Discovering global biodiversity and biogeography using mega-databases
Mark J. Costello, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Why set up online biodiversity databases?
Provide quality assured . Information e.g. GISD, WoRMS . Data to other scientists, students and public
Compile content to facilitate new research = this workshop aims to promote this
Opportunities
Databases drive standardisation 1. Enabling production of statistics 2. Comparison of patterns and trends 3. Unexpected discoveries 4. Testing of hypotheses 5. Calling for further database development
Use of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility 150 50 % of publications 40 using data of those that 100 reference GBIF 30
20 50 Number of publications using GBIF 10 data
0 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year Issues
• Takes years for resource to be cited • Years for people to start using resources • More years for data to be used to do research not previously practical • Quality control • “Fit for (what) purpose?” Species name problems over-estimate richness
Labrus bimaculatus Linnaeus, 1758
Labrus mixtus Linnaeus, 1758
Photos by Bernard Picton
Later discovered that these are male and female cuckoo wrasse. Both Latin names widely used Multiple descriptions!
Distinctive sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus Linnaeus, 1758 described as 19 different species! 3 times by Linnaeus 1758 2 x Borowski 1780 3 x Bonaterre 1789 3 x Lacépède 1804 3 x Gray 1846, 1850, & 1856 1 x 5 authors G. Cuvier, Kerr, Desmoulins, Fleming, Risso + re-described by more authors
Image from stamp collection Georges Declercq; accessed www. marinespecies. org World Register of Marine Species WoRMS www.marinespecies.org o > 200 world-experts directly validate taxonomy o Each page and group has standard citation; archived monthly o Primary source of authoritative content for Species 2000’s Catalogue of Life (complier of species names), Encyclopaedia of Life (content aggregator), OBIS and GBIF (publish species distribution data) o 90% complete: > 210,000 of 230,000 species names o Welcome readers to check content for omissions and errors
ICZN ZooBank Findings from WoRMS
• How many taxonomists are describing species? • What is progress in rate of description of species? • Is describing species irrelevant to conservation because of imminent mass extinction crisis?
Authors describing species
WoRMS
CoL non-marine
From: Costello, Wilson & Houlding 2011. Predicting total global species richness using rates of species description and estimates of taxonomic effort. Systematic Biology (online August ) WoRMS – marine species
The average number of authors per species per year,
indicating more taxonomic effort since 1960’s CoL – terrestrial species ‘et al.’ effect does not alter trend The number of species per WoRMS – marine species author is decreasing,
more so for terrestrial than marine species.
Maybe it is CoL – terrestrial species getting harder to discover new species? Similar trend globally for terrestrial and marine species
CoL – land species
WoRMS – marine species
Continuing discovery of new species – is there no end in sight? Discovery of biodiversity
Number of marine (blue) and terrestrial species described per year Description vs extinction Species description rate 16,000 species p.a. or 160,000 per decade
Species extinction rate • if 1% per decade* = 20,000 species extinct per decade if 2 million species on Earth 80,000 ………… if 8 million species • if 0.1% per decade = 2,000 if 2 million = 8,000 if 8 million
* See Stork 2010. Biodiversity and Conservation 19, 357. Marine species distribution database Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS)
Databases centred on Taxonomic group (literature sources) Field surveys (benthos, plankton, observations) Fishery surveys Museum collections Datasets: Global Habitats Seabed, seashores to deep sea 39% datasets Regional Plankton 17% National Several habitats 44% Local
A community effort in online publication of primary data Global surveys
SAFHOS CPR zoo- phyto- plankton NODC plankton
BioOcean (deep-sea) Global collections
Canadian Atlantic Reference Centre (HMSC) Museum Nature
Southampton Oceanography Centre mid-water collections ZooGene Global syntheses (1) CephBase FishBase
Hexacorallia anemones +) MicroBIS Regional: NW Atlantic
ECNSAP
SE USA invertebrate Collection
ACCDC DFO DFO Atlantic fisheries
EAISSNA E Canada benthic macroinvertebrates Regional: Pacific
Bishop Museum, Hawaii
NIWA, New Zealand fisheries Mammals, birds, reptiles
Birds
Mammals
Reptiles Molluscs
Gastropods (nudibranchs, snails)
Cephalopods (squids, octopuses, cuttlefish)
Bivalves (clams+) Data by depth
< 100 m depth
100 – 1,000 m depth
> 1,000 m depth Number of distribution records in OBIS (5-degree cells)
Species richness 65,000 species in all
ES50 Most species are geographically rare (endemic)
• Marine species . 90 % species in < 3 seas . 48 % in only 1 sea
• Most widespread . Of the 100 most widespread species 93% are pelagic = 25 % microscopic plankton + 70 % mega-fauna fish, birds, mammals, turtles Similarity 100 0.1 10 1
Solomon Sea Bismarck Sea Java Sea Cluster analysis Sulu Sea Philippine Sea South China Sea Banda Sea Indian & Celebes Sea Coral Sea South Pacific Ocean Tasman Sea Mozambique Channel of seas and Pacific Indian Ocean North Pacific Ocean Timor Sea Arafura Sea Oceans Bay of Bengal Arabian Sea Andaman or Burma Sea Laccadive Sea Ceram Sea Gulf of Aden oceans Red Sea Malacca Strait Persian Gulf Southern Ocean South Atlantic Ocean Caribbean Sea Gulf of Mexico North Atlantic Ocean Bass Strait Great Australian Bight Savu Sea Flores Sea Gulf of California Gulf of Thailand Singapore Strait Note log 10 scale Inland Sea Japan Sea Eastern China Sea Yellow Sea Sea of Okhotsk Gulf of Oman Atlantic Gulf of Guinea Balearic Sea Alboran Sea Ligurian Sea Red lines indicate no significant Strait of Gibraltar & Polar Bay of Biscay Skaggerak Baltic Sea difference in species similarity Inner Seas off the West Coast of Scotland Irish Sea and St. George's Channel English Channel Celtic Sea Bristol Channel between seas (i.e. same North Sea Norwegian Sea Kattegat Ionian Sea Tyrrhenian Sea biogeographic region) Aegean Sea Mediterranean Sea - Western Basin Mediterranean Sea - Eastern Basin Adriatic Sea Black Sea Kara Sea White Sea Arctic Ocean Chukchi Sea Beaufort Sea Greenland Sea Barentsz Sea Bering Sea Gulf of Alaska The Coastal Waters of Southeast Alaska and British Columbia Gulf of St-Lawrence Labrador Sea Davis Strait Bay of Fundy Northwestern Passages Baffin Bay Hudson Bay Hudson Strait East Siberian Sea Laptev Sea Gulf of Finland Gulf of Bothnia Gulf of Riga Gulf of Boni Makassar Strait Halamahera Sea Molukka Sea Bali Sea Rio de La Plata Gulf of Suez Gulf of Aqaba Sea of Marmara Cluster analysis by 5o cells
Data set too large for statistical analysis of clusters. Groups cells must be contiguous (coherent) to form a ‘region’. Distinguished 30 realms (28 fully marine) Opportunity to compare species distributions to environment - e.g. bathymetry Seabed slope
Seamount locations
Scale with slopes exaggerated
From: Costello MJ, Cheung A, De Hauwere N. 2010. Envir Sci Technol 44, 8821-8828. Annual average chlorophyll production
Predicted catch change
Cheung et al. 2009. Large-scale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch potential in the global ocean under climate change. Global Change Biology. Abundance at locations * temperature, salinity, ice cover, depth, coral reef, estuary, seamount, upwelling, ocean advection, larval duration Further reading
Costello MJ, Wilson SP, Houlding B. Predicting total global species richness using rates of species description and estimates of taxonomic effort. Systematic Biology (online) Costello MJ, Tsai P, Wong PS, Cheung A. Global biogeography of marine species richness, rarity, and endemicity in relation to geographic area and topographic variation. Submitted. for publication Costello MJ, Wilson SP. 2011. Predicting the number of known and unknown species in European seas using rates of description. Global Ecology and Biogeography 20, 319-330. [with a review of methods to estimate global species richness] Costello MJ, Cheung A, De Hauwere N. 2010. Topography statistics for the surface and seabed area, volume, depth and slope, of the world’s seas, oceans and countries. Environmental Science and Technology 44, 8821-8828. Costello MJ, Coll M, Danovaro R, Halpin P, Ojaveer H, Miloslavich P. 2010. A census of marine biodiversity knowledge, resources and future challenges. PLoS ONE 5(8): e12110. Wilson SP, Costello MJ. 2005. Predicting future discoveries of European marine species by using a non-homogeneous renewal process. Applied Statistics 54 (5), 897-918. Costello MJ, Emblow CS, Picton BE. 1996. Long term trends in the discovery of marine species new to science which occur in Britain and Ireland. Journal of the marine biological Association of the United Kingdom 76, 255-257. Species described p.a. vs all described
Species are being described at roughly the same proportion to their number of known species
Excluding insect and flowering plants To avoid ‘et al.’ effect can look at distinct first authors only
Still clear increase in number of taxonomists over years Species/distinct first author
Still decreasing species/taxonomist Discovery higher taxa in WoRMS
Phyla Classes
Orders Families Speciation requires - time - water - space
Ocean is where life started , largest habitat on Earth , has most phyla and classes of life.
75% ocean area and 90% volume is 3,000-6,000 m depth
So we expect more species in the oceans than on land?