However, no consistent patterns were observed related to the type of biodiversity metric and organism group considered.
However, another important conceptual difference between these approaches is the type of biodiversity dimensions that they are maximizing.
Every day we see different species as we go about our daily lives, including humans, dogs, cats, birds and worms, making species diversity the most obvious type of biodiversity.
When they looked at how well parks and other conservation areas supported the three types of biodiversity — species numbers, evolutionary history, and ecological function — they found that only about a quarter of all species' diversity was accounted for, with far smaller percentages of evolutionary and functional diversity.
Although our study focussed exclusively on plant communities our approach could be applied to assessing impacts on other types of biodiversity, provided the majority of species have been described and sufficiently sampled.
Here we argue that our understanding of biodiversity trends in the Anthropocene, and our ability to protect the natural world, is impeded by a failure to consider different types of biodiversity measured at different spatial scales.
The common aim is not only to have an easily accessible record of species descriptions, but to cross-link different types of biodiversity data, connecting for example biogeography, climate data and phylogenetic information and also to incorporate new technologies like GPS tracking and advanced imaging techniques.
Few data exist, however, on the utility of set-aside plantations for this purpose, or the value of this habitat type for biodiversity relative to old-growth semi-natural ecosystems.
Plant and animal dispersers interactions should be further studied and taken into consideration during the planning and management of urban green space, which is claimed to be the most important habitat type for conservation of biodiversity within modern cities.
As of today, there is no comprehensive tool for metagenome analysis that incorporates all types of analysis (biodiversity analysis, taxobinning, functional annotation, metabolic reconstruction and sophisticated statistical comparisons).
They result in frustrated professionals, a confused public, an inability to assess performance with respect to key forest policy objectives and, almost certainly, types and amounts of biodiversity conservation that fail to achieve either scientifically or socially preferred levels.
