1
|
Chowdhury S, Fuller RA, Ahmed S, Alam S, Callaghan CT, Das P, Correia RA, Di Marco M, Di Minin E, Jarić I, Labi MM, Ladle RJ, Rokonuzzaman M, Roll U, Sbragaglia V, Siddika A, Bonn A. Using social media records to inform conservation planning. Conserv Biol 2024; 38:e14161. [PMID: 37551776 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14161] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2023] [Revised: 06/11/2023] [Accepted: 07/17/2023] [Indexed: 08/09/2023]
Abstract
Citizen science plays a crucial role in helping monitor biodiversity and inform conservation. With the widespread use of smartphones, many people share biodiversity information on social media, but this information is still not widely used in conservation. Focusing on Bangladesh, a tropical megadiverse and mega-populated country, we examined the importance of social media records in conservation decision-making. We collated species distribution records for birds and butterflies from Facebook and Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), grouped them into GBIF-only and combined GBIF and Facebook data, and investigated the differences in identifying critical conservation areas. Adding Facebook data to GBIF data improved the accuracy of systematic conservation planning assessments by identifying additional important conservation areas in the northwest, southeast, and central parts of Bangladesh, extending priority conservation areas by 4,000-10,000 km2 . Community efforts are needed to drive the implementation of the ambitious Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework targets, especially in megadiverse tropical countries with a lack of reliable and up-to-date species distribution data. We highlight that conservation planning can be enhanced by including available data gathered from social media platforms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shawan Chowdhury
- Institute of Biodiversity, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany
- Department of Ecosystem Services, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Leipzig, Germany
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| | - Richard A Fuller
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| | - Sultan Ahmed
- Department of Zoology, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh
| | - Shofiul Alam
- Department of Zoology, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh
| | - Corey T Callaghan
- Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Davie, Florida, USA
| | - Priyanka Das
- Department of Zoology, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh
| | - Ricardo A Correia
- Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- Biodiversity Unit, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
| | - Moreno Di Marco
- Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Enrico Di Minin
- Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
| | - Ivan Jarić
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Orsay, France
- Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
| | | | - Richard J Ladle
- CIBIO/InBIO, Centro de Investigação Em Biodiversidade E Recursos Genéticos, Universidade Do Porto, Vairão, Portugal
- Institute of Biological and Health Sciences, Federal University of Alagoas, Maceió, Brazil
| | - M Rokonuzzaman
- Department of Zoology, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh
| | - Uri Roll
- Mitrani Department of Desert Ecology, The Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Midreshet Ben-Gurion, Israel
| | - Valerio Sbragaglia
- Department of Marine Renewable Resources, Institute of Marine Sciences (ICM-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Asma Siddika
- Department of Zoology, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh
| | - Aletta Bonn
- Institute of Biodiversity, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany
- Department of Ecosystem Services, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Leipzig, Germany
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Moussy C, Burfield IJ, Stephenson PJ, Newton AFE, Butchart SHM, Sutherland WJ, Gregory RD, McRae L, Bubb P, Roesler I, Ursino C, Wu Y, Retief EF, Udin JS, Urazaliyev R, Sánchez-Clavijo LM, Lartey E, Donald PF. A quantitative global review of species population monitoring. Conserv Biol 2022; 36:e13721. [PMID: 33595149 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13721] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2020] [Revised: 01/28/2021] [Accepted: 02/10/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
Species monitoring, defined here as the repeated, systematic collection of data to detect long-term changes in the populations of wild species, is a vital component of conservation practice and policy. We created a database of nearly 1200 schemes, ranging in start date from 1800 to 2018, to review spatial, temporal, taxonomic, and methodological patterns in global species monitoring. We identified monitoring schemes through standardized web searches, an online survey of stakeholders, in-depth national searches in a sample of countries, and a review of global biodiversity databases. We estimated the total global number of monitoring schemes operating at 3300-15,000. Since 2000, there has been a sharp increase in the number of new schemes being initiated in lower- and middle-income countries and in megadiverse countries, but a decrease in high-income countries. The total number of monitoring schemes in a country and its per capita gross domestic product were strongly, positively correlated. Schemes that were active in 2018 had been running for an average of 21 years in high-income countries, compared with 13 years in middle-income countries and 10 years in low-income countries. In high-income countries, over one-half of monitoring schemes received government funding, but this was less than one-quarter in low-income countries. Data collection was undertaken partly or wholly by volunteers in 37% of schemes, and such schemes covered significantly more sites and species than those undertaken by professionals alone. Birds were by far the most widely monitored taxonomic group, accounting for around half of all schemes, but this bias declined over time. Monitoring in most taxonomic groups remains sparse and uncoordinated, and most of the data generated are elusive and unlikely to feed into wider biodiversity conservation processes. These shortcomings could be addressed by, for example, creating an open global meta-database of biodiversity monitoring schemes and enhancing capacity for species monitoring in countries with high biodiversity. Article impact statement: Species population monitoring for conservation purposes remains strongly biased toward a few vertebrate taxa in wealthier countries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - P J Stephenson
- IUCN SSC Species Monitoring Specialist Group, Gingins, Switzerland
- Science & Economic Knowledge Unit, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
| | | | - Stuart H M Butchart
- BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK
- Department of Zoology, Conservation Science Group, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - William J Sutherland
- Department of Zoology, Conservation Science Group, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Richard D Gregory
- RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, Bedfordshire, UK
- Centre for Biodiversity & Environment Research, Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, London, UK
| | - Louise McRae
- Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, London, UK
| | - Philip Bubb
- UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK
| | - Ignacio Roesler
- Scientific Department, Aves Argentinas, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Cynthia Ursino
- Scientific Department, Aves Argentinas, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Yanqing Wu
- Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences, Ministry of Ecology and Environment, Nanjing, P.R. China
| | - Ernst F Retief
- Science and Innovation Programme, BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa
| | | | - Ruslan Urazaliyev
- Association for the Conservation of Biodiversity of Kazakhstan, Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan
| | - Lina M Sánchez-Clavijo
- Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, Bogotá, Colombia
| | | | - Paul F Donald
- BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK
- Department of Zoology, Conservation Science Group, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|