Jean-Baptiste Mihoub

Bridging the gap between biodiversity data and policy reporting needs: An Essential Biodiversity Variables perspective

1. Political commitment and policy instruments to halt biodiversity loss require robust data and a diverse indicator set to monitor and report on biodiversity trends. Gaps in data availability and narrow-based indicator sets are significant information barriers to fulfilling these needs. 2. In this paper, the reporting requirements of seven global or European biodiversity policy instruments were reviewed using the list of Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) as an analytical framework. The reporting requirements for the most comprehensive policy instrument, the United Nations Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, were compared with the indicator set actually used for its reporting, to identify current information gaps. To explore the extent to which identified gaps could be bridged, the potential contribution of data mobilization, modelling and further processing of existing data was assessed. 3. The information gaps identified demonstrate that decision-makers arc currently constrained by the lack of data and indicators on changes in the EBV classes Genetic Composition and, to a lesser extent, Species Populations for which data is most often available. Furthermore, the results show that even when there is a requirement for specific information for reporting, the indicators used may not be able to provide all the information, for example current Convention of Biological Diversity indicators provide relatively little information on changes in the Ecosystem Function and Ecosystem Structure classes. This gap could be partly closed by using existing indicators as proxies, whereas additional indicators may be computed based on available data (e.g. for EBVs in the Ecosystem Structure class). However, for the EBV class Genetic Composition, no immediate improvement based on proxies or existing data seems possible. 4. Synthesis and applications. Using Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) as a tool, theory driven comparisons could be made between the biodiversity information gaps in reporting and indicator sets. Analytical properties, such as an identification of which data and indicator (s) are relevant per EBV, will need to be addressed before EBVs can actually become operational and facilitate the integration of data flows for monitoring and reporting. In the meantime, a first analysis shows that existing indicators and available data offer considerable potential for bridging the identified information gaps.

Building essential biodiversity variables (EBVs) of species distribution and abundance at a global scale

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.

Setting temporal baselines for biodiversity: the limits of available monitoring data for capturing the full impact of anthropogenic pressures

Temporal baselines are needed for biodiversity, in order for the change in biodiversity to be measured over time, the targets for biodiversity conservation to be defined and conservation progress to be evaluated. Limited biodiversity information is widely recognized as a major barrier for identifying temporal baselines, although a comprehensive quantitative assessment of this is lacking. Here, we report on the temporal baselines that could be drawn from biodiversity monitoring schemes in Europe and compare those with the rise of important anthropogenic pressures. Most biodiversity monitoring schemes were initiated late in the 20th century, well after anthropogenic pressures had already reached half of their current magnitude. Setting temporal baselines from biodiversity monitoring data would therefore underestimate the full range of impacts of major anthropogenic pressures. In addition, biases among taxa and organization levels provide a truncated picture of biodiversity over time. These limitations need to be explicitly acknowledged when designing management strategies and policies as they seriously constrain our ability to identify relevant conservation targets aimed at restoring or reversing biodiversity losses. We discuss the need for additional research efforts beyond standard biodiversity monitoring to reconstruct the impacts of major anthropogenic pressures and to identify meaningful temporal baselines for biodiversity.

A suite of essential biodiversity variables for detecting critical biodiversity change

Key global indicators of biodiversity decline, such as the IUCN Red List Index and the Living Planet Index, have relatively long assessment intervals. This means they, due to their inherent structure, function as late‐warning indicators that are retrospective, rather than prospective. These indicators are unquestionably important in providing information for biodiversity conservation, but the detection of early‐warning signs of critical biodiversity change is also needed so that proactive management responses can be enacted promptly where required. Generally, biodiversity conservation has dealt poorly with the scattered distribution of necessary detailed information, and needs to find a solution to assemble, harmonize and standardize the data. The prospect of monitoring essential biodiversity variables (EBVs) has been suggested in response to this challenge. The concept has generated much attention, but the EBVs themselves are still in development due to the complexity of the task, the limited resources available, and a lack of long‐term commitment to maintain EBV data sets. As a first step, the scientific community and the policy sphere should agree on a set of priority candidate EBVs to be developed within the coming years to advance both large‐scale ecological research as well as global and regional biodiversity conservation. Critical ecological transitions are of high importance from both a scientific as well as from a conservation policy point of view, as they can lead to long‐lasting biodiversity change with a high potential for deleterious effects on whole ecosystems and therefore also on human well‐being. We evaluated candidate EBVs using six criteria: relevance, sensitivity to change, generalizability, scalability, feasibility, and data availability and provide a literature‐based review for eight EBVs with high sensitivity to change. The proposed suite of EBVs comprises abundance, allelic diversity, body mass index, ecosystem heterogeneity, phenology, range dynamics, size at first reproduction, and survival rates. The eight candidate EBVs provide for the early detection of critical and potentially long‐lasting biodiversity change and should be operationalized as a priority. Only with such an approach can science predict the future status of global biodiversity with high certainty and set up the appropriate conservation measures early and efficiently. Importantly, the selected EBVs would address a large range of conservation issues and contribute to a total of 15 of the 20 Aichi targets and are, hence, of high biological relevance.

Building capacity in biodiversity monitoring at the global scale

Human-driven global change is causing ongoing declines in biodiversity worldwide. In order to address these declines, decision-makers need accurate assessments of the status of and pressures on biodiversity. However, these are heavily constrained by incomplete and uneven spatial, temporal and taxonomic coverage. For instance, data from regions such as Europe and North America are currently used overwhelmingly for large-scale biodiversity assessments due to lesser availability of suitable data from other, more biodiversity-rich, regions. These data-poor regions are often those experiencing the strongest threats to biodiversity, however. There is therefore an urgent need to fill the existing gaps in global biodiversity monitoring. Here, we review current knowledge on best practice in capacity building for biodiversity monitoring and provide an overview of existing means to improve biodiversity data collection considering the different types of biodiversity monitoring data. Our review comprises insights from work in Africa, South America, Polar Regions and Europe; in government-funded, volunteer and citizen-based monitoring in terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems. The key steps to effectively building capacity in biodiversity monitoring are: identifying monitoring questions and aims; identifying the key components, functions, and processes to monitor; identifying the most suitable monitoring methods for these elements, carrying out monitoring activities; managing the resultant data; and interpreting monitoring data. Additionally, biodiversity monitoring should use multiple approaches including extensive and intensive monitoring through volunteers and professional scientists but also harnessing new technologies. Finally, we call on the scientific community to share biodiversity monitoring data, knowledge and tools to ensure the accessibility, interoperability, and reporting of biodiversity data at a global scale.

An operational definition of essential biodiversity variables

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.

Too hot to die? The effects of vegetation shading on past, present, and future activity budgets of two diurnal skinks from arid Australia

Abstract Behavioral thermoregulation is an important mechanism allowing ectotherms to respond to thermal variations. Its efficiency might become imperative for securing activity budgets under future climate change. For diurnal lizards, thermal microhabitat variability appears to be of high importance, especially in hot deserts where vegetation is highly scattered and sensitive to climatic fluctuations. We investigated the effects of a shading gradient from vegetation on body temperatures and activity timing for two diurnal, terrestrial desert lizards, Ctenotus regius, and Morethia boulengeri, and analyzed their changes under past, present, and future climatic conditions. Both species’ body temperatures and activity timing strongly depended on the shading gradient provided by vegetation heterogeneity. At high temperatures, shaded locations provided cooling temperatures and increased diurnal activity. Conversely, bushes also buffered cold temperature by saving heat. According to future climate change scenarios, cooler microhabitats might become beneficial to warm‐adapted species, such as C. regius, by increasing the duration of daily activity. Contrarily, warmer microhabitats might become unsuitable for less warm‐adapted species such as M. boulengeri for which midsummers might result in a complete restriction of activity irrespective of vegetation. However, total annual activity would still increase provided that individuals would be able to shift their seasonal timing towards spring and autumn. Overall, we highlight the critical importance of thermoregulatory behavior to buffer temperatures and its dependence on vegetation heterogeneity. Whereas studies often neglect ecological processes when anticipating species’ responses to future climate change the strongest impact of a changing climate on terrestrial ectotherms in hot deserts is likely to be the loss of shaded microhabitats rather than the rise in temperature itself. We argue that conservation strategies aiming at addressing future climate changes should focus more on the cascading effects of vegetation rather than on shifts of species distributions predicted solely by climatic envelopes.