Date post: | 25-Dec-2014 |
Category: |
Technology |
Upload: | decision-and-policy-analysis-program |
View: | 898 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Are protected areas enough to conserve terrestrial biodiversity in a 2050 climate?
Andy Jarvis, Julian Ramirez, Luigi Guarino, Reymondin, Hector Tobón, Daniel Amariles
Contents
• The boring bit – data quality• The fun bit – modelling• Our current coverage of protected areas –
pretty good!• The bad news – the future• The case of Taiwan• What to do? An example in agrobiodiversity• The next steps
The Main Messages
• The availability of biodiversity data is absolutely necessary to be able to PLAN conservation now and into the future
• Data should be shared nationally for developing national plans, but also internationally for designing international policy
• Especially in the case of climate change: species move around, and they do NOT respect national borders, nor do they need visas!
The Wallace Initiative framework:
1. 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
2. Map potential corridors for species3. Potential refugia, carbon dist., and design of
REDD mechanisms4. Driving of protected area design in the 21st
century5. Provide insights to aid the development of
adaptation plans
The Boring Bit – Data Quality
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?
CURRENT STATUS OFTHE Plantae RECORDS
Taxonomy: Plantae, Country: Taiwan
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
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!
• Using a random sample of 950.000 occurrences with coordinates
• Are the records where they say they are?: country-level verification
Records mostly locatedin country boundaries Inaccuracies in
coordinates
What on earth is this?
Records with null country: 58.051 6,11% of total Records with incorrect country: 6.918 0,72% of totalTotal excluded by country 64.969 6,83% of total
• Are the terrestrial plant species in land?: Coastal verification
Errors, and more errors
Records in the ocean: 9.866 1,03% of total Records near land (range 5km): 34.347 3,61% of totalRecords outside of mask: 369 0,04% of totalTotal excluded by mask 44.582 4.69% of total
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
TOTAL EVALUATED RECORDS: 950.000
Good records: 840.449 88.47% of total
RESULTING DATABASE
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• Use a georreferencing algorithm to:
– Correct wrong references– Incorporate new location data to those with NULL lat,lon
• Interpret 2nd & 3rd-level administrative boundaries and use them too
• Implement environmental cross-checking (outliers)
So what do we face in terms
of biodiversity distribution in
2050?
The current situation
• Covering 13.8% of the total global surface (3.8% international, 10% national)
Results: protected areas per region
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Maximum hotspot overall
Ma
xim
um
ho
tsp
ot
wit
hin
PA
s Complete representativeness
Average representativeness
UK
World
Mexico
US
South AfricaNorth Africa
Middle eastSaudi Arabia
West Africa
Brazil
Current extent of in situ conservation
Global biodiversity currently well conserved
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
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 (maximum adaptation)– Null migration (no adaptation)
• Measures of diversity and area loss– Per region and globally
• Within Protected Areas• Overall
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
NULL MIGRATION
UNLIMITEDMIGRATION
Potential habitatexpansion
CURRENT
Results: Current and future predicted species richness
• Important hotspots in Latin America, Europe, Australasia and Central Africa
• Displacement and loss of niches
NULL MIGRATIONUNLIMITED MIGRATION
Results: changes in species richness
• Null migration: losses everywhere• Unlimited migration: mostly displacement
Results: changes within regions
• Changes in species richness under both migration scenarios
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
Ru
ssia
Sa
ud
i Ara
bia
Re
st o
f Ce
ntr
al A
sia
Ind
on
esi
a
Ch
ina
Ca
na
da
Mid
dle
Ea
st
No
rth
Afr
ica
Jap
an
Ind
ia
Re
st o
f So
uth
Asi
a
So
uth
Afr
ica
Re
st o
f Ea
st A
sia
Po
lan
d
Wo
rld
We
st A
fric
a
So
uth
ern
an
d E
ast
Afr
ica
US
Au
stra
lia
Eu
rop
e
So
uth
Ko
rea
Re
st o
f Au
stra
lasi
a
So
uth
Am
eri
ca
Me
xico
Italy
Bra
zil
Ca
rib
be
an
Ge
rma
ny
UK
Ce
ntr
al A
me
rica
Fra
nce
Null migration
Unlimited migration
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
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0
Change in species richness [NM]
Ch
ang
e in
sp
ecie
s ri
chn
ess
wit
hin
Pas
[N
M]
South America
Central America
France
Australasia
Germany
CaribbeanBrazil
US
Globe
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400
Change in species richness [NM]
Ch
ang
e in
sp
ecie
s ri
chn
ess
wit
hin
Pas
[N
M]
France
Central America
Germany Caribbean
South Korea
NULL MIGRATION
UNLIMITED MIGRATION
Our protected areas not prepared to conserve biodiversity in 2050
Nature conservation in the Amazon
Climate-stable refugia: Protected areas
Climate-stable refugia:
Restoration
Planeando estrategias de adaptacion
Corridors through agriculture to enable movement of biodiversity
No future for biodiversity: Production
Plant diversity distribution
• Most diverse areas concentrated in southeastern and central Taiwan
• Western coast to be less important in terms of richness per se… but what about uniqueness?
Expected richness by 2050s (A2)NO ADAPTATION FULL ADAPTATION
Western coast patch with low Diversity… to be expanded
Central Taiwan to be affected evenconsidering full adaptation…
Expected relative changes by 2050s (A2)
Maximum loss of 27%... Not so high though… GREEN areas for conservation
RED areas are critical as will have significant losses even with Full Adaptation
NO ADAPTATION FULL ADAPTATION
In situ conclusions• Protected areas function today, at least on paper• Under a changed climate however, they do not
effectively conserve biodiversity, even assuming maximum adaptation
• 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 areas
• Redesigned functional landscapes also essential: Eco-efficient agriculture
– When each of the specimens die?– How much does each specimen need to move to
survive?
Modelling migration
Pathways to adaptation in agrobiodiversity
Florunner, with no root-knot nematode resistance
COAN, with population density of root-knot nematodes >90% less than in Florunner
Wild relative species
A. batizocoi - 12 germplasm accessions
A. cardenasii - 17 germplasm accessions
A. diogoi - 5 germplasm accessions
The solution and the problem
SpeciesChange in area
of distribution (%)Predicted state
in 2055
batizocoi -100 Extinctcardenasii -100 Extinctcorrentina -100 Extinctdecora -100 Extinctdiogoi -100 Extinctduranensis -91 Threatenedglandulifera -17 Stablehelodes -100 Extincthoehnii -100 Extinctkempff-mercadoi -69 Near-Threatenedkuhlmannii -100 Extinctmagna -100 Extinctmicrosperma -100 Extinctpalustris -100 Extinctpraecox -100 Extinctstenosperma -86 Threatenedvillosa -51 Near-Threatened
Impact of Climate Change – Wild Peanuts
Massive loss 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).
Gap Analysis: Strategies to fill the holes in our
seed collections
The Gap Analysis process
Proxy for:
• Range of traits
Proxy for:
• Diversity
• Possibly biotic traits
Proxy for:
• Abiotic traits
The Gap Analysis road map
Taxonomy review Data gathering Georeferentiaton
Environmental
data gathering
Gap Analysis
process
Final
recommendations
HERBARIUM GERMPLASM
NOGERMPLASM
DEFICIENTGERMPLASM
POTENTIALRICHNESS
RAREENVIRONMENTS
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
Richness in collecting zones at species level
Richness in collecting zones at genepool level
CONCLUSIONS
What the data says
• Our protected areas work today, not tomorrow• Do we conserve 10 -> 20% of the land mass, or
do we need a new conservation paradigm?• The solutions for agricultural biodiversity are
actually more simple• We need to reconstruct our landscapes to
function as protected areas -> Eco-efficient agriculture
Reminder: The Main Messages
• The availability of biodiversity data is absolutely necessary to be able to PLAN conservation now and into the future
• Data should be shared nationally for developing national plans, but also internationally for designing international policy
• Especially in the case of climate change: species move around, and they do NOT respect national borders, nor do they need visas!