Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Integrating ongoing biodiversity monitoring: potential benefits and methods

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Halting the loss of biodiversity comes along with the need to quantify biodiversity composition and dynamics at large spatial and temporal scales. Highly standardized, international monitoring networks would be ideal, but they do not exist yet. If we are to assess changes in biodiversity now, combining output available from ongoing monitoring initiatives is the only option. However, integration of biodiversity information across schemes is still very poorly developed. In this paper, we outline practical issues to be considered when planning to combine existing monitoring information. First, we provide an overview of avenues for integration along the four dimensions that characterize a monitoring design: sample size, biological coverage, spatial coverage and temporal coverage. We also emphasize that complementarity in monitoring targets across schemes enables to describe complex processes of biodiversity dynamics, e.g. through relating species traits to the impacts of environmental changes. Second, we review some methods to overcome differences in designs among monitoring schemes, such as site selection, post-stratification and measurement error. Finally, we point out some commonly used statistical methods that are at hand for combining data or parameter estimates. We especially emphasize the possible levels of data integration (raw data, parameter estimates, or effect size estimates), and the largely under-exploited potential of meta-analysis methods and weighted analyses. This contribution aims to bolster the practice and use of integration of ongoing monitoring initiatives for biodiversity assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Balmford A, Green RE, Jenkins M (2003) Measuring the changing state of nature. Trends Ecol Evol 18:326–330. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00067-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balmford A, Crane P, Dobson AP, Green RE, Mace G (2005a) The 2010 challenge: data availability, information needs and extraterrestrial insights. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360:221–228. doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1599

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Balmford A, Bennun L, Ten Brink B, Cooper D, Côté IM, Crane P et al (2005b) The Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2010 target. Science 307:212–213. doi:10.1126/science.1106281

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bell S, Marzano M, Cent J, Kobierska H, Podjed D, Vandzinskaite D et al (in press) What counts? Volunteers and their organisations in the recording and monitoring of biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv

  • Besbeas P, Freeman SN (2006) Methods for joint inference from panel survey and demographic data. Ecology 87:1138–1145. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[1138:MFJIFP]2.0.CO;2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buckland ST (2006) Point-transect surveys for songbirds: robust methodologies. Auk 123:345–357. doi:10.1642/0004-8038(2006)123[345:PSFSRM]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckland ST, Magurran AE, Green RE, Fewster RM (2005) Monitoring change in biodiversity through composite indices. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360:243–254. doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1589

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Butchart SHM, Stattersfield JA, Baillie J, Bennun LA, Stuart SN, Akçakaya HR et al (2005) Using Red List Indices to measure progress towards the 2010 target and beyond. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360:255–268. doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1583

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Caughley G, Gunn A (1996) Conservation biology in theory and practice. Blackwell Science, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper HD, Hedges LV (1994) Handbook of research synthesis. Russel Sage Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Côté IM, Gill JA, Gardner TA, Watkinson AR (2005) Measuring coral reef decline through meta-analyses. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360:385–395. doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Communities (1992) EC Habitats Directive. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Official Journal of the European Communities, Series L, 206:750. http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library. Accessed 14 May 2008

  • Couvet D, Jiguet F, Julliard R, Levrel H, Teyssèdre A (2008) Enhancing citizen contributions to biodiversity science and public policy. Interdiscip Sci Rev 31:95–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danielsen F, Burgess ND, Balmford A (2005) Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodivers Conserv 14:2507–2542. doi:10.1007/s10531-005-8375-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSante DF, O’Grady DR, Pyle P (1999) Measures of productivity and survival derived from standardized mist-netting are consistent with observed population changes. Bird Study 46:178–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devictor V, Julliard R, Couvet D, Lee A, Jiguet F (2007a) Functional homogenization effect of urbanization on bird communities. Conserv Biol 21:741–751. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00671.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Devictor V, Godet L, Julliard R, Couvet D, Jiguet F (2007b) Can common species benefit from protected areas? Biol Conserv 139:29–36. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.05.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devictor V, Julliard R, Clavel J, Jiguet F, Lee A, Couvet D (2008) Functional biotic homogenization of bird communities in disturbed landscapes. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:252–261. doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00364.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolédec S, Statzner B, Bournard M (1999) Special traits for future biomonitoring across ecoregions: patterns along a human-impacted river. Freshw Biol 42:737–758. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00509.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donald PF, Sanderson FJ, Burfield IJ, van Bommel FPJ (2006) Further evidence of continent-wide impacts of agricultural intensification on European farmland birds, 1990–2000. Agric Ecosyst Environ 116:189–196. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.02.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donald PF, Sanderson FJ, Burfield IJ, Bierman SM, Gregory RD, Waliczky Z (2007) International conservation policy delivers benefits for birds in Europe. Science 317:810–813. doi:10.1126/science.1146002

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dziock F, Henle K, Foeckler F, Follner K, Scholz M (2006) Biological indicator systems in floodplains—a review. Int Rev Hydrobiol 91:271–291. doi:10.1002/iroh.200510885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elzinga CL, Salzer DW, Willoughby JW, Gibbs JP (2001) Monitoring plant and animal populations: a handbook for field biologists. Blackwell Science, Malden, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • EuMon consortium (2006) DaEuMon: a database of animals, plants and habitats monitoring schemes in Europe. http://eumon.ckff.si/. Accessed 14 May 2008

  • European Environment Agency (2007) Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. http://reports.eea.europa.eu. Accessed 14 May 2008

  • Faith DP, Reid CAM, Hunter J (2004) Integrating phylogenetic diversity, complementarity, and endemism for conservation assessment. Conserv Biol 18:255–261. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00330.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier G, Besbeas P, Lebreton JD, Morgan BJT (2007) Population growth in snow geese: a modeling approach integrating demographic and survey information. Ecology 88:1420–1429. doi:10.1890/06-0953

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Green RE, Balmford A, Crane PR, Mace GM, Reynolds JD, Turner RK (2005) A framework for improved monitoring of biodiversity: responses to the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Conserv Biol 19:56–65. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00289.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory RD, van Strien A, Vorisek P, Gmelig Meyling AW, Noble DG, Foppen RPB et al (2005) Developing indicators for European birds. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360:269–288. doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gurevitch J, Curtis PS, Jones MH (2001) Meta-analysis in ecology. Adv Ecol Res 32:199–247. doi:10.1016/S0065-2504(01)32013-5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey PH, Pagel M (1991) The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2001) The elements of statistical learning. Data mining, inference and prediction. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedges LV, Olkin I (1985) Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press, Orlando

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmus MR, Bland TJ, Williams CK, Ives AR (2007) Phylogenetic measures of biodiversity. Am Nat 169:E68–E83. doi:10.1086/511334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henle K (2005) Lessons from Europe. In: Lannoo M (ed) Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States species. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Henle K, Schmeller DS (this volume) Biodiversity conservation strategies and monitoring in Europe. Biodivers Conserv (submitted)

  • Henle K, Alard D, Clitherow J, Cobb P, Firbank L, Kull T et al (2008) Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe—a review. Agric Ecosyst Environ 124:60–71. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2007.09.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henle K, Davies KF, Kleyer M, Margules C, Settele J (2004) Predictors of species sensitivity to fragmentation. Biodivers Conserv 13:207–251. doi:10.1023/B:BIOC.0000004319.91643.9e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henle K, Dziock F, Foeckler F, Follner K, Husing V, Hettrich A et al (2006) Study design for assessing species environment relationships and developing indicator systems for ecological changes in floodplains—the approach of the RIVA project. Int Rev Hydrobiol 91:292–313. doi:10.1002/iroh.200610886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry P-Y, Jarne P (2007) Marking hard-shelled gastropods: tag loss, impact on life-history traits, and perspectives in biology. Invertebr Biol 126:138–153. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7410.2007.00084.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochachka WM, Martin K, Doyle F, Krebs CJ (2000) Monitoring vertebrate populations using observational data. Can J Zool 78:521–529. doi:10.1139/cjz-78-4-521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooten MB, Wikle CK, Dorazio RM, Royle JA (2007) Hierarchical spatiotemporal matrix models for characterizing invasions. Biometrics 63:558–567. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2006.00725.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Houlahan JE, Findlay CS, Meyer AH, Kuzmin SL, Schmidt BR (2001) Global amphibian population declines—reply. Nature 412:500. doi:10.1038/35087661

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes JB, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR (1997) Population diversity: its extent and extinction. Science 278:689–692. doi:10.1126/science.278.5338.689

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jiguet F, Julliard R, Couvet D, Petiau A (2005) Modeling spatial trends in estimated species richness using breeding bird survey data: a valuable tool in biodiversity assessment. Biodivers Conserv 14:3305–3324. doi:10.1007/s10531-004-0448-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Julliard R (2004) Estimating the contribution of survival and recruitment to large scale population dynamics. Anim Biodivers Conserv 27:417–426

    Google Scholar 

  • Julliard R, Jiguet F, Couvet D (2004a) Common birds facing global changes: what makes a species at risk? Glob Change Biol 10:148–154. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2003.00723.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Julliard R, Jiguet F, Couvet D (2004b) Evidence for the impact of global warming on the long-term population dynamics of common birds. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:S490–S492. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2004.0229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kati V, Devillers P, Dufrêne M, Legakis A, Vokou D, Lebrun P (2004) Testing the value of six taxonomic groups as biodiversity indicators at a local scale. Conserv Biol 18:667–675. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00465.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krebs CJ, Berteaux D (2006) Problems and pitfalls in relating climate variability to population dynamics. Clim Res 32:143–149. doi:10.3354/cr032143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kull T, Sammul M, Tali K, Lanno K, Henle K (this volume) Necessity and reality of monitoring European vascular plant diversity. Biodivers Conserv (submitted)

  • Lengyel S, Déri E, Varga Z, Horváth R, Tóthmérész B, Henry P-Y et al (in press, a) Habitat monitoring in Europe: a description of current practices. Biodivers Conserv

  • Lengyel S, Kobler A, Kutnar L, Framstad E, Henry P-Y, Babij V et al (in press, b) A review and a framework for the integration of biodiversity monitoring at the habitat level. Biodivers Conserv

  • Loh J, Green RE, Ricketts T, Lamoreux J, Jenkins M, Kapos V et al (2005) The Living Planet Index: using species population time series to track trends in biodiversity. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360:289–295. doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mace GM (2005) A user’s guide to biodiversity indicators. European Academies Science Advisory Council, The Royal Society, London

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Sutton N, Kawanishi K, Bailey LL (2005) Improving inferences in population studies of rare species that are detected imperfectly. Ecology 86:1101–1113. doi:10.1890/04-1060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margurran AE (2004) Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell Science, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Menzel A, Sparks TH, Estrella N, Koch E, Aasa A, Aha R et al (2006) European phenological response to climate change matches the warming pattern. Glob Change Biol 12:1969–1976. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01193.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller RM, Rodriguez JP, Aniskowicz-Fowler T, Bambaradeniya C, Boles R, Eaton MA et al (2007) National threatened species listing based on IUCN criteria and regional guidelines: current status and future perspectives. Conserv Biol 21:684–696. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00656.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Møller AP, Birkhead TR (1992) A pairwise comparative method as illustrated by copulation frequency in birds. Am Nat 139:644–656. doi:10.1086/285348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Møller AP, Jennions MD (2001) Testing and adjusting for publication bias. Trends Ecol Evol 16:580–586. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02235-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols JD, Hines JE (1983) The relationship between harvest and survival rates of mallards: a straightforward approach with partitioned data sets. J Wildl Manage 47:334–348. doi:10.2307/3808506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols JD, Williams BK (2006) Monitoring for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 21:668–673. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.08.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen AR, Sedransk J, Edwards D, Gotway CA, Liggett W, Rathbun S et al (1999) Statistical issues for monitoring ecological and natural resources in the United States. Environ Monit Assess 54:1–45. doi:10.1023/A:1005823911258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osenberg CW, Sarnelle O, Cooper SD, Holt RD (1999) Resolving ecological questions through meta-analysis: goals, metrics, and models. Ecology 80:1105–1117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parmesan C, Yohe G (2003) A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421:37–42. doi:10.1038/nature01286

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Parr TW, Ferretti M, Simpson IC, Forsius M, Kovacs-Lang E (2002) Towards a long-term integrated monitoring programme in Europe: network design in theory and practice. Environ Monit Assess 78:253–290. doi:10.1023/A:1019934919140

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pauly D, Watson R (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360:415–423. doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1597

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pavoine S, Ollier S, Dufour AB (2005) Is the originality of a species measurable? Ecol Lett 8:579–586. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00752.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira HM, Cooper HD (2006) Towards the global monitoring of biodiversity change. Trends Ecol Evol 21:123–129. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pettorelli N, Vik JO, Mysterud A, Gaillard JM, Tucker CJ, Stenseth NC (2005) Using the satellite-derived NDVI to assess ecological responses to environmental change. Trends Ecol Evol 20:503–510. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock JF (2006) Detecting population declines over large areas with presence-absence, time-to-encounter, and count survey methods. Conserv Biol 20:882–892. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00342.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pons P, Henry P-Y, Gargallo J, Prodon R, Lebreton J-D (2003) Bird survival after fire in Mediterranean shrublands: combining capture-recapture data over several bird species. Popul Ecol 45:187–196. doi:10.1007/s10144-003-0155-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pradel R, Henry P-Y (2007) Potential contributions of capture-recapture to the estimation of population growth rate in restoration projects. Ecoscience 14:432–439. doi:10.2980/1195-6860(2007)14[432:PCOCTT]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts RL, Donald PF, Green RE (2007) Using simple species lists to monitor trends in animal populations: new methods and a comparison with independent data. Anim Conserv 10:332–339. doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2007.00117.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstock SS, Anderson DR, Giesen KM, Leukering T, Carter MF (2002) Landbird counting techniques: current practices and an alternative. Auk 119:46–53. doi:10.1642/0004-8038(2002)119[0046:LCTCPA]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy DB, Rothery P, Brereton T (2007) Reduced-effort schemes for monitoring butterfly populations. J Appl Ecol 44:993–1000. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01340.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaub M, Gimenez O, Sierro A, Arlettaz R (2007) Use of integrated modeling to enhance estimates of population dynamics obtained from limited data. Conserv Biol 21:945–955. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00743.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmeller DS, Gruber B, Bauch B, Lanno K, Budrys E, Babij V et al (in press, a) Determination of national conservation responsibilities in regions with multiple political jurisdictions. Biodivers Conserv

  • Schmeller DS, Bauch B, Gruber B, Juškaitis R, Budrys E, Babij V et al (in press, b) Determination of conservation priorities in regions with multiple political jurisdictions. Biodivers Conserv

  • Schmeller DS, Henry P-Y, Julliard R, Clobert J, Lengyels S, Gruber B, Dziock F, Kull T, Tali K, Bauch B, Kobler A, Déri E, Babij V, Nowicki P, Papastergiadou E, van Swaay CAM, Henle K Advantages of volunteer-based biodiversity monitoring in Europe (submitted)

  • Statzner B, Bis B, Dolédec S, Usseglio-Polatera P (2001) Perspectives for biomonitoring at large spatial scales: a unified measure for the functional composition of invertebrate communities in European running waters. Basic Appl Ecol 2:73–85. doi:10.1078/1439-1791-00039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoner C, Caro T, Mduma S, Mlingwa C, Sabuni G, Borner M (2007) Assessment of effectiveness of protection strategies in Tanzania based on a decade of survey data for large herbivores. Conserv Biol 21:635–646. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00705.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Strayer DL (1999) Statistical power of presence-absence data to detect population declines. Conserv Biol 13:1034–1038. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98143.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM (2004) The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 19:305–308. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Teder T, Moora M, Roosaluste E, Zobel K, Partel M, Koljalg U et al (2007) Monitoring of biological diversity: a common-ground approach. Conserv Biol 21:313–317. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00575.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas JA (1995) Why small cold-blooded insects pose different conservation problems to birds in modern landscapes. Ibis 137:S112–S119. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919X.1995.tb08431.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas JA (2005) Monitoring change in the abundance and distribution of insects using butterflies and other indicator groups. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360:339–357. doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1585

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas JA, Telfer MG, Roy DB, Preston CD, Greenwood JJD, Asher J et al (2004) Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 303:1879–1881. doi:10.1126/science.1095046

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Van Strien AJ, Plantenga WF, Soldaat LL, Van Swaay CAM, WallisDeVries MF (2008) Bias in phenology assessments based on first appearance data of butterflies. Oecologia 156:227–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Swaay CAM, Plate CL, van Strien AJ (2002) Monitoring butterflies in the Netherlands: how to get unbiased indices. Proc Exp Appl Entomol 13:21–27

    Google Scholar 

  • van Swaay CAM, Nowicki P, Settele J, van Strien AJ (in press) Butterfly Monitoring in Europe—methods, applications and perspectives. Biodivers Conserv

  • Yoccoz NG, Nichols JD, Boulinier T (2001) Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time. Trends Ecol Evol 16:446–453. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02205-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoccoz NG, Nichols JD, Boulinier T (2003) Monitoring of biological diversity—a response to Danielsen et al. Oryx 37:410. doi:10.1017/S0030605303000747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb GJW, Dillon ML, McLean GE, Manolis SC, Ottley B (1990) Monitoring the saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) population in the Northern Territory of Australia. Proc Work Meet IUCN-SSC Crocodile Spec Group 9:329–380

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is a result from the EU-project EuMon (http://eumon.ckff.si), funded by the EU-Commission (contract number 6463). We would like to thank other EuMon-colleagues for constructive and inspiring discussions (particularly Chris van Swaay, Erik Framstad, Andrej Seliškar and Eszter Déri), and Frédéric Archaux and one anonymous reviewer for very helpful suggestions of improvement of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierre-Yves Henry.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Henry, PY., Lengyel, S., Nowicki, P. et al. Integrating ongoing biodiversity monitoring: potential benefits and methods. Biodivers Conserv 17, 3357–3382 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9417-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9417-1

Keywords

Navigation