Input Template for Content Writers

(e-Text and Learn More)

 1. Details of Module and its Structure

Module Detail

Subject Name <Biodiversity: Status, Monitoring, and Documentation>

Paper Name <Ecology>

Module Name/Title < Biodiversity: Status, Monitoring, and Documentation>

Module Id

Pre-requisites <Basic knowledge about biodiversity, its status, monitoring, and

documentation>
Objectives <To make an understanding for biodiversity and its conservation
through monitoring and documentation>
Keywords <habitat>,<biodiversity>,<taxa>,<species>

Structure of Module/Syllabus of a module (Define Topic / Sub-topic of module )

<Habitat and Niche> <Status of Biodiversity>, <Biodiversity Monitoring>,

<Documentation>

2. Development Team

Role Name Affiliation

Subject Coordinator <Prof.SujataBhargava> Savitribai Phule Pune

University
Paper Coordinator <N.S.R.Krishnayya> MS University, Baroda

Content Writer/Author (CW) <N.S.R.Krishnayya>

Content Reviewer (CR) <N.S.R.Krishnayya>

Language Editor (LE) <Dr. A.Y. Latey> Savitribai Phule Pune
University

Biodiversity
Ecology
Biodiversity: Status, Monitoring, and Documentation
 TABLE OF CONTENTS(for textual content)

1. Status of Biodiversity
2. Biodiversity Monitoring
3. Documentation

1. Status Of Biodiversity

Biodiversity is defined in the Convention on Biological Diversity as ‘the changeabilityamongst living

organisms from all sources comprising, inter alia, land-dwelling, marine and their aquatic ecosystems and the
ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of
ecosystems’. Another definition mentions biodiversity as “the diversity and distribution of plant and animal
communities, (including vegetative and reproductive stages) arranged in space over time that reinforce self-
sustaining populations of all natural and naturalized plants and wild animals.” The third and more simplistic
one defines as, ‘Biodiversity is to describe the variety of life forms, the ecological roles they perform, and
the genetic diversity they contain’.

Status of Biodiversity indicates its current scenario. It lists the existing species, population structure,
and their interactions amongst themselves and with the immediate surroundings. It informs the changes
happened as compared to previous records and helps in projecting future implications. Finding out the status
of Biodiversity through monitoring is a difficult task. A practical and implemental protocol for monitoring,
commitment to conduct the process is very vital. It becomes even more difficult to carry out these activities
in countries with rapid economic growth. In many nations monitoring is simply not completed. Without
relevant scientific facts, the mentioned indicators of biodiversity status remain as an intellectual exercise.
These may not be specificallyhelpful for policy growth and decision-making. Many important components of
biological divergence are becoming extinct at unprecedented rates, with critical consequences on ecosystem
services that are very important for human societies (Millennium Assessment 2005). This biodiversity
disaster has forcedseveral countries to decide, at the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in April 2002, to ‘‘achieve by 2010 a sizeable reduction of
the present rate of biodiversity loss at the worldwide, regional and national level’’ (Decision VI/26,
http://www.biodiv.org). This agreement is referred as the ‘‘2010 Biodiversity Target’’ The CBD COP
demands, data on ‘‘trends in extent of selected biomes, ecosystems and habitats’’ and ‘‘trends in opulence
and spread of identified species.’’

Biodiversity
Ecology
Biodiversity: Status, Monitoring, and Documentation
 Figure 1: Forest showing richness in Biodiversity
(http://www.ybasrilanka.org/2010_09_01_archive.html)

2. Biodiversity Monitoring

Biodiversity monitoring can be addressed either by primary data generation or by secondary data
collection. Care has to be taken in generating primary data as this is more authentic and close to reality. It
can produce data sheets that mentioned about a particular species’ presence in a place at a specific point of
time. Source of origin is very important for secondary data information. Any ambiguity in the data may
completely detour the very aim of monitoring. Mid-course corrections are possible at the time of primary
data generation and the same can’t be looked at in secondary data as it can’t be changed. Secondary data
actually highlights current state of biodiversity instantly. Sizeable progress has been made in developing
biodiversity informatics over the past few decades. An example is, since about 1980, biodiversity data have
been captured in digital formats with betteraccuracy. The progress of the Darwin Core
(http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/) and the Distributed Generic Information Retrieval protocol (DiGIR,
http://www.digir.net/) opened the floodgates for data accessibility. Related developments (e.g., Access to
Biological Collections Data—ABCD—Schema; Taxonomic Database Working Group Access Protocol for

Biodiversity
Ecology
Biodiversity: Status, Monitoring, and Documentation
 Information Retrieval, TAPIR) have made the situation better. There are greater than 20 crore biodiversity
records available online to researchers worldwide. Most of this is coming from biodiversity information
networks providing direct access to primary, research-grade data, such as the Global Biodiversity
Information Network (GBIF; http://www.gbif.org), VertNet (http://vertnet.org/index.php), SpeciesLink
(http://splink.cria.org.br), Red Mundial paraInformacio´ n de la Biodiversidad (REMIB;
http://www.conabio.gob.mx), and others. Most of these databases are Europe and America centric. Some
other important parts of the world (Asia, Africa, Australia) are yet to be evaluated and incorporated with
similar kinds of details. The data sets are mostly animal science based. Descriptions of Plants and Microbes
are to be extensively added. In addition, the data do not support ‘‘value-added’’ features, such as
georeferencing. Currently chief efforts are presently to automate and create the georeferencingprocedure
faster and more efficient, interpreting textual locality descriptors intelligently and converting them into
usable latitude-longitude coordinates with identified degrees of error or uncertainty. Tools for spatial
interpretation of information regarding species’ distributions into objective based strategies for management
and conservation have improved considerably. Analytical tools for biodiversity information have developed
considerably in recent years. Protocols for estimating ecological niches and possible geographic distributions
of species have seen substantialadditions and advancements. This includes a broader methodology for data
preparation, niche evaluation, model corroboration, and exploration of results and their implications. Another
important step is that of quality control, in which records like holding errors are flagged, cleaned or
corrected. Most of the biodiversity data sets hold errors; the question is whether the existence of those errors
can be integrated into analyses or they can be ignored. Although researchers have implemented these lines of
action keenly, the policy makers have been comparatively slow in assimilating this developments with
precision.

Figure 2: Biodiversity Hot Spots across the world

(http://morriscourse.com/elements_of_ecology/images/biodiversity_hotspots_large.jpg)

Figure 3: Hierarchical association of the global biodiversity-monitoring network. The network would
includes global top-down programmes and regional programs. Theseprogrammes monitor two
components of biodiversity: species and ecosystems.
(Pereira H.M., and Cooper H.D., 2006, Towards the global monitoring of biodiversity change,

Biodiversity
Ecology
Biodiversity: Status, Monitoring, and Documentation
 TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution, 21 (3), 123–129)

Previous biodiversity monitoring programmes have three majorreins: incomplete taxonomic and
spatial coverage; lack of compatibility connecting data sets due to different collection methodologies; and
inadequate integration at different scales. Most of the newer monitoring systems are incorporating these
issues in their protocols. There is a necessity to work hand-in-hand with people of different levels of training
and expertise, so that the resultant analyses do not lack the appropriate interpretation (that is, they are
biologically and geographically meaningful). Species occurrence data are available in freely accessible
biodiversity databases, such as GBIF, VertNet, SpeciesLink, REMIB. Sampling bias is known for its
potential to hamper precise parameterization and data generation. Budgetary limitation adds up to the list of
problems. As a consequence, it is important to evaluate a priori the spread of sampling events with respect to
the known distribution of the species. This helps in carrying out the survey easily. Biased nature of sampling
(for a particular species or group) favours the focused species/group thereby neglecting other species. Over
expression or under expression of a species seriously affects the quality of the database. These features will
have serious implications on model outputs generated from these sources. Initial steps of data compilation
and quality control are without doubt the most time-consuming, but also the most important aspects; or else,
the well-known ‘‘garbage in, garbage out’’ rule will dominate in developing a database.
Monitoring is necessary for an adaptive management approach and the successful implementation of
ecosystem management. The initial phase in biodiversity survey is estimating diversity at one point in time
and location (in other words, knowing what species or communities are present). The second phase of
monitoring biodiversity is estimating diversity at the same place more than one time period for drawing
implication about change. Specific attributes of biodiversity have been identified that can be assessed at each
level of ecological organization. At landscape level, attributes that could be monitored include the identity,
distribution, and proportions of each type of environment, and the distribution of species within those
habitats. At ecosystem level, richness, evenness, and diversity of species, guilds, and communities are
important. At species level, abundance, density, and biomass of each population willhavesignificance
towards its existence. And, at genetic level, genetic diversity of individual organisms within a population is
important. Comprehensive data generation across spatial and temporal scales helps better in the assessment
and interpretation of Biodiversity status of a region.

Biodiversity
Ecology
Biodiversity: Status, Monitoring, and Documentation
 Figure 4: Biodiversity Monitoring
(http://classic.ifoam.org/growing_organic/7_training/t_materials/6_gen_publications/epopa_farmers_b
iodiversity_posters.php)

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD; http://www.biodiv.org) focused ‘to achieve a

significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level so, as to
assist in poverty alleviation and also for the benefit of all life on Earth’. It is imperative to address these
kinds of goals. In reality, it is extremely difficult to achieve these in our current living world. It is suggested
that monitoring should be focused on trends in the abundance and distribution of populations and habitat.
These activities are to be carried out at both local and regional level. A global monitoring network of
biodiversity helps in generating information in a more holistic manner. The global-scale programmes would
follow a top-down approach, with an emphasis on central coordination, whereas the regional-scale
programmes would follow a bottom-up approach, with an emphasis on regional needs and capabilities. The
scientific community should have a major role in designing and implementing the network as per the needs.
These include a monitoring programme for the regular global sampling of indicator taxa of biodiversity; a
global network of regional programmes monitoring indicator populations for terrestrial, freshwater and
marine biodiversity; the production of regular and comparable global land-cover maps based on remote
sensing; a global network of regional programmes monitoring habitats that are best monitored, or have
particular relevance, at the regional level. Monitoring activities at ecosystem-level will provide information
about land cover; the species component will provide information about aspects of ecosystem condition. The
taxonomic coverage of current species-monitoring programmes is incomplete. There are few data on global
plant distribution. This is a major deficiency given the ecological importance of plants. A single snapshot of
a species distribution is often insufficient to assess its vulnerability fully. To address this issue, the Global
Assessments currently are also compiling information about population trends based on information from
experts and available data sets.

Biodiversity
Ecology
Biodiversity: Status, Monitoring, and Documentation
 Figure 5: Three phases of biodiversity monitoring.
(Gaines W.L., Harrod R.J., Lehmkuhl J.F., 1999, Monitoring Biodiversity: Quantification and
Interpretation, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-443, Forest Service, United States Department
of Agriculture.)

Figure 6: Biodiversity (vegetation and Animals) and Human interaction

(http://classic.ifoam.org/growing_organic/7_training/t_materials/6_gen_publications/epopa_biodiversi
ty_posters_copy.php)

Biodiversity
Ecology
Biodiversity: Status, Monitoring, and Documentation
 During the monitoring, vulnerability ranks to target species can be assigned to high light their
extinction probabilities. This helps in giving a focused attention to species that are on the edge of extinction.
These kinds of measures also help in managing available resources for monitoring in a judicious manner.
The best examples of monitoring programmes come from regular regional surveys of taxa, frequently based
on the works of hundreds of amateurs. Herbarium samples and natural history museum samples can also be
used to createdemonstrative assessment of the trends in distribution of species. Units in area where many
accomplished volunteers exist could be sampled every year, whereas the most isolated units could be
sampled less regularly. Newer and cost effective technologies can be included in the monitoring program.
Monitoring of ecosystem cover can be done using remote sensing data. Sensors capable of delineating
species are coming up. These will give a remarkable impetus to current monitoring programs. Regional
evaluation combining satellite remote sensing with on-the-ground monitoring and aerial photography can be
particularly important in studying habitats that are best monitored at small scales, such as wetlands and coral
reefs. The global biodiversity-monitoring network could develop the provision of data for many of the
indicators adopted by the CBD to assess progress towards achieving the set goals for Biodiversity
Conservation.

3. Documentation

Documenting the generated information is very important. It helps in making valuable reports based
on need based monitoring. Wider dissemination of these assists in bringing awareness about the current
status of biodiversity. During documentation, care should be taken that the Document does not hold too
much amount of scientific and technical jargon. A balance has to be made so as to enable the contents to be
easily followable by all the interested groups. Answering the following during monitoring can exemplify the
transition, going from reasonably straightforward baseline list to complex scenario building. This helps the
researcher in exploring various options for action in the field and also in providing policy-relevant advice to
the law makers. They also help in making better documentation. The important aspects are,

What are the various elements of biodiversity?

Where does the ecosystem, species occur?
What (species of interest, some environmental resource) is found in a particular
Area/region (protected area, administrative zone)?
What (environments, ecosystems, some environmental resource) exist and where are they found?
How are environments being managed naturally?
How much is the anthropogenic pressure?
Is something (species, ecosystem, some environmental resource) changing, by what scale, is it important,
what can be done about it?
What will happen if perturbations (fire, global warming, agricultural activity, natural calamity etc.) disturb
the ecosystem?

The following inputs can be included in the documentation.

References:
1. AngelstamP., BörjePettersson, 1997, Principles of Present Swedish Forest Biodiversity
Management, Ecological Bulletins, 46, 191-203
2. BatianoffG.N., Roslyn Burgess, 1993, Problems in the Documentation of Rare Plants-The Australian
Experience, Biodiversity Letters, 1 (6), 168-171
3. BrookB.W., Navjot S. Sodhi, CoreyJ.A.Bradshaw, 2008, Synergies among extinction drivers under
global change, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 23, 8

Biodiversity
Ecology
Biodiversity: Status, Monitoring, and Documentation
 4. Busby J.R., 2002, Biodiversity mapping and modelling, Environmental Modelling with CIS and
Remote Sensing, 145-161
5. FischeraA., JulietteC.Youngb, 2007, Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: Implications
for biodiversity management and conservation, Biological Conservation, 136, 271 –282
6. GainesW.L., Harrod R.J., LehmkuhlJ.F., 1999, Monitoring
Biodiversity:QuantificationandInterpretation, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-443, Forest
Service, United States Department of Agriculture
7. Gunawardene1 N.R., A. E. Dulip Daniels, I. A. U. N. Gunatilleke, C. V. S. Gunatilleke, P. V.
Karunakaran, K. GeethaNayak, S. Prasad, P. Puyravaud, B. R. Ramesh, K. A. Subramanian and G.
Vasanthy, 2007, A brief overview of the Western Ghats – Sri Lanka biodiversity hotspot, Current
Science, 93 (11), 1567-1572
8. Heller N.E., ErikaS.Zavaleta, 2009, Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A
review of 22 years of recommendations, Biological Conservation, 142, 14-32
9. Henry P.Y., SzabolcsLengyel, PiotrNowicki, RomainJulliard, JeanClobert, TatjanaCˇelik,
BerndGruber, Dirk S. Schmeller, ValerijaBabij, KlausHenle, 2008, Integrating ongoing biodiversity
monitoring: potential benefits and methods, Biodiversity Conservation, 17, 3357–3382
10. Hooper D.U., E. Carol Adair, Bradley J. Cardinale, Jarrett E. K. Byrnes, Bruce A. Hungate, Kristin
L. Matulich, Andrew Gonzalez, J. Emmett Duffy, Lars Gamfeldt, Mary I. O’Connor, 2012, A global
synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as amajor driver of ecosystem change, Nature,
doi:10.1038/nature11118
11. Jime´nez-Valverde A., Andre´s Lira-Noriega, Townsend Peterson, Jorge Sobero´n, 2010,
Marshalling existing biodiversity data to evaluate biodiversity status and trends in planning
exercises, Ecological Research, 25, 947–957
12. LewisS.L., Lloyd J., SitchS., Mitchard E.T.A., LauranceW.F., 2009, Changing Ecology of Tropical
Forests: Evidence and Drivers, Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 40, 529-549
13. MacDougall S., K.S.McCann, G. Gellner, R.Turkington, 2013, Diversity loss with persistent human
disturbance increases vulnerability to ecosystem collapse, Nature, 494, 86-90
14. MoritzC., RosaAgudo, 2013, The Future of Species Under Climate Change: Resilience or Decline?,
Science 341, 504
15. Pereira H.M., and Cooper H.D., 2006, Towards the global monitoring of biodiversity change, Trends
in Ecology and Evolution, 21 (3), 123–129
16. Sala O.E., et al., 2000, Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100, Science, 287, 1770
17. Salem B., 2003, Application of GIS to biodiversity monitoring, Journal of Arid Environments, 54:
91–114
18. SamantS.S., U. Dhar, R.S.Rawal, 1998, Biodiversity status of a protected area in West Himalaya.
Askot Wildlife Sanctuary, Int.J. Sustain. Deu. World Ecol. 5, 194-203
19. Sarkar S., Robert L. Pressey, Daniel P. Faith, Christopher R. Margules, Trevon Fuller, David M.
Stoms, Alexander Moffett, Kerrie A.Wilson, Kristen J. Williams, Paul H. Williams, Sandy
Andelman, 2006, Biodiversity Conservation Planning Tools: Present Status and Challenges for the
Future, Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 31, 123–59
20. Sheil D., 2001, Conservation and Biodiversity Monitoring in the Tropics: Realities, Priorities, and
Distractions, Conservation Biology, 15 (4), 1179-1182
21. TabarelliM., Luiz Paulo Pinto, Jos´E M. C. Silva, M´ArciaHirota, L´UcioBedˆE, 2005, Challenges
and Opportunities for Biodiversity Conservation in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest, Conservation
Biology, 19 (3), 695–700
22. Wätzold F., Martin Drechsler, Claire W. Armstrong, Stefan Baumgärtner, Volker Grimm, Andreas
Huth, Charles Perrings, Hugh P. Possingham, Jason F. Shogren, Anders Skonhoft, Jana Verboom-
Vasiljev, and Christian Wissel, F. Watzold, et al., 2006, Ecological-Economic Modeling for

Biodiversity
Ecology
Biodiversity: Status, Monitoring, and Documentation
 Biodiversity Management: Potential, Pitfalls, and Prospects. Conservation Biology 20 (4), 1034-
1041

Biodiversity
Ecology
Biodiversity: Status, Monitoring, and Documentation