biodiversity for food and agriculture
4.3 Associated biodiversity
4.3.2 Information and monitoring systems on associated biodiversity
Countries were invited to report on national information systems on associated biodiversity.
Fifty-seven country reports indicate the presence of at least one such information system (247 are reported in total). An additional four reports22 spe-cifically indicate the absence of any such systems.
Over 40 percent of the systems reported are in European countries. Several examples of informa-tion and monitoring systems are described in the
“state of knowledge” subsections of Sections 4.3.4 to 4.3.10 and in Boxes 4.6 and 8.8.
22 Those from the Gambia, Slovakia, Sri Lanka and Suriname.
121
THE STATE OF THE WORLD'S BIODIVERSIT Y FOR FOOD AND AGRICuLTuRE
TABLE 4.1
Examples of species and genera reported by countries to be managed for regulating or supporting ecosystem services in production systems
Ecosystem service (number
of distinct species reported) Species or genus Common name Countries
Pest and disease regulation (144)
Acorus calamus Flagroot Nepal
Aphelinus mali Woolly aphid parasite Nepal, Peru, Syrian Arab Republic, Yemen
Azadirachta indica Neem tree Jordan, Nepal, Niger
Bacillus thuringiensis Bt Ecuador, India, Peru
Cecidochares connexa Gall fly Palau, Papua New Guinea
Ctenopharyngodon idella Grass carp Fiji, Syrian Arab Republic Cryptolaemus montrouzieri Mealybug destroyer India, Jamaica, Syrian Arab Republic
Habrobracon hebetor Niger, Syrian Arab Republic
Neochetina bruchi, N. eichhorniae
Chevroned water hyacinth weevil, mottled water hyacinth
weevil Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, Sudan
Trichoderma harzianum Bangladesh, India, Nepal
Typhlodromus pyri Croatia, France, Syrian Arab Republic
Habitat provisioning (125)
Brassica oleracea Wild cabbage Ireland, United Kingdom
Khaya senegalensis African mahogany Chad, Togo
Mangifera sylvatica Nepal mango Bangladesh
Platycladus orientalis Chinese arborvitae China
Tamarindus indica Tamarind Chad, Ecuador, Yemen
Soil formation and protection (111)
Chrysopogon zizanioides Khuskhus vetiver Jamaica, Zimbabwe Leucaena leucocephala White leadtree Brazil, Mexico
Panicum turgidum Merkba Yemen
Pinus sylvestris Scots pine Ireland, Slovenia
Prosopis juliflora Ironwood Brazil, Yemen
Rhizobium leguminosarum Bangladesh
Secale cereale Rye Ireland, United Kingdom
Swietenia humilis,
S. macrophylla Mexican mahogany Mexico
Nutrient cycling (76)
Bradyrhizobium elkanii,
B. japonicum Brazil
Eisenia fetida Tiger worm Bulgaria, Jamaica
Faidherbia albida Winter thorn Burkina Faso
Hordeum vulgare Barley Sweden, United Kingdom
Lens culinaris Common lentil Jordan, Yemen
Leucaena leucocephala White leadtree Brazil, Zimbabwe
Lumbricus rubellus Red earthworm Bulgaria
Rhizobium leguminosarum Brazil, Nepal
Secale cereale Rye Sweden, United Kingdom
Vicia sativa Common vetch Jordan, Yemen
(Cont.)
Ecosystem service (number
of distinct species reported) Species or genus Common name Countries
Pollination (49)
Apis mellifera Western honey bee
Bangladesh, Belgium, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ecuador, Eswatini, Gambia, Germany, Hungary, Jamaica, Lebanon, Nepal, Netherlands, Niue, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Apis cerana Eastern honey bee Bhutan, Sri Lanka
Bombus terrestris Buff-tailed bumble bee Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden
Other Bombus spp. (B.
canariensis, ignites, morio) Belgium, Brazil
Eidolon helvum Straw-coloured fruit bat Burkina Faso
Heterotrigona itama Malaysia
Osmia spp. (O. bicornis,
O. lignaria) Mason bees (red mason bee,
blue orchard bee) Germany, United States of America
Malus sylvestris Crab apple Slovenia
Production of oxygen/gas regulation (30)
Alnus acuminata Alder Ecuador
Khaya senegalensis African mahogany Niger, Togo
Robinia pseudoacacia Black locust China
Tectona grandis Teak Nepal, Togo
Coffea arabica Arabica coffee Panama
Water purification and waste treatment (25)
Phragmites australis Common reed Jordan, Lebanon, United Kingdom, Yemen
Avicennia germinans Black mangrove Mexico
Sorghum halepensis Johnson grass Jordan, Yemen
Panicum virgatum Old switch panic grass United States of America
Eisenia fetida Tiger worm Nepal
Natural hazard regulation (27)
Alnus glutinosa European alder Slovenia
Avicennia spp. (A. alba,
A. marina) Black mangrove (api-api, white
mangrove) Bangladesh, Yemen
Bauhinia rufescens Niger
Cenchrus purpureus Napier grass Bhutan
Chrysopogon zizanioides Khuskhus vetiver Jamaica Cupressus sempervirens Mediterranean cypress Jordan
Picea abies Norway spruce Switzerland
Water cycling (25)
Atriplex halimus Mediterranean saltbush Jordan, Yemen
Andropogon gayanus Bluestem grass Niger
Leucaena leucocephala White leadtree Brazil
Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow trout Finland
Note: Analysis based on 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
TABLE 4.1 (Cont.)
Examples of species and genera reported by countries to be managed for regulating or supporting ecosystem services in production systems
123
THE STATE OF THE WORLD'S BIODIVERSIT Y FOR FOOD AND AGRICuLTuRE
TABLE 4.2
Species and genera most frequently reported to be managed for multiple supporting and regulating ecosystem services
Habitat provisioning Natural-hazard regulation Nutrient cycling Pest and disease regulation Pollination Production of oxygen/gas regulation Soil formation and protection Water cycling Water purification and waste treatment
Total number of ecosystem services for which the species is managed Species or
genus Common
name Number of countries Countries
Acacia spp. Acacias 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 16
Angola, Burkina Faso, Chad, China, Jordan, Mexico, Nepal, Niger, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, Zimbabwe
Pinus spp. Pines 3 2 1 1 1 4 12 China, Ireland, Mexico,
Peru, Slovakia, Slovenia
Brassica spp. Brassicas 1 1 1 1 3 1 8 Bulgaria, Ireland, Jordan,
United Kingdom, Slovakia
Trifolium spp. Clover 1 4 1 1 1 8 Bulgaria, Ireland, Jordan,
Norway, Slovakia, Sweden Eucalyptus
spp. Eucalyptus 1 1 1 1 2 1 7 Cameroon, Ecuador, Peru,
Senegal, Sudan Crotalaria
spectabilis Showy
rattlebox 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Brazil
Medicago
spp. Medick 1 3 1 1 6 Bulgaria, Jordan, Yemen
Populus spp. Aspen 2 1 3 6 Finland, Ireland, Jordan,
Slovenia, Yemen Bauhinia
rufescens 1 1 1 1 1 5 Niger
Canavalia
ensiforms Jack bean 1 1 1 1 1 5 Brazil
Cajanus cajan Pigeon pea 1 1 1 1 1 5 Brazil
Leucaena leucocephala White
leadtree 1 2 1 2 1 5 Brazil, Mexico, Zimbabwe
Tithonia diversifolia Tree
marigold 1 1 1 1 1 5 Brazil
Hordeum
vulgare Barley 1 2 1 1 4 Jordan, Sweden, United
Kingdom Tamarindus
indica Tamarind 3 1 1 3 Chad, Ecuador, Yemen
Khaya senegalensis
African
mahogany 2 1 2 3 Chad, Niger, Togo
Note: Analysis based on 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
In most countries, the reported information systems were developed in the context of envi-ronmental monitoring programmes and not because the monitored species are considered of importance to food and agriculture. For example, most countries have established “red lists” that summarize the status and trends of native flora and fauna species and the threats affecting them.
These lists are usually based on a methodology similar to that used for The IUCN Red List (Box 4.1) and are reviewed at regular intervals.23 In addition
23 The IUCN Red List allows species to be grouped according to the types of ecosystems in which they occur, including agricultural, forest and marine ecosystems. However, it does not allow this to be done for particular roles, or assumed roles, in the supply of regulating or supporting ecosystem services (pollination, pest control, etc.) within these ecosystems.
to databases of species risk status, the systems reported include a variety of sources of informa-tion on associated biodiversity, including newslet-ters, national reports on the state of biodiversity produced by relevant ministries (e.g. forestry or environment), radio and television programmes, Internet resources, institutes, universities, labora-tories, museums and encyclopaedias. More infor-mation can be found in the regional synthesis reports prepared as part of the reporting process for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.24
The reported information systems are used to monitor a range of different components of
24 The regional synthesis reports will be made available at http://www.fao.org/cgrfa/en/
FIGURE 4.1
Regulating and supporting ecosystem services for which associated biodiversity is reported to be managed, by sector of production
Pollination Pest and disease regulation Water purification and waste treatment Natural-hazard regulation Nutrient cycling Soil formation and protection Water cycling Habitat provisioning Production of oxygen/gas regulation Other
0 100 200
Number of responses
300 400 500 600
Livestock sector Forest sector
Aquatic sector Crop sector Mixed systems Other/not specified
Crops Forestry Livestock Aquaculture Fisheries Mixed systems Agriculture (unspecified) Not specified
Notes: A “response” is an indication by a country that a particular species or other taxonomic group is managed within a particular production system to promote the supply of a particular ecosystem service. Several of the 462 distinct species that featured in the responses were mentioned by more than one country and/or for more than one production system. The total number of responses is 1 228. For presentation purposes, production systems are grouped by sector of production. Analysis based on 91 country reports.
Source: Country reports prepared for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.
125
THE STATE OF THE WORLD'S BIODIVERSIT Y FOR FOOD AND AGRICuLTuRE 0
2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 10 000
20 000 30 000 40 000 50 000 60 000 70 000 80 000 90 000 100 000
Species
Year
Increase in the number of species assessed for The IUCN Red List (2000–2018)
Total threatened species Total species assessed
Box 4.1
The International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened SpeciesTM The International Union for Conservation of Nature Red
List of Threatened SpeciesTM (The IUCN Red List) is the world’s most comprehensive source of information on species extinction risks, and contains a wealth of information on factors affecting species survival, including on distribution ranges, population trends, ecology, conservation actions, threats and trade and use. As of November 2018, more than 96 500 species were included, over 26 500 of which were threatened with extinction, including 40 percent of amphibians, 34 percent of conifers, 33 percent of reef-building corals, 25 percent of mammals and 14 percent of birds.
Source: The IUCN Red List version 2018-2.
Note: For further information, see https://www.iucnredlist.org
Box 4.2
Birds as indicator species
Avian species can act as valuable indicators of environmental change and complex shifts in ecosystem dynamics that may be detrimental to food and agriculture.
For example, seabirds are excellent indicators of climate change thanks to their behavioural, social and life-history traits and the vast amount of long-term data available on them (Grémillet and Boulinier, 2009). Seabirds generally have highly specialized diets and rely on just a few prey species, whose abundance and distribution can shift dramatically in response to abrupt environmental changes (BirdLife International, 2009). Rising sea-surface temperatures in Antarctica have led to a reduction in the abundance of Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba), a key prey species for many seabirds, and an increase in the abundance of less favourable food. This has affected several seabird populations, including emperor penguins (Aptenodytes forsteri) in Terre Adélie, whose population declined by 50 percent during a period of abnormally warm temperatures and poor krill production (Barbraud and
Weimerskirch, 2001). When pieced together, such trends and warning signs demonstrate where, and how much, climate change is affecting the ecosystems that industries such as fishing depend upon.
Seabird numbers can also be a direct indication of fish-stock depletion. A study on sardine fisheries in the Gulf of California demonstrated (taking El Niño influences into account) that a declining proportion of sardines in the diets of three seabird species (the California brown pelican [Pelecanus occidentalis], Heermann’s gull [Larus heermanni]
and the elegant tern [Thalasseus elegans]) gave a reliable forecast of diminishing catch per unit effort in fisheries landings in subsequent years. This allowed successful mitigation or reduced-catch measures to be implemented, helping to stabilize fisheries income (Velarde, Ezcurra and Anderson, 2013).
Source: Provided by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and BirdLife International.
associated biodiversity, including particular ecosys-tem categories (e.g. forests, grasslands or aquatic ecosystems), protected areas, individual species, species in general (e.g. via the above-mentioned red lists), rare or endangered species, specific tax-onomic groups (e.g. amphibians and reptiles, bats, bees, birds, butterflies, freshwater and marine fish, fungi, lichens or mosses) or other catego-ries such as crop pests and their natural enemies.
Several European countries mention monitoring efforts for micro-organisms (including bacteria, viruses and protists) and fungi, including groups that are of importance to food and agriculture, such as mycorrhizal fungi, soil microbes, plank-tonic microbes and rumen microbes. Despite these various initiatives, however, countries generally make it very clear that there are many gaps and weaknesses in monitoring programmes and infor-mation systems for associated biodiversity. Even where demographic data on components of asso-ciated biodiversity are collected, it often remains unclear how these relate to the geographical dis-tribution of production systems, which makes it more difficult to draw conclusions regarding pos-sible effects on food and agriculture.
Lack of capacity is widely reported by countries to be a significant constraint to the monitoring of associated biodiversity. Some countries indicate that much of the monitoring work that does take place is done by (expert or non-expert) volun-teers. For example, Finland reports that initiatives of this kind account for approximately 70 percent of all its biodiversity-related monitoring work.
Monitoring of butterflies and birds is largely volunteer-based in most countries in Europe.
Efforts are also being made to develop method-ologies based on indicator species that can be used even where capacity is limited. For example, the Belau National Museum, in cooperation with the Palau Conservation Society and the Palau International Coral Reef Centre, is reported to have completed preliminary studies aimed at iden-tifying bird species that could be used as indicators for near-shore environmental quality and ecosys-tem health. See Box 4.2 for further information on birds as indicator species.