Liu, MingxinMiao, XinranHua, Fangyuan2024-08-212024-08-211755-263Xhttps://hdl.handle.net/1885/733715048Existing quantitative syntheses on how biodiversity responds to anthropogenichabitat change appear to sometimes mix different biodiversity metrics in drawing inferences. This “mixing metrics” practice, if prevalent, would considerably bias our understanding of biodiversity responses and render uninterpretable conclusions. However, the prevalence of this practice remains unknown, and the bias it potentially renders has not been empirically assessed. We fill this gap by conducting a systematic literature assessment of existing syntheses on bio-diversity responses to habitat change, along with an analysis of a global database specifically on forest restoration. We found that the “mixing metrics” practice was used in almost a quarter of existing syntheses across a wide range of ecosystem and habitat change types. This practice predictably altered the quantitative,and frequently even the qualitative, inferences on biodiversity responses to forestrestoration, in ways contingent on the composition of metrics mixed. We call on future syntheses to be cognizant of the difference in metric meaning and behaviors, and to avoid mixing different metrics in studying biodiversity responses to habitat changeMinistry of Science and Technology ofChina, Grant/Award Number:2022YFF0802300; National NaturalScience Foundation of China,Grant/Award Numbers: 32122057,32201418application/pdfen-AUhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/biodiversity metricsconservation interventionforest restorationgeometric meanspeciesabundanceterrestrial ecosystemsquantitative synthesis202310.1111/conl.129592024-05-12Creative Commons Attribution License