application of gis to biodiversity monitoringapplication of gis to biodiversity monitoring b. b....

Journal of Arid Environments (2003) 54: 91–114doi:10.1006/jare.2001.0887

01

Application of GIS to biodiversity monitoring

B. B. Salem

Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, AlexandriaUniversity, 21511 Moharram Bey, Alexandria, Egypt

Recently, there has been a revolution in the availability of information and inthe development and application of tools for managing information. Informa-tion needs for biodiversity are many and varied. Any database that deals withbiodiversity information has to be geographically based, and able to predictwhere new populations of endangered species with a limited known rangemight be expected, indicating potential hot spots. An important tool formonitoring biodiversity is a geographic information system (GIS), whichaccommodates large varieties of spatial and aspatial (attribute) data. Theinformation embedded in a GIS is used to target surveys and monitoringschemes. Data on species and habitat distribution from different datesallow monitoring of the location and the extent of change. This paper discussesissues related to (a) the need for biodiversity information and databases, (b) theimportance of national information strategies, and (c) the application of GIS asa tool in monitoring biodiversity, and (d) a case study of a GIS-based approachapplied to endangered arboreal species in Egypt. It applies the overlay analysisof maps of endangered plant species’ ranges onto the maps of protected areas(declared and proposed). The output is threefold: (a) a complete database ofendangered arboreal species as they are listed in the Egyptian Plant Red DataBook (El-Hadidi et al., 1991) and their spatial distribution, (b) the relativecontribution index for each of the protected areas (proposed and declared) inthe conservation of the biodiversity of threatened arboreal species in Egypt, (c)a gap analysis that identifies the areas in need of conservation, and (d) anillustration of the relationship between the location of arboreal species and thelocation of internationally important bird areas.

� 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: biodiversity; conservation; protected areas; databases; geographicinformation system (GIS); endangered species; gap analysis; hot spots

Background

Assessing information needs for biodiversity conservation

Over the last few years, there has been a revolution in the availability of information andin the development and application of tools for managing information (Harrison, 1995).Organizations and countries are being drawn into the so-called information ‘superhighway’. Assessing the need for biodiversity information has been addressed bymanagers of protected areas, scientists, decision makers, researchers and many others.Protected area managers meeting at the Fourth World Parks Congress recognized thatindividuals and organizations involved in protected areas’ work need better informationfor making decisions (IUCN, 1993). They also recognized that information on protected

40}1963/03/010091#24 $30.00/0 � 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd.

92 B. B. SALEM

areas must be equally accessible to all interested parties and integrated with other relevantinformation. They made a range of recommendations concerning the need for betterinformation and information management practice. Also, in its inaugural meeting, held atthe National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development (NCWCD) inRiyadh, 9–10 June 1996, the Arabian Plant Specialist Group (APSG), identified a numberof problems facing botanists and conservationists working in the region. The mostimportant of these were that the availability of information on the distribution andoccurrence of plant species across the region was inadequate, that there was no networkingbetween botanists in the region, and that there was a lack of a centralized organization.

Information needs for biodiversity are many and varied, and the state of knowledge is alltoo often unsatisfactory for proper evaluations to be made (Heywood, 1997). The absenceof reliable information and, consequently, sound assessments can have the most seriousconsequences for the understanding of biodiversity, and for the development of indicatorsand indices which allow changes and trends to be monitored and changed over time.Modern technology now makes it possible for electronic management of these kinds ofbiodiversity data to be carried out by biodiversity developers working with alreadydeveloped computer technology. Many methodologies exist for characterizing biodiver-sity, and an extensive knowledge base is generated by research on wild biodiversity rangingfrom population genetics to ecology. These research efforts have resulted in the disci-pline of conservation biology, which now provides the research methodology to supportan elaborate global system of protected areas and national parks.

The best conservation strategy should integrate the available methods and the betteruse of existing information in a complementary manner. This information is needed todevelop model strategies for different species. Users require biodiversity informa-tion on the context within which and the issues on which they need to focus. They wantoptions backed by documents, maps and expert opinion.

These data will be in the form of text documents, tabular databases, spatial databases(locations), image files (satellite images), and so on, and will include topographic,environmental, species, administrative, socioeconomic and other themes. The role ofgeographical information system (GISs) is to integrate and analyse all these forms of datafor assessment and monitoring purposes. International agencies such as UNEP and theInternational Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) have been working in thisarea for many years. Also, individual nations are building systems, e.g. ERIN in Australia.Another example is the initiative of UNEP in collaboration with the World ConservationMonitoring System (WCMC) who designed and submitted to the Global EnvironmentFacility (GEF) a project proposal entitled ‘Biodiversity data management capacitation indeveloping countries and networking biodiversity information (BDM)’. This project wasapproved in June 1994. Its overall objective is to enhance the capacity of developingcountries for data management to support the implementation of the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD). A diversity information system should support the assessmentand monitoring processes by providing the data needed to describe current environmentalbaseline conditions, identify the species and habitats at greatest risk, guide land managementdecisions, and model the effects of alternative conservation policies (Davis et al., 1990).Given the increasing demand for information on the status of biological diversity, many arerealizing the need for improved information systems (Davis et al, 1990).

National information strategies

The 1992 CBO, signed by 175 countries, reflects the global consensus on the import-ance of biodiversity in maintaining the planet’s life-sustaining systems. Yet, traditionalreactive approaches will not suffice if the complex biodiversity conservation chal-lenges are to be confronted successfully. All too often, conservationists, scientists, anddecision makers face major threats to biodiversity only after potentially manageablesituations have solidified into intractable losses.

APPLICATION OF GIS TO BIODIVERSITY 93

As the majority of countries have now signed the Convention on Biodiversity (UNEP,1992), these countries are committed to this convention that explicitly recognizes thatthe conservation of biological diversity requires the development and implementation ofnational strategies and action plans (Article 6). In turn, development of these strategiesand action plans requires the development of improved mechanisms for informationcollection and management (Article 7), since without adequate information, it is dif-ficult to develop effective strategies and action plans, and without information onthe implementation of these plans, it is impossible to monitor how well they areimplemented and what adjustments are necessary. Nations, therefore, have the motiva-tion to develop national information management strategies (needs, sources, means ofcollection, management and accessibility). No country yet has a perfect informationmanagement system, with appropriate information available to whomever needs it(Harrison, 1995), but there have been significant developments.

Article 7 of the CBD commits each contracting party ‘as far as possible and asappropriate’ to identify components of biological diversity important for its ‘conservationand sustainable use’ (UNEP, 1992). In order for a country to comply fully with this article,it is necessary to inventory the organisms present within their territories (country studies).An inventory is a prerequisite for assessments of conservation status and sustainableutilization, and for prescribing appropriate actions. A particular value of inventories is toidentify organisms which can be used as bio-indicators of ecosystem health and provideearly warning of changes in protected and other areas (Hawsksworth, 1992). In order tomaintain an appropriately balanced equilibrium between human population, ecosystemsand the many forms of economic development, it is necessary to know which activities arealready affecting the natural resources upon which economies are based beforechanges become irreversible. No country has a comprehensive species list for any of thespecies-rich groups, and furthermore, the costs of undertaking the preparation of sucha list, which generally requires work from ground zero, will generally be prohibitive.However, for organisms that have been selected as priorities for inventorying, ascertainingwhat is already known in the country is the essential first step. Data sources available toaddress the above task fall into five categories. These are (1) nomenclatures, or cataloguescovering the literature of organisms names including countries of origin and updatingissues; nomenclatures enable new species names based on material from a particularcountry to be ascertained, which is of special interest for conservation purposes as some ofthese may be endemic; (2) checklists and biotas (floras and faunas), which are com-plementary tools that provide a basis for a full account of species including descriptionsand keys; (3) reference collection, which provides the only verifiable source of theaccuracy of reports of particular species in a country in the form of specimens preserved inreference collections within a country; (4) unpublished reports, such as field notes andrecords, reports degree. Theses, etc., which can all be sources of additional information;and (5) indigenous knowledge on biota, which has hardly been tapped; indigenous peoplemay also have particular knowledge of endangered species within a country or region,which can increase the level of awareness of conservation biologists. It is, therefore,necessary to spread awareness of the need to treat biological resources as capital assets andinvest accordingly to prevent their depletion.

In all five categories, a GIS has a role in analysing, measuring, locating and planningfor monitoring and assessment. This issue will be dealt with in more detail later.Biosystematic data of all kinds arising from national inventory programs first need to beincorporated into national GIS databases and made accessible to the widest possibleaudience, e.g. scientists, health workers, crop protection specialists, ecologists andconservationists, decision makers and local people. The addition of the geographicdimension to the database in the form of GISs, provides another perspective to the data,and contributes effectively to enhancing the conservation of biodiversity by provid-ing integration of information in spatial overlays that are readily available on soft media(i.e. maps and images) for analysis and interpretation, and viewing.

94 B. B. SALEM

Biodiversity databases

No survey of the conceptual aspects of assessing biological diversity is complete withoutconsideration of how the effort is being deployed, and how the emerging informa-tion will be organized. Internationally, there are two significant obstacles to progress inthe scientific study of biodiversity: (1) the inadequate size and inappropriate location ofthe work force with appropriate biosystematic skills; and (2) the state and location of thecollections and literature database. Databases must be widely available and user friendly.Current efforts for international cooperation and coordination are highly neededand should be accelerated, so that common formats are increasingly agreed upon andused. Databases need to be compiled using CD-ROM, which can store images oftype-specimens and 3-D hologram images. Aims should be directed towards integratingand combining synoptic databases with computerized keys. In this way, the laboriousand time-consuming tasks of identifying species and assessing which species amonga new collection have previously been recorded, could be made faster. To accomplishthis goal of developing overall species information, the data perspective should bebroadened and the overall flow from data capture to analysis and management should beconsidered and added to the content of a GIS database in order to provide spatial andattribute data.

Technical scientists working in the field of conservation of biodiversity are examiningthe needs and opportunities for information flows in support of world priorities inbiodiversity. Increasingly, information flows through electronic networks, particularlythe internet and supporting tools such as the World Wide Web (WWW). Solutions tokey issues such as priority environmental data sets, standards, metadata and custodian-ship, and developments in tools for data management, analysis and visualization are welladvanced. Using the ability of available internet tools to develop innovative ways ofcarrying out traditional tasks, i.e. writing taxonomic descriptions, and publishing books,reports and journals, virtual libraries and referral collections, speeds up work in biodiver-sity conservation. Digital documents, besides having embedded figures and tables, mayhave the added power of multimedia and hypertext links to items distributed broadlyaround in the world. Also, the widespread and increasing use of Internet-based tech-nologies for information sharing and dissemination makes use of sound conceptualframeworks for data and information exchange. Indeed, with the surfeit of data andinformation on the internet, one of the greatest challenges will be to extract relevantinformation (Stein, 1997). The challenge is to better integrate environmental informa-tion into decision making processes at all levels of society, from international prioritysetting, through government policy makers, to decisions made by management agenciesand resource users such as individual farmers or fishermen. The answer is: the flow andexchange of data and information via the internet.

It is also worth mentioning that the organization of the background event-basedhypertext markup language (HTML) (an internet language) documents and all the sortsof aggregate derivative information, has a multitude of interesting consequences andopportunities for conserved wildlands. Any given conserved wildland encompassesa very complex and very large package of information, manifest in the organisms andtheir interactions (Janzen & Gamez, 1997). The task is to extract that information ina timely and effective manner, and in a usable format. National human resourcesare the key to the information extraction process. Full integration with the ‘taxasphere’(the guild of taxonomists and their goals, their supporting institutions, and theireconomic relationships) is the secret to maximum-value added (Janzen, 1993). In CostaRica, the realization of these processes has taken the form of an All Taxa BiodiversityInventory (ATBI), of the Guanacaste Conservation Area (GCA) by the InstitutoNacional Biodiversidad (INBio) and the GCA. The seven-year goal is to use the ATBIas a protocol to integrate 120,000 ha of highly diverse wildlands in northwestern CostaRica into the national plan to become a sustainable integrated complex of wildland


conserved for non-damaging use, a healthy and livable agroscape, and an urban worldsupported by, and supporting, land use. The ATBI is available to HTML-literate wordprocessors, image scanners, relational databases, editors, data-to-internet translation ap-plications, global positioning system (GPS) units, GIS application, etc. Costa Rica hasachieved the task of putting wildland biodiversity to work, and of integrating a conservedwildland with its own and the global society, and has proved that these tasks are not socomplex that they must wait for further development of human and technical resources.

GIS for assessing and monitoring biodiversity

An aspect of nature conservation that deserves special attention in the context of GIS, isanalysis, measurement and planning related to biodiversity (Aspinall, 1995). A GISplays an important role as a tool for environmental management, with the current greaterconcern for sustainable use of resources, and conservation and monitoring of biodiver-sity. The most widely used definition of GIS is ‘a computer-based system that captures,stores, manages, analyses, and displays georeferenced data (geographic data)’. Manydata relating to environmental and ecological systems have been collected and stored informs suited to management and analysis using GIS (Aspinall, 1995). Reserve pres-ence/absence data for biota have been recorded at biological records centers andmapped to indicate and monitor the geographic ranges or other limits on differentspecies. Records of species or habitat can be stored in a database and mapped to showwhere they occur. This geographic information can be used to target surveys andmonitoring schemes (Marqules & Austin, 1991). Data on species or habitat distributionfrom different dates allow monitoring of the location of change (where) to beidentified and the extent (how much) measured. The variety of data potentially able tobe entered into a GIS is large (Maguire et al., 1991). These data are in differentforms and are either aspatial or spatial. Aspatial data include tables of measurements,species and habitat, attributes, photographs, videos, sound, etc. Spatial data includemaps, satellite imagery and aerial photographs. Maps have scales, and according toscale, information can be stored and/or extracted (Table 1). Davis et al. (1990) showsthe taxonomic, ecological and cultural variables required for assessment of biologicaldiversity and their corresponding information scales. The biological and conservationdatabases contain several major logical entities that have a geographic property or spatialcharacteristic that can be mapped. Examples are species occurrences, sites, andmanaged areas. The biological and conservation database systems also incorporategeographically hierarchical design features to support the conservation efforts atdifferent geographic scales. For examples, the conservation status of a particularspecies is rarely uniform across its range: in some places a species may be criticallyimperiled, while at a wider scale (national, regional or global), it may be secure. Thishierarchical structure, through the use of GISs, allows the setting of local priorities. Tosummarize, the GIS is associated with two different roles for a geographicalperspective on biodiversity data and other environmental issues. Firstly it containsa powerful reference base (geographic location), i.e. maps of natural vegetation (en-demic, multipurpose, and endangered), soil, land cover, topography, hydrology, birdmigration, distribution of fauna, etc. Locating features associated with their attributesallows diverse data to be combined, compared and analysed in a single database toproduce new relationships between environmental features and associations betweendifferent biota. Secondly it is a powerful and effective way of communicatinga large variety of information.

Walker & Faith (1993) developed a GIS-based approach for the analysis of biodiver-sity. This approach links species lists for different geographic locations with othergeographic data describing the locations of nature reserves and geographic variations inenvironmental conditions. The relative contribution of each nature reserve to biodiver-

Table 1. Taxonomic, ecological and cultural variables required for assessment ofbiological diversity and their corresponding information scales (after Davis, 1990)

Scale Biogeographic Regional Local

scale scale scaleAreal extent (km2) 106 104 102 10�2

Map scale rangeMaxMin

1 : 10,000,0001 : 2500,000

1 : 2500,0001 : 100,000

1: 100,0001 : 10,000

Taxon distribution Species range Species andsubspecies rangePopulationoccurrences(rare, endangered,or indicator)

Narrowly endemicspeciesPopulationoccurrencesObservational data

Habitat factors Climate typePhysiographyVegetationformation

Soil order

Climate provinceLandformVegetationseriesCommunityinteractionsSoil orderSurface geology

MicroclimateTopographyVegetationassociationCommunityinteractionsSoil seriesSurface geologyHydrology

Cultural features Dominant landuse

Administrativeboundaries

Land usePrime farmlandsLand capabilityEnergy/mineralresourcesAir/water qualityTransportationcorridorsLand ownershipNature reserves

Air/water qualityPrimary/secondaryroadsZoning

96 B. B. SALEM

sity at different geographic scales is analyzed by comparing the contribution ofspecies present in each nature reserve to the biodiversity of species represented by thenetwork of reserves. Recent developments in GISs are in the analysis modelling appliedto environmental data (Aspinall, 1995), notably predicting the distribution of wildlifespecies under present and changed environmental conditions, understanding the inter-action of habitats and other aspects of ecological infrastructure within landscapes, andinterpreting and monitoring biodiversity for use in land use planning and management.

Also, the GIS is an integral part in any biodiversity information management system(BIMS). Such systems are designed to harness the data that are available, and extract theinformation that creates the kinds of knowledge needed to truly address conservationchallenges and meet the needs of the users who may not be biodiversity specialists (e.g.decision makers). With the available tools, it is now possible to build comprehensive,integrated, biological diversity information management systems on networks (frompapers to bits). Networked information not only provides speedy answers to scientific


queries, but also broadens the universe of possible questions on the conservation andsustainable utilization of biological diversity (Canhos et al., 1998). Therefore, network-ing mechanisms are required to facilitate the sense of ‘collective’ intelligence andcooperation in order to promote approaches to solve the crisis of biodiversity conserva-tion and sustainable development. The great challenge is to integrate the use ofbiodiversity information into decision-making processes at all levels of society.

The Nature Conservancy (U.S.A.), which is an international nongovernmental or-ganization, which has its mission to preserve the plants, animals and natural communi-ties that represent the diversity of life on Earth, has long been interested in theapplication of sound scientific information for biodiversity conservation. For more than20 years this organization has been designing biodiversity management systems. TheNature Conservancy has taken a very direct, on-the-ground approach to biodiversityconservation. With habitat destruction representing one of the greatest threats tobiodiversity, the Conservancy identified sites of outstanding biological and ecologicalsignificance, and acquired them for establishment as nature reserves. In defining themost ecologically sensitive sites, the Nature Conservancy enabled available informationto be used as an early warning to avoid or minimize unnecessary damage fromdevelopment activities. This has led to the establishment of the Natural Heritage andConservation Data Center Network. Key to the success of the Nature Conservancy’’sprotection efforts is the ability to set clear conservation priorities based on goodscientific information (Stein, 1997). Given the rapid pace of technology development,and the parallel improvements in the understanding of what is needed for biodiversityconservation and monitoring, plans already are underway to design and develop the nextgeneration of the Nature Conservancy’s BIMS, which focuses on a modular, open-architecture approach with increased linkages between relational database managementtechnologies and GISs.

Generally, assessment of biodiversity is based on data on the range of species, as theseare the most prevailing data for the majority of taxa. A species range is the area occupiedby a species, and is used to refer to a distribution area. To determine species range,biologists record the geographic location of their observations and collect specimens.These data can be plotted on maps to represent species range using (1) points on a basemap (McGranaghan & Wester, 1988), (2) synthetic methods where artificial boundariesof counties are delineated with raster or vector formats (Morse et al., 1981) and shadingof the entire polygon indicates species presence, or (3) synthetic grid maps (Perring& Walters, 1962).

For a comprehensive assessment of species and habitat biodiversity, habitat factors(e.g. environmental factors such as climate, physiography, vegetation, soils, and geol-ogy) must be considered as well as species ranges (i.e. richness). Environmental datamay be used in assessing the relative biodiversity of the area, not because of interest inenvironmental variation per se, but because environmental (habitat or ecosystem) vari-ation indicates species diversity. Species ranges and richness are often correlated withthe habitat factors, and thus, both species ranges and habitat factors can be predictedfrom one another. Sometimes these two variables are combined into synthetic maps ofecoregions at the biogeographic scale (e.g. Bailey, 1976; Omernik, 1987). Climate isgenerally regarded as the dominant control over the potential range of taxa. Thebioclimatic factors, such as absolute minimum temperature and annual temperaturerange conditions during critical phases of a species life cycle (phenological stages), arelimiting factors to species’ ranges. Vegetation is also an important variable that incorpor-ates a characteristic species community, habitat and, in most, cases animal species.There are also climate conditions with which plant species are associated. A typicalbioclimatic analysis describes the relationships between species distribution and envir-onmental characteristics. It is of interest for predicting and modelling possible impacts ofclimate change on wildlife. The most common situation in which these modellingapproaches are applied is when the distribution of a species or habitat is not fully known,

98 B. B. SALEM

but environmental data that are thought to influence the species or habitat distributionare recorded. Models of the distribution can be constructed to predict where surveyefforts may be targeted, to be used as substitutes for full surveys of species inanalysis of biodiversity at a regional scale, and to predict possible impacts of environ-mental changes (Aspinall, 1995).

Because range mapping is so labor-intensive, i.e. all species in a region can never bedirectly observed or counted, indirect methods for practical evaluation of the relativebiodiversity of areas (or sets of areas) are often used to infer range from the distributionof the habitat requirements of the species and constraints (surrogate data) that are ofteneasier to map than the species themselves. Depending on surrogate data, a surrogacyapproach uses one or more groups of ‘‘indicator’’ taxa, the geographic distribution ofwhich in the region are known. Areas or sets of areas that are species-rich for thesegroups may be assumed to be rich in general. An important issue is determining how touse this information to best predict relative species biodiversity among sets of areas(Faith & Walkery, 1996). A more powerful surrogate approach makes use of someexpression of environmental and/or biotic pattern. Phylogenetic pattern as a surrogatefor biodiversity has been explored by Faith & Walkey, 1996). This approach requires theidentification of priority areas (i.e. objects), and the units of biodiversity (i.e. species) tobe represented by any set of objects. This approach requires some expansion of the fullpattern of environmental variation among areas that will be predictive of species-leveldiversity. The GIS was used as an effective tool for mapping the pattern ofenvironmental variations among areas and sets of areas. Another approach for assessingbiodiversity using GIS based on either species or community, is to evaluate the degreethat each type of vegetation community has been preserved (i.e. conserved). The degreeof conservation would then be considered as a criterion for recommending new areas forformal designation. Davis et al. (1990) wrote that Crumpacker et al. (1988) conducteda GIS analysis of the U.S.A. by intersecting KuK chler’s potential vegetation map (KuK ch-ler, 1964) with federal and Indian islands. They found many terrestrial and wetlandecosystems to be under-represented in these lands.

The above examples illustrate the monitoring assessment of the status of and trends inbiodiversity using GIS. However, there are some difficulties in this assessment,including: (1) data quality, i.e. low spatial and/or uneven spatial coverage, map inaccuracy and cartographic uncertainty, and ecological relationships of species and theirhabitats; (2) locating and consolidating large volumes of data, and integrating variousdata structures to a common system; (3) manipulating very large numbers of map sheetsand analysing of their contents; and (4) rebuilding the database.

Case study: GIS-based approach to the spatial analysis of endangeredarboreal species in Egypt

Introduction

Data showing species and habitat distribution, or sometimes models that predict thesedistributions, are used to analyse the effectiveness of existing conservation areas.The gap analysis system developed in the U.S.A. uses GIS to identify significant areas ofhabitat and parts of the geographic range of a species that are not protected by anyform of conservation designation (Scott et al., 1993). Gap analysis is a technique foridentifying vegetation types and species that are not adequately represented in anexisting protective network of biological diversity (Spellerberg & Sawyer, 1999). Gapanalysis helps to locate priority areas for conservation action and research. The tech-nique can therefore be used as a means to prioritize human effort in habitatprotection and management in order to achieve the conservation of a region’s biologicaldiversity (Scott et al., 1996). The principle application of gap analysis is to describe


spatially, in any particular region, the priority areas for habitat protection to conservespecies and animal communities that are not already protected. It is considered to bea rapid method for evaluating conservation requirements for the protection of biologicaldiversity. In North America, gap analysis has been used to identify shortfalls in conser-vation programs to protect biological diversity (Spellerberg & Sawyer, 1999). Gapanalysis projects have several applications, including the following: they can be used todetermine the representations of species, and natural plant and animal communitieswithin areas being managed for biodiversity conservation; they provide data to modelwildlife habitat distributions, and they provide a baseline of information about thedistributions of plant and animal species and communities that can be used for compara-tive analysis of future changes in those distributions (that is, monitoring environmentalchange).

Distributions of a range of species are modeled with GIS using maps ofvegetation types and observations on the distributions of species of interest. Thesedistributions are combined within the GIS to identify areas of the greatest diversity orcore areas for different species. The composite information could then be com-pared with the distribution of protected areas to highlight significant areas that needconservation. An ideal set of data for assessing the status of biodiversity includes thedistribution of species and their conservation status, the habitat characteristics of thesespecies, and human activities affecting these habitats and their impact. Also somedata on the ecological and economic value of species are required. These data can bestored on a map (distribution) associated with tabular data to show attributes. Davis etal. (1990) described, conceptually, a comprehensive national diversity informationsystem, using GIS techniques to organize existing data and improve the spatial aspectsof the assessment. In this study, Davis et al. stated that a potential GIS analysis is toidentify gaps in the network of California’s natural reserves, and concluded that availabledata can then be used more effectively and better management strategies can beformulated.

The present case study is an illustration of the above concepts. It presents a specificcomponent of a conservation program: the distribution of a range of plant species(arboreal) associated with attribute data describing the ecological and economicimportance of each species, its life form and degree of threat. These data are modeled ina GIS-based database and overlaid on spatial data of the protected areas (declaredand proposed) in Egypt, to identify significant areas that require conservation. Thedata on arboreal species used in the present study are the threatened species of trees andshrubs in Egypt as recognized by El-Hadidi et al. (1991). The species were selected asthey constitute the main framework of the ecosystems in which they occur and therefore,have high ecological significance for these ecosystems. Arboreal species can be con-sidered as indicator taxa that incorporate other vegetation communities and animalspecies (specially birds). Therefore the present study examines, using GIS, the relationof the distribution of arboreal species with other existing spatial data, e.g. phytogeog-raphical subdivisions and internationally important bird areas in Egypt. Generally,arboreal species represent a part of the wealth of Egyptian flora that is threatened orendangered to different degrees, and calls for conservation actions to be taken.

The objectives of the present study are: (1) establishing a digital database of endan-gered arboreal species including their spatial distribution, ecological importance, degreeof threat, commonness and economic importance; (2) analysing the relative contribu-tion of each protected area in terms of contribution to conserving the biodiversity ofthreatened arboreal species in Egypt; (3) conducting gap analysis to identify hot spotsand gaps in the network of protected areas (declared and proposed) for formulatingsound biodiversity conservation management strategies; and (4) assessing the relation-ships between the distribution of arboreal species, phytogeographical subdivision andinternationally important bird areas in Egypt by integrating these data in a commonGIS-based system.

100 B. B. SALEM

Data acquisition and treatment

The present study demonstrates how a compilation of existing data in a GIS-basedapproach can be used to organize, synthesize, and analyse spatially these data usingdifferent overlays (an asset of GIS analysis) to improve the assessment andmonitoring of biodiversity. The following is a list of the core data used to establisha nucleus for a biodiversity database management system based on GIS:

(1) A base map of Egypt of appropriate scale.(2) Data extracted from the Egyptian Plant Red Data Book by El-Hadidi et al. (1991).

These data form a list of 101 threatened arboreal species, their distribution,ecological importance and degree of threat. A point indicating the location of eachspecies in the above list was plotted on a base map of Egypt, and other data wereattached to the map as attribute data. These data describe the degree of threat,commonness, life form (i.e. ecological importance), and uses (economic import-ance) of each species.

(3) Data extracted from The Multipurpose Species in Arab African Countries (Ayyad,1998) on the economic importance of arboreal species in Egypt in terms of theirnumbers of uses.

(4) A map of the phytogeographical subdivision in Egypt as depicted by Boulous(1995).

(5) A list of endemic species in each phytogeographic subdivision as listed byBoulous (1995).

(6) A map of protected areas of Egypt produced by the Nature Conservation sector,i.e. the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA).

(7) The spatial distribution of important bird areas in Egypt as recognized by BahaEl-Din (1999).

The data were sorted according to type as spatial or aspatial. The spatial data weredigitized, edited and made usable as GIS data layers using PC Arc/Info and ArcView

Table 2. Criteria and scoring used to calculate conservation values (CVs)

Criterion Degree Score

1. Status ExtinctEndangeredIntermediate (endangered/vulnerable)Vulnerable

10754

2. Commonness EndemicVery rareRareCommon

10742

3. Life form(ecological importance)

TreeIntermediate (small tree or large shrub)ShrubWoody herbPerennial herb

108742

4. Use(economic importance)

More than three usesThree usesTwo usesOne use other than aboveSingle use (wood production)

108642

Table 3. Overlay analyses of the study data

Overlay no. Overlay description Indication

1 All maps of species distributiononto the map of Egypt.

Range and distribution of the 101endangered species (namesidentified in the associateddatabase).

2 Overlay 1 onto thephytogeographical subdivisionsand the map of protectedareas (declared and proposed).

Distribution of threatened arborealspecies ineach phytogeographicalsubdivision determination of howwell protected areas representingthe phytogeographical subdivisions.

3 Overlay 1 onto maps ofprotected areas (declaredand proposed).

Representation of the gap analysisthat identifies the areas in needof conservation

4 Overlay 1 onto the map ofthe distribution of importantbird areas and the map ofprotected areas (declaredand proposed).

Assessment of the relationship be-tweenthe distribution of arboreal species asindicator taxa and important birdareas.Assessment of the overlap betweenprotected areas (declared andproposed) and important bird areas.


GIS software packages produced by the Environmental Systems Research Institute(ESRI). The aspatial data were associated within the spatial database as appropriate.The species names were revised using the checklist published by Boulous (1995).

The aspatial data on threatened arboreal species, degree of threat, and ecological andeconomic value were assembled in the database for every species, and were used tocalculate a conservation value, CV, for each species. This value was obtained accordingto a scoring system on a graduated scale of 10 identified by the criteria listed in Table 2.The CV for each species, as a function of four criteria (each scored out of 10) wereadded to yield a value out of 40 which was then divided by four to produce an averageconservation value (ACV) out of 10 for each of the 101 plant species listed in thedatabase.

The ACVs for all arboreal species occurring spatially inside the boundaries of anyparticular protected area were summed to produce a cumulative conservation value(CCV) for each protected area. This value is an index of the area’s contribution to theconservation of biodiversity of threatened arboreal species in Egypt. Several overlayanalyses were applied to the data in the present study. They are presented in Table 3.

Results

Data on spatial and aspatial attributes described in the above section constitute thenucleus of a GIS-based biodiversity database that has been assembled for the first time.The results of the study are presented as maps and tables. The list of species and thescores assigned to each according to the criteria described in Table 2 are provided inAppendix 1.

Average conservation value (ACV)

Cumulative conservation value (CCV)

5 5 33.25 94.75 6.5 15 10.75 4.5 3.75 5.75 17.75 4.5 189.00

(a)

Average conservation value (ACV)

Cumulative conservation value (CCV)

5.75 6.75 9.75 5.25 17.75 9.00 6.5 10.75 5.00 6.25 9.75 16.5 9.75 15.25

(b)

Figure 1. (a) Established protected area. Cumulative conservation value (CCV) of threatenedarboreal species existing in the established protected areas. (b) Proposed protected areas.

102 B. B. SALEM


The ACVs and CCVs described in the previous section were plotted for the declaredand proposed protected areas in Fig. 1(a) and 1(b) respectively, and ranked as a func-tion of the CCVs in Table 4.

Figure 1(a) illustrates the scale of conservation values (0–10) on the Y-axis versus thedeclared protected areas (21) on the X-axis. The bars in the figure indicate the range ofACVs for arboreal species in each particular protected area, while the numbers betweenbrackets on the bars indicate the number of species have each this particular ACV. Thenumbers in circles on the X-axis indicate the CCVs for all species that exist in anyparticular protected area. Protected areas with no corresponding CCV are either notapplicable (marine areas) or do not include any of the threatened arboreal species. TheCCVs are used to indicate the contribution of each protected area to the conservation ofbiodiversity of threatened arboreal species. If information on other plant life-forms aresimilarly treated and their CCVs are added to the above values, an average value for eachprotected area could be calculated as an assessment of its conservation index (CI). Fromthe same figure, it is clear that the Elba protected area has the highest CCV and, thus,contributes highly to the conservation of the biodiversity of threatened arboreal species.This is followed by the St.Catherine and Taba protectorates. Similarly, in Fig. 1(b), theSallum proposed protected area has the highest CCV and, thus, can contribute highly tothe conservation of biodiversity of threatened arboreal species. This is followed by theGreat Red Sea Reef and the Gebel Maghara proposed protected areas.

Table 4 summarizes the CCVs and provides relative rankings for the 40 protectedareas according to their contribution to the conservation of biodiversity of threatenedarboreal species. Accordingly, the 40 protected areas were fall into 18 levels. These levelswhen analysed were categorized into five orders from the highest to the lowest levels.The first order category is consists of three of the already declared protectorates. It isremarkable that some of the proposed protected areas have higher relative rankings thansome of the already declared protected areas. Thus, the second order category iscomprised of five protectorates, three of which are proposed protected areas, withrelative CCVs of 4, 5 and 6, while the third order category is comprised of sixprotectorates rankings, five of which are proposed protected areas. Thirteen of theanalysed protected areas do not contribute to the conservation of the biodiversity ofthreatened arboreal species, either because they are marine or do not contain any of thethreatened arboreal species in their vegetation composition.

The overlay analysis in the present study (Table 3), starts with five main coverages:(1) the base map of Egypt; (2) the location map of the 101 threatened arboreal species;(3) the location map of the phytogeographical subdivisions (Fig. 2); (4) the locationmap of protected areas, both declared and proposed (Fig. 3); and (5) the location mapof internationally important bird areas. Four overlays were carried out to highlight therelationships imbedded in the data. Each of these overlays will be discussed andinterpreted separately.

Overlay 1: Maps of the threatened arboreal species (101 species) overlaid onto a basemap of Egypt (Fig. 4).

The resulting map illustrates the distribution of these species in Egypt, while the speciesnames, commonness, richness, ecological (life form) and economic (number of uses)values are associated with the map as attribute data. This map is used to define theregions in Egypt occupied by the greatest number of different threatened arborealspecies. It is obvious that certain small areas are occupied by relatively large numbers ofthreatened arboreal species (high diversity), e.g. Gebel Elba ('40 species), and south-ern Sinai ('20 species). Other larger areas are occupied by smaller numbers ofsegregate arboreal species (low diversity), e.g. the northern Mediterranean (four spe-cies) and the southwestern borders of Egypt (one species only). The following overlaywas applied to add precision to the above results.

Table 4. Ranking of protected areas (declared and proposed) according to cumulat-ive conservation value (CCV) of threatened arboreal species

Protectorate name Declared (D)/Proposed (P)

CumulativeValue

ConservationRelative rank

Value (CCV)Orders

1. *Elba D 189.00 12. *St. Catherine D 94)75 2 � 1st (1–3)3. *Taba D 33)25 34. -Salluga & Ghazal D 17)75 4

-Salum P 17)75 45. *Great Red Sea Reef P 16)50 5 � 2nd (4–7)6. Gebel Maghara P 15)25 67. *Zaranik D 15)00 78. -Omayed D 0)75 8

-El-Galala P 10)75 89. -Um l-Ghuzlan P 9)75 9

-Sabkhat Ras Shukeir P 9)75 9 � 3nd (8–10)

-*Quseima P 9)75 910. Showela P 9)00 1011. Qattara P 6)75 1112. -Al-Ahrash D 6)5 12

-Ras El-Hekma P 6)5 1213. Hamata P 6)25 1314. -Sanur Cave D 5)75 14

-Gilf Kebir P 5)75 1415. *El-Qasr P 5)25 15 � 4th ('10)16. -*Nabq D 5)00 16

-Abu-Ghallum D 5)00 16-El-Shayeb P 5)00 16

17. -El-Hasna D 4)5 17-Wadi Allaqui D 4)5 17

18. *Lake Quarun D 3)75 1819. Karkur & Dungul P20. White desert P21. Wadi Qena P22. Girafi P23. Um-Dabadib P24. *Ras Mohammed D25. Ashtoum El-Gamil D � No contribution26. Pet. Forest D27. *Wadi Rayan D28. *El-Burullus D29. Nile islands D30. Wadi Assuti D31. Wadi Degla D

* Internationally important bird areas.

104 B. B. SALEM

N

Mediterranean Sea

Red Sea

(M)(M)

(Sa)

(S)

(M)

(Dl)

(O)

(O)

(O)

(Dn)

(Gw)

(Nn)

(Nv)

(Dg)

(Da)

(R)

(Di)

(O)

(O)

(O)

(O)

(Nv)

(Nn)(O)

200 0 200 400 Kilometers

Out of Study AreaMediterranean SeaRed SeaLakeArabian Desert (Da)DeltaGalalah Desert (Dg)Gebel Uweinat (Gw)Isthmic Desert (Di)Lybian Desert (DL)Mediterranean Region (M)Nile Valley (Nv)Nubian Desert (Dn)Nubian Nile (Nn)Oases (O)Red Sea Coastal Plain (R)Sahelian scrub (Sa)Sinai region (S)

Figure 2. The phytogeographical subdivisions of El-Hadidi et al. (1991).


Overlay 2: Map of the phytogeographical subdivisions overlaid on the above mapof the distribution of threatened arboreal species (Fig. 5) in order to classify the subdivisionsaccording to their species richness.

It is clear that the Sahelian Scrub (Sa) was the richest phytogeographical subdivision, withabout 46 arboreal threatened species followed by the Isthemic Desert phytogeographicsubdivision (Di) with about 15 species. This contrasts with the Arabian Desert (Da) withthree threatened arboreal species, the Gebel Uweinat subdivision with only one species,and the Nubian Desert (Dn) subdivision with no threatened arboreal species.

Overlay 3: Gap analysis. The map of protected areas in Egypt (Fig. 3) overlaid onto themap of the distribution of threatened arboreal species (Fig. 6).

This figure demonstrates generally that the protected areas cover most of the locationsoccupied by the threatened arboreal species. However there are some gaps in thenetwork of protected areas that need to be filled to ensure the conservation of thesespecies, namely, the northern and eastern Sinai (the Isthemic Desert phytogeographicsubdivision) and the Nubian Nile subdivision. It is also clear that some of the proposedprotected areas need to be repositioned to fit the locations of some of the threatenedarboreal species such as Um El-Ghuzlan (P6), El-Qasr (P7), El-Galala (P11) andQuseima (P17).

Overlay 4: The map of distribution of arboreal species and the network of protectedareas overlaid on map of locations of internationally important bird areas (Fig. 7).

It is obvious that about 15 of the 34 important bird areas coincide with the areas of highdiversity of threatened arboreal species, e.g. Gebel Elba (four areas) and the SouthernSinai (six areas). This calls for consideration of the establishment of birdwatchingfacilities in the management plans of these protected areas to encourage ecotourism.

(5)

(19)

(1)

(2)

(3)(4)

(7)(8)

(9)(10)(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(17)(18)

(20)

(21)(P19)

(P5)

(P4)

(6)

(16)

(P1)

(P2)

(P3)

(P6)

(P7)

(P8) (P9)

(P10)

(P11)

(P12)

(P15)

(P17)

(P14)

(P16) Red Sea

(P18)

(P13)


Abu-Gallum Protectorate (3)Al-Ahrash (6)All River Nile Island (20)Ashtum El-Gamil (8)Brullus (19)El-Omayed Biosphere Reserve (9)El-Zaranik (7)Gebel Elba (18)Hassana Dome (11)Kahf Wadi Sanur (14)Nabq Protectorate (2)Petrified Forest (10)Qarun (12)Ras-Mohammed National Park (1)Saint Katherine Protectorate (5)Salluga-Ghazal (16)Taba Protectorate (4)Wadi Allaqui Biosphere Reserve (17)Wadi Asyuti (15)Wadi Deglah (21)Wadi-ElRayan (13)

El-Galala (P11)El-Qasr (P7)El-Shayeb (P13)Gebel Maghara (P18)Gilf Kebir (P1)Girafi (P19)Great Red Sea Reef (P16)Hamata (P14)Kurkur and Dungul (P2)Qattara (P5)Quseima (P17)Ras El-Hekma (P10)Sabkhat Ras Shukeir (P15)Salum (P8)Showela (P9)Um Dabadib (P3)Um El-Ghuzlan (P6)Wadi Qena (P12)White Desert (P4)

N

Mediterranean Sea

Figure 3. The distribution of protected areas (established and proposed).

106 B. B. SALEM

Besides, some of the proposed protected areas include locations of important bird areas,e.g. El-Qasr (P7), The Great Red Sea Reefs (P16) and Qusiema (P17).

Discussion

Conversion of natural habitats by man is the major cause of the loss of biologicaldiversity that needs to be surveyed, mapped, monitored and quantified. No survey ormonitoring of biodiversity is complete without considering how efforts are beingdeployed, and how the emerging information will be organized and compiled indatabases. These efforts have to be associated with coordination of information thatalready exists for better usage in a complementary manner to highlight subtle relation-ships between biota and associated environmental features. The Convention onBiodiversity makes clear that access to good information about biological diversityis key to mobilizing resources in support of conservation and sustainable use ofthese biological resources. Biodiversity conservation efforts, in particular, are inneed of being informed about where and what species and ecosystems should betargeted for protection, where they occur, and how they and the areas that sustain themshould be protected and managed, for the benefit of present and future generations.Generally, protected areas contribute to conserving biodiversity. However, few pro-tected areas have yet to give full attention to the biodiversity issue. Many national parks,for example, have been declared primarily for their scenic, touristic and recreationalvalue (McNeely, 1994). Therefore, all countries should review their protected areasystems and identify additional sites of critical importance for conservation of biologicaldiversity.

Natural environments in Egypt are assailed on every side through the unprecedentedand rapid expansion of human activities. In the absence of conservation responses ona scope and scale to match these activities, the country will shortly witness environmental

####

#

##

##

##

# ##

####

#

#

### ###

#

##

#

#

##

#

##

###

# #

## #

#

#

#

#

## #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#####

#

#

###

#

############

#

#

######

#

##

#

###

#

# #

#

##

##

##

####

#####

###

#

#

#

#

### ##

#

#

#

## ######

##

#####

#

##

##

#

#

#########

####

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

##

#

##

##

#

#

#

####### ###

####

##########

# # ##

#

#

###

####

## #

#

#

#####

# ###

#

##

###

##

#

##

#

##

##

#

##

## ######

#

#

#

# ##

##

##

#

###

#

#

###### ##

Red Sea

Mediterranean Sea


N

# Threatened species

Figure 4. The distribution of threatened arboreal species in Egypt (as listed in the Egyptian RedData Book, El-Hadidi et al., (1991).


degradation and destruction of many of its fragile habitats and their biotas. Fortunately,we still have time to slow down the degradation process and the loss of biodiversity. Thiscan be achieved by (1) initiatives directed at the sustainable development of all habitatsand communities in every phytogeographic zone, (2) the establishment of many moreprotected areas (and better protected areas), and (3) the restoration of degradedecosystems.

The past few decades have witnessed tremendous advances in informationtechnology and efforts to harness the power of these technologies on behalf ofbiodiversity conservation. GIS technology comes at the top of the technologies that favorbiodiversity conservation applications. The case study presented here demonstrates thatusing GIS, existing information can be input, managed and analyzed, and the additionalinformation can be identified. The present study also directs a message to the GIScommunity of the need for their skills to address biodiversity problems, and for use ofGIS as a tool for managing biodiversity databases to achieve a national biodiversity datasystems based on a GIS approach. Such systems would assist in the sustainablemanagement of natural resources, which is a major component of any biodiversitystrategy.

The present study used the threatened arboreal species and their spatial distribution inEgypt in a surrogacy approach. Areas that are rich in diversity for these species areassumed to be rich in general. The locations of threatened arboreal species were plottedon a base map of Egypt using points to represent their ranges. Other plotting techniquescould have been used; however synthetic methods generalize data into units that are notecologically relevant, and precision location is lost in the process of generalization. Thisconclusion is in accordance with that of Davis et al. (1990).

The ACVs and CCVs of threatened arboreal species in each of the protected areasproved to be appropriate for assessing rank orderings of protected areas in terms of theircontribution to the conservation of biodiversity of these species. The results presented in

####

#

##

##

##

# ## ####

#

#### ###

#

##

#

#

##

#

##

###

# #

## #

#

#

#

#

## #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#####

#

#

###

#

############

#

#

######

###

####

#

# #

#

##

##

##

####

########

#

#

#

#

### ###

#

#

########

##

#####

#

##

##

#

#

#####

####

####

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

##

#

##

##

#

#

#

####### ###

#### ###

#######

# # ##

#

#

###

###### #

#

#

#####

# ###

#

##

###

###

##

##

#

##

#

##

## ##### #

#

#

#

# ##

##

##

#

###

#

#

###### ##

Red Sea

Mediterranean Sea

(O) (Nn)

(Nv)

(O)

(O)

(O)

(O)

(Di)

(R)

(Da)

(Dg)

(Nv)

(Nn)

(Gw)

(Dn)

(O)

(O)

(O)

(Dl)

(M)

(S)

(Sa)

(M)(M)


N

# Threatened species

Sinai region (S)Sahelian scrub (Sa)Red Sea Coastal Plain (R)Oases (O)Nubian Nile (Nn)Nubian Desert (Dn)Nile Valley (Nv)Mediterranean Region (M)Lybian Desert (DL)Isthmic Desert (Di)Gebel Uweinat (Gw)Galalah Desert (Dg)DeltaArabian Desert (Da)LakeRed SeaMediterranean SeaOut of Study Area

Figure 5. The distribution of threatened arboreal species overlaid on the phytogeographicalsubdivisions.

108 B. B. SALEM

Table 4 show that the first order category is composed of three of the already declaredprotected areas, and that these areas are also three of the 34 internationally importantbird areas in Egypt. This finding provides evidence that arboreal species can beconsidered as indicator taxa and that these taxa are associated with other importantcommunities. It also affirms the wisdom of the conservation actions taken by thenational environmental agencies in conserving the biodiversity of important ecologicalregions, e.g. Gebel Elba and the Sinai.

The same composite information, i.e. threatened arboreal species ACVs and interna-tionally important bird areas was used to highlight the significant areas for conservation.According to this information, three of the proposed protected areas, namely Sallum, theGreat Red Sea Reef, and Gebel Maghara, should be given higher priority than the othersfor establishment in the short term.

The gap analysis conducted in the present study identifies gaps in the network ofprotected areas, and provides baseline information that can be used for monitoring,assessing and managing the biodiversity conservation of protected areas. This is evidentfrom Overlay 3 (Fig. 6), which demonstrates clearly that some of the proposed protectedareas need further study and analysis to reposition them so that they may fit with theidentified hot spots. This analysis also revealed that there are gaps in the network ofprotected areas, e.g. the northern and eastern Sinai, the Isthemic Desert and the NubianNile subdivisions. It could then be appropriate to consider these gaps in the formation ofa national strategic action plan for biodiversity conservation.

Conclusions and recommendations

(1) The present study proposes guidelines for a model framework for a comprehens-ive biodiversity information system. More information on other biota may beincluded. Data for other species (flora and fauna) should be treated the same way

####

#

##

##

##

# ##

####

#

#

### ###

#

##

#

#

##

#

##

###

# #

## #

#

#

#

#

## #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#####

#

#

###

#

############

#

#

######

#

##

#

###

#

# #

#

##

##

##

####

#####

###

#

#

#

#

### ##

#

#

#

## ######

##

#####

#

##

##

#

#

######

#

##

##

#

# #######

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

##

#

##

##

#

#

#

## ##### ###

####

##########

# # ##

#

#

###

####

## #

#

#

#####

# ###

#

##

###

##

#

##

##

#

##

#

##

## ######

#

#

#

# ##

##

##

#

###

#

#

###### ##

(5)

(19)

(1)

(2)

(3)(4)

(7)(8)

(9)(10)(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(17)(18)

(20)

(21)(P19)

(P5)

(P4)

(6)

(16)

(P1)

(P2)

(P3)

(P6)

(P7)

(P8) (P9)

(P10)

(P11)

(P12)

(P15)

(P17)

(P14)

(P16) Red Sea

Mediterranean Sea

(O) (Nn)

(Nv)

(O)

(O)

(O)

(O)

(Di)

(R)

(Da)

(Dg)

(Nv)

(Nn)

(Gw)

(Dn)

(O)

(O)

(O)

(Dl)

(M)

(S)

(Sa)

(M)(M)


N


El-Qasr (P7)El-Shayeb (P13)Gebel Maghara (P18)Gilf Kebir (P1)Girafi (P19)Great Red Sea Reef (P16)Hamata (P14)Kurkur and Dungul (P2)Qattara (P5)Quseima (P17)Ras El-Hekma (P10)Sabkhat Ras Shukeir (P15)Salum (P8)Showela (P9)Um Dabadib (P3)Um El-Ghuzlan (P6)Wadi Qena (P12)White Desert (P4)

Abu-Gallum Protectorate (3)Al-Ahrash (6)All River Nile Island (20)Ashtum El-Gamil (8)Brullus (19)El-Omayed Biosphere Reserve (9)El-Zaranik (7)Gebel Elba (18)Hassana Dome (11)Kahf Wadi Sanur (14)Nabq Protectorate (2)Petrified Forest (10)Qarun (12)Ras -Mohammed National Park (1)Saint Katherine Protectorate (5)Salluga-Ghazal (16)Taba Protectorate (4)Wadi Allaqui Biosphere Reserve (17)Wadi Asyuti (15)Wadi Deglah (21)Wadi-ElRayan (13)

# Threatened Species

El-Galala (P11)

Figure 6. The distribution of threatened arboreal species and the phytogeographical subdivisionsoverlaid on a map of protected areas (established and proposed).


and compiled in a national GIS-based system. By overlaying all the data on livingorganisms and their spatial distribution, a clear understanding of the status of thebiodiversity in Egypt could be gained, and better decisions could be maderegarding biodiversity conservation. The achievement of this goal would repres-ent the real wealth of the country in terms of its biological currency.

(2) The declared network of protected areas in Egypt includes relativelyadequate representation of the country’s phytogeographic subdivisions.However, the threatened arboreal species that occur in the Mediterranean andwestern desert need urgent conservation action to be taken in the form ofestablishing protected areas and encouraging the declaring of the proposedprotected areas of Sallum, the Great Red Sea Reef and Gebel Maghara, as actualprotected areas.

(3) Gebel Elba and the Sinai protected areas play a significant role in conserving thethreatened arboreal species of Egypt (with the highest species richness includingmost of the endemic species, and representing internationally important birdareas). This calls for efficient management plan for each of these protector-ates to ensure coherent conservation action, and the use of these protectorates ascenters of environmental research activities. It is recommended that birdwatchingareas in these protected areas be established in these protected areas to enhanceecotourism.

(4) The use of GIS is recommended as a more effective approach than eithermanual methods or non-spatial automated means, of making biodiversity assess-ments. The present study supported the vertical flow of spatially distributedinformation driven by GIS. Data can be aggregated and generalized to produceinformation about gaps and reserves that could suit a wide variety of usersincluding policy makers and researchers, as well as donor-funded projects. If the

####

#

##

##

##

# ## ###

#

#

#### ###

#

##

#

#

##

#

##

###

# #

## #

#

#

#

#

## #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#####

#

#

###

#

############

#

#

######

###

####

#

# #

#

##

##

##

####

########

#

#

#

#

### ###

#

#

########

##

#####

#

##

###

#

#####

#

##

####

# #######

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

##

#

##

###

#

#

####### ###

#### ###

#######

# # ##

#

#

###

####

## #

#

#

#####

# ###

#

##

###

###

###

##

##

#

##

## ##### #

#

#

#

# ##

##

##

#

###

#

#

###### ##

∃Ζ ∃Ζ∃Ζ

∃Ζ

∃Ζ∃Ζ∃Ζ∃Ζ

∃Ζ∃Ζ

∃Ζ

∃Ζ

∃Ζ

∃Ζ

∃Ζ∃Ζ

∃Ζ∃Ζ

∃Ζ

∃Ζ∃Ζ

∃Ζ

∃Ζ

∃Ζ

∃Ζ

∃Ζ ∃Ζ

∃Ζ

∃Ζ

∃Ζ

∃Ζ∃Ζ

∃Ζ

∃Ζ

(5)

(19)

(1)

(2)

(3)(4)

(7)(8)

(9)(10)(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(17)(18)

(20)

(21)(P19)

(P5)

(P4)

(6)

(16)

(P1)

(P2)

(P3)

(P6)

(P7)

(P8) (P9)

(P10)

(P11)

(P12)

(P15)

(P17)

(P14)

(P16) Red Sea

Mediterranean Sea

(O) (Nn)

(Nv)

(O)

(O)

(O)

(O)

(Di)

(R)

(Da)

(Dg)

(Nv)

(Nn)

(Gw)

(Dn)

(O)

(O)

(O)

(Dl)

(M)

(S)

(Sa)

(M)(M)


N


El-Galala (P11)El-Qasr (P7)El-Shayeb (P13)Gebel Maghara (P18)Gilf Kebir (P1)Girafi (P19)Great Red Sea Reef (P16)Hamata (P14)Kurkur and Dungul (P2)Qattara (P5)Quseima (P17)Ras El-Hekma (P10)Sabkhat Ras Shukeir (P15)Salum (P8)Showela (P9)Um Dabadib (P3)Um El-Ghuzlan (P6)Wadi Qena (P12)White Desert (P4)

Abu-Gallum Protectorate (3)Al-Ahrash (6)All River Nile Island (20)Ashtum El-Gamil (8)Brullus (19)El-Omayed Biosphere Reserve (9)El-Zaranik (7)Gebel Elba (18)Hassana Dome (11)Kahf Wadi Sanur (14)Nabq Protectorate (2)Petrified Forest (10)Qarun (12)Ras-Mohammed National Park (1)Saint Katherine Protectorate (5)Salluga-Ghazal (16)Taba Protectorate (4)Wadi Allaqui Biosphere Reserve (17)Wadi Asyuti (15)Wadi Deglah (21)Wadi-El Rayan (13)

∃Ζ Important Birds Area# Threatened Species

Figure 7. The distribution of the threatened arboreal species, the phytogeographicalsubdivisions and protected areas (established and proposed) overlaid on a map of the importantbird areas.

110 B. B. SALEM

quality of land-use planning and decisions can be improved by incorporatinga better understanding of the locations of the important elements of diversity andof our effects upon them, sustainable development of our biosphere maysucceed (Davis et al., 1990).

The author would like to thank Professor M. Ayyad for scientific advice and consultation,Dr Robyn Usher for reviewing drafts of this paper, and Miss Akela Ahmed Ghazawi andMr Mohammed Awad for help in the GIS overlays and typing.

References

Aspinall, R.J. (1995). Geographic information systems: their use for environmental managementand nature conservation. Parks, 5: 20–31.

Ayyad, M. (1998). Multipurpose Species in Arab African Countries. Cairo, Egypt: UNESCO. 90 pp.Baha El-Din, S.M. (1999). Directory of Important Bird Areas in Egypt. The Palm Press. 113 pp.Bailey, R.G. (1976). Ecoregions of the United States. Ogden, Utah: VSPA Forest Service. 412 pp.Boulous, L. (1995). Flora of Egypt (Checklist). La: Al-Hadara Publishing. 287 pp.Canhos, V.P., Manfio, G.P. & Canhos, A. (1998). Networks for distributing information. In:

Hawksworth, D.L., Kirk, P.M. & Clarke, S.D. (Eds), Biodiversity Information Needs andOptions, pp. 5}20. Proceeding of the 1996 International Workshop on Biodiversity Information. La:CAB International. 194 pp.

Crumpacker, D.V., Hodge, S.W., Friedley, D. & Gregg, W.P. (1988). A preliminary assessmentof the status of major terrestrial and wetland ecosystems on Federal and Indian lands in theUnited States. Conservation Biology, 2: 103.

Davis, F.W., Stoms, D.M., Estes, J.E., Scepan, J. & Scott, J.M. (1990). An information systemsapproach to the preservation of biological diversity. International Journal of Geographic Informa-tion Systems, 4: 55–78


El-Hadidi, M.N., Batanouny, K.H. & Fahmy, A.G. (1991). The Egyptian Plant Red Data Book.La: UNEP, Cairo University, Faculty of Science. 223 pp.

Faith, D.P. & Walker, P.A. (1996). Environmental diversity: on the best possible use of surrogatedata for assessing the relative biodiversity of sets of areas. Biodiversity and Conservation, 5:399–415.

Harrison, J. (1995). Finding the information. Parks, 5: 12–19.Heywood, V.H. (1997). Information needs in biodiversity assessments: from genes to ecosystems.

In: Hawksworth, D.L., Kirk, P.M. & Clarke, S.D. (Eds), Biodiversity Information Needs andOptions, pp. 5–20. Proceedings of the 1996 International Workshop on Biodiversity Information. La:CAB International. 194 pp.

IUCN (1993). Parks for life. Report of the IVth World Congress on National Parks and ProtectedAreas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 260 pp.

Janzen, D.H. (1993). Taxonomy: universal and essential infrastructure for development andmanagement of tropical wildland biodiversity. In: Sandlund, O.T., Hinder, K. & Brown,A.H.D. (Eds) Conservation of Biodiversity for Sustainable Development, pp. 100–113. Oslo:Scandinavian University Press. 194 pp.

Janzen, D.H. & Gamez, R. (1997). Assessing information needs for sustainable use and conserva-tion of biodiversity. In: Hawksworth, D.L., Risk, P.M. & Clarke, S.D. Biodiversity InformationNeeds and Options, pp. 21–29. Proceedings of the 1996 International Workshop on Biodiversity. La:CAB International. 194 pp.

Kuchler, A.W. (1964). Potential Natural Vegetation of the Conterminous United States. Specialpublication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society.

Maguire, D.J., Goodchild, M.F. & Rhind, D.W. (1991). Geographic Information Systems. London:Longman. 273 pp.

Marqules, C.R. & Austin, M.P. (Eds) (1991). Nature conservation: cost effective biologicalsurveys and data analysis. Australia: CSIRO.

McGranaghan, M. & Wester, L. (1988). Prototyping an herbarium collection mapping system.Technical Papers of the 1988 ACSM-ASRRS. Annual Convention, 5: 232–238. St. Louis,Missouri, 13–18 March 1988.

McNeely, J.A. (1994). Protected areas for the 21st century: working to provide benefits to society.Biodiversity and Conservation, 3: 390–405.

Morse, L.Z., Henifin, M.S., Ballman, J.C. & Lawler, J.I. (1981). Geographical data organizationin botany and plant conservation: a survey of alternative strategies. In: Morse, L.E. & Henifin,M.S. (Eds), Rare Plant Conservation: Geographical Data Organization, pp. 9–29. Bronx, NewYork: The New York Botanic Garden.

Omernik, J.M. (1987). Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annuals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers, pp. 77–118.

Perring, F.H. & Walkers, S.M. (1962). Atlas of British Flora. London: Nelson and Sons. 189 pp.Scott, J.M., Davis, F., Csuti, B., Noss, R., Butterfield, G.C., Anderson, H. Caccio, S., D’Erchia,

F., Edwards, T.C., Ulliman, J. & Wright, R.G. (1993). Gap analysis: a geographic approach toconservation of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs, 123: 1–41.

Scott, J.M., Tear, T.H. & Davis, F.W. (1996). Gap Analysis: A Landscape Approach to BiodiversityPlanning. Maryland, USA, American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing.

Spellerberg, I.F., & Sawyer, W.D. (1999). An Introduction to Applied Biogeography. La: CambridgeUniversity Press. 243 pp.

Stein, B.A. (1997). Designing information systems to support biodiversity conservation. In:Hawksworth, D.L., Kirk, P.M. & Clarke, S.D. (Eds), Biodiversity Information Needs andOptions, pp. 5–20. Proceedings of the 1996 International Workshop on Biodiversity Information.CAB International.

UNEP. (1992). Convention on Biodiversity. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP Environmental Laws andInstitutions Programme Activity Center.

Walker, P. & Faith, D.P. (1993). Diversity: a software package for sampling phylogenetic andenvironmental diversity. Division of Wildlife and Ecology. Australia: CSIRO.

Appendix 1

ID Species name Ecological value(life form)

Commonness Conservationstatus

Economic value(multipurpose#no. of uses)

Total Average

1 Juniperus phoenicea 8 2 7 4 21 5)252 Ephedra ciliata 7 2 4 2 15 3)753 Ephedra foeminea 7 2 7 2 18 4)54 Ephedra sinaica 7 2 7 2 18 4)55 Populus euphratica 10 2 7 2 21 5)256 Ficus carica 7 2 7 2 18 4)57 Ficus palmata 10 2 4 2 18 4)58 Plicosepalus curviflorus 7 4 4 2 17 4)259 Plicosepalus acaciae 7 7 7 2 23 5)75

10 Atraphaxis spinosa 7 2 4 2 15 3)7511 Calligonum polygonoides 7 2 4 2 15 3)7512 Boerhavia africana 4 2 4 2 12 3)013 Boerhavia repens 4 7 7 2 20 5)014 Boerhavia elegans 2 7 4 2 15 3)7515 Silene schimperiana 4 10 4 2 20 5)016 Silene fruticose 4 2 8 2 16 4)017 Bufonia multiceps 7 10 7 2 26 6)518 Suaeda vermiculata 7 7 4 2 20 5)019 Salsola tetragona 7 2 7 2 18 4)520 Salsola schweinfurthii 7 4 4 2 17 4)2521 Seidletzia rosmarinus 7 7 4 2 20 5)022 Anabasis syriaca 7 2 4 2 15 3)7523 Cornulaca ehrenbergii 7 7 10 2 26 6)524 Haloxylon persicum 8 2 7 6 23 5)7525 Aerva lanata 2 2 4 2 10 2)526 Capparis decidua 7 7 5 2 21 5)2527 Cadaba rotundifolia 8 7 7 2 24 6)028 Cadaba glandulosa 7 4 4 2 17 4)2529 Cadaba farinosa 7 4 2 13 3)2530 Boscia senegalensis 8 7 7 2 24 6)031 Boscia angustifolia 10 2 7 2 21 5)2532 Maerua crassifolia 8 4 4 6 22 5)533 Maerua oblongifolia 7 2 8 2 19 4)75

112B

.B

.S

AL

EM

34 Matthiola elliptica 2 2 4 2 10 2)535 Matthiola arabica 2 2 4 2 10 2)536 Zilla spinosa 7 2 4 4 17 4)2537 Radonia africana 7 2 7 2 18 4)538 Moringa peregrina 10 4 4 2 20 5)039 Rosa arabica 7 10 7 2 26 6)540 Crataegus sinaica 7 2 4 2 15 3)7541 Contoneaster obricularis 8 2 4 2 16 4)042 Anagyris foetida 7 7 10 2 26 6)543 Indigofera arabica 7 7 8 2 24 6)044 Indigofera lotononoides 7 7 7 2 23 5)7545 Colutea istria 7 7 4 2 20 5)046 Astrachantha echinus 7 2 7 2 18 4)547 Taverniera lappacea 7 7 7 2 23 5)7548 Ebenus armitagei 7 10 7 2 26 6)549 Delonix elata 10 7 4 2 23 5)7550 Mimosa pigra 7 7 7 2 23 5)7551 Acacia mellifera 8 7 4 6 25 6)2552 Acacia asak 8 2 8 2 20 5)053 Acacia iraqensis 8 2 4 2 16 4)054 Acacia nilotica 7 7 4 2 20 5)055 Acacia seyal 10 7 7 8 32 8)056 Acacia etbaica 8 2 4 2 16 4)057 Dichrostachys cinerea 7 2 10 2 21 5)2558 Fagonia taeckholmiana 7 10 10 2 29 7)2559 Fagonia tenuifolia 7 2 7 2 18 4)560 Fagonia isotricha 7 4 4 2 17 4)2561 Zygophyllum

propinquum 7 7 4 2 20 5)062 Zygophyllum dumosum 7 10 4 2 23 5)7563 Zygophyllum fabago 7 2 10 2 21 5)2564 Chrozophora brocchiana 7 7 4 2 20 5)065 Jatropha glauca 7 7 7 2 23 5)7566 Securinega securidaca 7 2 4 2 15 3)7567 Phyllanthus reticulatus 8 7 7 2 24 6)068 Euphorbia nubica 10 4 4 2 20 5)069 Euphorbiamauritanica 10 4 4 2 20 5)070 Euphorbia dendroides 7 4 4 2 17 3)7571 Euphorbia arguta 7 4 7 2 20 5)0

AP

PL

ICA

TIO

NO

FG

IST

OB

IOD

IVE

RS

ITY

113

Appendix 1*Continued

ID Species name Ecological value( life form)

Commonness Conservationstatus

Economic value(multipurpose#no. of uses)

Total Average

72 Euphorbia erinacea 7 7 8 2 24 6)073 Euphorbia obovata 7 10 7 2 26 6)574 Commiphora gileadensis 10 4 4 8 26 6)575 Commiphora

quadricincta 10 7 7 2 26 6)576 Polygala sinaica 7 7 4 2 20 5)077 Rhus coriaria 8 2 10 2 22 5)578 Rhus abyssinica 10 4 4 2 20 5)079 Rhus tripartita 7 2 4 6 19 4)7580 Pistacia khinjuk 10 2 4 8 24 6)081 Pistacia atlantica 10 2 7 6 25 6)2582 Dodonaea viscosa 8 4 4 2 18 4)583 Maytenus senegalensis 7 4 4 2 17 4)2584 Rhamnus lycioides 7 2 4 2 15 3)7585 Rhamnus disperma 8 7 4 2 21 5)2586 Sageretia thea 7 7 7 2 23 5)7587 Ziziphus lotus 7 2 7 2 18 4)588 Triumfetta flavescens 7 7 4 2 20 5)089 Grewia villosa 7 7 10 2 26 6)590 Abutilon figarianum 7 2 8 2 19 4)7591 Pavonia kotschyi 4 2 10 2 18 4)592 Pavonia arabica 4 2 8 2 16 4)093 Gossypium arboreum 7 7 7 6 27 6)7594 Melhania denhamii 7 7 4 2 20 5)095 Viola scorpiuroides 4 10 8 2 24 6)096 Helianthemum ventosum 7 7 4 2 20 5)097 Helianthemum

sancti-anto 7 7 7 2 23 5)7598 Helianthemum

schweinfurt 7 10 8 2 27 6)7599 Helianthemum

crassifoliu 7 10 7 2 26 6)5100 Fumana arabica 7 2 7 2 18 4)5101 Rhizophora mucronata 10 7 7 2 26 6)5

114B

.B

.S

AL

EM

application of gis to biodiversity monitoringapplication of gis to biodiversity monitoring b. b....

Documents