Article

Towards the global monitoring of biodiversity change

Departamento de Engenharia Civil e Arquitectura, Instituto Superior Técnico, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution (Impact Factor: 15.35). 04/2006; 21(3):123-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.015
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Governments have set the ambitious target of reducing biodiversity loss by the year 2010. The scientific community now faces the challenge of assessing the progress made towards this target and beyond. Here, we review current monitoring efforts and propose a global biodiversity monitoring network to complement and enhance these efforts. The network would develop a global sampling programme for indicator taxa (we suggest birds and vascular plants) and would integrate regional sampling programmes for taxa that are locally relevant to the monitoring of biodiversity change. The network would also promote the development of comparable maps of global land cover at regular time intervals. The extent and condition of specific habitat types, such as wetlands and coral reefs, would be monitored based on regional programmes. The data would then be integrated with other environmental and socioeconomic indicators to design responses to reduce biodiversity loss.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Henrique Pereira, Aug 22, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
142 Views
  • Source
    • "Biodiversity can be quantified at different levels of biological organization (i.e. from the molecular to the ecosystem level), but species diversity and abundance still represent the most intuitive and widely used measures of biodiversity (Butchart et al. 2010; Colwell & Coddington 1994; Tittensor et al. 2014). That is because these two measures are both ecological and evolutionary measures and strongly positively correlated with other levels of biodiversity organization, such as genetic diversity and ecosystem functioning (Pereira & Cooper 2006). Any local monitoring program should acknowledge that monitoring data need to be collated at different scales, including the global scale, to be able to inform about trends, status and changes of biodiversity and to have a representative overview of environmental gradients in different areas of the world and for all taxonomic groups (Collen et al. 2011). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Convention on Biological Diversity's strategic plan lays out five goals: “(A) address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society; (B) reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use; (C) improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity; (D) enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services; (E) enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building.” To meet and inform on the progress towards these goals, a globally coordinated approach is needed for biodiversity monitoring that is linked to environmental data and covers all biogeographic regions. During a series of workshops and expert discussions, we identified nine requirements that we believe are necessary for developing and implementing such a global terrestrial species monitoring program. The program needs to design and implement an integrated information chain from monitoring to policy reporting, to create and implement minimal data standards and common monitoring protocols to be able to inform Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs), and to develop and optimize semantics and ontologies for data interoperability and modelling. In order to achieve this, the program needs to coordinate diverse but complementary local nodes and partnerships. In addition, capacities need to be built for technical tasks, and new monitoring technologies need to be integrated. Finally, a global monitoring program needs to facilitate and secure funding for the collection of long-term data and to detect and fill gaps in under-observed regions and taxa. The accomplishment of these nine requirements is essential in order to ensure data is comprehensive, to develop robust models, and to monitor biodiversity trends over large scales. A global terrestrial species monitoring program will enable researchers and policymakers to better understand the status and trends of biodiversity.
    Journal for Nature Conservation 05/2015; 25:51 - 57. DOI:10.1016/j.jnc.2015.03.003 · 1.83 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Biodiversity can be quantified at different levels of biological organization (i.e. from the molecular to the ecosystem level), but species diversity and abundance still represent the most intuitive and widely used measures of biodiversity (Butchart et al. 2010; Colwell & Coddington 1994; Tittensor et al. 2014). That is because these two measures are both ecological and evolutionary measures and strongly positively correlated with other levels of biodiversity organization, such as genetic diversity and ecosystem functioning (Pereira & Cooper 2006). Any local monitoring program should acknowledge that monitoring data need to be collated at different scales, including the global scale, to be able to inform about trends, status and changes of biodiversity and to have a representative overview of environmental gradients in different areas of the world and for all taxonomic groups (Collen et al. 2011). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Convention on Biological Diversity’s strategic plan lays out five goals: “(A) address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society; (B) reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use; (C) improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity; (D) enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services; (E) enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building.” To meet and inform on the progress towards these goals, a globally coordinated approach is needed for biodiversity monitoring that is linked to environmental data and covers all biogeographic regions. During a series of workshops and expert discussions, we identified nine requirements that we believe are necessary for developing and implementing such a global terrestrial species monitoring program. The program needs to design and implement an integrated information chain from monitoring to policy reporting, to create and implement minimal data standards and common monitoring protocols to be able to inform Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs), andto develop and optimize semantics and ontologies for data interoperability and modelling. In order toachieve this, the program needs to coordinate diverse but complementary local nodes and partnerships. In addition, capacities need to be built for technical tasks, and new monitoring technologies need to be integrated. Finally, a global monitoring program needs to facilitate and secure funding for the collection of long-term data and to detect and fill gaps in under-observed regions and taxa. The accomplishment of these nine requirements is essential in order to ensure data is comprehensive, to develop robust models,and to monitor biodiversity trends over large scales. A global terrestrial species monitoring program will enable researchers and policymakers to better understand the status and trends of biodiversity.
    Journal for Nature Conservation 05/2015; 25(2015):51-57. · 1.83 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "To evaluate policy options, there is a great need for integrated models that dynamically describe the drivers of change and their impact on biodiversity (MEA, 2005b; Pereira and Cooper, 2006; Dudgeon, 2010; CBD, 2014). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Biodiversity in freshwater ecosystems – rivers, lakes and wetlands – is undergoing rapid global decline. Major drivers are land use change, eutrophication, hydrological disturbance, climate change, overexploitation and invasive species. We developed a global model for assessing the dominant human impacts on inland aquatic biodiversity. The system consists of a biodiversity model, named GLOBIO-Aquatic, that is embedded in the IMAGE model framework, i.e. linked to models for demography, economy, land use changes, climate change, nutrient emissions, a global hydrological model and a global map of water bodies. The biodiversity model is based on a recompilation of existing data, thereby scaling-up from local/regional case-studies to global trends. We compared species composition in impacted lakes, rivers and wetlands to that in comparable undisturbed systems. We focussed on broad categories of human-induced pressures that are relevant at the global scale. The drivers currently included are catchment land use changes and nutrient loading affecting water quality, and hydrological disturbance and climate change affecting water quantity. The resulting relative mean abundance of original species is used as indicator for biodiversity intactness. For lakes, we used dominance of harmful algal blooms as an additional indicator. The results show that there is a significant negative relation between biodiversity intactness and these stressors in all types of freshwater ecosystems. In heavily used catchments, standing water bodies would lose about 80% of their biodiversity intactness and running waters about 70%, while severe hydrological disturbance would result in losses of about 80% in running waters and more than 50% in floodplain wetlands. As an illustration, an analysis using the OECD ‘baseline scenario’ shows a considerable decline of the biodiversity intactness in still existing water bodies in 2000, especially in temperate and subtropical regions, and a further decline especially in tropical regions in 2050. Historical loss of wetland areas is not yet included in these results. The model may inform policy makers at the global level in what regions aquatic biodiversity will be affected most and by what causes, and allows for scenario analysis to evaluate policy options.
    Environmental Science & Policy 04/2015; 48. DOI:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.12.007 · 3.51 Impact Factor
Show more