Biodiversity loss worse than anticipated

The loss of plant and animal species around the world due to human activities could have been significantly underestimated due to a commonly used scientific method, according to a new study. Lancaster University researchers and Brazilian colleagues went to the Amazon forest to measure dung beetle species diversity before and after logging exploration to contrast two different experimental methods. The results are striking. When they compared the data from the different techniques, they discovered the most commonly used scientific method (space-for-time substitution) underestimated species loss by up to half. 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 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 technique.