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