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


Published on

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
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

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

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