering, biodiversity, global trends, abundance, criticism, uhanalaiset lajit, threats, 1104 Aquatic Science, freshwater ecosystems, differences, meta-analyysi, long‐term research, 590 Animals (Zoology), 570, long, biomassa, 577.6, uhat, Water and Life, long��term research, Conservation, Management, and Awareness, 333, hyönteisten biodiversiteetti, sensitive species, globaalit trendit, insect abundance, 333.7 Landfl��chen, Naturr��ume f��r Freizeit und Erholung, Naturreservate, Energie, 10127 Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, 2312 Water Science and Technology, long-term research, terrestrial, väheneminen, insect biodiversity, biomass, eroavuus, datasetit, globaali väheneminen, global decline, vedenlaatu, indicators, biodiversiteetti, meta-analysis, havaintopaikat, hyönteiset, ddc:590, 570 Life sciences; biology, ta1181, makea vesi, 2303 Ecology, indikaattorit, ddc: ddc:590, ddc: ddc:, ddc: ddc:333

Impact byBIP!

	citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	49
	popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.	Top 1%
	influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	Top 10%
	impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.	Top 1%