DOCSLIB.ORG

Land Use Impacts on Biodiversity in LCA: a Global Approach

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Land Use Impacts on Biodiversity in LCA: a Global Approach DELIVERABLE FRONTPAGE Project number: 243827 FP7-ENV-2009-1 Project acronym: LC-IMPACT Project title: Development and application of environmental Life Cycle Impact assessment. Methods for improved sustainability Characterisation of Technologies Deliverable number: D 1.6 Deliverable name: Recommended assessment framework, method and characterisation factors for land resource use impacts: phase 3 (report and model + factors) Version: 1 WP number: 1 Lead beneficiary: IIASA Nature: R* Dissemination level: PP† Delivery date Annex I: 41 (month number) Actual delivery date: 13/05/2013 Authors: L. de Baan, A. Emanuelsson, M.A.J. Huijbregts, G. Kindermann, T. Koellner, D. Maia de Souza, P.A.N. Muchada, P. Muñoz, M. Núñez, M. Obersteiner, R.K. Rosenbaum, E. Schmid, M. van der Velde, R. van Zelm, F. Ziegler Comments: Several parts of this deliverable will be published in scientific journals and need to be treated confidentially until the publishing date (for internal EU review only). * Please indicate the nature of the deliverable using one of the following codes: R = Report, P = Prototype, D = Demonstrator, O = Other † Please indicate the dissemination level using one of the following codes: PU = Public, PP = Restricted to other programme participants (incl. the Commission Services), RE = Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (incl. the Commission Services), CO = Confidential, only for members of the consortium (incl. the Commission Services) 1 Table of Contents List of abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. 6 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 8 1. Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: a global approach ........................................................ 10 1.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 10 1.2. Methods .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.2.1. Calculation of characterization factors ............................................................................... 11 1.2.2. Reference situation ............................................................................................................. 12 1.2.3. Data sources ........................................................................................................................ 13 1.2.4. Indicator selection and calculation ..................................................................................... 14 1.2.5. Statistical analysis................................................................................................................ 16 1.3. Results ..................................................................................................................................... 17 1.3.1. Land use impacts on biodiversity ........................................................................................ 17 1.3.2. Regionalization .................................................................................................................... 20 1.3.3. Indicator comparison .......................................................................................................... 21 1.4. Discussion................................................................................................................................ 23 1.4.1. Choice of indicator .............................................................................................................. 24 1.4.2. Taxonomic coverage ........................................................................................................... 26 1.4.3. Land use classification and regionalization ......................................................................... 27 1.4.4. Data limitations and uncertainties ...................................................................................... 28 1.5. Conclusion and recommendations ......................................................................................... 29 1.6. References .............................................................................................................................. 30 2. Land use impacts in LCA: Global characterization factors based on regional and global potential species extinctions .............................................................................................. 35 2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 35 2.2. Methods .................................................................................................................................. 37 2.2.1. Modeling species extinction ................................................................................................ 37 2.2.2. Calculation of characterization factors ............................................................................... 38 2.2.3. Input data for model parameters ........................................................................................ 39 2.2.4. Uncertainty assessment ...................................................................................................... 40 2.2.5. Validation of species extinction .......................................................................................... 41 2.2.6. Sensitivity analysis ............................................................................................................... 41 2.3. Results ..................................................................................................................................... 41 2.3.1. Regional characterization factors ....................................................................................... 41 2.3.2. Contribution to uncertainty ................................................................................................ 43 2 2.3.3. Model evaluation ................................................................................................................ 44 2.3.4. Sensitivity analysis ............................................................................................................... 44 2.4. Discussion................................................................................................................................ 44 2.4.1. Modeling choices ................................................................................................................ 44 2.4.2. Data availability and uncertainty ........................................................................................ 45 2.4.3. Model validity ...................................................................................................................... 46 2.4.4. Applicability ......................................................................................................................... 47 2.4.5. Implications ......................................................................................................................... 48 2.5. References .............................................................................................................................. 48 3. Land use impacts on biodiversity: proposal of characterization factors based on functional diversity ........................................................................................................................ 53 3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 53 3.2. Methods .................................................................................................................................. 55 3.2.1. Data sources ........................................................................................................................ 55 3.2.2. Land use classes .................................................................................................................. 56 3.2.3. Functional trait data ............................................................................................................ 56 3.2.4. Functional Diversity calculation .......................................................................................... 57 3.2.5. Calculation of Characterization Factors .............................................................................. 58 3.2.6. Statistical analysis................................................................................................................ 59 3.3. Results ..................................................................................................................................... 59 3.3.1. Land use impacts on biodiversity ........................................................................................ 59 3.3.2. Analysis of characterization factors (CFSR and CFFD) for each taxonomic group 59 3.3.3. Analysis of characterization factors for different land use types ....................................... 60 3.3.4. Sensitivity analysis for the choice of reference land use types .......................................... 64 3.4. Discussion...............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hidden Fungal Diversity from the Neotropics: Geastrum Hirsutum, G
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Hidden fungal diversity from the Neotropics: Geastrum hirsutum, G. schweinitzii (Basidiomycota, Geastrales) and their allies 1☯ 1☯ 2 3 Thiago AcciolyID , Julieth O. Sousa , Pierre-Arthur Moreau , Christophe LeÂcuru , 4 5 5 6 7 Bianca D. B. Silva , MeÂlanie Roy , Monique Gardes , Iuri G. Baseia , MarõÂa P. MartõÂnID * 1 Programa de PoÂs-GraduacËão em SistemaÂtica e EvolucËão, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil, 2 EA4483 IMPECS, UFR Pharmacie, Universite de Lille, Lille, France, 3 Herbarium LIP, UFR Pharmacie, Universite de Lille, Lille, France, 4 Departamento de BotaÃnica, Instituto de a1111111111 Biologia, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Ondina, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, 5 Laboratoire UMR5174 Evolution a1111111111 et Diversite Biologique (EDB), Universite Toulouse 3 Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France, 6 Departamento de a1111111111 BotaÃnica e Zoologia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil, a1111111111 7 Departamento de MicologõÂa, Real JardõÂn BotaÂnico-CSIC, Madrid, Spain a1111111111 ☯ These authors contributed equally to this work. * [email protected] OPEN ACCESS Abstract  Citation: Accioly T, Sousa JO, Moreau P-A, Lecuru Taxonomy of Geastrum species in the neotropics has been subject to divergent opinions C, Silva BDB, Roy M, et al. (2019) Hidden fungal diversity from the Neotropics: Geastrum hirsutum, among specialists. In our study, type collections were reassessed and compared with G. schweinitzii (Basidiomycota, Geastrales) and recent collections in order to delimit species in Geastrum, sect. Myceliostroma, subsect. their allies. PLoS ONE 14(2): e0211388. https://doi. Epigaea. A thorough review of morphologic features combined with barcode and phyloge- org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211388 netic analyses (ITS and LSU nrDNA) revealed six new species (G.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Ecological Forest Classification and Forest Protected Area Gap Analysis
    United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre Global Ecological Forest Classification and Forest Protected Area Gap Analysis Analyses and recommendations in view of the 10% target for forest protection under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 2nd revised edition, January 2009 Global Ecological Forest Classification and Forest Protected Area Gap Analysis Analyses and recommendations in view of the 10% target for forest protection under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Report prepared by: United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Network World Resources Institute (WRI) Institute of Forest and Environmental Policy (IFP) University of Freiburg Freiburg University Press 2nd revised edition, January 2009 The United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP- WCMC) is the biodiversity assessment and policy implementation arm of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the world's foremost intergovernmental environmental organization. The Centre has been in operation since 1989, combining scientific research with practical policy advice. UNEP-WCMC provides objective, scientifically rigorous products and services to help decision makers recognize the value of biodiversity and apply this knowledge to all that they do. Its core business is managing data about ecosystems and biodiversity, interpreting and analysing that data to provide assessments and policy analysis, and making the results
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Land Use on Biodiversity: Development of Spatially Differentiated Global Assessment Methodologies for Life Cycle Assessment
    DISS. ETH NO. xx Impacts of land use on biodiversity: development of spatially differentiated global assessment methodologies for life cycle assessment A dissertation submitted to ETH ZURICH for the degree of Doctor of Sciences presented by LAURA SIMONE DE BAAN Master of Sciences ETH born January 23, 1981 citizen of Steinmaur (ZH), Switzerland accepted on the recommendation of Prof. Dr. Stefanie Hellweg, examiner Prof. Dr. Thomas Koellner, co-examiner Dr. Llorenç Milà i Canals, co-examiner 2013 In Gedenken an Frans Remarks This thesis is a cumulative thesis and consists of five research papers, which were written by several authors. The chapters Introduction and Concluding Remarks were written by myself. For the sake of consistency, I use the personal pronoun ‘we’ throughout this thesis, even in the chapters Introduction and Concluding Remarks. Summary Summary Today, one third of the Earth’s land surface is used for agricultural purposes, which has led to massive changes in global ecosystems. Land use is one of the main current and projected future drivers of biodiversity loss. Because many agricultural commodities are traded globally, their production often affects multiple regions. Therefore, methodologies with global coverage are needed to analyze the effects of land use on biodiversity. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool that assesses environmental impacts over the entire life cycle of products, from the extraction of resources to production, use, and disposal. Although LCA aims to provide information about all relevant environmental impacts, prior to this Ph.D. project, globally applicable methods for capturing the effects of land use on biodiversity did not exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Extinction of Threatened Vertebrates Will Lead to Idiosyncratic Changes in Functional Diversity Across the World ✉ Aurele Toussaint 1 , Sébastien Brosse 2, C
    ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25293-0 OPEN Extinction of threatened vertebrates will lead to idiosyncratic changes in functional diversity across the world ✉ Aurele Toussaint 1 , Sébastien Brosse 2, C. Guillermo Bueno1, Meelis Pärtel 1, Riin Tamme 1 & Carlos P. Carmona 1 1234567890():,; Although species with larger body size and slow pace of life have a higher risk of extinction at a global scale, it is unclear whether this global trend will be consistent across biogeographic realms. Here we measure the functional diversity of terrestrial and freshwater vertebrates in the six terrestrial biogeographic realms and predict their future changes through scenarios mimicking a gradient of extinction risk of threatened species. We show vastly different effects of extinctions on functional diversity between taxonomic groups and realms, ranging from almost no decline to deep functional losses. The Indo-Malay and Palearctic realms are par- ticularly inclined to experience a drastic loss of functional diversity reaching 29 and 31%, respectively. Birds, mammals, and reptiles regionally display a consistent functional diversity loss, while the projected losses of amphibians and freshwater fishes differ across realms. More efficient global conservation policies should consider marked regional losses of func- tional diversity across the world. 1 Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia. 2 Université Paul Sabatier, CNRS, IRD, UMR5174 EDB (Laboratoire Évolution et ✉ Diversité Biologique), Toulouse, France. email: [email protected] NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 12:5162 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25293-0 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 1 ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25293-0 he loss of global biodiversity is accelerating throughout the with different key aspects of their ecology and their life-history Tworld1 triggering the sixth mass extinction crisis2.
    [Show full text]
  • A Global Overview of Wetland and Marine Protected Areas on the World Heritage List
    A GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF WETLAND AND MARINE PROTECTED AREAS ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST A Contribution to the Global Theme Study of World Heritage Natural Sites Prepared by Jim Thorsell, Renee Ferster Levy and Todd Sigaty Natural Heritage Programme lUCN Gland, Switzerland September 1997 WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRE lUCN The World Conservation Union 530S2__ A GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF WETLAND AND MARINE PROTECTED AREAS ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST A Contribution to the Global Theme Study of Wodd Heritage Natural Sites Prepared by Jim Thorsell. Renee Ferster Levy and Todd Sigaty Natural Heritage Program lUCN Gland. Switzerland September 1997 Working Paper 1: Earth's Geological History - A Contextual Framework Assessment of World Heritage Fossil Site Nominations Working Paper 2: A Global Overview of Wetland and Marine Protected Areas on the World Heritage List Working Paper 3; A Global Overview of Forest Protected Areas on the World Heritage List Further volumes (in preparation) on biodiversity, mountains, deserts and grasslands, and geological features. Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive in 2010 witii funding from UNEP-WCIVIC, Cambridge littp://www.arcliive.org/details/globaloverviewof97glob . 31 TABLE OF CONTE>rrS PAGE I. Executive Summary (e/f) II. Introduction 1 III. Tables & Figures Table 1 . Natural World Heritage sites with primary wetland and marine values 1 Table 2. Natural World Heritage sites with secondary wetland and marine values 12 Table 3. Natural World Heritage sites inscribed primarily for their freshwater wetland values 1 Table 4. Additional natural World Heritage sites with significant freshwater wetland values 14 Tables. Natural World Heritage sites with a coastal/marine component 15 Table 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity and Management of the Madrean Archipelago
    )I This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. A Classification System and Map of the Biotic Communities of North America David E. Brown, Frank Reichenbacher, and Susan E. Franson 1 Abstract.-Biotic communities (biomes) are regional plant and animal associations within recognizable zoogeographic and floristic provinces. Using the previous works and modified terminology of biologists, ecologists, and biogeographers, we have developed an hierarchical classification system for the world's biotic communities. In use by the Arid Ecosystems Resource Group of the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and other Southwest agencies, this classification system is formulated on the limiting effects of moisture and temperature minima on the structure and composition of vegetation while recognizing specific plant and animal adaptations to regional environments. To illustrate the applicability of the classification system, the Environmental Protection Agency has funded the preparation of a 1: 10,000,000 color map depicting the major upland biotic communities of North America using an ecological color scheme that shows gradients in available plant moisture, heat, and cold. Digitized and computer compatible, this hierarchical system facilitates biotic inventory and assessment, the delineation and stratification of habitats, and the identification of natural areas in need of acquisition, Moreover, the various categories of the classification are statistically testable through the use of existing climatic data, and analysis of plant and animal distributions. Both the classification system and map are therefore of potential use to those interested in preserving biotic diversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Grasslands of the Palaearctic Biogeographic Realm: Introduction and Synthesis
    Grasslands of the Palaearctic Biogeographic Realm: Introduction and Synthesis Jürgen Dengler, Vegetation Ecology, Institute of Natural Resource Management (IUNR), Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW), Wädenswil, Switzerland; Plant Ecology, Bayreuth Center of Ecology and Environmental Research (BayCEER), University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany; German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany Idoia Biurrun, Plant Biology and Ecology, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Bilbao, Spain Steffen Boch, WSL Swiss Federal Research Institute, Birmensdorf, Switzerland Iwona Dembicz, Vegetation Ecology, Institute of Natural Resource Management (IUNR), Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW), Wädenswil, Switzerland; Department of Plant Ecology and Environmental Conservation, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland Péter Török, MTA-DE Lendület Functional and Restoration Ecology Research Group, Debrecen, Hungary; Department of Ecology, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. This chapter was solicited and edited by Jürgen Dengler and Péter Török on behalf of the Eurasian Dry Grassland Group (EDGG). Introduction 1 Delimitation and Physical Geography of the Region 6 Origin and Extent of the Grasslands 6 Definition and Types of Grasslands 6 Spatial Extent of Grasslands in the Palaearctic 8 Biodiversity of Palaearctic Grasslands 9 Biodiversity Hotspots and Diversity of Taxa in General 9 Exceptional Biodiversity at Small Spatial Scales 9 Factors Influencing Alpha Diversity of Grasslands 13 Species-Area Relationships and Beta Diversity 14 Threats and Conservation 15 Overall Threat Assessment 15 Individual Threat Factors 15 Conservation and Restoration of Grasslands 19 References 19 Abstract Grasslands are spontaneously occurring herbaceous vegetation types that are mostly dominated by grasses or other grami- noids and have usually >10% herb-layer cover, while woody species area absent or have a significantly lower abundance than the herbs.
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecoregion Conservation
    Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecoregion Conservation An Integrated Approach to Conserving the World’s Biological and Cultural Diversity Written by Gonzalo Oviedo (WWF International) and Luisa Maffi (Terralingua). Parts II and III written by Peter Bille Larsen (WWF International) with contributions from Gonzalo Oviedo and Luisa Maffi. The views expressed in this paper are not necessarily those of WWF or Terralingua. Any inaccuracies remain the responsibility of the authors. The material and the geographical designations in this report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WWF concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Editing and layout: Tim Davis Coordination of publication: Diwata Olalia Hunziker Cover photographs: Top (l-r): Sing-sing (Sinasina, Papua New Guinea), WWF/Panda Photo/M. Pala; Itelmen (Russia), Viktor Nikiforov; Himba/Zemba (Namibia), WWF-Canon/John E. Newby. Middle: Kayapo (Brazil), WWF/Mauri Rautkari. Bottom: Koryak (Russia), Kevin Schafer ISBN 2-88085-247-1 Published November 2000 by WWF-World Wide Fund For Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), 1196 Gland, Switzerland. Any reproduction in full or in part of this publication must mention the title and credit the above-mentioned publisher as the copyright owner. © text 2000 WWF Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecoregion Conservation An Integrated Approach to Conserving the World’s Biological and Cultural Diversity WWF International – Terralingua Gland, Switzerland "The power to act has moved away from governments, and... the real force for environmental improvement lies with people...
    [Show full text]
  • Situation Analysis for Mangroves for the Future: Understanding the Resilience of Coastal Systems
    Situation analysis for Mangroves for the Future: Understanding the resilience of coastal systems Melita Samoilys1, George Waweru Maina1, Julie Church1, Brigid Mibei1, Marta Monjane2, Abdulla Shah2, Doris Mutta3 and Mine Pabari2 1. CORDIO East Africa 2. IUCN 3. Nairobi Convention Secretariat (UNEP) March 2013 1 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction and background The purpose of this situation analysis is to better understand ecological and social coastal systems in Eastern Africa with a view to identifying key areas and effective strategies through which MFF can contribute to the conservation, restoration and sustainable management of coastal ecosystems as key natural infrastructure which support human well-being, resilience and security (see Fig.1). More specifically, the analysis has attempted to address the following questions: A. To what extent are coastal systems1 able to be resilient2 to global change (eg. climate) so as to enable sustainable development3? B. What are the key factors affecting the resilience (illustrated in Fig. 1) of coastal systems?; C. How effective are current responses to vulnerability at local, national and regional levels? The approach of this study was largely a desk based review but was framed within an resilience-based analytical framework (Figure 1). Thus published papers and reports were interrogated using this framework to try and distil the most relevant information to a) understand the resilience of the coastal systems, both ecological and socio- economic, and b) help direct attention and focus on key areas to which MFF-WIO can contribute, either geographically or through socio-political processes. Global change is defined here for this review as changes caused by increasing greenhouse gas emissions resulting in a high CO2 world and the direct and indirect changes that ensue.
    [Show full text]
  • A Spatial Analysis Approach to the Global Delineation of Dryland Areas of Relevance to the CBD Programme of Work on Dry and Subhumid Lands
    A spatial analysis approach to the global delineation of dryland areas of relevance to the CBD Programme of Work on Dry and Subhumid Lands Prepared by Levke Sörensen at the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre Cambridge, UK January 2007 This report was prepared at the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC). The lead author is Levke Sörensen, scholar of the Carlo Schmid Programme of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). Acknowledgements This report benefited from major support from Peter Herkenrath, Lera Miles and Corinna Ravilious. UNEP-WCMC is also grateful for the contributions of and discussions with Jaime Webbe, Programme Officer, Dry and Subhumid Lands, at the CBD Secretariat. Disclaimer The contents of the map presented here do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP-WCMC or contributory organizations. The designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP-WCMC or contributory organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area or its authority, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. 3 Table of contents Acknowledgements............................................................................................3 Disclaimer ...........................................................................................................3 List of tables, annexes and maps .....................................................................5 Abbreviations
    [Show full text]
  • The Living Planet Index: Using Species Population Time Series to Track Trends in Biodiversity Jonathan Loh1,*, Rhys E
    Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2005) 360, 289–295 doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1584 Published online 28 February 2005 The Living Planet Index: using species population time series to track trends in biodiversity Jonathan Loh1,*, Rhys E. Green2, Taylor Ricketts3, John Lamoreux3, Martin Jenkins4, Valerie Kapos4 and Jorgen Randers5 1WWF International, Avenue du Mont-Blanc CH-1196, Gland, Switzerland 2RSPB and Conservation Biology Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK 3Conservation Science Program, WWF-US, 1250 Twenty-fourth Street, NW, Washington DC 20037, USA 4UNEP-WCMC, Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK 5Norwegian School of Management, Elias Smiths vei 15, Box 580 N-1302, Sandvika, Norway The Living Planet Index was developed to measure the changing state of the world’s biodiversity over time. It uses time-series data to calculate average rates of change in a large number of populations of terrestrial, freshwater and marine vertebrate species. The dataset contains about 3000 population time series for over 1100 species. Two methods of calculating the index are outlined: the chain method and a method based on linear modelling of log-transformed data. The dataset is analysed to compare the relative representation of biogeographic realms, ecoregional biomes, threat status and taxonomic groups among species contributing to the index. The two methods show very similar results: terrestrial species declined on average by 25% from 1970 to 2000. Birds and mammals are over-represented in comparison with other vertebrate classes, and temperate species are over-represented compared with tropical species, but there is little difference in representation between threatened and non-threatened species.
    [Show full text]
  • Biomes User Guide
    Biomes USER GUIDE Biomes User Guide Introduction Biomes are a way of delineating large-scale ecological variations. They are characterised by broad vegetation groups, which in turn are dependent on the temperature and precipitation of the particular region1. It is common to see various areas share a common biome, but the difference in ecozone climate results in differing vegetational composition. Biomisation techniques carry unique interpretations and are not merely limited to vegetation zoning. For instance, Walter (1974) has taken bioclimatic classification and in turn further subdivided the zones based upon pedagogy2. Other work by Whittaker (1976) has classified biomes based on climatic and intertidal levels3. EDINA’s biome products are based on the Olsen et al. (2001) bioclimatic classification scheme which was developed for the WWF Global 200 project4. The project aims to identify and classify terrestrial, marine, and freshwater units into biogeographical realms, biomes and ecoregions (areas hosting distinct biodiversity)5. In doing so, it allows organisations and academics to understand and assess conservation priorities. There are 30 biomes in total, of which 14 belong to the terrestrial realm. Only terrestrial biomes are used for our products due to the availability of data5. This user guide will take you through an overview of the data, the methods behind the creation of the geographical outputs, and their various potential uses. Data The biomes layer is sourced from the Project 200 website4 as a shapefile. The native data is presented in vector format and projected in Geographic Coordinate System WGS 84. The integrated dataset was built such that it provided a comprehensive and large-scale overview of biogeographic variation, as made clear from the 12 attribute fields in the original file6.
    [Show full text]