Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 1421–1429, 2003. 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Rapid acquisition and dissemination of standardizedbiological inventories from Russian BiosphereReserves

1, 2*ROBERT J. MEESE , VALERI M. NERONOV , GLEB M.2 3ALESTCHENKO and MICHAEL RUGGIERO

1Information Center for the Environment, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University2of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA; Russian MAB Committee, 117312 Fersman Street, No. 13,

3Moscow, Russia; Biodiversity Programs /ITIS, Smithsonian Institution /NMNH, Washington, DC 20560-*0180, USA; Author for correspondence (e-mail: rjmeese@ucdavis.edu; fax: 11-530-752-3350)

Received 14 March 2002; accepted in revised form 22 July 2002

Key words: Biodiversity, Biological inventory, Biosphere Reserve, Nomenclature, Russia, Systematics,Zapovednik

Abstract. We accumulate, standardize, and disseminate the results of biological inventories of 21protected areas in the Russian Federation; each of these areas has been recognized by UNESCO’s Manand the Biosphere (MAB) program as a Biosphere Reserve. These inventories, comprising 4702 speciesof plants and 1094 species of vertebrate animals of the breadth of Russia, represent 20% of the vascularflora and 73% of the vertebrate fauna of Russia and are made widely available for the first time. Wedescribe an approach to the development and Internet availability of large databases of speciesinventories which were produced through the provision of custom biological inventory softwaresupported by training, cost-free distribution, and a modest amount of taxonomic support. Our experiencesalso highlight the essential role of an active national office in a system of protected areas. Our approachovercomes many of the obstacles inherent in previous and existing attempts to assemble the results ofbiological inventories derived from a variety of sources. We suggest a similar application of biologicalinventory software, supported by national coordination, as an effective means to provide access to speciesinventories of a system of protected areas. Standardized, taxonomically current species inventories areessential components of regional and global conservation efforts.

Introduction

Attempts to conserve the Earth’s biological diversity have recently taken onincreased importance with the realization that anthropogenic effects are causingworldwide reductions in species populations, and further reductions are predicted toresult in greatly accelerated rates of species extinctions. The international scope ofthe problem of the loss of biological diversity was highlighted recently at twointernational forums: (1) the United Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment (the ‘Earth Summit’) in Rio de Janeiro in June, 1992 with the signingand subsequent ratification by more than 160 countries of the convention onbiological diversity, and (2) the International Botanical Congress in St. Louis,Missouri, in August, 1999, where the Congress President, Peter Raven, calledattention, through the Resolutions of the XVIth International Botanical Congress, to

1422

the need for vastly increased research and funding for the conservation of theworld’s plants in response to unprecedented global threats.

The conservation of biodiversity will take sustained commitments from govern-ments, institutions, and individuals, and a vastly increased knowledge base fromwhich to make informed decisions. The knowledge necessary to make decisionswhich are intended to result in the sustainable use of the Earth’s biological resourcesrests with an assessment of the biological resources present, that is, a biologicalinventory.

Historically, the results of biological inventories have been recorded idiosyncrati-cally, both within and among sites: biologists have utilized a wide variety of datastorage and retrieval methodologies, different naming standards for the sametaxonomic group, and a variety of additional non-standardized practices which haveserved to impede attempts to compare inventories within, between, and among sites(e.g., Stohlgren and Quinn 1992; Stafford 1993; Sutherland 1996). These impedi-ments have resulted in the lack of an ability to efficiently document, let alonethoroughly assess, species abundances and/or distributions across large parts oftheir ranges, and have also presented an effective deterrent to information transferand sharing. Thus, even taking these first steps in assessing regional conservationpriorities has proven difficult (e.g., Woinarski 1992).

A solution to some of the problems plaguing the acquisition, dissemination andanalysis of biological inventory data could be provided by the widespread adoptionof standardized methods in the storage, transfer, and retrieval of the data accumu-lated through the inventory process. A significant improvement in data managementcould be provided by a computer application which was especially designed tofacilitate the entry and transfer of biological inventory data. Such biologicalinventory software would be especially helpful if it was: (1) easy to use, (2) widelyavailable at little or no cost, (3) able to run on most personal computers, and (4)published in more than one language. In addition, such software should containpublished, widely recognized species names (i.e. nomenclatures) from which userswould make selections, rather than typing in species names, thereby standardizingon single, current taxonomic treatments across wide geographic areas and eliminat-ing typing errors. To aid the accumulation of bioinventory data from numerous sites,the software should automate the process of saving the results of one site’sbiological inventories and appending these records into other users’ computers. Theanalysis of large data sets accumulated through the use of such software couldgreatly facilitate comparisons among sites and therefore contribute directly to theconservation of biological diversity.

Such integrated biological inventory software has been developed by the In-formation Center for the Environment (ICE) at the University of California, Davis,with assistance from the United States Man and the Biosphere (US MAB) program,and has been distributed worldwide to protected areas which have been recognizedby the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UN-ESCO) MAB program as Biosphere Reserves. The software, MABFlora for plantsand MABFauna for vertebrate animals, enables users to enter the results ofbiological inventories of plants and animals into standardized databases (Pushkarev

1423

et al. (1998) supply brief descriptions of the databases). These databases may thenbe efficiently transferred to other users or queried to answer questions of manage-ment or scientific interest.

The data entered into MABFlora and MABFauna are then, in the vast majority ofcases, made available to the US MAB program and published over the Internet at theICE server in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy at the Universityof California, Davis (http: / / ice.ucdavis.edu/mab).

Russia, the world’s largest country which occupies approximately one-eighth ofthe world’s land mass and has a long tradition of research in the natural sciences(Weiner 1988), provides an excellent test case for the approach of using aspecialized computer application to solve some of the problems inherent in previousattempts to accumulate standardized biological inventories derived from a largenumber of sites and to analyze documented species distributions over large geo-graphic areas. The US MAB program, with financial assistance provided by the U.S.Civilian Research and Development Foundation (CRDF), has supported the de-velopment and distribution of the Russian-language versions of MABFlora andMABFauna. This software contains ‘master species lists’, i.e. databases of names ofspecies, consisting of single nomenclatures per taxonomic group which cover thewhole of Russia (Ryzhkov 1998). In addition to the species names, the softwareprovides 11 categories of additional information (e.g., on abundance, residence andbreeding status, origin, etc.) to more thoroughly characterize the occurrences of theplants and animals at each site.

The ‘master species lists’ in MABFauna have world-wide coverage and consist of(1) William Eschmeyer’s (1998) treatment of the fishes of the world (availableon-line at http: / /www.calacademy.org / research / ichthyology/catalog /fishcat-search.html), (2) the 1999 American Museum of National History list of amphibiansof the world (http: / / research.amnh.org /herpetology/amphibia / index. html), (3) theEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory world list of reptiles (http: / /www.embl-heidelberg.de /|uetz /LivingReptiles.html) maintained by Peter Uetz, (4) the lateCharles Sibley’s (1994) Birds of the World, version 2 and relevant updates, and (5)the Wilson and Reeder (1993) treatment of the mammals of the world (http: / /www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/ ).

The version of MABFlora for Russia utilizes the names in Vascular Plants ofRussia and Adjacent States (Czerepanov 1995), as provided by Dmitri Geltman ofthe Komarov Botanical Institute in St. Petersburg, Russia.

Methods

Existing data derived from biological inventories from individual strictly protectedareas (‘zapovedniki’) across Russia were chosen for this study. Each of these sites(Figure 1, Table 1) has been recognized by UNESCO’s MAB program as aBiosphere Reserve (UNESCO 1996) and has played an important role in Russia inenvironmental monitoring through a history of basic research, including floral andfaunal inventories (Weiner 1988). The National MAB Committee of Russia served

1424

Figure 1. Locations of the Biosphere Reserves of the Russian Federation. Numbers correspond to thoseused in Table 1.

as coordinator for this project, with assistance from the Ministry of Science andTechnology of Russia.

The project began in March, 1997 with an initial training session in the use of theMABFlora /MABFauna software in Moscow. Prior to this initial training session, noattempt had been made to accumulate nor standardize the results of the biologicalinventories of Biosphere Reserves in Russia. Eight Biosphere Reserves of theEuropean part of Russia (to the west of the Ural Mountains: Astrakhanskiy, ChernyeZemli, Laplandskiy, Okskiy, Prioksko-Terrasny, Tsentral’no-Chernozemny, Tsen-tral’no-Lesnoy, and Voronezhskiy) participated in this initial training session. Asecond training session was held in Moscow in May, 1998. During this interval, theoriginal, DOS-based version of the MAB software was replaced by a newly

developed Windows version, and the second training session provided instructionin the use of the new Windows software.

The second stage of this project, which began in April, 1999, involved eightSiberian (Baikal’skiy, Barguzinskiy, Daurskiy, Sayno-Shushenskiy, Sokhondinskiy,Taimyrskiy, Tsentral’no Sibirskiy and Ubsunur Depression), and two European(Kavkazskiy and Teberdinskiy) Biosphere Reserves.

Each training session consisted of three half-days of hands-on training at acomputer training facility in Moscow. Instruction was provided in English by oneauthor (Meese) and translated into Russian by another author (Alestchenko).Participants worked alone or in teams of two persons per computer.

Participants in this study were advised prior to attending the training sessions in

1425

Table 1. Biosphere Reserves, their areas, and numbers of species of vertebrate animals and vascular2plants reported. All areas are given in km .

Biosphere Reserve Area Am. Birds Fishes Mam. Rept. Plant

1. Astrakhanskiy 668 4 279 46 33 5 3132. Baikalskiy 1657 3 251 12 49 3 7713. Barguzinskiy 3744 3 269 44 41 6 7234. Chernye Zemli 1250 3 137 NR 23 8 1675. Daurskiy 447 4 278 4 40 3 3496. Kavkazskiy 2633 10 250 23 81 20 15427. Kronotskiy 10990 1 210 1 58 NR 3508. Laplandskiy 2684 1 196 3 33 2 5559. Okskiy 557 10 237 32 56 6 85910. Pechoro-Ilychskiy 7213 4 220 NR 45 1 68111. Prioksko-Terrasny 49 10 128 NR 63 5 74112. Sayano-Shushenskiy 3904 4 250 1 59 NR 877

a13. Sikhote-Alinskiy 3470 4 331 31 58 8 30314. Sokhondinskiy 2110 3 202 5 62 3 61315. Taimyrsky 13487 1 110 NR 23 NR 44816. Teberdinskiy 850 7 NR NR NR NR 127217. Tsentral’no-Chernozemny 48 7 213 NR 46 5 51218. Tsentral’no-Lesnoy 214 6 211 19 54 5 55619. Tsentral’no-Sibirskiy 9720 3 246 24 42 2 70120. Ubsunur Depression 396 0 351 4 76 7 48421. Voronezhskiy 311 9 199 43 57 7 962Totals 66402 97 4568 292 999 96 13779Unique species 24 621 163 244 42 4702

aAm.5amphibians, Mam.5mammals, Rept.5reptiles, NR 5 not reported. Freshwater species only.

Moscow to come to the training sessions with the species checklists of vascularplants and vertebrate animals derived from the sites they represented. Thesechecklists formed the basis for the records to be entered into the Russian versions ofMABFlora and MABFauna. Existing species inventories came in a variety offormats, including printed peer-reviewed publications, on-site printed checklists,typescript, and a variety of electronic formats including spreadsheet and wordprocessor files. Participants used their existing checklists to learn the fundamentalsof data entry into MABFlora /MABFauna, but returned to their Biosphere Reservesto complete data entry.

Data were entered into the MABFlora /MABFauna programs by personnel at eachsite (i.e. by persons in 18 different locations). Two data sets (one for all vertebrategroups, and a second for vascular plants) from each site were then sent, asattachments to e-mail messages or via surface mail on floppy disks, to the nationalMAB committee in Moscow. All data were appended to the MABFlora /MABFaunadatabases in the national MAB office in Moscow and then forwarded, as attach-ments to e-mail messages, to the ICE at the University of California, Davis.

Data from three additional sites (Kronotskiy, Pechoro-Ilychskiy, and Sikhote-Alinskiy) were provided independently of (i.e. by users who did not participate in)the training sessions.

1426

Table 2. Summary of problems inherent in attempts to assemble results of species inventories derivedfrom systems of protected areas.

Problem Solution

Multiple taxonomies Single taxonomic treatment for each floral / faunal groupsupported by taxonomic reconciliations

Introduction of spelling errors Species names selected from pulldown menus of namesderived from published nomenclatures

Idiosyncratic /conflicting data structures Integrated ‘custom input device’ for data entryInability to share data Automated routines to import /export records from other

software usersIdiosyncratic /conflicting additional data Standardized categories of additional information (abun-

dance, residence /breeding status, etc.)

Results

During the period March, 1997 through August, 1999, a total of 13779 vascularplant and 6085 vertebrate animal records were received from 21 sites recognized asBiosphere Reserves in Russia (Table 1). These records represent 4702 unique plantspecies and 196 unique species of fishes, 24 unique species of amphibians, 42unique species of reptiles, 621 unique species of birds, and 244 unique species ofmammals. Taken together, these records, which were derived from an aggregate

2area of 66402 km (0.04% of Russia’s area), represent 20% (4702/23534) of thevascular plants of Russia and the FSU (Czerepanov 1995), 47% (163/349) of thefreshwater fishes of Russia (Reshetnikov et al. 1997), 58% (24/41) of the am-phibians of Russia (Kuzmin 1999), 72% (42/58) of the reptiles of Russia (WCMC(World Conservation Monitoring Centre) 1994), 83% (621/750) of the birds ofRussia (Flint et al. 1984), and 81% (244/300) of the mammals of Russia (Flint et al.1970).

Thus, during a period of less than 18 months, species occurrence and related datarepresenting approximately 20% of Russia’s vascular plant species and a largemajority (1094/1498 or 73%) of its terrestrial and freshwater vertebrate specieswere entered into standardized databases and made widely available via the Internetfor the first time.

Discussion

Numerous problems have plagued previous attempts to assemble species inventoriesderived from a system of protected areas (e.g., National Research Council 1992;Stohlgren and Quinn 1992; Stohlgren et al. 1994; Table 2). Russia provides anexcellent test of our approach to resolve these difficulties through the distribution ofstandardized biological inventory software, with coordination and support from anational office, because (1) Russia has numerous protected areas distributed over avast area, (2) the personnel representing these protected areas had no familiaritywith the software prior to the training sessions, and (3) there had been no previous

1427

attempt to standardize these species inventories in terms of either naming conven-tions (taxonomies) or data structure.

The biological inventory data from protected areas in Russia were useful for thisanalysis because these data were held in a variety of electronic and non-electronicformats with non-standard and often conflicting naming conventions, and the sitesrepresented the breadth of the largest country in the world. Participants in this effortdid not standardize or otherwise prepare their existing data sets prior to the trainingsessions. The training sessions in Moscow helped to demonstrate how rapidly onemay learn to use the MAB software; indeed, this study provides especially strongevidence for the relative ease with which those naive to the MAB software mayrapidly become competent users, as an extra step, the translation from English toRussian, was involved in the ca. 12 h of training. Such standardized biologicalinventory software thus demonstrated its ability to provide rapid, repeatable input ofinformation using standardized, current species names and related informationwhich was entered with a minimum of manual data input.

Despite its long history of biological conservation through the establishment ofand research devoted to biological populations residing in protected areas (Weiner1988), no standardized protocol for accumulating and disseminating bioinventorydata on a national scale had previously been developed for the Biosphere Reservesof Russia. Thus, although the users of the Russian versions of MABFlora andMABFauna participating in this study already possessed bioinventory data whichcould be entered into the programs, these data were documented in a wide variety ofidiosyncratic formats. By entering all of these data into MABFlora and MABFauna,a large repository of bioinventory data, free from spelling errors and conflictingtaxonomies, representing protected areas across the country, was created for the firsttime. And anyone with a connection to the Internet has been able to access these datafrom within days of their transfer to the University of California, Davis (at http: / /ice.ucdavis.edu/mab).

The biologists involved in this project were quickly able to learn how to use thesoftware, and found that making a series of choices from menus displayed by theprograms, rather than manually typing information into the programs, greatlyreduced the time needed for data input while enabling them to standardize onspecies names. Also, once entered by the users, the data could automatically besaved by the programs in a format which allowed for its electronic transfer to otherusers and to the National MAB Committee offices in Moscow and for its automaticappending to the existing databases maintained by the ICE at the University ofCalifornia, Davis (http: / / ice.ucdavis.edu/mab).

In rare instances, users desired to input records for taxa whose names did notappear on the ‘master species lists’; in these cases, users of the MAB software addedthe necessary records to the ‘master species lists’, allowing their entry into thedatabases. These additional taxa were then reconciled to the standards used for eachtaxonomic group. For vascular plants, such taxonomic questions were forwarded toDmitry Geltman of the Komarov Botanical Institute of the Russian Academy ofSciences, St. Petersburg, while for vertebrate animals, taxonomic reconciliationswere provided by an author (Meese) at the University of California, Davis.

1428

As a direct result of the widespread application of the MABFlora /MABFaunasoftware, with a minimum of additional taxonomic support, biological inventoryinformation from protected areas representing the breadth of Russia, which until thiseffort had been essentially unobtainable outside of the reserves themselves, hasbecome available to scientists, managers, and other interested persons world-wide.Each of the 21 Biosphere Reserves participating in this study has, between March,1997 and August, 1999, contributed to the biological inventory data set for Russia,although in some cases, the complete listings of plants and animals present in areserve are still unavailable (Table 1). Taken in aggregate, the species inventoriesassembled in this study represent 20% of the vascular plants and a large majority(73%) of the vertebrate animals reported to occur in Russia.

In addition to the widespread use of the software, we stress the essential role to beplayed by a national protected area office. The national MAB committee of Russia,located in Moscow, served as the coordinator for this project and organized thetraining sessions, translated support materials, distributed software, and answeredquestions posed by participants. Such in-country support activities proved essentialto the success of this project, and we strongly recommend that large-scale efforts toaccumulate and provide access to bioinventory or similar information utilize localand/or regional coordination.

This rapid accumulation and publication, via the Internet, of the biologicalinventories of protected areas covering as vast an area as Russia confirms the utilityof our approach of using an integrated, easily learned data management system tosolve many of the storage, retrieval, and dissemination problems which haveplagued previous attempts to provide access to a large volume of biologicalinventory data. We suggest this approach to other regions and systems of protectedareas in the world where biological inventories are being conducted, and where theresults of these inventories are to be accumulated into a single database fordissemination and analysis. In this case, the application of standardized biologicalinventory software has helped to rapidly provide access to information which haspreviously been difficult or impossible to obtain. As reports of changes in speciesdistributions and abundances continue to accumulate from sites around the world,such an integrated data management system may play an increasingly important rolein helping scientists and managers to both document and respond to these changes.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the staff of the US MAB program, especially its formerExecutive Director, Dr Roger E. Soles, for its support of the development of theMABFlora /MABFauna software, Dr Dmitry Geltman of the Russian Academy ofSciences, Komarov Botanical Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia for providing accessto the Czerepanov database as well as for taxonomic support, and the US CRDF(through grant no. RB1-237) for its support of this work.

1429

References

Czerepanov S.K. 1995. Vascular Plants of Russia and Adjacent States (the former USSR). CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK.

Flint V.E., Chuganov Y.D. and Smirin V.M. 1970. Mammals of the USSR. Mysl, Moscow, Russia (inRussian).

Flint V.E., Boehme R.L., Kostin Y.V. and Kuznetsov A.A. 1984. A Field Guide to Birds of the USSR.Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Kuzmin S.L. 1999. The Amphibians of the Former Soviet Union. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, Moscow.National Research Council 1992. Science and the National Parks. National Academy Press, Washington,

DC.Pushkarev S.V., Alestchenko G.M. and Meese R.J. 1998. MAB Fauna and MAB Flora. The report on

section ‘Information technologies in strictly protected natural areas’. The Newsletter for Statereserves and National parks. Socio-Ecological Union, Biodiversity Conservation Center, pp. 22–23(in Russian).

Reshetnikov Y.S., Bogutskaya N.G., Vasil’eva E.D., Dorofeeva E.A., Naseka A.M., Popova O.A. et al.1997. An annotated check-list of the freshwater fishes of Russia. Journal of Ichthyology 37: 687–736.

Ryzhkov O.V. 1998. Russians gain greater access to global information network. Russian ConservationNews 16: 35–36.

Sibley C.G. 1994. Sibley’s Birds of the World v. 2.0. Charles Sibley and Thayer Birding Software,Naples, Florida.

Stafford S.G. 1993. Data, data everywhere but not a byte to read: managing monitoring information.Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 26: 125–141.

Stohlgren T. and Quinn J.F. 1992. An assessment of biotic inventories in western US National Parks.Natural Areas Journal 12: 145–154.

Stohlgren T.J., Quinn J.F., Ruggiero M. and Waggoner G.S. 1994. Status of Biotic Inventories in USNational Parks. Biological Conservation 71: 1–10.

Sutherland W.J. (ed.) 1996. Ecological Census Techniques: A Handbook. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK.

UNESCO 1996. Biosphere Reserves: The Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework of the WorldNetwork. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Paris, France.

World Conservation Monitoring Centre (Comp.), Groombridge B. (ed.). 1994. Biodiversity DataSourcebook. World Conservation Press, Cambridge, UK.

Weiner D.R. 1988. Models of Nature: Ecology, Conservation, and Cultural Revolution in Soviet Russia.Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana.

Wilson D.E. and Reeder D.M. 1993. Mammal Species of the World: A taxonomic and GeographicReference. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Woinarski J.C.Z. 1992. Biogeography and Conservation of Reptiles, Mammals and Birds across North-western Australia: an inventory and base for planning an ecological reserve system.Wildlife Research19: 665–705.