6/6 When the dataset you are using to assess diversity change does not consider the dominant driver of diversity loss, and relies on studies where biodiversity can only go up (e.g., recovery, succession), then it not representative of how humans are altering biodiverity on Earth.

5/6 BioTime does not account for the single largest contributor to biodiversity decline -- habitat loss. Not one study in that dataset shows how 43% of Earth's land surface that used to be forested, but has been converted to agriculture, has influenced biodiversity.

4/6 BioTime has many studies of colonization of new habitats (e.g., dragonflies colonizating new pools). Studies of recovery, succession, and colonization are designed to monitor unidirectional increases in diversity, and do not tell us how humans are altering biodiversity.

3/6 But one must recognize several things about these time-series datasets (e.g., BioTime) that have been used to conclude +'s and -'s are equal: (1) BioTime includes many studies of recovery/succession after a disturbance (plants recovering from the Mt. St. Helens eruption).

2/6 No, it's not a surprise there were many examples of + trends. We've known this since Sax's pubs. There are, in fact, many locations on Earth where invasions have outpaced extinctions. Species composition changes and no one expected all locations on Earth to be in decline.

1/6 A. Gonzalez tries to clarify stance on use of time-series data (e.g. BioTIME) to draw conclusions about biodiversity loss. When asked if it was a 'surprise' time-series found equal numbers of +/- diversity trends, Andy overly complicates issue .

2/6 No, it's not a surprise there were many examples of + trends. We've known this since Sax's pubs. There are, in fact, many locations on Earth where invasions have outpaced extinctions. And no one ever expected all locations on Earth to be in diversity decline.

More biodiversity loss denialism (sigh). Cherry picking and misrepresentation of data and are being used intentionally to sow doubt about biodiversity loss in the same way the Heartland Institute trys to sows doubt about climate change. This is bad science.

RT @EU_ENV: Invasive species have cost the world more than €612 billion over the last 50 years, with.🥕agriculture.🌳forestry.🐟fisheries.bein….

RT @ConversationUS: Ecological disruptions are a risk to national security

Good study on biodiversity change quantifying local diversity loss and lack of biotic homogenization. I wonder how the #BioTIME group will respond . probably just ignore this and publish another paper using their deeply flawed time-series.

Young faculty who are mobile, and the best graduate students and postdocs are currently thinking about leaving the U.S. to start their careers elsewhere. We're going to experience a 'brain-drain', which will impact America's ability to remain a leader in anything.

Our new article in The Conversation highlights Nature's Role in National Security.

RT @rshereme: 11/ Democracy isn’t self-sustaining. It requires us to choose it — again and again. Not with platitudes. But with vigilance….

RT @hmlfpereira: I am increasingly convinced we have a reproducibility crisis in Ecology because of the abuse of statistics and its explana….

One of my PhD students just shared this with me after I edited a draft of his first chapter 😆

RT @agsciences: Hot off the press! 🌟. Dr. Bradley Cardinale, professor in the Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, has released….

Does anyone review for Frontiers Media? They were once on Beall's list of predatory journals, but there has since been defense of their journals. Even so, it's a for-profit publication factory with 100s of journals & 1000s of papers. What is the quality of peer-review?.

It seems that every 5 to 10 years we invent a new term to try and advance an old idea. Maybe if we just delivered on the original idea in the first place, we wouldn't have to fein novelty so often. Society for Conservation Biology