Land-use and related pressures have reduced biotic integrity more on islands than on mainlands

Tracking progress towards biodiversity targets requires indicators that are sensitive to changes at policy-relevant scales, can easily be aggregated to any spatial scale and are simple to understand. The Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII), which estimates the average abundance of a diverse set of organisms in a given area relative to their reference populations, was proposed in 2005 in response to this need. A new implementation of BII was developed as part of the PREDICTS project in 2016 and has been adopted by GEO BON, IPBES and CBD. The previous global models for BII estimation could not account for pressures having different effects in different settings. Islands are a setting of particular interest: many are home to a disproportionate number of endemic species; oceanic islands may have relatively low overall species diversity because of their isolation; and the pattern and timing of human pressures can be very different from that seen on mainlands. Here, we test whether biotic integrity - as estimated by BII - has decreased more severely on islands than mainlands. We update methods previously used to estimate BII globally (Newbold et al., 2016) to allow pressure effects to differ between islands and mainlands, while also implementing some other recent improvements in modelling. We estimate BII for islands and mainlands by combining global models of how two aspects of biodiversity - overall abundance, and compositional similarity to minimally-impacted sites - have been affected by human pressures. We use these models to project high-resolution ([~]1km2) global maps of BII for the year 2005. We calculate average BII for island and mainland biomes, countries, IPBES regions and biodiversity hotspots; and repeat our analyses using a richness-based version of BII. BII on both islands and mainlands has fallen below the values proposed as safe limits across most regions, biomes and biodiversity hotspots. Our BII estimates are lower than those published in 2016, globally, within all biodiversity hotspots and within most biomes, and show greater spatial heterogeneity; detailed analysis of these differences shows that they arise mostly from a combination of improvements to the modelling framework. Average BII does not strongly differ between islands and mainlands, but richness-based BII has fallen by more on islands. It seems native species are more negatively affected by rising human population density and road development on islands than mainlands, and islands have seen more land conversion. Our results highlight the parlous state of biodiversity native to islands.