Evaluating bird species diversity based on distribution area and taxonomic uniqueness
-
Upload
center-for-international-forestry-research-cifor -
Category
Education
-
view
777 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Evaluating bird species diversity based on distribution area and taxonomic uniqueness
Ken Sugimura
Forestry & For. Prod. Res. Inst.; CIFOR
Evaluating Bird Species Diversity based on
distribution area and taxonomic uniqueness
Goal and Objectives
Issue: Need to monitor and evaluate biodiversity
Setting up protected areas is considered as the most
effective means to protect biodiversity
What is necessary as a goal:
Develop a globally applicable means of species
diversity evaluation to identify hotspots
Specific 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
Not realistic to believe biodiversity
evaluation is possible
Species B
Species A Genetic diversity
Species D
Species C
E, F, G ……… ∞
Ecosystem α Ecosystem β
Species βA, βB, βC, βD, βE, βF, βG …… ∞
Ecosystem γ
Species γA, γB, γC, γD, γE, γF, γG …… ∞
Ecosystem δ Ecosystem ε Ecosystem ζ Ecosystem η Ecosystem θ
Landscape 1
Landscape 1, 2, 3, …
Species diversity
Ecosystem diversity
(Landscape diversity)
Genetic diversity
Genetic diversity
Genetic diversity
Biodiversity is most frequently represented
by
1. Number of species
2. Endangered species
2. Give greater weight on rare species
IUCN Red List is most commonly used
1. Emphasis on species richness: all species are
equally important => protect as many species
as possible
Contrasting approaches
Database
Ministry of Environment, Biodiversity Center
Whole country is divided into 2,899grids
Survey years: 1997-2002
Conducted by the Japanese Ornithologist Club
121 species that were likely to breed
10 x 10km grid-based
Forest birds
Breeding season
1. Species rich grids
(<Top 50th)
2. Red List:Top
score grids (<50th)
CR = 4
EN = 3
VU = 2
NT = 1
Comparison between species richness
and evaluation by Red List
Ignore many
species rich
grids
Ignore many
grids with
endangered
species
A. Range size
The smaller the species range size is, the greater evaluation
Measurement that attempts to integrate
uniqueness by range size and taxonomy
Domestic rarity score :A1=Σ(D / ci)/10
D: Total area size over the nation
ci : area size occupied by species i
Domestic 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
√A1=Σ√ (D / ci)
Species range size
Evaluation of a species by its range size
A1=Σ(D / ci)/10
Sp
ecie
s E
va
lua
tio
n
A2=Σ(R / ci)
Range size in a region
Division
Variety in
scale
Ev
alu
ati
on
Species range size
The grids selected as
hotspots vary depending
on the indicators
Evaluation by species range size
High score grids
Gri
d E
va
lua
tio
n
Measurement based on phylogenetic
uniqueness (T)
Indicator:
Number of splits down to a species/Total #splits
Developed after May(1990)
species
A1
A2
Am
B1
B2
Bn
C
…..
……
m
nk
l
(m+n+4)/2
(m+n+4)/(m+4)
Continental vs. Oceanic
Not appropriate as an indicator
Vp
T (0.16)
A2 (0.14)
A
A1
root(A1) (0.3) A1 (0.4)
Each parameter is weighted after a questionnaire study with AHP
Score in the area p:Vp =Σ(ak*Ikp)
ak:coefficient to the parameter k
Ikp:evaluation based on the
parameter k in the area p
Ikp = Sikpis the
evaluation
for the parameter k and the
species i in the area p
i
ikps
Evaluation with a multi-criteria approach
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
評価値
種数
Many range-
restricted
species
Species
rich grids
Selection of hotspots over the nation
Mix
ed E
va
lua
tio
n
wit
h 3
in
dic
ato
rs
Number of species
Comparison with evaluation by RED List
CR = 4
EN = 3
VU = 2
NT = 1 Evaluation by Red List
Mix
ed E
va
lua
tio
n
(Top 100)
Located inside protected area
No means of protection
Many threatened
species
Primarily covered by
tree plantations
Highly evaluated grids by the
mixed indicator
Application : Assessing impacts of
forest cutting
Vp # spp.
Logged area 4.65 6.0
Young forests 15.9 10.3
Mature forests 16.6 12.0
Primary forests 22.2 12.3
Islands with
many endemic
species
Application (2): Impacts of urban
development
Urban sprawl
#Avian spp. Eval. Score
34 6.5
27 1.6
Implications
1. 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.
Thanks for your attention.謝謝
Hotspots designated by Conservation International
http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/pages/map.aspx
Japan is one of
the hot spots