Are we in danger of underestimating biodiversity loss?

What is it about?

Most ecological impact studies are conducted when the disturbance events (such as fires or logging) have already taken place and, as result, researchers are forced to use undisturbed sites in nearby regions to provide a picture of what the disturbed site may have looked like before the disturbance. This approach is known as space-for-time substitution (SFT) and dominates literature on land-use change and disturbance. In an ideal world, when researchers are able to sample prior to the disturbance event, they can use a before–after control–impact (BACI) technique. This technique enables them to compare biodiversity before and after the disturbance event.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Our study shows that compared to the before-after control-impact (BACI) approach, results from space-for-time (SFT) sampling methods greatly underestimated the consequences of logging intensification for dung beetle local diversity and species composition. More than double the number of species lost were lost from the most disturbed plots when assessed using the BACI approach compared to SFT. Such significantly weaker effects revealed by the SFT approach are of great concern because the SFT designs are the most commonly used method for assessing biodiversity and ecosystem functioning losses caused by anthropogenic forest disturbances.

Perspectives