Evaluating bird species diversity based on distribution area and taxonomic uniqueness


Published on

There are a number of different indicators used to evaluate the biodiversity of an area and its relative importance for protection and conservation – each method produces quite different outcomes. Using Japan as a case study, this presentation examines the different ways of evaluating biodiversity hotspots and proposes an additional methodology using range size and taxonomy that may help decision makers worldwide in determining hotspots for conservation. CIFOR scientist Ken Sugimura gave this presentation at the first Annual World Congress of Biodiversity: Today Eco-civilisation, Tomorrow Happiness, held in Xi’an, China on 25–28 April 2012.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

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

No notes for slide

Evaluating bird species diversity based on distribution area and taxonomic uniqueness

  1. 1. Evaluating Bird Species Diversity based ondistribution area and taxonomic uniqueness Ken Sugimura Forestry & For. Prod. Res. Inst.; CIFOR
  2. 2. Goal and ObjectivesIssue: Need to monitor and evaluate biodiversitySetting up protected areas is considered as the most effective means to protect biodiversityWhat is necessary as a goal: Develop a globally applicable means of species diversity evaluation to identify hotspotsSpecific objectives:・Testify the utility of some different indicators for diversity measurement・ How can the proposed methodology be applied to hotspots selection・ Examine some ways of application
  3. 3. Not realistic to believe biodiversity evaluation is possibleLandscape 1 Ecosystem α Ecosystem β Species A Species βA, βB, βC, Species C Genetic Genetic βD, βE, βF, βG …… diversity diversity ∞ Species diversity Species B Species D Ecosystem γGenetic Genetic E, F, G ……… ∞ Species γA,diversity diversity γB, γC, γD, γE, γF, γG …… ∞Ecosystem δ Ecosystem ε Ecosystem ζ Ecosystem η Ecosystem θ Ecosystem diversityLandscape 1, 2, 3, … (Landscape diversity)
  4. 4. Biodiversity is most frequently representedby1. Number of species2. Endangered species1. Emphasis on species richness: all species are equally important => protect as many species as possible Contrasting approaches2. Give greater weight on rare species IUCN Red List is most commonly used
  5. 5. DatabaseMinistry of Environment, Biodiversity Center 10 x 10km grid-based Forest birds Breeding season Whole country is divided into 2,899grids Survey years: 1997-2002 Conducted by the Japanese Ornithologist Club 121 species that were likely to breed
  6. 6. Comparison between species richness and evaluation by Red List1. Species rich grids Ignore many (<Top 50th) species rich grids Ignore many grids with endangered species CR = 4 EN = 3 2. Red List:Top VU = 2 score grids NT = 1 (<50th)
  7. 7. Measurement that attempts to integrate uniqueness by range size and taxonomy A. Range sizeThe smaller the species range size is, the greater evaluationDomestic rarity score :A1=Σ(D / ci)/10 D: Total area size over the nation ci : area size occupied by species iDomestic rarity score : root (A1)=Σ root (D / ci)Regional rarity score: A2=Σ(R / ci ’)/10 R is the total area size over a certain local region
  8. 8. Species Evaluation Evaluation of a species by its range size A1=Σ(D / ci)/10 A2=Σ(R / ci) Species range size Range size in a regionEvaluation Variety in √A1=Σ√ (D / ci) scale Division Species range size
  9. 9. Grid Evaluation Evaluation by species range size High score grids The grids selected as hotspots vary depending on the indicators
  10. 10. Measurement based on phylogenetic uniqueness (T) species A1 A2 m (m+n+4)/(m+4) … … l Am B1 B2 k n . . Not appropriate as an indicator … Bn C (m+n+4)/2 Developed after May(1990) Continental vs. OceanicIndicator:Number of splits down to a species/Total #splits
  11. 11. Evaluation with a multi-criteria approachScore in the area p:Vp =Σ(ak*Ikp)ak:coefficient to the parameter k VpIkp:evaluation based on theparameter k in the area p A T (0.16)Ikp =  i sikp Sikpis theevaluation A1 A2 (0.14)for the parameter k and thespecies i in the area p A1 (0.4) root(A1) (0.3) Each parameter is weighted after a questionnaire study with AHP
  12. 12. Selection of hotspots over the nation 180 Species Mixed Evaluation with 3 indicators 160 rich grids 140 評 120 価 100 値 80 60 40Many range- 20restricted 0species 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 種数 Number of species
  13. 13. Comparison with evaluation by RED ListMixed Evaluation CR = 4 EN = 3 VU = 2 Evaluation by Red List NT = 1
  14. 14. Highly evaluated grids by the mixed indicator (Top 100) Located inside protected area No means of protectionPrimarily covered bytree plantations Many threatened species
  15. 15. Application : Assessing impacts of forest cutting Vp # spp.Logged area 4.65 6.0 Islands withYoung forests 15.9 10.3 many endemicMature forests 16.6 12.0 speciesPrimary forests 22.2 12.3
  16. 16. Application (2): Impacts of urban development #Avian spp. Eval. Score Urban sprawl 34 6.5 27 1.6
  17. 17. Implications1. There are a number of objective means of evaluation. Each means can produce quite different outcomes.2. Which means to take depends on subjective judgment by the decision-makers.3. The proposed methodology may help to select species-rich hotspots and those with relatively many range-restricted species simultaneously.4. Disturbed landscapes appear to reduce relatively more unique species than wide-range species.
  18. 18. Thanks for your attention.謝謝 Japan is one of the hot spots Hotspots designated by Conservation International http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/pages/map.aspx