Ecological Research

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 947–957 | Cite as

Marshalling existing biodiversity data to evaluate biodiversity status and trends in planning exercises

  • Alberto Jiménez-Valverde
  • Andrés Lira-Noriega
  • A. Townsend Peterson
  • Jorge Soberón
Special Feature From SATOYAMA to managing global biodiversity


A thorough understanding of biodiversity status and trends through time is necessary for decision-making at regional, national, and subnational levels. Information readily available in databases allows for development of scenarios of species distribution in relation to habitat changes. Existing species occurrence data are biased towards some taxonomic groups (especially vertebrates), and are more complete for Europe and North America than for the rest of the world. We outline a procedure for development of such biodiversity scenarios using available data on species distribution derived from primary biodiversity data and habitat conditions, and analytical software, which allows estimation of species’ distributions, and forecasting of likely effects of various agents of change on the distribution and status of the same species. Such approaches can translate into improved knowledge for countries regarding the 2010 Biodiversity Target of reducing significantly the rate of biodiversity loss—indeed, using methodologies such as those illustrated herein, many countries should be capable of analyzing trends of change for at least part of their biodiversity. Sources of errors that are present in primary biodiversity data and that can affect projections are discussed.


Geographic range Niche modelling Habitat suitability Climate change Conservation 


  1. Anderson RP, Lew D, Peterson A (2003) Evaluating predictive models of species’ distributions: criteria for selecting optimal models. Ecol Model 162:211–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Araújo MB, Guisan A (2006) Five (or so) challenges for species distribution modelling. J Biogeogr 33:1677–1688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Araújo MB, Pearson RG, Thuiller W, Erhard M (2005) Validation of species-climate impact models under climate change. Glob Change Biol 11:1504–1513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Austin MP (2002) Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling. Ecol Model 157:101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balmford A, Crane AP, Dobson A, Green R, Mace G (2005) The 2010 challenge: data availability, information needs and extraterrestrial insights. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 360:221–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butchart SHM, Stattersfield AJ, Bennun LA, Shutes SM, Akçakaya H, Baillie JEM, Stuart SN, Hilton-Taylor C, Mace GM (2004) Measuring global trends in the status of biodiversity: Red List indices for birds. PLoS Biol 2:e383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Butchart SHM, Stattersfield A, Baillie J, Bennun L, Stuart S, Akçakaya H, Hilton-Taylor C, Mace G (2005) Using Red List Indices to measure progress towards the 2010 target and beyond. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 360:255–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapman AD (2005) Principles of data quality. Report for the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  9. Collen B, Loh J, Whitmee S, McRae L, Amin R, Baillie JM (2008) Monitoring change in vertebrate abundance: the Living Planet Index. Conserv Biol 23:317–327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dormann CF (2007) Promising the future? Global change projections of species distributions. Basic Appl Ecol 8:387–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edwards J (2005) Research and societal benefits of the global biodiversity information facility. Bioscience 54:485–486Google Scholar
  12. Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP, Dudík M, Ferrier S, Guisan A, Hijmans RJ, Huettmann F, Leathwick JR, Lehmann A, Li J, Lohmann LG, Loiselle BA, Manion G, Moritz C, Nakamura M, Nakazawa Y, Overton JM, Peterson AT, Phillips SJ, Richards K, Scachetti-Pereira R, Schapire RE, Soberón J, Williams S, Wisz MS, Zimmermann NE (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species′ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997) A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ Conserv 24:38–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foden W, Midgley GF, Hughes G, Bond WJ, Thuiller W, Hoffman MT, Kaleme P, Underhill LG, Rebelo A, Hannah L (2007) A changing climate is eroding the geographical range of the Namib Desert tree Aloe through population declines and dispersal lags. Divers Distrib 13:645–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8:993–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 25:1965–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hortal J, Lobo JM, Jiménez-Valverde A (2007) Limitations of biodiversity databases: case study on seed-plant diversity in Tenerife, Canary Islands. Conserv Biol 21:853–863CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Jiménez-Valverde A, Lobo JM (2007a) Potential distribution of the endangered spider Macrothele calpeiana (Walckenaer, 1805) (Araneae, Hexathelidae) and the impact of climate warming. Acta Zool Sin 53:865–876Google Scholar
  19. Jiménez-Valverde A, Lobo JM (2007b) Threshold criteria for conversion of probability of species presence to either-or presence-absence. Acta Oecol 31:361–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jiménez-Valverde A, Gómez JF, Lobo JM, Baselga A, Hortal J (2008a) Challenging species distribution models: the case of Maculinea nausithous in the Iberian Peninsula. Ann Zool Fenn 45:200–210Google Scholar
  21. Jiménez-Valverde A, Lobo JM, Hortal J (2008b) Not as good as they seem: the importance of concepts in species distribution modelling. Divers Distrib 14:885–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jiménez-Valverde A, Lobo JM, Hortal J (2009a) The effect of prevalence and its interaction with sample size on the reliability of species distribution models. Community Ecol 10:196–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jiménez-Valverde A, Nakazawa Y, Lira-Noriega A, Peterson AT (2009b) Environmental correlation structure and ecological niche model projections. Biodivers Inform 6:28–35Google Scholar
  24. Kaiser J (1999) Searching museums from your desktop. Science 284:888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li X, Rowley RJ, Kostelnick JC, Braaten D, Meisel J (2009) GIS analysis of global inundation impacts from sea level rise. Photogramm Eng Rem S 75:807–818Google Scholar
  26. Lobo JM, Jiménez-Valverde A, Real R (2008) AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:145–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Loh J, Green R, Ricketts T, Lamoreux J, Jenkins M, Kapos V, Randers J (2005) The Living Planet Index: using species population time series to track trends in biodiversity. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 360:289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martínez-Meyer E, Peterson AT, Hargrove WW (2004) Ecological niches as stable distributional constraints on mammal species, with implications for Pleistocene extinctions and climate change projections for biodiversity. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 13:305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Menon S, Soberón J, Li X, Peterson AT (2010) Preliminary global assessment of terrestrial biodiversity consequences of sea level rise mediated by climate change. Biodivers Conserv 19:1599–1609Google Scholar
  30. Millennium Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Mooney H, Mace G (2009) Biodiversity policy challenges. Science 325:1474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Pearson RG, Dawson TP (2003) Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: are bioclimate envelope models useful? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12:361–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peterson AT (2001) Predicting species′ geographic distributions based on ecological niche modeling. Condor 103:599–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peterson AT (2005) Kansas GAP analysis: the importance of validating distributional models before using them. Southwest Nat 50:230–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peterson AT (2006) Uses and requirements of ecological niches models and related distributional models. Biodivers Inform 3:59–72Google Scholar
  36. Peterson AT, Nakazawa Y (2008) Environmental data sets matter in ecological niche modelling: an example with Solenopsis invicta and Solenopsis richteri. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:135–144Google Scholar
  37. Peterson AT, Papes M, Eaton M (2007) Transferability and model evaluation in ecological niche modeling: a comparison of GARP and Maxent. Ecography 30:550–560Google Scholar
  38. Peterson AT, Papeş M, Soberón J (2008) Rethinking receiver operating characteristic analysis applications in ecological niche modelling. Ecol Model 213:63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peterson AT, Knapp S, Guralnick R, Soberón J, Holder MT (2010) The big questions for biodiversity informatics. Syst Biodivers 8:159–168Google Scholar
  40. Phillips SJ, Dudík M (2008) Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31:161–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model 190:231–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Power C, Simms A, White R (2001) Hierarchical fuzzy pattern matching for the regional comparison of land use maps. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 15:77–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pulliam HR (2000) On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecol Lett 3:349–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rödder D, Schmidtlein S, Veith M, Lötters S (2009) Alien invasive slider turtle in unpredicted habitat: a matter of niche shift or of predictors studied? PLoS One 4:e7843CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Sarkar S, Pressey RL, Faith DP, Margules CR, Fuller T, Stoms DM, Moffett A, Wilson KA, Williams KJ, Williams PH, Andelman S (2006) Biodiversity conservation planning tools: present status and challenges for the future. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:123–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Global biodiversity outlook 3. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, MontréalGoogle Scholar
  47. Seoane J, Bustamante J, Díaz-Delgado R (2005) Effect of expert opinion on the predictive ability of environmental models of bird distribution. Conserv Biol 19:512–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Soberón J (2007) Grinnellian and Eltonian niches and geographic distribution of species. Ecol Lett 10:1115–1123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Soberón J (2010) Niche and area of distribution modelling: a population ecology perspective. Ecography 33:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Soberón J, Llorente J (1993) The use of species accumulation functions for the prediction of species richness. Conserv Biol 7:480–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Soberón J, Peterson AT (2004) Biodiversity informatics: managing and applying primary biodiversity data. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 359:689–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Soberón J, Peterson AT (2005) Interpretation of models of fundamental ecological niches and species’ distributional areas. Biodivers Inform 2:1–10Google Scholar
  53. Soberón J, Peterson AT (2009) Monitoring biodiversity loss with primary species-occurrence data: toward national-level indicators for the 2010 target of the convention on biological diversity. Ambio 38:29–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Soberón J, Sarukhán J (2010) Comments on a new mechanism for science-policy transfer and biodiversity governance. Environ Conserv 36:1–3Google Scholar
  55. Stockwell DRB, Peters DP (1999) The GARP modelling system: problems and solutions to automated spatial prediction. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 13:143–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Swets JA (1988) Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240:1285–1293CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Vaughan IP, Ormerod SJ (2003) Improving the quality of distribution models for conservation by addressing shortcomings in the field collection of training data. Conserv Biol 17:1601–1611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vaughan IP, Ormerod SJ (2005) The continuing challenges of testing species distribution models. J Appl Ecol 42:720–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Walpolem M, Almond REA, Besançon C, Butchart SHM, Campbell-Lendrum D, Carr GM, Collen B, Collette L, Davidson NC, Dulloo E, Fazel AM, Galloway JN, Gill M, Goverse T, Hockings M, Leaman DJ, Morgan DHW, Revenga C, Rickwood CJ, Schutyser F, Simons S, Stattersfield AJ, Tyrrell TD, Vié J-C, Zimsky M (2009) Tracking progress towards the 2010 biodiversity target and beyond. Science 325:1503–1504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ward G, Hastie T, Barry S, Elith J, Leathwick J (2009) Presence-only data and the EM algorithm. Biometrics 65:554–563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Wiley EO, Peterson AT (2004) Biodiversity and the Internet: building and using the virtual world museum. In: Scharl A (ed) Environmental online communication. Springer, London, pp 91–99Google Scholar
  62. Wisz MS, Hijmans RJ, Li J, Peterson AT, Graham CH, Guisan A, NPSDW Group (2008) Effects of sample size on the performance of species distribution models. Divers Distrib 14:763–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yesson C, Brewer PW, Sutton T, Caithness N, Pahwa JS, Burgess M, Gray WA, White RJ, Jones AC, Bisby FA, Culham A (2007) How global is the global biodiversity information facility? PLoS One 11:e1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Ecological Society of Japan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alberto Jiménez-Valverde
    • 1
  • Andrés Lira-Noriega
    • 1
  • A. Townsend Peterson
    • 1
  • Jorge Soberón
    • 1
  1. 1.Biodiversity InstituteThe University of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations