Eren Turak
Office of Environment and Heritage
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Eren Turak.
Science | 2013
Henrique M. Pereira; Simon Ferrier; Michele Walters; Gary N. Geller; R.H.G. Jongman; Robert J. Scholes; Michael William Bruford; Neil Brummitt; Stuart H. M. Butchart; A C Cardoso; E Dulloo; Daniel P. Faith; Jörg Freyhof; Richard D. Gregory; Carlo H. R. Heip; Robert Höft; George C. Hurtt; Walter Jetz; Daniel S. Karp; Melodie A. McGeoch; D Obura; Yusuke Onoda; Nathalie Pettorelli; Belinda Reyers; Roger Sayre; Joern P. W. Scharlemann; Simon N. Stuart; Eren Turak; Matt Walpole; Martin Wegmann
A global system of harmonized observations is needed to inform scientists and policy-makers. Reducing the rate of biodiversity loss and averting dangerous biodiversity change are international goals, reasserted by the Aichi Targets for 2020 by Parties to the United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) after failure to meet the 2010 target (1, 2). However, there is no global, harmonized observation system for delivering regular, timely data on biodiversity change (3). With the first plenary meeting of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) soon under way, partners from the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) (4) are developing—and seeking consensus around—Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) that could form the basis of monitoring programs worldwide.
PLOS ONE | 2014
Alex Bush; David A. Nipperess; Daisy Englert Duursma; Gunther Theischinger; Eren Turak; Lesley Hughes
Climate change is expected to have substantial impacts on the composition of freshwater communities, and many species are threatened by the loss of climatically suitable habitat. In this study we identify Australian Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) vulnerable to the effects of climate change on the basis of exposure, sensitivity and pressure to disperse in the future. We used an ensemble of species distribution models to predict the distribution of 270 (85%) species of Australian Odonata, continent-wide at the subcatchment scale, and for both current and future climates using two emissions scenarios each for 2055 and 2085. Exposure was scored according to the departure of temperature, precipitation and hydrology from current conditions. Sensitivity accounted for change in the area and suitability of projected climatic habitat, and pressure to disperse combined measurements of average habitat shifts and the loss experienced with lower dispersal rates. Streams and rivers important to future conservation efforts were identified based on the sensitivity-weighted sum of habitat suitability for the most vulnerable species. The overall extent of suitable habitat declined for 56–69% of the species modelled by 2085 depending on emissions scenario. The proportion of species at risk across all components (exposure, sensitivity, pressure to disperse) varied between 7 and 17% from 2055 to 2085 and a further 3–17% of species were also projected to be at high risk due to declines that did not require range shifts. If dispersal to Tasmania was limited, many south-eastern species are at significantly increased risk. Conservation efforts will need to focus on creating and preserving freshwater refugia as part of a broader conservation strategy that improves connectivity and promotes adaptive range shifts. The significant predicted shifts in suitable habitat could potentially exceed the dispersal capacity of Odonata and highlights the challenge faced by other freshwater species.
Biological Reviews | 2018
W. Daniel Kissling; Jorge A. Ahumada; Anne Bowser; Miguel Fernandez; Néstor Fernández; Enrique Alonso García; Robert P. Guralnick; Nick J. B. Isaac; Steve Kelling; Wouter Los; Louise McRae; Jean-Baptiste Mihoub; Matthias Obst; Monica Santamaria; Andrew K. Skidmore; Kristen J. Williams; Donat Agosti; Daniel Amariles; Christos Arvanitidis; Lucy Bastin; Francesca De Leo; Willi Egloff; Jane Elith; Donald Hobern; David Martin; Henrique M. Pereira; Johannes Peterseil; Hannu Saarenmaa; Dmitry Schigel; Dirk S. Schmeller
Much biodiversity data is collected worldwide, but it remains challenging to assemble the scattered knowledge for assessing biodiversity status and trends. The concept of Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) was introduced to structure biodiversity monitoring globally, and to harmonize and standardize biodiversity data from disparate sources to capture a minimum set of critical variables required to study, report and manage biodiversity change. Here, we assess the challenges of a ‘Big Data’ approach to building global EBV data products across taxa and spatiotemporal scales, focusing on species distribution and abundance. The majority of currently available data on species distributions derives from incidentally reported observations or from surveys where presence‐only or presence–absence data are sampled repeatedly with standardized protocols. Most abundance data come from opportunistic population counts or from population time series using standardized protocols (e.g. repeated surveys of the same population from single or multiple sites). Enormous complexity exists in integrating these heterogeneous, multi‐source data sets across space, time, taxa and different sampling methods. Integration of such data into global EBV data products requires correcting biases introduced by imperfect detection and varying sampling effort, dealing with different spatial resolution and extents, harmonizing measurement units from different data sources or sampling methods, applying statistical tools and models for spatial inter‐ or extrapolation, and quantifying sources of uncertainty and errors in data and models. To support the development of EBVs by the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON), we identify 11 key workflow steps that will operationalize the process of building EBV data products within and across research infrastructures worldwide. These workflow steps take multiple sequential activities into account, including identification and aggregation of various raw data sources, data quality control, taxonomic name matching and statistical modelling of integrated data. We illustrate these steps with concrete examples from existing citizen science and professional monitoring projects, including eBird, the Tropical Ecology Assessment and Monitoring network, the Living Planet Index and the Baltic Sea zooplankton monitoring. The identified workflow steps are applicable to both terrestrial and aquatic systems and a broad range of spatial, temporal and taxonomic scales. They depend on clear, findable and accessible metadata, and we provide an overview of current data and metadata standards. Several challenges remain to be solved for building global EBV data products: (i) developing tools and models for combining heterogeneous, multi‐source data sets and filling data gaps in geographic, temporal and taxonomic coverage, (ii) integrating emerging methods and technologies for data collection such as citizen science, sensor networks, DNA‐based techniques and satellite remote sensing, (iii) solving major technical issues related to data product structure, data storage, execution of workflows and the production process/cycle as well as approaching technical interoperability among research infrastructures, (iv) allowing semantic interoperability by developing and adopting standards and tools for capturing consistent data and metadata, and (v) ensuring legal interoperability by endorsing open data or data that are free from restrictions on use, modification and sharing. Addressing these challenges is critical for biodiversity research and for assessing progress towards conservation policy targets and sustainable development goals.
Marine and Freshwater Research | 2011
Jeanne L. Nel; Eren Turak; Simon Linke; C. Brown
Integrated water resources management offers an ideal platform for addressing the goals of freshwater conservation and climate change adaptation. Environmental flow assessment and systematic conservation planning have evolved separately in respective aquatic and terrestrial realms, and both are central to freshwater conservation and can inform integrated water resources management. Integrating these two approaches is mutually beneficial. Environmental flow assessment considers dynamic flow regimes, measuring social, economic and ecological costs of development scenarios. Conservation planning systematically produces different conservation scenarios that can be used in assessing these costs. Integration also presents opportunities to examine impacts of climate change on conservation of freshwater ecosystems. We review progress in environmental flow assessment and freshwater conservation planning, exploring the mutual benefits of integration and potential ways that this can be achieved. Integration can be accomplished by using freshwater conservation planning outputs to develop conservation scenarios for assessment against different scenarios, and by assessing the extent to which each scenario achieves conservation targets. New tools that maximise complementarity by achieving conservation and flow targets simultaneously should also be developed.
Biodiversity and Conservation | 2017
Dirk S. Schmeller; Jean-Baptiste Mihoub; Anne Bowser; Christos Arvanitidis; Mark J. Costello; Miguel Fernandez; Gary N. Geller; Donald Hobern; W. Daniel Kissling; Eugenie C. Regan; Hannu Saarenmaa; Eren Turak; Nick J. B. Isaac
The concept of essential biodiversity variables (EBVs) was proposed in 2013 to improve harmonization of biodiversity data into meaningful metrics. EBVs were conceived as a small set of variables which collectively capture biodiversity change at multiple spatial scales and within time intervals that are of scientific and management interest. Despite the apparent simplicity of the concept, a plethora of variables that describes not only biodiversity but also any environmental features have been proposed as potential EBV (i.e. candidate EBV). The proliferation of candidates reflects a lack of clarity on what may constitute a variable that is essential to track biodiversity change, which hampers the operationalization of EBVs and therefore needs to be urgently addressed. Here, we propose that an EBV should be defined as a biological state variable in three key dimensions (time, space, and biological organization) that is critical to accurately document biodiversity change.
Archive | 2017
Eren Turak; David Dudgeon; Ian Harrison; Jörg Freyhof; Aaike De Wever; Carmen Revenga; Jaime Garcia-Moreno; Robin Abell; Joseph M. Culp; Jennifer Lento; Brice Mora; Lammert Hilarides; Stephan Flink
This chapter aims to assist biodiversity observation networks across the world in coordinating comprehensive freshwater biodiversity observations at national, regional or continental scales. We highlight special considerations for freshwater biodiversity and methods and tools available for monitoring. We also discuss options for storing, accessing, evaluating and reporting freshwater biodiversity data and for ensuring their use in making decisions about the conservation and sustainable management of freshwater biodiversity and provision of ecosystem services.
Nature Ecology and Evolution | 2018
Ayesha I. T. Tulloch; Nancy A. Auerbach; Stephanie Avery-Gomm; Elisa Bayraktarov; Nathalie Butt; Chris R. Dickman; Glenn Ehmke; Diana O. Fisher; Hedley Grantham; Matthew H. Holden; Tyrone Lavery; Nicholas P. Leseberg; Miles Nicholls; James O’Connor; Leslie Roberson; Anita K. Smyth; Zoë L. Stone; Vivitskaia J. Tulloch; Eren Turak; Glenda M. Wardle; James E. M. Watson
Inadequate information on the geographical distribution of biodiversity hampers decision-making for conservation. Major efforts are underway to fill knowledge gaps, but there are increasing concerns that publishing the locations of species is dangerous, particularly for species at risk of exploitation. While we recognize that well-informed control of location data for highly sensitive taxa is necessary to avoid risks, such as poaching or habitat disturbance by recreational visitors, we argue that ignoring the benefits of sharing biodiversity data could unnecessarily obstruct conservation efforts for species and locations with low risks of exploitation. We provide a decision tree protocol for scientists that systematically considers both the risks of exploitation and potential benefits of increased conservation activities. Our protocol helps scientists assess the impacts of publishing biodiversity data and aims to enhance conservation opportunities, promote community engagement and reduce duplication of survey efforts.Information on species abundances and distributions is essential for developing conservation policy and assessing change. Yet publically available data increases exploitation potential. This Perspective presents a decision framework to assess the risks and benefits of publically sharing biodiversity data.
Freshwater Biology | 2011
Simon Linke; Eren Turak; Jeanne L. Nel
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability | 2012
Robert J. Scholes; Michele Walters; Eren Turak; Hannu Saarenmaa; Carlo H.R. Heip; Éamonn Ó Tuama; Daniel P. Faith; Harold A. Mooney; Simon Ferrier; R.H.G. Jongman; Ian Harrison; Tetsukazu Yahara; Henrique M. Pereira; Anne Larigauderie; Gary N. Geller
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation | 2016
Nathalie Pettorelli; Martin Wegmann; Andrew K. Skidmore; Sander Mücher; Terence P. Dawson; Miguel Fernandez; Richard Lucas; Michael E. Schaepman; Tiejun Wang; Brian O'Connor; R.H.G. Jongman; Pieter Kempeneers; Ruth Sonnenschein; Allison K. Leidner; Monika Böhm; Kate S. He; Harini Nagendra; Grégoire Dubois; Temilola Fatoyinbo; Matthew C. Hansen; Marc Paganini; Helen Margaret De Klerk; Gregory P. Asner; Jeremy T. Kerr; Anna B. Estes; Dirk S. Schmeller; Uta Heiden; Duccio Rocchini; Henrique M. Pereira; Eren Turak
Collaboration
Dive into the Eren Turak's collaboration.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
View shared research outputs