Quantitative projection of plant species
loss for 1697 taxa of Japanese
vascular plants and its implication for
achieving the 2010 biodiversity target
Matsuda H (Yokohama Nat’l U),
Yahara T (Kyushu U. COE),
Fujita T (Nature Conservation
Society of Japan)
Acknowledgment: Threatened
Species
Committee
of
Japanese Society of Plant
Taxonomists
EIA for Japan World Exposition 2005
1
Build Process of Red List
Select ca. 2,100 species to investigate by the committee
Investigate by >530 amateur investigators in ‘90s & ‘00s
Taxonomists are Endangered
Calculate the extinct risk & Compile the tentative list
Discuss by the committee & considering with all raw data
Expert judgment by taxonomists
Decide & publish the list of threatened species
2
Threatened plant database in Japan
Database contents
• Candidate taxa: 1,972 taxa
• Field investigations in 1994-1995 and
2003-2004
• Unit of investigation: 10×10km2 map
grids
• Area: 3,781 map grids covered
84.8 % in Japan
• Participant: over 530 amateurs and
botanists
• Records: 34,662 raw data
Recorded species
per grid
No data
0
1-4
5-8
9 - 21
22 - 28
29 - 36
37 - 46
47 - 62
63 - 84
85 - 108
3
Questionnaire items
Species name
ヒメフトモモ
フトモモ
父島
Name of map grid
Syzygium cleyerifolium
父島
10~49
Population size
52,23,11
父島東平
2004.5.10
藤田卓
MAK
2004
5
Categorical data
10
藤田卓
ヤギの食害が著しい、
また、公園造成のために
２個体群が絶滅した
Decline rate
during last decade
Factors driving
population declines
52, 23, 11
Date & Name of investigators etc.
1/10~1/2
4
Database of each species
ex) Bupleurum scorzoneraefolium var. stenophyllum
セリ科ミシマサイコ
Transition during two surveys
Distribution
EOO*：present 5500km2
Population size: ca. 10,000
Decline rate: 35% per 10 years
* EOO = Extent of Occurrence
5
Definition of decline rate using the same
population in twice investigations
6
Extinction risk calculated by
Monte Carlo simulation for each species
Present
Distribution of
population size
100 101 102 103
Randomly select
following
distribution of
decline rate
Distribution of decline
rates over the last 10 years
Next
10 years
100 101 102 103
Extinct
Next
20 yeas
100 101 102 103
7
Projected individuals for 10000
independent iterations
Population size
ex) Bupleurum scorzoneraefolium var. stenophyllum
Year after the present
8
The cumulative extinction risk &
criterion E of Redlist Category of IUCN
Cumulative extinction probability
ex) Bupleurum scorzoneraefolium var. stenophyllum
CR
28% after 100 years
EN
VU
Vulnerable
on Criteria E
Year after the present
9
Criteria & Categories
We followed by IUCN’s Redlist Criteria ver.3.1
except for 1) Criterion B is not applied in Japan
 Endemic species in small islands are abundant.
2) Criteria priority E > A, C, D for species with adequate data
(The criteria priority is not used by IUCN)
 Criterion E is essential risk assessment
For example,,,,,
Bupleurum scorzoneraefolium var. stenophyllum (VU)
Habitat area
EOO
VU(B1)
Euonymus boninensis (VU)
of AOO*
*AOO = Area of occupation (grid of 1km2)
10
IUCN基準と環境省植物RDB
Reduction rate per decade
IUCN criteria and Japanese plant RDB
SBT
Bellflower
Current Population size現存個体数
11
IUCN's credibility critically
endangered.
• Mrosovsky N (1997) Nature 389:436
• IUCN’s recommendations are based on
sound and open science. Recent events
suggest that this is not always the case.
12
Improve Credibility & Datasets of
Japanese Vascular Plant Redlist
Number of species adopted each criteria in Japan.
Criteria
A
B
C
RDB2000
3
0
114
636 571
341
0
66
506 941
406
RL2007*
D
E
ACD
By expert judgment of plant taxonomists
By Monte Carlo Simulation
13
Application of RDB database to
Environment Impact Assessment
• Matsuda H, Serizawa S, Ueda K, Kato T,
Yahara T (2003) Extinction Risk Assessment
of Vascular Plants in the 2005 World
Exposition, Japan. Chemosphere 53(4): 325336.
• Oka T, Matsuda H, Kadono Y (2001)
Ecological risk-benefit analysis of a wetland
development based on risk assessment
using `expected loss of biodiversity'. Risk
Analysis 21: 1011-1023.
14
絶滅までの平均待ち時間
Mean time to extinction
• T(N, R) = -10.1 - 8.9 log(N)/log(1-R),
–N:population size, R:decline
rate
–If N decreased to N-N1, impact
is 1/T(N,R)-1/T(N-N1,R)
15
2005年愛知万博
World Exposition 2005, Japan
シデコブシ
star magnolia
会場予定地 海上の森
(planned site, Kaisho Forest)
In 1996, the planned number of participants changed
from 0.4 to 0.25 million to conserve a big habitat of
threatened star magnolia.
16
絶滅危惧種への影響の大きさ
impact on threatened species
7: star magnolia
Symbol of Kaisho
Forest
12: Salvia isensis
シマジタムラソウ
Sp.
12
RDB
VU
R
0.59
N1
4370
N2
447
Np
>1000
Ng
10
T0
84
(1/T)
510-5
logT
0.004
13
VU
0.46
137
31
1000
40
128
210-6
310-4
19
VU
0.68
1721
108
7000
20
77
210-6
210-4
4
EN
0.84
31
18
2000
20
38
310-6
110-4
7
VU
0.29
1554
140
10000
20
302
310-7
910-5
25
nt
0.35
1888
681
100000
60
274
210-7
410-5
3
EN
0.85
13
9
4000
10
40
710-7
310-5
26
nt
0.48
64
41
10000
50
156
110-7
210-5
23
nt
0.38
711
88
30000
60
229
910-8
210-5
5
EN
0.74
2
1
2000
20
56
910-8
510-6
20
VU
0.62
2
1
3000 100
88
310-8
310-6
24
nt
0.31
127
33
316
110-8
410-6
60000
50
17
中池見液化天然ガス基地
LNG plant project in Nakaikemi wetland
• 希少種の宝庫にLNG基地計画
– LNG plant in hotspot of rare species
• 放置しても失われる二次的自然
–the secondary natural
life that has been
occationally maintained by rice field
18
2つの極端な前提
2 extreme scenarios
• 事業者努力で維持
–Maintained by company’s effort
–Biodiversity will be lost due to
natural succession in abandoned
rice field
• 事業によって消失
–Lost by LNG plant construction
19
多様性損失指数
Expected loss of biodiversity
• ELB = B (1/T)
＝生物多様性貢献度
×絶滅リスク上昇
Contribution of biodiversity
×increment of extinction risk
20
多様性貢献度＝系統樹の損失
B=loss of phylogenic tree
• 4億年前に維管束植物出現
– vascular plants appeared 400million years
ago
• ΣELB=9200 years
– 9200年の歴史の喪失
– loss of 9200yrs history
21
How long linage is lost by extinction?
系統樹の長さによる多様度
Weitzman ML(1992) Quart.J.Econ.107:363-406.
la
lab
A
B
labcd
C
lcd
ld
D
• Importance of phylogenically isolated
species (ld>la)
22
Phylogeny of fern plants
(Hasebe et al 1995 Am Fern J)
Phylogeny of seed plants
(Chase et al. 1993)
23
Mathematical approximation
fk(n): The number of phylogenetic trees in which a species A
has k nodes between itself and the root of the upper taxons
when there are n species within the taxon.
E[1/(m+k)]: the expected value of the reciprocal of the
number of nodes between the terminal node for species A
and the root of the whole node
=
24
loss of 9200 years of evo-history
(Oka, Matsuda, Kadono 2001 Risk Anal. 21)
Species name
rank
N
logN
Nｇ
1-R
T
log(1/T)
logB
ELB
Eusteralis yatabeana
VU
>100
3.7
17
76%
36
-3.45
6.5
1214
Najas japonica
EN
?
3.3
29
80%
38
-3.81
7.1
1782
Trapa i nci sa
VU
>1000
3.6
50
55%
85
-3.85
7.1
1755
Monochoria korsakowii
VU
>1000
3.9
52
68%
56
-4.18
7.1
802
Marsilea quadrifolia
VU
>100
4.3
51
87%
32
-4.19
7.3
1254
Prenanthes tanakae
VU
>100
4.1
98
49%
120
-4.29
6.3
108
Persicaria foliosa
VU
>10
3.8
33
62%
54
-4.37
6.9
303
Azolla japonica
VU
>1000
4.8
80
75%
53
-4.39
7.5
1267
Sparganium japoinica
NT
<10
4.4
114
34%
202
-4.96
7.1
139
Isoetes japonica
VU
>100
4.4
149
58%
90
-5.05
7.5
261
Iris laevigata
VU
>100
4.4
81
54%
102
-5.20
6.8
40
Salvinia natans
VU
>100
4.7
104
77%
55
-5.24
7.5
161
Sagittaria aginashi
NT
>100
4.8
128
40%
162
-5.36
7.0
49
Sparganium erectum
NT
>100
4.6
148
38%
185
-5.72
7.1
24
Habenaria sagittifera
VU
>100
4.1
121
61%
82
-5.83
6.3
3
25
Crisis of Japanese vascular flora
demonstrated by quantifying
extinction risks for 1696 plant taxa
Introduction
Risk assessment → Estimating Future Extinction
+ Hotspot analysis → Setting priority for conservation
26
Number of Japanese Vascular Plants in
each Red List Category
Category
RDB2000 RL2007
Extinct (EX)
20
33
Extinct in the wild (EW)
5
14
Critically Endangered (CR)
564
523
Endangered (EN)
480
491
Vulnerable (VU)
621
676
Near Threatened (NT)
145
255
Data Deficient (DD)
52
32
Total of threatened taxa
1665
1690
Candidate taxa for RL
ca.2000
2072
Native Vascular Plants in Japan
ca.7000
ca.7000
27
Transition during two surveys
• More populations and taxa decline than increase
(sign test, p<0.001)
28
Past & Future Extinction in Japan
Past
Number of indigenous
flora in Japan
10
8
6
4
7000
ほぼ絶滅
CR(PE*)
EX or野生絶滅
EW
絶滅・
2
0
19
20
19
30
19
40
19
50
19
60
19
70
19
80
19
90
20
00
不
明
No of extinction
種数
14
12
Future
6800
6600
6400
6200
Endemic species loss
Non-endemic species loss
6000
Year
Extinction rates
(per decade)
553
Extinct
7.9%
Year
8.6 species
55.3 species
6.3-times larger
*PE = Probably extinct (no report of extant grids)
29
Significant and largely irreversible
changes to species diversity
– Humans have increased the
species extinction rate by as
much as 1,000 times over
background rates typical over
the planet’s history (medium
certainty)
– 10–30% of mammal, bird, and
amphibian species are
currently threatened with
extinction (medium to high
certainty)
30
MA 2005
Scheme of Ecosystem
Japan-SGAAssessment
Scheme of Millennium
Human Well-being
Indirect DFs
•Security
•Basic material…
•Health
•Good relationship…
•Freedom of choice..
•
•
•
•
•
Demographic (Urbanization, Ageing)
Economic (motorization, globalization)
Sociopolitical
Cultural & Religious (rice, oil)
Science-Technology (information)
Japan NSBAP*
Ecosystem S.
•Biodiversity
•Supporting S.
•Provisioning S.
•Regulating S.
•Cultural S.
1.
2.
3.
•
Over-use
Direct DFs
Under-use
A) Habitat change
Disturbance
A’) mozaic structure
Climate ChangeB) Climate change
C) Invasive species
D) Over-exploitatin
Over-exploitation
E) Pollution
F) Under-use
*NSBAP=Nat’l Strategy for Biodiversity and Action Plan
31
Increase of Japanese forest by
volume (draft JBO 2009)
32
JBO = Japan Biodiversity Outlook by Japan Ministry of Environment
Japan Ministry of Environment
Draft Japan Biodiversity Outlook 2009
33
Satoyama/Satoumi Sub-global Assessment
for Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
(to appear for CBD/CoP10 by UN Univ., Tokyo)
Matsuda et al (draft): In Japan,
• The rate of biodiversity loss did not
decrease until 2007, at least in vascular
plants. (CBD 2010 target is not achieved)
• Natural succession by under-use is one of
major factors of biodiversity loss;
• Climate change is not recognized as a
major factor of biodiversity.
34
Hotspots of future extinction
in the next 100 years
Expectation of
Extinction
Next 100 years
E135゜
0-1
1-5
6 - 10
11 - 15
16 - 20
21 - 25
26 - 30
31 - 35
36 - 40
• Extinction is observed over the
country
• Remote Islands could be
Hotspot of threat
N35゜
N27゜
E142゜
How many reserves should be
required for conservation of all
threatened plants?
35
How to choose hotspot
based on the idea of Complimentarity
Choose fewest number of hotspots that include all threatened species
（Margules ＆ Pressey 2000）
Step 1: Count the number of threatened species in each grid
Step 2: Choose a grid that include the largest number of threatened species as hotspot
Step 3: Count the number of threatened species that do not exist in the hotspots
Step 4: Iterate step 2 and 3 until the all threatened species are included.
Grid
species
Example
1
2
3
x
x
x
B
x
x
C
x
A
D
# spp.
4
x
1
3
2
1) Choose grid 2
2) Choose grid 4
Grids 2 & 4 include
all species A-D.
1
1
36
How many reserves should be required
for conservation?
-Complementarity analysis (Margules,C.R & Pressey,R.L., 2000)-
Number of extinctions
in next 100 years
Maximizing the number of species conserved with the minimum land
100
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
251
(5.6%)
50
0
0 20 50
100
150
200
(0.4%)Number of conserved grids
250
300 Japan includes
4457grids
・ half of the taxa : 20 grids（0.4% in Japan） were required
・ All threatened taxa: 251 grids （5.4% in Japan） were required
37
http://www.pref.kagoshima.jp/sangyo-rodo/rinsui/shinrin/syuryo/shuryokaikin.html
Shooting-ban area
<5%
<5%
National Forest
<5%
Strict W.P.A.
<1%
0%
<1%
<10%
<1%
<70%
<50%
>70%
<50%
<50%
<20%
<50%
>70%
<10%
<10%
0%
<10%
<70%
<20%
<50%
0%
<10%
0%
Wildlife
Protected Area
World Natural
Heritage Site
Wilderness 38
Area
How many reserves should be required
for conservation?
-Complementarity analysis (Margules,C.R & Pressey,R.L., 2000)-
100
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
251
(5.6%)
50
0
0 20 50
100
150
200
(0.4%)Number of conserved grids
250
Ratio of
Conservation Area ％
(National park etc..)
Number of extinctions
in next 100 years
Maximizing the number of species conserved with the minimum land
300 Japan includes
4457grids
・ half of the taxa : 20 grids（0.4% in Japan） were required
・ All threatened taxa: 251 grids （5.4% in Japan） were required
39
Thank you for invitation!
Plant Red Data Book
I like to do real time case
studies with field ecologists!
Pelagic fish management
EXPO2005 at Aichi,
Revision of RDB
Mainichi Shimbun
Bear management
Shiretoko World Heritage
FSNRI
Deer management
N. Ishii
Windfirm birdstrikes
Mongoose eradication
program at Amami Island
H.M. at Shiretoko
40 40
40

スライド 1

Preliminary Auction List