Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Andy  Jarvis Are Protected Areas Enough To Conserve Biodiversity In 2050    G B I F  Science  Symposium  Oct 2009
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Andy Jarvis Are Protected Areas Enough To Conserve Biodiversity In 2050 G B I F Science Symposium Oct 2009


Presentation made at the Science Symposium of GBIF in 2009 in Copenhagen in reception of the Ebbe Nielsen prize for innovative research in bioinformatics and biosystematics.

Presentation made at the Science Symposium of GBIF in 2009 in Copenhagen in reception of the Ebbe Nielsen prize for innovative research in bioinformatics and biosystematics.

Published in Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads


Total Views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Are protected areas enough to conserve terrestrial biodiversity in a 2050 climate?
    Andy Jarvis, Julian Ramirez, Luigi Guarino, Reymondin, Hector Tobón, Daniel Amariles
  • 2. We’re still not doing enough to convince people of the seriousness
  • 3. Contents
    The boring bit – data quality
    The fun bit – modelling
    Our current coverage of protected areas – pretty good!
    The bad news
    What to do? An example in agrobiodiversity
    The next steps
    The Peter Jones Scholarship for Agricultural Informatics
  • 4. The Wallace Initiative framework:
    Assessment of impacts of climate change on species distributions to:
    Determine refugia
    Improve knowledge of risks of exceeding certain levels of change by means of determining extinction rates
    Map potential corridors for species
    Potential refugia, carbon, and design of REDD mechanisms
    Driving of protected area design in the 21st century
    Provide information to aid the development of adaptation plans
  • 5. The Boring Bit – Data Quality
  • 6. The GBIF database: status of the data
    The database holds 177,887,193 occurrences
    Plantae occurrences are 44,706,505 (25,13%)
    33,340,000 (74.5%) have coordinates
    How many of them are correct, and reliable?
    How many new georreferences could we get?
    THE Plantae RECORDS
  • 7. The GBIF database: status of the data
    How to make the data reliable enough?
    Verify coordinates at different levels
    Are the records where they say they are?
    Are the records inside land areas (for terrestrial plant species only)
    Are all the records within the environmental niche of the taxon?
    Sea records: not verifiable
    Correct wrong references
    Add references to those that do not have
    Cross-check with curators and feedback the database
  • 8. The GBIF database: status of the data
    How to make that possible?
    Java-based scripts
    Spatial datasets: environmental descriptors, administrative boundaries, high resolution land area mask
    Some processing power
    Enough storage
    And… most important: Java geeks!
  • 9. Using a random sample of 950.000 occurrences with coordinates
  • 10. Are the records where they say they are?: country-level verification
    Records with null country: 58.051  6,11% of total
    Records with incorrect country: 6.918  0,72% of total
    Total excluded by country 64.969  6,83% of total
    Records mostly located
    in country boundaries
    Inaccuracies in
    What on earth is this?
  • 11.
    • Are the terrestrial plant species in land?: Coastal verification
    Records in the ocean: 9.866  1,03% of total
    Records near land (range 5km): 34.347  3,61% of total
    Records outside of mask: 369  0,04% of total
    Total excluded by mask 44.582  4.69% of total
    Errors, and more errors
  • 12. Not so bad at all… stats
    44’706.505 plant records
    33’340.008 (74,57%) with coordinates
    From those
    88.5% are geographically correct at two levels
    6.8% have null or incorrect country (incl. sea plant species)
    4.7% are near the coasts but not in-land
    Summary of errors or misrepresented data
    Good records: 840.449  88.47% of total
  • 14. Next steps
    It now takes 27 minutes to verify 950,000 records, 177million would be 83 hours (3 ½ days)
    Identify terrestrial plant species and separate them from sea species
    Sea species not verifiable
    Use a georreferencing algorithm to:
    Correct wrong references
    Incorporate new location data to those with NULLlat,lon
    Interpret 2nd & 3rd-level administrative boundaries and use them too
    Implement environmental cross-checking (outliers)
  • 15. So what do we face in terms of biodiversity distribution in 2050?
  • 16. The current situation
    Covering 13.8% of the total global surface (3.8% international, 10% national)
  • 17. Results: protected areas per region
    Global biodiversity currently well conserved
    Current extent of in situ conservation
  • 18. The data: current and future climates
    Current climates from WorldClim
    19 bioclimatic indices at 10 arc-minutes
    Future climates from downscaled GCM outputs
    18 models at 10 arc-minutes spatial resolution
    For 2050s
    Under the A2a emission scenario
    19 bioclimatic variables as for WorldClim
    Control run with the average climate of all GCMs
  • 19. The approach
    Maximum entropy as a very accurate algorithm for niche modeling
    10 or more points for each of the 33,004 taxa
    Current: two extreme migration scenarios
    Unlimited migration
    Null migration
    Measures of diversity and area loss
    Per region and globally
    Within Protected Areas
  • 20. Modeling approach
    Aplying the maximum entropy algorithm
    Macoubea guianensis Aubl.: food for rural indigenous communities in the Amazon
    Data harvesting from GBIF
    Building the presence model
    Projecting on future climates
  • 21. CURRENT
    Results: Current and future predicted species richness
    Important hotspots in Latin America, Europe, Australasia and Central Africa
    Displacement and loss of niches
  • 22. Results: changes in species richness
    Null migration: losses everywhere
    Unlimited migration: mostly displacement
    Results: changes in species richness
    Null migration: losses everywhere
    Unlimited migration: mostly displacement
  • 24. Results: changes within regions
    Changes in species richness under both migration scenarios
  • 25. Results: in situ conservation under the context of CC
    No matter if the best ‘adaptation’ scenario (unlimited dispersal) is chosen, negatives are expected in most regions
  • 26. Results: in situ conservation under the context of CC
    Expected changes within protected areas (PAs) sometimes occur at a greater extent than non-protected areas
    Our protected areas not prepared to conserve biodiversity in 2050
  • 27. CC on top of ongoing processes: habitat degradation
    Land use change monitoring model
    Occurrences from the GBIF database
    Protected areas
  • 28. Caqueta, Jan 2004 – May 2009
  • 29. Threats to biodiversity from habitat degradation
    From 12,853,796 records (60,894 taxa)
    315,590 records (2.5%) from 13,250 taxa (21.76%) can be found in the Amazon
    At least one population from 1,662 taxa (12.5%) is now extinct due to land use changes
    3.9% taxa have more than 5% of their populations now extinct
    1.3% have more than 10% and… 0.4% have more than 20%
    ESTIMATIONS FROM 2004 to mid-2009… in only five and a half years, some 2.5% of the global biodiversity is under threat at different levels… only taking into account LUC
  • 30. In situ conclusions
    Protected areas function today, at least on paper
    Under a changed climate however, they do not effectively conserve biodiversity, even assuming unlimited migration
    In situ conservation needs to be oriented under the context of climate change
    Areas to be strengthened (more control)
    Areas to be expanded
    Areas to be re-located (if migration does occur)
    Enabling migration is critical: corridors of protected status help
    Redesigned functional landscapes also essential: Eco-efficient agriculture
  • 31. Next steps… scientific rigor
    A far more detailed approach is required including
    Individual GCM results
    Other emission and policy scenarios
    All GBIF species with more taxonomic and georreferencing corrections
    Other time slices: 2020s, 2030s, 2040s…
    Validation metrics of Maxent models
    Intermediate migration scenarios
    Measure the number of extinct species for each region
    Dealing with bias in the data. Sorry France.
  • 32. When each of the specimens die?
    How much does each specimen need to move to survive?
    Modelling migration
  • 33. Pathways to adaptation in agrobiodiversity
  • 34. The solution and the problem
    Wild relative species
    A. batizocoi - 12 germplasm accessions
    A. cardenasii - 17 germplasm accessions
    A. diogoi - 5 germplasm accessions
    Florunner, with no root-knot nematode resistance
    COAN, with population density of root-knot nematodes >90% less than in Florunner
  • 35. Impact of Climate Change – Wild Peanuts
  • 36. Massiveloss of agrobiodiversity
    FAO (1998) estimates that since the beginning of this century, about 75% of the genetic diversity of agricultural crops has been lost.
    In China, for example, nearly 10,000 wheat varieties were cultivated in 1949. By the 1970s, only about 1,000 varieties were still in use (FAO 1996).
    In Mexico, only 20% of the maize varieties reported in 1930 are now known in the country (FAO 1996).
    In Germany about half of the plant species in pastures have been lost (Isselstein 2003)
    In south Italy about 75% of crop varieties have disappeared (Hammer et al. 2003).
  • 37. Gap Analysis: Strategiestofilltheholes in ourseedcollections
  • 38.
  • 39.
  • 41. NO
  • 43.
  • 44. Wild Vigna collecting priorities
    Spatial analysis on current conserved materials
    *Gaps* in current collections
    Definition and prioritisation of collecting areas
    8 100x100km cells to complete collections of 23 wild Vigna priority species
  • 45. Richness in collecting zones at species level
  • 46. Richness in collecting zones at genepool level
  • 47. What the data says
    Our protected areas work today, not tomorrow
    Do we conserve 20% of the land mass, or do we need a new conservation paradigm?
    The solutions for agricultural biodiversity are actually more simple. But what about the useless species? ;-)
    We need to reconstruct our landscapes to function as protected areas -> Eco-efficient agriculture
  • 48. The Final Word
  • 49. The Oldies
    Simone Staiger
    Ana Milena Guerrero
    Glenn Graham Hyman
    Lilian Patricia Torres
    Enna Diaz Betancourt
    Anton Eitzineger
    Simon Cook
    Silvia Elena Castaño
    Jorge Cardona
    Juan Carlos Andrade
    Carlos Nagles
    Andy Jarvis
  • 50. The Youth
    Robert Andrade
    Jhon Ocampo
    Julián Ramirez
    Natalia Uribe
    Louis Reymondin
    Nora Castañeda
    Hector Favio Tobón
    Elizabeth Barona
    Ovidio Rivera
    Daniel Jimenez
    Mike Salazar
    Vanesa Herrera
  • 51. Victor Augusto Lizcano
    Carolina Argote D.
    Katherin Tehelen
    Angelica Ma. Henao
    Emmanuel Zapata
    Daniel Amariles
    Oriana Carolina Ovalle
    And the positively under-age
    The Peter Jones Scholarship for Agricultural Informatics
  • 52.