Imprimir Republish

Biodiversity

Incomplete jigsaw puzzles

IBGE analysis indicates that records of the occurrence of species of fauna and flora are unevenly distributed in the Brazilian territory

Scarlet macaws (Ara Macao), in Mato Grosso: with a declining population, the birds are seen from Argentina to Mexico

João Quental

The Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) analyzed over 22.5 million records of the occurrence of species of Brazilian biodiversity collected over the centuries and concluded that knowledge about the nine large taxonomic groups in the national territory is extremely uneven, which could create biases in research based on this information and jeopardize conservation actions. The assessment was published by the institution in November and shows that states such as São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, and the Federal District, probably due to concentrating many universities, scientific collections, and museums, are the states with the greatest number of records of amphibians, arthropods, birds, fungi, mammals, mollusks, fish, plants, and reptiles—the groups selected in the study. There is a sparsity of data for the states in the Northeast, while those in the North show deserts of knowledge in several parts of their territory.

There is also a striking contrast between the records of species that inhabit the sea and terrestrial environments. On dry land, around 6% of the cells (divisions of the country’s territory in 50 x 50-kilometer squares) have no occurrence of species while in the sea there is no information in 81% of the cells. The IBGE assessment attributed the difference to the difficulty of access and to the operational costs of marine research. Birds have the highest number of records (around 11 million), followed by plants (7.7 million), while mollusks (255,000), fungi (252,000), and mammals (around 190,000) are the least known groups. Another characteristic relates to the robustness of the data. With the exception of birds, less than 30% of the records provide complete information, such as the exact identification of the species and coordinates of the location.

The analysis used data from the Brazilian Biodiversity Information System (SIBBR), a platform created in 2014 by the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation (MCTI). The registries are obtained by various means. The main one is through biological collections organized by scientific institutions and museums, responsible for at least 80% of the records of amphibians, arthropods, fungi, plants, and reptiles. Since only a part of the collections was digitalized, the information from the SIBBR does not represent all of the records. Another source is citizen science, which involves the participation of laypersons or those without scientific training in the collection of field data (see Pesquisa FAPESP issue nº 323). The bird group was the one which benefited most from information collected by amateurs. Of the almost 10.8 million records, 94% were obtained thanks to the observations made by nature lovers. There are also records from scientific studies and others that do not fit into any of the three categories.

Alexandre Affonso/Revista Pesquisa FAPESP

The study provides a synthesis indicator, which is the index of biodiversity knowledge, based on the quantity of records accumulated from the nine taxonomic groups and on how recent these data are. On a scale from 0 (less knowledge) to 18.77 (greater knowledge), the majority of the national territory does not surpass 0.93. In vast regions of the sea in Brazilian territory and in parts of the Amazon rainforest in the states of Pará and Amazonas, the situation is critical—they are invisible regions to science and conservation because there are no published records of their fauna and flora in the SIBBR. On the other hand, portions of the coast of the states of São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, and Espírito Santo have high levels of knowledge above 8.65. The groups in which there is the greatest lack of information are fungi and mollusks.

Known for producing the demographic Census every 10 years and creating reference indicators about social and economic activities, the institute is also dedicated to studies about biodiversity, as well as managing a protected area, the IBGE Ecological Reserve, aimed at research about the Cerrado (wooded savanna) biome, to the south of Brasília. The body keeps its own biological collections. In the 1980s, it incorporated the herbarium from the Radam Brazil project, created in the 1970s in order to monitor land use in the country, especially in the Amazon, using radar images captured by airplanes. It also has another herbarium and zoological collections in its ecological reserve.

Biologist Leonardo Bergamini, a biodiversity analyst for the IBGE and one of the people responsible for the assessment, explains that the body has an interest in the information from the SIBBR because it is an important input for the studies of its environmental economics accounting program, which seek to understand the interactions between the environment and economic agents and clarify the contributions of nature to human society. “Our study sought, in an experimental way, to assess the quality of available data and contribute towards improving them.”

At least seven million records do not have a precise geographical coordinate, but part of them contain some information about the municipality or location in which they were collected. “With investments in curation, it would be possible to attribute an approximate coordinate, which would enable the data to be used in models or to cross the occurrence of a species with other georeferenced information such as the land use coverage or temperature,” he says. In the biological collections, there is incomplete information that could be added with help from scholarship beneficiaries contracted for the task. As for the underrepresented taxonomic groups, such as arthropods and fungi, there is no solution other than investing in more species characterization research.

With funding from the federal government and the Global Environment Fund, the SIBBR was created nine years ago as a Brazilian branch of a large international database about biodiversity, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), established by a consortium of around 60 countries and inaugurated at the end of the 1990s. In 2023, the Brazilian platform was accessed by over 160,000 users, a level 80% above the previous year, and was cited in 160 scientific publications. The Brazilian Funding Authority for Studies and Projects (FINEP) is expected to launch a R$125-million public bid by mid-January to fund the digitalization of the biological collections, which should have an effect on the supply of data for the platform.

Since it was created, the SIBBR has faced several obstacles in order to consolidate itself. “The system is still unstable in terms of functioning due to the lack of regularity of the human resources in front of it, which depends on the availability of funds from the MCTI,” says Carlos Alfredo Joly, professor emeritus at UNICAMP, who founded and was the coordinator of FAPESP’s Biota Program, created in 1999. This initiative enabled the description of over 500 species from the biodiversity of the state of São Paulo. The information also served as a basis for improving state conservation legislation.

Alexandre Affonso/Pesquisa FAPESP

In the assessment of physicist Marcia Barbosa, secretary of Strategic Policies and Programs of the MCTI and responsible for the SIBBR, the analysis made by the IBGE is important for showing the gaps and suggesting ways to remedy them. “There is another positive aspect of the study, which is drawing public attention to the tool’s resources and increasing the number of users. It is important that more people use the system so that this experience guides the work of the National Research Network, which keeps the system in operation,” says Barbosa, who is a researcher at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS).

However, the secretary states that the challenges are much broader than they appear. “The issue now is to obtain data about species that we do not yet know. We are going to need more funding and better strategies than we have today,” she says. “The advances in so-called synthetic biology demand that we learn to reproduce natural processes capable of substituting the production routes currently in use and which release carbon into the atmosphere. Knowing Brazilian biodiversity better is essential for achieving this objective.” Barbosa mentions an initiative that could help with this task: the Providence – Som da Floresta (Providence – Sound of the Forest) project, developed by the Mamirauá Institute of Sustainable Development, an organization linked to the MCTI and located in Tefé, in the state of Amazonas. The project is based on a device similar to a cell phone, supplied by solar energy, which can be hung on trees in the middle of the forest to collect images and, especially, sounds from the environment. “The technology is already available. The next step is to get international funding in order to be able to analyze the huge volume of data that these devices can collect in the forest,” she explains. In partnership with the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples, the MCTI plans to install devices in an Indigenous reserve and allow the sounds and images recorded to be monitored in real time by anybody on the internet. “This way, researchers from anywhere in the world will be able to help us identify the presence of species and geolocate them, as part of an open science scheme,” states the physicist, who foresees a large production of original records about plants and animals to supply the SIBBR.

Republish