Romulo, Chelsie L. 2012. Geodatabase of global owl species and
Geodatabase of Global Owl Species and Owl Biodiversity Analysis
Chelsie L. Romulo
6 August 2012
Geodatabase of Global Owl Species and
Owl Biodiversity Analysis
Chelsie Louise Romulo
Capstone submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Natural Resource Management
In
College of Natural Resources and Environment
Committee Members and Affiliations
Dr. Heather Eves, Virginia Tech
Dr. Steve Sheffield, Virginia Tech
David H. Johnson, Global Owl Project
2
06 August 2012
Falls Church, VA
Keywords: owl, biodiversity, GIS, database, range maps
Cite as: Romulo, Chelsie L. 2012. Geodatabase of global owl species and owl biodiversity analysis. Master of Natural Resources Capstone Paper. Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Falls Church, Virginia. 53 pp.
3
G
EODATABASE OF
G
LOBAL
O
WL
S
PECIES
&
O
WL
B
IODIVERSITY
A
NALYSIS
Chelsie Louise Romulo
Abstract
Global diversity assessments contribute to the understanding of large taxonomic groups, and conservation efforts depend on knowledge of taxonomic status, distribution and abundance of species. These assessments and databases provide a basis for studying patterns and changes in species distribution and diversity, especially in light of global issues such as climate change. As apex predators, owls can play a significant role in providing for broader ecosystem-level conservation and analysis. Because they are excellent indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem health, owls can be used to identify conservation targets and at-risk areas. By studying and conserving owl species, larger biodiversity conservation goals can be achieved. This project developed a geodatabase of
211 owl species range maps and analyzed the characteristics of the global distribution of owls for the Global Owl Project (GLOW). Density maps of species richness, threatened species, data deficient species, and restricted-range species were developed using the database. A rarity-weighted species index using the parameters of the threatened and restricted-range species revealed conservation priority areas in South America, central
Africa, and Indonesia.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Heather Eves and Dr. Steve Sheffield of Virginia Tech and David H. Johnson of the Global Owl Project as well as my GIS professor, Dr. Michael Krimmer of Northern Virginia Community College for their guidance and support for this project.
Cover Photo Credit
Cover Photograph by Bence Mate, 2011. www.matebence.hu
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls
Table of Contents
2012
APPENDIX I: Owl species included in the final geodatabase deliverable to the Global
5
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls
Introduction
2012
Monitoring and preserving owls and their habitat can be an efficient method of monitoring and conserving biodiversity. As apex predators, owls have demonstrated their pivotal role in providing for broader, ecosystem-level conservation and analysis
(USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994; Sergio et al. 2006).
Currently, the greatest threat to owls is loss of habitat, though they are also negatively impacted by pesticide use, vehicle collisions, and illegal trade (Sergio et al. 2004; König and Weick 1999; Ahmed 2010). Through genetic, vocalization, and geographic analyses, as well as continued discoveries of owls new to science, the list of owl species has grown from 141 species in 1940 to 211 species in 2012 (Gill and Donsker 2012; Peters 1940).
An assessment of global owl biodiversity has not been performed, though general analyses on birds and raptors have included owls (Buchanan et al. 2011; Butchart et al.
2004; Gaston et al. 2005; Lima et al. 2011). The International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN) lists 32 owl species as vulnerable to critically endangered and 22 owl species that are near threatened. Another 27 owl species have either not been evaluated, or do not have sufficient data to assign a status. Owl biodiversity serves as a good bioindicator for ecosystem health (Movalli et al. 2008; Sergio et al. 2004; Caro and
O’Doherty 1999), and conservation efforts that target owl species inherently protect many other species, habitats, and ecological functions. One important task is to prioritize those species and habitats in greatest need of conservation and effectively incorporate them into conservation strategies.
The Global Owl Project (GLOW) is an ongoing task force that provides a collaborative platform for owl researchers to discuss owl taxonomy, conservation, and monitoring protocols. GLOW was established in 2001 under a National Science Foundation grant for plant and animal inventories. It now involves 460 researchers in 65 countries. One of the 6 main tasks under the project is to refine maps of global owl species distributions.
Two of the main products the Global Owl Project plans to provide to the scientific community are (1) digitized species range maps and (2) identification of conservation priorities needing more in-depth work on owls.
The goals of this research are to create a global database of owl species and review the diversity and distribution of extant owl species. Using Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) software and collaboration with GLOW researchers, this study has created a new database that will serve as a foundation for research regarding the spatial characteristics of owl species. Secondly, a diversity analysis of global owl species was performed using a rarity-weighted species index. This geodatabase and analysis provides owl researchers and conservationists with a tool for identifying owl research needs and biodiversity conservation priorities. This paper documents the process for developing the geodatabase and the methodology and results of the diversity analysis. The literature review provides the background context for why owl conservation is important and how the geodatabase can contribute to the conservation of owls. The paper concludes with a discussion of owl distribution and recommendations for GLOW regarding use of the geodatabase.
6
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls
PURPOSE AND OBJ ECTIVES
2012
The purpose of this project is two-fold;
1.
To provide conservationists and researchers with a database hosted by GLOW that can be easily maintained and used to develop research about owl species.
2.
To assess the global distribution of owls and identify conservation priorities.
The objectives of this project are to create a geodatabase of global owl range maps and complete an analysis of global owl diversity. This research describes how owl species are distributed around the globe in terms of species richness, conservation status, restricted ranges, and data deficiencies. The rarity-weighted species index provides a biodiversity assessment that highlights the global hotspots with high density of at risk species. These hotspots are areas with the most urgent conservation needs.
Both the geodatabase and biodiversity assessment are core objectives of the Global Owl
Project and have never previously existed. The geodatabase will serve as a living repository of data about owl species and will be hosted by GLOW. Researchers can update and modify the database as new studies provide more information about the spatial characteristics of owls. GLOW plans on distributing the information gained from using the database via internet pages, publications, and symposia to an international audience.
The deliverables to GLOW are as follows:
1.
A geodatabase containing the range maps for all named owl species
2.
An analysis of owl global diversity
3.
A series of global maps depicting the spatial distribution of owls regarding species density and conservation status
4.
A poster displaying the above maps and analysis
LITERATURE REVIEW
B IODIVERSITY A NALYSES
The IUCN defines biological diversity (biodiversity) as “the variability among living organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems” (IUCN 2011). Humans benefit from ecosystem services such as the direct yield of food and water, protection from floods and other weather events, cultural services such as spiritual and recreational activities, nutrient cycling, medicine, pollination of crops, and construction materials. The current rate of species loss is higher than should be expected from the fossil record (Barnosky et al. 2011). Losing species now in the critically endangered category would put the world
7
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012 into a level of mass extinction that has only occurred 5 times in 540 million years
(Barnosky et al. 2011). Evaluation of the fossil record also reveals that recovery from mass extinction events does not occur faster than several million years (Myers et al.
2000).
The Convention on Biological Diversity began in 1993 and now includes 193 countries which have acknowledged the importance of biodiversity. It is a global agreement addressing all aspects of biological diversity: genetic resources, species, and ecosystems.
Additionally, 175 countries have developed National Biodiversity Strategies and Action
Plans for implementing the goals of the convention at the national level (CBD No Date).
One of the IUCN goals is to develop a global index of the changing state of biodiversity.
The IUCN Red List provides taxonomic, conservation, and distribution information on plants and animals (IUCN 2011). Red List Indices have been completed for birds
(Butchart et al. 2004), but an analysis of owls specifically has not been completed. This paper provides a snapshot of the current state of owl biodiversity. From this standpoint, conservation goals can be set and monitored for the world’s owls.
Biodiversity is not evenly distributed around the globe, though there are trends that can be found. Generally, warmer, wetter, and consistent climates tend to support a greater number of species (Stattersfield et al. 1998). In an effort to categorize biodiversity, geodatabases and analyses have been completed for taxa such as mammals, amphibians, birds, and subsets of birds (Buchanan et al. 2011; Butchart et al. 2004; Ceballos and
Erhlich 2006; Gaston et al. 2005; Myers et al. 2000; Vences and Kohler 2008). These geodatabases provide information about the distribution of species richness and can be used to follow impacts to biodiversity. A general measure of global biodiversity found that 44% of all species of vascular plants and 35% of species in four vertebrate groups
(mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians) were found in 25 hotspots (Myers et al.
2000). The cumulative landmass of these hotspots covers only 1.4% of land surface globally.
One potential method for isolating priority areas of biodiversity conservation is to identify biodiversity hotspots. These hotspots are locations which have a relatively high number of narrowly distributed or at risk species. These species are at a higher risk of extinction because they are found in fewer areas than species with larger ranges. This method determines the location of areas with a higher density of species that are at a higher risk of extinction. Conserving these areas would then result in a higher return of investment compared with areas that do not contain at as many risk species. This methodology was used by The Nature Conservancy for their publication, Precious heritage: the status of biodiversity in the United States (Stein et al. 2000).
O WLS AND B IODIVERSITY C ONSERVATION
Owls have had a long evolutionary history on Earth. Various fossil owls are known from as far back as the Paleocene (60 mya). Kurochkin and Dyke (2011) provide a review of the fossil record of owls, and gave evidence for a Late Cretaceous (68.6 mya) evolutionary radiation of modern owls. During that timeframe owls have diverged across
8
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012 all continents except Antarctica and the vast majority of oceanic islands. While owls are widespread geographically, there are few areas where they are inherently species-rich.
The new strategic plan under the Convention on Biological Diversity is framed around the vision of “living in Harmony with Nature, where by 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people” (CBD No Date) There are four general values that human societies place on biodiversity (Noss and Cooperrider
1994):
1) Direct utilitarian values (e.g., medicine, food)
2) Indirect utilitarian values (e.g., ecosystem services and benefits)
3) Recreational and esthetic values (natural beauty, parks, natural reserves)
4) Intrinsic, spiritual and ethical values.
Owls have demonstrated their unique and significant applications in all four of these value areas. There are only a few animals on Earth (e.g., wolves, tigers, sharks) that have this kind of relationship with the human condition. Below is a brief review of owls as they relate to these biodiversity values.
1.
Direct utilitarian values . There is considerable use of owls for traditional medicines in China and Korea (Austin 1948; Gore and Won 1971) as well as black magic and witchcraft in parts of Africa (Cocker and Mikkola 2001). There is a substantial illegal trade of owls in India and Nepal related to medicinal uses, but also for other festival-related activities, such as during the Diwali festival in
India (Ahmed 2010; Gosai et al. 2012).
2.
Indirect utilitarian values.
Most owls either inhabit forests or use trees for important life-functions such as nesting. Some 83 species of owls require oldgrowth forests as part of their life histories (Marcot 1995). Several species of owls have played pivotal roles in regional forest management plans, e.g.,
Northern spotted owl ( Strix occidentalis) in the USA (USDA Forest Service and
USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994); powerful owl ( Ninox strenua) , sooty owl ( Tyto tenebricosa) and masked owl ( Tyto novaehollandiae) in New South
Wales, Australia (Department of Environment and Conservation 2006).
Owls are good bioindicators of ecosystem health and biodiversity. For example, high biodiversity levels have been associated with owl presence and suitable habitat for the eagle owl ( Bubo bubo ) (Sergio et al. 2004). Through nest box programs, barn owls ( Tyto alba ) are being used as agents of natural biological control of rodent pests in the grain fields of Israel (Meyrom et al. 2009), as well as palm oil plantations (Duckett 1976) and rice paddies (Hafidzi & Mohd 2003) in
Malaysia.
Many studies on the habitat and ecology of owl species have significantly advanced the broader field of natural resource sciences. In the United States, significant gains in our knowledge and scientific techniques of forest management
9
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012 and ecology have been achieved by studying the Northern spotted owl (Forsman et al. 2011).
3.
Recreational and esthetic values.
Owls are incredibly popular with birdwatchers, and often form a key activity in birding-related ecotourism programs. In the
1960’s, long-eared owls began wintering in small towns of Eastern Europe and have been drawing crowds of interested people. In 2011, an international conference was held in Kikinda, Serbia on the science and ecotourism aspects of long-eared owls, as some 26,000 of these owls had been counted in small towns in northern Serbia during the 2010 winter (David H. Johnson, pers. comm.).
4.
Intrinsic, spiritual and ethical values.
Our cultural identity is deeply rooted in our biological environment. Plants and animals are symbols of our world, preserved in flags, sculptures, and other images that define us and our societies. Throughout human history, and found in nearly every society on Earth, owls have variously symbolized knowledge, dread, wisdom, death, and religious beliefs in a spirit world (Marcot and Johnson 2003).
Owls and raptors have been recognized as ecologically important on a global basis and many regional and international organizations have implemented monitoring and conservation programs. MEROS (the Monitoring of European Raptors and Owls) was created in 1988 to consolidate regional raptor and owl monitoring activities in Europe.
The World Working Group on Birds of Prey and Owls has spent the last 30 years promoting international raptor conservation. Currently, the Global Owl Project focuses on collaboration to develop monitoring and conservation protocols. Since 1963, Bird
Life International has been assessing the status of all birds (> 10,000 species at present), including owls, for the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (The Red List). This includes five complete assessments of the global status of birds and several continental assessments (Burfield 2008). An overview of these assessments for Europe shows disproportionately poor conservation status of owls and raptors, and disproportionately declining populations among these groups compared with birds in general (Burfield
2008). This review also found a correlation between improved owl and raptor population numbers and the implementation of species action plans, though the overall trend for raptors during the 1990s was decreasing populations (Burfield 2008).
Because funds are finite, targeting conservation efforts is a primary concern for environmental groups. There needs to be an efficient method of identifying species and habitats that are most in need of conservation. Although an ecosystem approach is the most appropriate level for conserving biodiversity, trying to study all biodiversity can be cumbersome (Franklin 1993). Individual species can be used as indicator species, umbrella species, and flagship species to represent the overall status of biodiversity.
Using indicator species narrows the focus of data collection and monitoring while still encompassing the biodiversity of the region. Although owls and raptors can adapt to environmental change, declining populations are indicative of problems or changes in the ecosystem (Movalli et al. 2008).
10
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012
Owls can be used to estimate biodiversity because of several inherent traits: they are top predators, many have large geographical ranges, they are relatively easy to study, and some are particularly sensitive to environmental changes and toxicants at a range of spatial scales (Kovacs et al. 2008). Owls can represent biodiversity globally because they are found on every continent except Antarctica. Patterns of species richness and endemism are congruent among terrestrial vertebrates so one group can be used to represent the others (Lamoreux et al. 2006). Population assessments in one area can be extrapolated across a large geographic area for species with wide geographic ranges, such as many owls (Caro and O’Doherty 1999). Because of their body size, high metabolic rates, and longevity, owls can serve as reliable bioindicators of many toxicants in an environment, and they have shown sensitivity to a wide variety of toxic compounds
(Sheffield 1997). Prey species can be identified easily from undigested owl pellets. By feeding on a variety of prey species from small rodents to invertebrates, who in turn feed on lower trophic levels, owls can be used to estimate population abundance among prey species (Caro and O’Doherty 1999). During a 15-year study in Chile, owl pellets were analyzed to evaluate the richness of prey diets in response to precipitation levels, and correlations were found for several species between precipitation levels and diet richness
(Arim and Jaksic 2005).
METHODS
T HE G EODATABASE
Step 1: Selecting the Initial Attribute Data
Attributes are the information about spatial data that can be used to find correlations between spatial location and species characteristics. While any information of owl species could be included in the geodatabase and associated with the spatial location of owls, only certain criteria were included. Full English and scientific name were used as identifiers. Conservation status and restricted ranges were included as the initial analysis parameters for the biodiversity assessment.
Step 2: Collecting the Attribute Data
The June 2011 version of the International Ornithologist’s Union (IOU) list of bird names was used for the 207 extant and four extinct owl species (Gill and Donsker 2012). This organization maintains the global repository of taxonomic data on avian species and is frequently updated as new information is made available. This information is considered the most up to date and accurate for the global taxonomy of avian species. For purposes of analyses, the range maps of the four extinct owl species were not included in this project.
The IUCN Red List categorizes all animal species around the globe and assigns a relative conservation status, and the data for avian taxa is fairly complete (IUCN 2011; Butchart et al. 2004). The IUCN system is designed to determine the relative risk of extinction and highlight those species that are facing a higher risk of global extinction (IUCN No
Date). Because this system provides a relative rating that is consistent around the globe,
11
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012 it is the most appropriate for a comparative analysis of the conservation status of a global taxonomic group (Butchart et al. 2004).
Bird Life International is a global alliance of 117 conservation organizations that strive to conserve birds, their habitats and global biodiversity. They promote conservation and research about Endemic Bird Areas (EBAs), which are locations with two or more restricted-range species. A restricted-range avian species is defined as any species whose total global breeding range is < 50,000 square kilometers (Strattersfield et al. 1998).
Initially, the Bird Life International data for EBAs was used for the list of restrictedrange species (Strattersfield et al. 1998). In order to account for new species or changes in species information, the total range area for each species was calculated. Those species with a total distribution of < 50,000 square kilometers would inherently fulfill the restricted-range criteria and were included in the restricted-range category.
Step 3: Creating the Digital Map Files
Species maps were collected and digitized from September 2011 through March 2012.
Bird Life International Data Zone provided 190 range map shapefiles that covered 187 owl species (Bird Life International and NatureServe 2011). In some cases, there were multiple files per species or the species taxonomy had changed since the data was created. These maps were combined to create a single file for each individual species.
Another 24 species range maps were digitized using the field guide maps from Owls of the World (König and Weick 2008). Species specific and regional species range maps were also obtained for the Northern spotted owl (Davis et al. 2011), fulvous owl
(Ramirez-Julian et al. 2011), and the cinnabar boobook (Rasmussen 1999). The owl species that were included in the database, along with the region they are found and the format of the original map file are listed in Appendix I.
Range maps for 10 owl species on the IOU list were not obtained (Table 1). These 10 owls species were formerly subspecies that have been elevated to full species status in recent years. Updated maps for these 10 species and modifications or reductions to their
‘parent’ species ranges currently are not available. For example, in the Philippines, Otus nigrorum and Otus everettii were recently split from Otus megalotis (Miranda et al.
2011). While a broader range map exists for the former ‘parent’ O. megalotis , range maps showing the current distributions of O. megalotis and the two new species ( O. nigrorum and O. everettii ) do not yet exist (Hector Miranda, pers. comm.). This remains a gap in the geodatabase and a matter of conservation concern. The ranges of all 10 owl species are included in the database and analyses in the form of the ‘parent’ species.
Table 1. Owl species from the 2011 IOC List of Bird Names that were not included in the range map database, including reference to their nomenclature as distinct species.
IOC English Name. Ver
2.9.13 IOC, 11 July 2011
Scientific Name Taxonomic Notes
Choco Screech Owl
Vermiculated Screech Owl
Tanimbar Boobook
Megascops centralis
Megascops vermiculatus
Ninox forbesi
Megascops centralis is split from M. guatemalae (König et al.1999)
Megascops vermiculatus is split from M. guatemalae (König et al.1999)
Ninox forbesi is split from N. squamipila
12
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012
Halmahera Boobook
Northern Boobook
Hume's Hawk-Owl
Chocolate Boobook
Himalayan Owl
Everett’s scops owl
Negros scops owl
Step 4: Creating the Metadata
Ninox hypogramma
Ninox japonica
Ninox obscura
Ninox randi
Strix nivicolum
Otus everetti
Otus nigrorum
(Rheindt & Hutchinson 2007)
Ninox hypogramma is split from N. squamipila (Rheindt & Hutchinson 2007)
Ninox japonica , including florensis and totogo is split from N. scutulata (King 2002)
Ninox obscura is split from N. scutulata
(Rasmussen & Anderton 2005).
Ninox randi is split from N.scutulata
(King
2002)
Strix nivicolum is split from S. aluco
(Rasmussen & Anderton 2005).
Otus everetti is split from O. megalotus
(Miranda et al. 2011)
Otus nigrorum is split from O. mega lotus (Miranda et al. 2011)
A metadata file was created to describe the data and was updated as data were obtained or edited and is found in Appendix II. This file describes the database features and allows the project to be a living database that can be maintained by GLOW. This metadata file follows the format of Bird Life International (Birdlife International and NatureServe
2011) and adheres to the Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata developed by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC 1998).
Step 5: Creating the Geodatabase
The geodatabase was created using the ESRI software ArcGIS, version 10. All range maps were compiled into a geodatabase that has been packaged two different ways:
1.
A file geodatabase (proprietary software of ESRI)
2.
A folder of shapefiles (open-source) with species characteristics in an editable excel table.
The ESRI file geodatabase is a standard format for geodatabase systems and is used to organize spatial data. This format allows a GIS user to create interactions between the files and set up standard attribute categories for entering new data. This software is proprietary and produced by the company ESRI.
Despite the utility of a file geodatabase, the major downfall is accessibility for non-ESRI users and researchers who are not GIS savvy. A separate database using shapefiles and an associated Excel table was also produced. The basic file format for all spatial data is called the shapefile and this format is accessible to any GIS user regardless of their GIS software. Non-GIS users can also modify any data, except the spatial information, within the Excel file which can then be joined to the data.
A NALYSIS
13
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls
Step 1: Data Processing
All species maps were digitized as shapefiles in the two geodatabases. The final global density maps were created by overlaying a grid onto the range maps (Figure 1). The actual
2 grid has a cell size of 25 km (5 km x 5 km), which is finer than depicted here, but is harder to visualize. This map is the range of the Red Owl, which is a type of barn owl endemic to
Madagascar. For all range map grids, any cell which contained part of the range was given a value of 1 and all other cells were given a value of 0. Then, species density maps were combined by adding the number of species found in each grid cell.
2012
A cell size of 5km x 5 km was chosen because some original maps were of very coarse resolution, and a 25km
2
box was the smallest grid size that would retain smaller ranges, which fit into a single cell. This process created a global file for each species. The global raster was created by dissolving a country polygon file and projecting it into Winkel-Tripel. Winkel-
Tripel is a projection used for global maps that is a compromise
Figure 1. Range map and global raster grid of the red owl, (Tyto
soumagnei).
between several projections to reduce overall visual distortion.
It has been adopted by National Geographic as their standard world map projection.
Step 2: Species Density Maps
For the Species Richness (Figure 3), Near Threatened Species (Figure 4), Threatened
Species (Figure 5), Restricted-Range Species (Figure 6), and Data Deficient Species
(Figure 7), the final global density maps were created using a raster calculator. This method adds the number of species found in each location. The value of each cell in the final maps represents the number of species in that cell.
Step 3: Rarity-Weighted Species Index
The rarity-weighted species index (results in Figures 8 through 8c) is a method that assigns a relative score to all cells. This score is based on how important the cell is in terms of species conservation (Stein et al. 2000). For this analysis, species were included that either have a threatened conservation status or have a restricted range. The values assigned to each cell were based on the inverse of the number of cells in which a species occurs. For example, if a species is found in only a single cell, that cell is given a value of or 1. For a species found in ten cells, each cell would have the value of or 0.1.
Cells that contain species only found in a few places are irreplaceable from a conservation perspective. Cells that contain many species that are also found in many other cells would be more easily replaced and are in less need of conservation. This method gives increased significance to cells that contain species that do not occur in other cells.
14
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012
The inverse of the number of cells was multiplied by 10,000 to create a range of numbers that were integers and easier to operate for raster cell values. Then, the range maps were compiled using raster calculator and the map was classified using standard deviations.
Standard deviation was used to highlight cells with the highest relative value, and therefore highest concern in terms of conservation need. There are no numbers associated with these maps because the numbers are a relative value based on rarity and have no meaning independent of each other.
Step 4: Cartography
The Winkel-Tripel projection was used for the final map images as it is recognizable and common (it is the official world projection of National Geographic), and it is a compromise between several projections to provide the least distortion throughout the entire globe. Graticules, ocean topography, and country line data were obtained free from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the
North American Cartographic Information Society (NACIS).
RESULTS
Range Map Geodatabase
Previously, a complete geodatabase of owl range maps did not exist and digital range maps only existed for 187 owl species. Range maps for most owls had been created, but not all were digitally incorporated into GIS. Now, all 18 species of barn owls (Family
Tytonidae) and 194 of the 204 species of owls (Family Strigidae) have digital maps, and all of these maps are contained within a single geodatabase. The original format of all maps included in the geodatabase is listed in Appendix I, found in the column “original data”.
There are two versions of the geodatabase. One is a file geodatabase, which can only be accessed using proprietary software by ESRI. This format is often preferred because the database can be programmed to populate all files with the same attribute table, or maintain the same characteristics, such as projections. However, since this format is both proprietary and inaccessible by non-GIS savvy users, the geodatabase is also saved as a windows explorer folder of shapefiles and an associated Excel file (Figure 2). The Excel file contains all the attribute information and can be edited by anyone using Microsoft
Office software, and this file can be joined to the range map shapefiles by any GIS user.
The Excel file can also be joined to the file geodatabase, making the tabular data accessible regardless which database is being used. The two systems give GLOW the opportunity to decide what format works best for the collaboration of their datasets.
15
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012
Figure 2. Excerpt from the final attribute table for the owl range map geodatabase.
Spatial Trends
The largest grouping of owl species living in the same geographic area is 20, though between 5 and 10 is more common (Figure 3). There are hotspots of general species density in southeast Asia, western North America, and south-central Africa.
Figure 4 depicts the distribution of those species designated as Near Threatened by the
IUCN. There are 23 species in this category and they are found in North America,
Indonesia and the Philippines.
Almost 15% of all owl species (32) currently are considered endangered or vulnerable; while for birds overall the number is 12.5% (Stattersfield et al. 1998). This number does not include the 35 owl species that are data deficient or not evaluated by the IUCN, so the actual number of endangered or vulnerable owls may be much higher. The threatened species are concentrated along the Ivory Coast and on islands, especially in the South
Pacific (Figure 5). However, this figure and map does not include the 35 owl species that the IUCN has not evaluated or are data deficient (Figure 7). The number of threatened species and their distribution may be much larger than what is depicted here. Figure 5a identifies a conservation priority in Indonesia and the Philippines, which has the highest concentration of data deficient and not evaluated species.
About one third of all owl species (75) fall into the restricted-range category, mostly in the Western Hemisphere and Africa (Figure 6). Of these, 8 species are also data deficient and another 17 are endangered or vulnerable.
There are 35 owl species that are either data deficient or have not been evaluated by
IUCN, and have not been assigned conservation status. This represents 15% of all owls and these species are concentrated in Africa (Figure 7). This is an area that requires more research and funding in order to determine the conservation needs of those owl species.
Once these species are classified, the threatened species map and rarity-weighted species index results may change.
16
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012
The rarity-weighted species index (Figure 8) identified 3 major hotspots in South
America (Figure 8a), Africa (Figure 8b), and Indonesia (Figure 8c). These are areas that have a relatively high number of irreplaceable cells because the species within them are threatened and/or have a restricted range and are not found elsewhere on Earth. Table 2 lists the species found in these hotspots. The ranges of 30 species overlap or are contained within the hotspot identified in South and Central America (Figure 8a). Of these, 3 are threatened and 4 have restricted ranges. Twenty-one species are found in the
African hotspot (Figure 8b), including 4 threatened species, 4 restricted-range species, and 2 data deficient species. The Indonesia and Philippine Island hotspot (Figure 8c) contains the most species at 60. Of those 60, 16 are threatened, 29 have restricted ranges, and 2 are data deficient.
Buff-fronted owl
Short-eared owl
Unspotted saw-whet owl
Stygian owl
Burrowing owl
Great horned owl
Ferruginus pygmy owl
Costa Rican pygmy owl
Central American pygmy owl
Andean pygmy owl
Cloud-forest pygmy owl
Subtropical pygmy owl
Crested owl
White-throated screech owl
Tropical screech owl
Bare-shanked screech owl
Colombian screech owl
Middle American screech owl
Rufescent screech owl
Koepcke’s screech owl
Cloud-forest screech owl
Cinnamon screech owl
West Pervian screech owl
Striped owl
Band-bellied owl
Spectacled owl
Rufous-banded owl
Black and white owl
Mottled owl
Western barn owl
Africa Hotspot
Abyssinian owl
Marsh owl
Spotted eagle owl
Table 2. Species whose ranges overlap with the red hotspots found in Figures 8 through 8c.
These areas not only include endangered, data deficient, and restricted-range species, but
Name also species of least concern.
Scientific Name
Conservation
Status
South and Central America Hotspot
Aegolius harrisii Least concern
Asio flammeus
Aegolius rideway
Asio stygius
Athene cunicularia
Bubo virginianus
Glaucidium brasilianum
Glaucidium costaricanum
Glaucidium griseiceps
Glaucidium jardinii
Glaucidium nubicola
Glaucidium parkeri
Lophostrix cristata
Megascops albogularis
Megascops choliba
Megascops clarkia
Megascops colombianus
Megascops guatemalae
Megascops ingens
Megascops koepckae
Megascops marshalli
Megascops petersoni
Megascops roboratus
Pseudoscops clamator
Pulsatrix melanota
Pulsatrix perspicillata
Strix albitarsis
Strix nigrolineata
Strix virgata
Tyto alba
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Vulnerable
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Near threatened
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Near threatened
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Restricted
Range?
Asio abyssinicus
Asio capensis
Bubo africanus
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
17
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls
Name
Verreaux’s eagle owl
Akun eagle owl
Fraser’s eagle owl
Shelley’s eagle owl
Usambra eagle owl
Albertine owlet
Chestnut-backed owlet
Pearl-spotted owlet
Red-chested owlet
Maned owl
Sandy scops owl
African scops owl
Congo bay owl
Vermiculated fishing owl
Pel’s fishing owl
African wood owl
Western barn owl
African grass owl
Indonesia Hotspot
Philippine eagle owl
Barred eagle owl
Collared owlet
Javan owl
Buffy fish owl
Giant scops owl
Fearful owl
Andaman hawk owl
Togian boobook
Barking boobook
Cinnabar boobook
Solomon’s boobook
Manus boobook
Christmas boobook
Ochre-bellied boobook
New Britain boobook
Philippine hawk owl
Speckled boobook
Sumba boobook
Brown hawk owl
Hantu boobook
Little sumba hawk owl
New Ireland boobook
Flores scops owl
Nicobar scops owl
Javan scops owl
Indian scops owl
Andaman scops owl
Biak scops owl
Rajah scops owl
Sangihe scops owl
Ryukyu scops owl
Enggano scops owl
Scientific Name
Bubo lacteus
Bubo leucostictus
Bubo poensis
Bubo shelleyi
Bubo vosseleri
Glaucidum albertinum
Glaucidium castanotum
Glaucidium perlatum
Glaucidium tephronotum
Jubula letti
Otus icterorhynchus
Otus senegalensis
Phodilus prigoginei
Scotopelia bouvieri
Scotopelia peli
Strix woodfordii
Tyto alba
Tyto capensis
Bubo philippensis
Bubo sumatranus
Glaucidium brodiei
Glaucidium castanopterum
Ketupa ketupu
Mimizuku gurneyi
Nesasio solomonensis
Ninox affinis
Ninox burhani
Ninox connivens
Ninox ios
Ninox jacquinoti
Ninox meeki
Ninox natalis
Ninox ochracea
Ninox odiosa
Ninox philippensis
Ninox punctulata
Ninox rudolfi
Ninox scutulata
Ninox squamipila
Ninox sumbaensis
Ninox variegata
Otus alfredi
Otus alius
Otus angelinae
Otus bakkamoena
Otus balli
Otus beccarii
Otus brookii
Otus collari
Otus elegans
Otus enganensis
18
2012
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Restricted
Range?
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Conservation
Status
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Near threatened
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
Not Evaluated
Least concern
Least concern
Data deficient
Least concern
Least concern
Endangered
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Vulnerable
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
Near threatened
Near threatened
Least concern
Vulnerable
Least concern
Least concern
Vulnerable
Near threatened
Vulnerable
Least concern
Least concern
Near threatened
Least concern
Least concern
Near threatened
Least concern
Endangered
Data deficient
Vulnerable
Least concern
Near threatened
Endangered
Least concern
Least concern
Near threatened
Near threatened
Name
Palawan scops owl
Luzon scops owl
Moluccan scops owl
Sulawesi scops owl
Mantanani scops owl
Philippine scops owl
Mentawi scops owl
Mindoro scops owl
Mindinao scops owl
Reddish scops owl
White-fronted scops owl
Siau scops owl
Wallace’s scops owl
Mountain scops owl
Oriental scops owl
Simeulue scops owl
Oriental bay owl
Brown wood owl
Spotted wood owl
Golden masked owl
Minahassa masked owl
Eastern grass owl
Manus masked owl
Taliabu masked owl
Sulawesi masked owl
Moluccan masked owl
Long-whiskered owlet
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls
Scientific Name
Otus fuliginosus
Otus longicornis
Otus magicus
Otus manadensis
Otus mantananensis
Otus megalotis
Otus mentawi
Otus mindorensis
Otus mirus
Otus rufescens
Otus sagittatus
Otus siaoensis
Otus silvicola
Otus spilocephalus
Otus sunia
Otus umbra
Phodilus badius
Strix leptogrammica
Strix seloputo
Tyto aurantia
Tyto inexspectata
Tyto longimembris
Tyto manusi
Tyto nigrobrunnea
Tyto rosenbergii
Tyto sororcula
Xenoglaux loweryi
2012
Conservation
Status
Near threatened
Near threatened
Least concern
Least concern
Near threatened
Least concern
Near threatened
Near threatened
Near threatened
Near threatened
Vulnerable
Critically endangered
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Near threatened
Least concern
Least concern
Least concern
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
Least concern
Vulnerable
Endangered
Least concern
Data deficient
Endangered
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Restricted
Range?
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
19
Figure 3. The global distribution of 210 of the 221 owl species identified by the International Ornithological Union.
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012
Figure 4. The global distribution of owl species with an IUCN conservation status of Near Threatened.
21
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012
Figure 5. The global distribution of owl species with an IUCN conservation status of Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered
22
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012
Figure 5a. Species distribution of the highest concentration of threatened and endangered owl species in the world, located in Indonesia, the Philippines, and the South Pacific.
23
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012
Figure 6. The global distribution of owl species with a restricted range, defined as those species with a total global distribution of equal to or less than
50,000 square kilometers. Higher concentrations of restricted-range species are identified by this map in North and South America and along the Ivory
Coast.
24
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012
Figure 7. The global distribution of species with an IUCN status of Data Deficient or Not Evaluated, identifying research priorities in Africa, eastern
Asia, western North and South America, and Australia.
25
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012
Figure 8. The global distribution and hotspots of owl species rarity, identifying areas of high conservation priority in South and Central America, Central
Africa, and Indonesia and the Philippines. Calculated using NatureServe’s rarity-weighted richness index.
26
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012
Figure 8a. Owl rarity hotspot in Central and South America, as identified by the rarity-weighted species index.
27
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012
Figure 8b. Owl rarity hotspot in Africa, as identified by the rarity-weighted species index.
28
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012
Figure 8c. Owl rarity hotspot in Indonesia, as identified by the rarity-weighted species index.
29
DISCUSSION
Studies exist on the global diversity of dragonflies (Kalkman et al. 2008), terrestrial mammals (Ceballos and Ehrlich, 2006), terrestrial and marine mammals (Schipper et al.
2008), freshwater amphibians (Vences and Kohler 2008), all amphibians (Stuart et al.
2004), forest-dependent birds (Buchanan et al. 2011), and all four extant terrestrial vertebrate groups (Lamoreux et al. 2006). The research on dragonflies, freshwater amphibians, mammals, and the four terrestrial vertebrate taxa reviewed distribution in terms of biogeographical region rather than actual ranges. In these studies, taxa are assigned to an area, such as ecoregions, and the total numbers for each region are evaluated. This method does not reflect actual range sizes and provides a nonconservative assessment of biodiversity (Ceballos and Ehrlich 2006). The review of mammal biodiversity also used a grid system of restricted-range and threatened species density, though their analysis used an algorithm that included species richness (Ceballos and Ehrlich 2006). The study on terrestrial and marine mammals reviewed global patterns of mammalian diversity using a hexagonal grid system created from speciesspecific range maps. This study presented density maps of the total number of species per grid cell for several criteria but did not analyze the relative conservation need of mammals (Schipper et al. 2008). The assessment for forest-dependent birds created a grid from species range maps where each cell value represented the total number of forest-dependent birds in that cell (Buchanan et al. 2011). This assessment also used a rarity-weighted analysis (referred to as “impact score”) that created a relative value for each cell. These values summed individually calculated scores for each species. As with the rarity-weighted species index, the individual species scores were the inverse of the total cells in a species range. The rarity-weighted species analysis gives a relative ranking for species, but inherently favors species with smaller range sizes. Since 72 species of owls (33%) are endemic to islands or island chains, the analysis was skewed toward these species. However, small range sizes also are inherently more vulnerable to habitat loss, and distribution size is a factor that contributes to extinction risk (Buchanan et al. 2011). The loss of a cell with a higher relative ranking would result in a greater impact than the loss of a cell with a lower index ranking. The barn owls (Family
Tytonidae) has been identified by Bird Life International as one of the avian families with the highest number of restricted-range species and they contributed heavily to this analysis (Stattersfield et al. 1998).
While preserving all owl habitats would be an ideal goal for owl conservation, limited time and resources demand a way to identify those species and habitats in greatest need of conservation. The darkest red areas on the rarity-weighted index maps (Figures 8 to
8c) are “hotspots” that represent ideal locations for concentrating conservation efforts for owls. These biodiversity hotspot maps identify three major conservation target areas from a weighted analysis of threatened and/or endemic species. These places in South and Central America, Africa, and Indonesia have high densities of species designated with a threatened conservation status and/or a restricted range. These areas correspond with Bird Life International EBAs. Indonesia has been identified as the most important country for number of EBAs (Stattersfield et al. 1998). Ceballos and Ehrlich (2006) evaluated the global distribution of biodiversity for mammal species using species richness, restricted-range species, and threatened species. Hotspots of mammal diversity
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012 were found in equatorial South America, Africa and Southeast Asia, which are similar to the spatial location of owl species hotspots. Buchanan et al. (2011) identified the same three areas as hotspots for conservation priorities for forest-dependent bird species. The correlation between the owl species hotspots and these other studies supports the claim that owls can used as bioindicator species for biodiversity analyses.
The rarity-weighted species analysis did not include owls in the Near Threatened category. Of these 23 species, 19 have a declining population trend (IUCN, 2011).
Overall, almost 38% of owl species have decreasing populations and 12% have unknown population trends (IUCN, 2011). A majority of owls in every IUCN category except
Least Concern have either a decreasing or unknown population trend (Figure 9). Of the owls in the Least Concern category, 25% (34 species) have a decreasing or unknown population trend. A spatial evaluation of owls with a declining or unknown population trend would identify areas with higher research or conservation needs.
Figure 9. The population trend (increasing, decreasing, stable, or unknown) for owls by
IUCN conservation status. Multiple categories were combined to create a single category for threatened species (Critically Endangered, Endangered, and Vulnerable) and for data deficient species (Data Deficient and Not Evaluated). (IUCN, 2011).
Africa has been identified as an area with research needs for avian species (Buchanan et al. 2011; Butchart et al. 2004) and, as the results show, owls are no exception (Figure 7).
This rarity-weighted species analysis did not include species that have a data deficient status or have not been evaluated by the IUCN. An evaluation of avian species in the
IUCN data deficient category found that inadequate information on status was the
31
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012 primary factor preventing assignment to another category (Butchart and Bird 2010). This evaluation recommends surveys to clarity population size, distribution, and trends as priority research for these species. The population trend for most owls in the Data
Deficient and Not Evaluated category is unknown (Figure 9). The 35 species in the data deficient and not evaluated category are concentrated in Africa. The high density of missing information in Africa marks the area as a high priority for conservation research.
New information in Africa may change the results of this rarity-weighted species analysis.
The Philippines and Indonesia have been identified as hotspots by several studies on the biodiversity of birds (Buchanan et al. 2011; Stattersfield et al. 2000). The rarity-weighted species index also identified the area as a hotspot for owls specifically. Of the three hotspots identified in the analysis (Figure 8), the hotspot in Indonesia and the Philippines
(Figure 8c) by far includes the most species, the most threatened species, and the most restricted-range species (Table 2). Of the 60 owl species found within this hotspot, 31 are listed by the IUCN as having decreasing population trends (IUCN 2011). This is an area that needs to be prioritized for owl conservation and biodiversity conservation in order to protect the endemic species and prevent further decline. The number of endemic species in the area is possibly related to the number of islands, and the total number of species may be understated in the Philippines (Lohman et al. 2010). The potential for a larger number of species in this area reflects a need for more taxonomic research. More than 97% of the original forest cover in the Philippines has been lost and, in Indonesia,
90% of the forested areas are under logging permits (Ong 2002). Logging and mining have historically been the largest threats to Philippine forests, though population density and growth rate are increasing pressure on natural resources (Ong 2002). Although the
Philippines has a national park system that designates protected areas, there are limited resources for management and enforcement to protect these parks (Ong 2002). However, in 2001, the Philippine Biodiversity Conservation Priority-Setting Program was completed with the goals of building consensus for conservation strategies. This consensus identified 206 priority areas for conservation, of which 53% had no protection.
In 1998 the Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources signed a memorandum of agreement with the World Owl Trust, Fauna and Flora International, and the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (Warburton 2009). The objectives of the agreement were to facilitate field research, education and conservation breeding programs for Philippine owls. The resulting Philippine Owl Conservation Programme has identified conservation tasks and concerns, stating the lack of remaining forests and protected areas as a priority issue (Warburton 2009).
Future Research with the Owl Range Map Geodatabase
While generalized range maps are helpful in understanding the global distribution of owl species, the strength of the geodatabase lies in the ability to assess spatial trends. A geodatabase of owl range maps did not exist before this project. The rarity-weighted species analysis is the first step in answering many questions about owl conservation.
Each study that is added to the database strengthens the ability to analyze more research questions about owl biogeography. This section discusses potential future research using the geodatabase.
32
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012
This project identifies target areas for conservation, but further analysis should review potential threats and land management status. Some areas may have already been designated as conservation lands, while other areas may be in danger of resource depletion or development, such as in the Philippines (Ceballos and Ehrlich 2006; Myers et al. 2000). Population growth and habitat loss can be mapped and the rate of change can be extrapolated to predict future conditions. Future habitat loss can be estimated by overlaying this information onto range maps. This type of analysis can determine where species will experience the largest impacts. This method could also identify species that currently are not threatened but may become so in the near future (Vale et al. 2008).
Scharlemann et al. (2005) have shown that the number of restricted-range avian species which also have a threatened conservation status can be predicted by land use analysis and human population density. A global amphibian study reviewed the distribution of species in different IUCN categories, as well as the change in threat from 1980 (Stuart et al. 2004). Those species with a higher threat in 2004 compared to 1980 were also divided into three categories (over-exploited, reduced-habitat, and enigmatic-decline) based on threats. This study highlights areas with declining populations as targets for conservation as well as identifying potential causes for the decline.
A review of avian research areas revealed that conservation research is concentrated in a small proportion of species and areas (Lima et al. 2011). Future research should integrate prioritization systems and evaluations of current scientific knowledge. The owl geodatabase can be populated with the location and number of existing studies and used to identify locations where conservation research can be concentrated. Using this method, research efforts can be optimized to provide the most amount of new information about the largest number of species.
The owl geodatabase can be used to identify priorities for the designation of new protected areas, and to evaluate the effectiveness of existing protected areas. Although protected areas currently cover about 13% of the world’s land, the 193 Parties to the
Convention on Biological Diversity have committed to expand this area to about 17%
(Butchart et al. 2012). Lower risks of avian species extinction are correlated with the location of protected areas (Butchart et al. 2012). As a successful means of protecting biodiversity, potential protected areas should be spatially evaluated to maximize conservation. One assessment of mammal species in Central America revealed that restricted-range species at most risk of extinction were located outside of established protected areas (Jenkins and Giri 2008). In Africa, which has been shown to have significant research needs, protected areas cover only 14% of suitable habitat for globally threatened avian species (Beresford et al. 2011). This type of review can help land use and conservation planners develop protected areas that are better at including species at risk of extinction.
The database currently does not include the legal status of owl species. The legal conservation status of an owl may be different from the IUCN status, or differ across political boundaries. The Northern spotted owl ( Strix occidentalis ), for example, is listed as Endangered under the Endangered Spcies Act in the United States, but the IUCN only considers it Near Threatened (though with a declining population trend) (Davis et al.
2001; IUCN, 2011). The addition of legal status into the database could identify areas
33
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls with high densities of owls that are both threatened with extinction and have no, or inadequate, legal protection.
2012
A recent global range analysis of raptors, including owls, found that island species skewed the range size distribution of the entire group (Gaston et al. 2005). In this analysis, 76 owl species were found to be endemic to islands or island chains, representing 34% of owl species. However, this is a small percentage of owls when compared with all birds. For birds in general, 53% of all species are endemic to islands or island chains (Stattersfield et al. 1998). Although islands generally have lower levels of species diversity than the larger geographic areas of mainlands, the ability to fly has allowed birds to have access and increase their dispersal to islands (Stattersfield et al.
1998). With increasing information about owl genetics, the distribution and dispersal patterns of owl taxa can also be evaluated, as has been done for freshwater amphibians
(Vences and Kohler 2008). Patterns in range map sizes of raptors have been reviewed without conclusive results (Gaston et al. 2005), and analysis of birds overall show that spatial patterns in range size do not reflect global rules (Orme et al. 2006). Further analysis using the geodatabase could provide insights on the spatial trends of owl species.
The largest grouping of owl species living in the same geographic area is 20, though between 5 and 10 is more common. All owls are high trophic level species that can act simultaneously as competitors and predators for other owls. Thus, the spatial distribution of owls relative to other owls may be related to these competition and predation interactions. The behavior of the little owl ( Athene noctua ) changes with the presence of barn owls ( Tyto alba ) (Zuberogoitia et al. 2008), and research on the interactions of barred owls ( Strix varia ) indicates that it displaces the Northern spotted owl ( Strix occidentalis caurina ) (Wiens 2012). Overall trends in body size could be used to evaluate the effects of resource partitioning on owl species distributions. If owl guilds are defined, a study on the spatial distribution of owl guilds could reveal that the niches available to owls are so well divided that in any given area there may only be one, or few, owl species within each guild.
The range boundaries of birds have been shown to be correlated with climatic factors
(Böhning-Gaese and Lemoine 2004). As the global climate changes, many bird species are responding by moving to new areas (Sorte and Jetz 2010). Just as other bird species and habitats adjust to new weather patterns, the ranges of owl species can be expected to change. Temporal studies of the spatial distribution of owls can be assessed, and range changes can be predicted using models of habitat and prey distributions.
CONCLUSION
This project provides the Global Owl Project with a geodatabase of owl range maps and an initial biodiversity analysis of owls in the form of a rarity-weighted species index.
Species density maps reveal the spatial distribution of restricted range, at risk, and data deficient species. The initial biodiversity analysis highlights priority areas for conservation and concurs with previous studies that have mapped biodiversity hotspots for birds (including EBAs) and mammals. The Global Owl Project now has an effective tool for analyzing spatial relationships for owl species in the range map geodatabase.
34
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012
Any researcher will be able to contribute information and view the tabular data and any
GIS user will be able to obtain or analyze the spatial data. With new or changing information, the database will require regular maintenance to remain current.
Collaboration will be needed between researchers in the field and GIS analysts to refine each species map.
References
Discussion
Ahmed, A. 2010. Imperiled custodians of the night: a study on illegal trade, trapping and use of owls in India. TRAFFIC India/WWF-India. New Delhi, India. 76 pp.
Arim, M., and F. Jaksic. 2005. Productivity and food web structure: association between productivity and link richness among top predators. Journal of Animal Ecology
74:31-40.
Austin, O. L. 1948. The birds of Korea. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative
Zoology of Harvard College 101:1-301.
Barnosky, A., N. Matzke, S.Tomiya, G. Wogan, B. Swartz, T. Quental, C. Marshall, J.
McGuire, E. Lindsey, K. Maguire, B. Mersey, and E. Ferrer. 2011. Has the
Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471:51-57.
Beresford, A.E., G. M. Buchanan, P. F. Donald, S. H. M. Butchart, L. D. C. Fishpool, and
C. Rondinini. 2011. Poor overlap between the distribution of protected areas and globally threatened birds in Africa. Animal Conservation 14:99-107.
Böhning-Gaese, K., and N. Lemoine. 2004. Importance of climate change for the ranges, communities, and conservation of birds. Advances in Ecological
Research 35:211-236.
Buchanan, G., P. Donald, and S. Butchart. 2011. Identifying priority areas for conservation: A global assessment for forest-dependent birds. Public Library of
Science ONE 6:29080.
Burfield, I. 2008. The conservation status and trends of raptors and owls in Europe.
Ambio 37:401-407.
Butchart, S. H. M., and J. P. Bird. 2010. Data deficient birds on the IUCN Red List:
What don’t we know and why does it matter? Biological Conservation 143:239-
247.
Butchart, S., A. Stattersfield, L. Bennum, S. Shutes, H. Akcakaya, J. Baillie, S. Stuart, C
Hilton-Taylor, and G. Mace. 2004. Measuring the global trends in the status of biodiversity: Red list indices for birds. Public Library of Science ONE 2:383.
35
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012
Butchart, S., J. Scharlemann, M. Evans, S. Quader, S. Arico, J. Arinaitwe, M. Balman, L.
Bennum, B. Bertzky, C. Besancon, T. Boucher, T. Brooks, I. Burfield, N.
Burgess, S. chan, R. Clay, M. Crosby, N. Davidson, N. Silva, C. Devenish, G.
Dutson, D. Fernandex, L. Fishpool, C. Fitzgerald, M. Foster, M. Heath, M.
Hockings, M. Hoffmann, D. Knox, F. Larson, J. Lamoreau, C. Loucks, I. May, J.
Millett, D. Molloy, P. Morling, M. Parr, T. Ricketts, N. Seddon, B. Skolnik, S.
Stuart, A. Upgren, and S. Woodley. 2012. Protecting important sites for biodiversity contributes to meeting global conservation targets. Public Library of
Science ONE 7:32529.
Caro, T., and G. O’Doherty. 1999. On the use of surrogate species in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 13:805-814.
Ceballos, G., and P. Ehrlich. 2006. Global mammal distributions, biodiversity hotspots, and conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103:19374-
19379.
Cocker, M., and H. Mikkola. 2001. Magic, myth and misunderstanding: cultural responses to owls in Africa and their implications for conservation. Bulletin of the African Bird Club 8:30-35.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). No Date. National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). Website. Accessed online July 2012 at http://www.cbd.int/nbsap/.
Davis, R., K. Dugger, S. Mohoric, L. Evers, and W. Aney. 2001. Status and trends of
Northern spotted owl populations and habitats. USDA Forest Service, General
Technical Report PNW-GTR-850. 156 pp.
Department of Environment and Conservation. 2006. NSW [New South Wales] recovery plan for the large forest owls: Powerful Owl ( Ninox strenua ), Sooty Owl
( Tyto tenebricosa ) and Masked Owl ( Tyto novaehollandiae ). DEC, Sydney.
Accessed online August 2012 at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/TSRecoveryPlanForestOwl s.pdf.
Duckett, J. E. 1976. Owls as major predators of rats in oil palm estates with particular reference to Barn Owl ( Tyto alba ). Planters, Kuala Lumpur 52:4-15.
Franklin, J. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems, or landscapes.
Ecological Applications 3:202-205.
Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). 1998. Content standards for digital spatial metadata (revised June 1998). Federal Geographic Data
Committee.Washington, D.C. FGDC-STD-001-1998. 90 pp.
Forsman, E. D., R. G. Anthony, K. M. Dugger, E. M. Glenn, A. B. Franklin, G. C. White,
C. J. Schwarz, K. P. Burnham, D. R. Anderson, J. D. Nichols, J. E. Hines, J. B.
36
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012
Lint, R. J. Davis, S. H. Ackers, L. S. Andrews, B. L. Biswell, P. C. Carlson, L. V.
Diller, S. A. Gremel, D. R. Herter, J. M. Higley, R. B. Horn, J. A. Reid, J.
Rockweit, J. P. Schaberl, T. J. Snetsinger, and S. G. Sovern. 2011. Population demography of Northern Spotted Owls. Studies in Avian Biology No. 40.
University of California Press, Berkeley. 103 pp.
Gaston, K., R. Davies, C. Gascoigne, and M. Williamson. 2005. The structure of global species-range size distributions: raptors and owls. Global Ecology and
Biogeography 14:67-76.
Gill, F., and D. Donsker (eds). 2012. IOC world bird names (v 2.11). Accessed online
March 2012 at http://www.worldbirdnames.org/.
Gore, M. E. J., and P-O. Won. 1971. Birds of Korea. Royal Asiatic Society Korea
Branch in conjunction with Taewon Publishing Company, Seoul. 396 pp.
Gosai, K. R., N. P. Koju, and D. K. Karmacharya. 2012. Local perceptions about owls in Nepal - A case study in Bhaktapur District, Bhaktapur, Nepal. 26 pp.
Hafidzi, M. N., and N. Mohd. 2003. The use of the Barn Owl, Tyto alba , to suppress rat damage in rice fields in Malaysia. In: Singleton G.R., Hinds L.A., Krebs C.J. &
Spratt D.M. (eds) Rats, mice and people: Rodent biology and management.
ACIAR Monograph 96:274–276.
IUCN. No Date. About the IUCN Red List. Accessed online July 2012 at http://www.iucnredlist.org/about.
IUCN. 2011. IUCN Red List of threatened species. Version 2011.2. Accessed online
March 2012 at www.iucnredlist.org.
Jenkins, C., and C. Giri. 2008. Protection of mammal diversity in Central America.
Conservation Biology 22:1037-1044.
Kalkman, V. J., V. Clausnitzer, K-D. B. Dijkstra, A. G. Orr, D. R. Paulson, and J. van
Tol. 2008. Global diversity of dragonflies (Odonata) in freshwater.
Hydrobiologia 595:351-363.
King, B. 2002. Species limits in the Brown Boobook Ninox scutulata complex. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club 122:250-257.
König, C., F. Weick, and J. Becking. 1999. Owls: a guide to the owls of the world. Yale
University Press, New Haven, CT. 462 pp.
Kovacs, A., U. Mammen, and C. Wernham. 2008. European monitoring for raptors and owls: state of the art and future needs. Ambio 37:408-412.
37
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012
Kurochkin, E. N., and G. J. Dyke. 2011. The first fossil owls (Aves: Strigiformes) from the Paleogene of Asia and a review of the fossil record of Strigiformes.
Paleontological Journal 45:445–458.
Lamoreux, J. F., J. C. Morrison, T. H. Rickets, D. M. Olson, E. Dinerstein, M. W.
McKnight, and H. H. Shugart. 2007. Global tests of biodiversity concordance and the importance of endemism. Nature 440: 212-214.
Lima, F., J. Bird, and J. Barlow. 2011. Research effort allocation and the conservation of restricted-range island bird species. Biological Conservation 144:627-632.
Lohman, D. J., K. K. Ingram, D. M. Praqiradilaga, K. Winker, F. H.Sheldon, R. G.
Moyle, P. K. L. Ng, P. S. Ong, L. K. Wang, T. M. Braile, D. Astuti, and R. Meier.
2010. Cryptic genetic diversity in “widespread” Southeast Asian bird species suggests that Philippine avian endemism is gravely underestimated. Biological
Conservation 143:1885-1890.
Marcot, B.G. 1995. Owls of old forests of the world. US Forest Service General
Technical Report PNW GTR-343, Portland, Oregon. 64 pp.
Marcot, B. G. and D. H. Johnson. 2003. Owls in mythology and culture. Pp. 88-105 In
J. R. Duncan (ed.) Owls of the world: their lives, behaviour and survival. Key
Porter Books, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 319 p.
Meyrom K., Y. Motro, Y. Leshem, S. Aviel, I. Izhaki, F. Argyle, and M. Charter. 2009.
Nest-box use by the Barn Owl Tyto alba in a biological pest control program in the Beit She'an valley, Israel. In: Johnson D.H., Van Nieuwenhuyse D. & Duncan
J.R. (eds) Proc. Fourth World Owl Conf. Oct–Nov 2007, Groningen, The
Netherlands. Ardea 97: 463–467.
Miranda, H., D. Brooks, and R. Kennedy. 2011. Phylogeny and taxonomic review of
Philippine lowland scops owls (Strigiformes): Parallel diversification of highland and lowland clades. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 123:441-453.
Movalli, P., G. Duke, and D. Osborn. 2008. Introduction to monitoring for and with raptors. Ambio 37:395-396.
Myers, N., R. Mittermeier, C. Mittermeier, G. da Fonseca, and J. Kent. 2000.
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853-858.
Noss, R. F., and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving nature’s legacy: protecting and restoring biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 443 pp.
Ong, P. 2002. Current status and prospects of protected areas in the light of the
Philippine biodiversity conservation priorities. Proceedings of UICN/WCPA-EA-
4 Taipei Conference, March 18-23, 2002, Taipei, Taiwan. 32 pp.
38
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012
Orme, C. D. L., R. G. Davis, V. A. Olson, G. H. Thomas, T. Ding, P. C. Rasmussen, R.
S. Ridgeley. A. J. Stattersfield, P. M. Bennett, I. P. F. Owens, T. M. Blackburn, and K. J. Gaston. 2006. Global patterns of geographic range size in birds. Public
Library of Science ONE 4:208.
Peters, J. 1940. Check-list of birds of the world, Vol 4. Museum of Comparative
Zoology, Harvard University. Cambridge, MA 02138. 303 pp.
Ramirez-Julian, R., F. Gonzalex-Garcia, and G. Reyes-Macedo. 2011. Record of the fulvous owl Strix fulvescens in the state of Oaxaca, Mexico. Revista Mexicana de
Biodiversidad 82:727-730.
Rasmussen, P. 1999. A new species of hawk-owl Ninox from North Sulawesi,
Indonesia. Wilson Bulletin 111:457-464.
Rasmussen, P., and J. Anderton. 2005. Birds of south Asia: the Ripley Guide . Lynx
Edicions, Barcelona, Spain. 384 pp.
Rheindt, F., and R. Hutchinson. 2007. A photoshot odyssey through the confused avian taxonomy of Seram and Buru (Southern Moluccas). Birding Asia 7:18-38.
Scharlemann, J., A. Balmford, and R. Green. 2005. The level of threat to restrictedrange bird species can be predicted from mapped data on land use and human population. Biological Conservation 123: 317-326.
Schipper, J., J. Chanson, F. Chiozza, N. Cox, M. Hoffmann, V. Katariya, J. Lamoreux, A.
Rodrigues, S. Stuart, H. Temple, J. Baillie, L. Boitani, T. Lacher Jr., R.
Mittermeier, A. Smith, D. Absolon, J. Aguiar, G. Amori, N. Bakkour, R. Baldi,
R. J. Berridge, J. Bielby, P. A. Black, J. J. Blanc, T. M. Brooks, J. A. Burton, T.
M. Butynski, G. Catullo, R. Chapman, Z. Cokeliss, B. Collen, J. Conroy, J. G.
Cooke, G. A. B. da Fonseca, A. E. Derocher, H. T. Dublin, J. W. Duckworth, L.
Emmons, R. H. Emslie, M. Festa-Bianchet, M. Foster, S. Foster, D. L. Garshelis,
C. Gates, M. Gimenez-Dixon, S. Gonzalez, J. F. Gonzalez-Maya, T. C. Good, G.
Hammerson, P. S. Hammond, D. Happold, M. Happold, J. Hare, R. B. Harris, C.
E. Hawkins, M. Haywood, L. R. Heaney, S. Hedges, K. M. Helgen, C. Hilton-
Taylor, S. A. Hussain, N. Ishii,T. A. Jefferson, R. K. B. Jenkins, C. H. Johnston,
M. Keith, J. Kingdon, D. H. Knox, K. M. Kovacs, P. Langhammer, K. Leus, R.
Lewison, G. Lichtenstein, L. F. Lowry, Z. Macavoy, G. M. Mace, D. P. Mallon,
M. Masi, M. W. McKnight, R. A. Medellín, P. Medici, G. Mills, P. D. Moehlman,
S. Molur, A. Mora, K. Nowell, J. F. Oates, W. Olech, W. R. L. Oliver, M. Oprea,
B. D. Patterson, W. F. Perrin, B. A. Polidoro, C. Pollock, A. Powel, Y. Protas, P.
Racey, J. Ragle, P. Ramani, G. Rathbun, R. R. Reeves, S. B. Reilly, J. E.
Reynolds III, C. Rondinini, R. G. Rosell-Ambal, M. Rulli, A. B. Rylands, S.
Savini, C. J. Schank, W. Sechrest, C. Self-Sullivan, A. Shoemaker, C. Sillero-
Zubiri, N. De Silva, D. E. Smith, C. Srinivasulu, P. J. Stephenson, N. van Strien,
B. K. Talukdar, B. L. Taylor, R. Timmins, D. G. Tirira, M. F. Tognelli, K.
Tsytsulina, L. M. Veiga, J-C. Vié, E. A. Williamson, S. A. Wyatt, Y. Xie, and B.
39
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012
E. Young. 2008. The status of the world’s land and marine mammals: diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science. 322:225-230.
Sheffield, S. R. 1997. Owls as biomonitors of environmental contamination. Pp. 383-
398, in Biology and Conservation of Owls of the Northern Hemisphere: 2 nd
International Symposium (Duncan, J.R., D.H. Johnson, and T.H. Nicholls,eds.).
USDA Forest Service, GTP NC-190. 635 pp.
Sergio, F., I. Newton, L. Marchesi, and P. Pedrini. 2004. Integrating individual habitat choices and regional distribution of a biodiversity indicator and top predator.
Journal of Biogeography 31:619-628.
Sergio, F., I. Newton, L. Marchesi, and P. Pedrini. 2006. Ecologically justified charisma: preservation of top predators delivers biodiversity conservation.
Journal of Applied Ecology 43:1049-1055.
Sorte, F., and W. Jetz. 2010. Avian distributions under climate change: toward improved projections. Journal of Experimental Biology 213:862-869.
Stattersfield, A. J., M. J. Crosby, A .J. Long, and D. Wege. 1998. Endemic bird areas of the world: priorities for biodiversity conservation. BirdLife Conservation Series
7. BirdLife International, Cambridge, MA. 846 pp.
Stein, B. A., L. S. Kutner, and J. S. Adams (eds). 2000. Precious heritage: the status of biodiversity in the United States. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. 399 pp.
Stuart, S. N., J. S. Chanson, N. A. Cox, B. E. Young, A. S. L. Rodrigues, D. L. Fischman, and R. W. Waller. 2004. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306:1783-1786.
USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management and habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the
Northern Spotted Owl. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land
Management, Portland, Oregon. 1641 pp.
Vale, M., M. Cohn-Haft, S. Bergen, and S. Pimm. 2008. Effects of future infrastructure development on threat status and occurrence of Amazonian birds. Conservation
Biology 22:1006-1015.
Vences, M., and J. Kohler. 2008. Global diversity of amphibians (Amphibia) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 595:569-580.
Warburton, T. 2009. The Philippine owl conservation programme: why is it needed? In:
Johnson, D.H., Van Nieuwenhuyse D. & Duncan J.R. (eds) Proc. Fourth World
Owl Conf. Oct–Nov 2007, Groningen, The Netherlands. Ardea 97:429-438.
40
Geodatabase and Biodiversity Analysis of Owls 2012
Wiens, J. 2012. Competitive interactions and resource partitioning between northern spotted owls and barred owls in western Oregon. Ph.D. dissertation, Oregon State,
Corvallis, OR. 156 pp.
Zuberogoitia, I., J. E. Martinez, J. Zabala, J. A. Martinez, A. Azkona, I. Castillo, and S.
Hidalgo. 2008. Social interactions between two owl species sometimes associated with intraguild predation. Ardea 96:109-113.
GIS Data
Amante, C., and B. Eakins. 2009. ETOPO1 1 Arc-minute global relief model: procedures, data sources and analysis. NOAA Technical Memorandum NESDIS
NGDC-24. 25pp.
BirdLife International and NatureServe. 2011. Bird species distribution maps of the world. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK and NatureServe, Arlington, USA.
(Digital Maps)
König, C., and F. Weick. 2008. Owls of the world. Yale University Press, New Haven and London. 528 pp.
North American Cartographic Information Society. 2012. Natural earth 1:110m physical vectors. Accessed online March 2012 at http://www.naturalearthdata.com.
Glossary
Biodiversity (biological diversity) : the variety of species and ecosystems in the world, including living organisms, their habitats and their genetic composition.
Geodatabase : a database designed to store, query, and manipulate geographic information and spatial data
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) : a system of hardware and software used for storage, retrieval, mapping, and analysis of geographic data.
Restricted-range avian species : any species whose total global breeding range is equal to, or less than, 50,000 square kilometers
Shapefile : is a digital file format for storing the location, shape, and attributes of geographic features
41
APPENDIX I: O WL SPECIES INCLUDED IN THE FINAL GEODATABASE
DELIVERABLE TO THE G LOBAL O WL P ROJ ECT , 2012.
IOC English
Name. Ver 2.9.13
IOC, 11 July 2011
Barn Owls (18)
Scientific Name
Family Tytonidae
Sri Lanka Bay Owl Phodilus assimilis
Oriental Bay Owl Phodilus badius
Congo Bay Owl Phodilus prigoginei
Western Barn Owl Tyto alba
Golden Masked
Owl
Tyto aurantia
African Grass Owl Tyto capensis
Eastern Barn Owl Tyto delicatula
Andaman Masked
Owl
Ashy-faced Owl
Tyto deroepstorffi
Tyto glaucops
Minahassa Masked
Owl
Tyto inexspectata
Eastern Grass Owl Tyto longimembris
Manus Masked Tyto manusi
Owl
Taliabu Masked
Owl
Australian Masked
Tyto nigrobrunnea
Tyto novaehollandiae
Owl
Sulawesi Masked
Owl
Moluccan Masked
Owl
Tyto rosenbergii
Tyto sororcula
Red Owl Tyto soumagnei
Sooty Owl Tyto tenebricosa
Owls (203)
Northern Saw-whet
Owl
Boreal Owl
Family Strigidae
Aegolius acadicus
Aegolius funereus
Buff-fronted Owl
Unspotted Sawwhet Owl
Abyssinian Owl
Marsh Owl
Short-eared Owl
Aegolius harrisii
Aegolius ridgwayi
Asio abyssinicus
Asio capensis
Asio flammeus
IUCN
Conservation
Status*
NE
LC
EN
LC
V
LC
NE
NE
LC
V
LC
V
E
LC
LC
DD
V
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
Restricted
Range?
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
LC No
Madagascar Owl
Long-eared Owl
Stygian Owl
Spotted Owlet
Burrowing Owl
Asio madagascariensis
Asio otus
Asio stygius
Athene brama
Athene cunicularia
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
No
No
No
No
No
Region
India
Asia, South Pacific
Africa
Africa, Europe, West
Asia
South Pacific
South Africa
Australia, South
Pacific
Asia
North America
South Pacific
South Pacific
South Pacific
Original
Data
Field Guide polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon
Field Guide
Field Guide polygon polygon polygon polygon
South Pacific
Australia polygon polygon
South Pacific polygon
South Pacific
Africa
Australia, South
Pacific
North America
Europe, Asia, North
America
South America
Central America
Africa
Africa
North America, South
America, Europe,
Asia
Madagascar
Europe, Asia, North
America
Central and South
America
India, SE Asia
North, Central, and polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon
Appendices 42
IOC English
Name. Ver 2.9.13
IOC, 11 July 2011
Scientific Name
Little Owl Athene noctua
Spotted Eagle-Owl Bubo africanus
Bubo ascalaphus Pharaoh Eagle-
Owl
Indian Eagle-Owl
Blakiston's Fish
Owl
Eurasian Eagle-
Owl
Cape Eagle-Owl
Bubo bengalensis
Bubo blakistoni
Bubo bubo
Bubo capensis
Greyish Eagle-Owl Bubo cinerascens
Dusky Eagle-Owl Bubo coromandus
Verreaux's Eagle-
Owl
Akun Eagle-Owl
Bubo lacteus
Bubo leucostictus
Lesser Horned Owl Bubo magellanicus
Spot-bellied Eagle-
Owl
Bubo nipalensis
Philippine Eagle-
Owl
Bubo philippensis
Fraser's Eagle-Owl Bubo poensis
Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus
Shelley's Eagle-
Owl
Bubo shelleyi
Barred Eagle-Owl Bubo sumatranus
Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus
Usambara Eagle-
Owl
Albertine Owlet
Yungas Pygmy
Owl
Ferruginous
Pygmy Owl
Collared Owlet
Bubo vosseleri
Glaucidium albertinum
Glaucidium bolivianum
Glaucidium brasilianum
Glaucidium brodiei
Northern Pygmy
Owl
African Barred
Owlet
Glaucidium californicum
Glaucidium capense
Javan Owlet
Chestnut-backed
Owlet
Costa Rican
Pygmy Owl
Glaucidium castanopterum
Glaucidium castanotum
Glaucidium costaricanum
Asian Barred Owlet Glaucidium cuculoides
Glaucidium gnoma Mountain Pygmy
Owl
Central American
Pygmy Owl
Amazonian Pygmy
Owl
Andean Pygmy
Glaucidium griseiceps
Glaucidium hardyi
Glaucidium jardinii
IUCN
Conservation
Status*
V
LC
LC
NT
LC
LC
V
V
LC
LC
LC
NE
LC
LC
LC
NE
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
NE
LC
LC
NE
LC
LC
NE
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
Restricted
Range?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Original
Data polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon
Field Guide polygon polygon
Field Guide polygon polygon polygon
Field Guide polygon polygon polygon
Field Guide polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon
Region
South America
Europe, Asia, Africa
Africa
Africa
India
Asia
Asia, Europe
Africa
Africa
India, SE Asia
Africa
Africa
South America
SE Asia
South Pacific
Africa
Europe, Asia, North
America
Africa
South Pacific
North, Central, and
South America
Africa
Africa
South America
South America
SE Asia
North America
Africa
South Pacific
India
Central America
SE Asia
North America
Central America
South America
South America
Appendices 43
IOC English
Name. Ver 2.9.13
IOC, 11 July 2011
Owl
Scientific Name
East Brazilian
Pygmy Owl
Glaucidium minutissimum
Pernambuco
Pygmy Owl
Glaucidium mooreorum
Austral Pygmy Owl Glaucidium nana
Cloud-forest
Pygmy Owl
Glaucidium nubicola
Colima Pygmy Owl Glaucidium palmarum
Subtropical Pygmy Glaucidium parkeri
Owl
Eurasian Pygmy
Owl
Pearl-spotted
Glaucidium passerinum
Glaucidium perlatum
Owlet
Pacific Pygmy Owl Glaucidium peruanum
Jungle Owlet Glaucidium radiatum
Tamaulipas Pygmy
Owl
Glaucidium sanchezi
Cuban Pygmy Owl Glaucidium siju
Sjöstedt's Barred
Owlet
Glaucidium sjostedti
Red-chested Owlet Glaucidium tephronotum
Bare-legged Owl Gymnoglaux lawrencii
Forest Owlet
Maned Owl
Tawny Fish Owl
Heteroglaux blewitti
Jubula lettii
Ketupa flavipes
Ketupa ketupu Buffy Fish Owl
Brown Fish Owl
Crested Owl
Ketupa zeylonensis
Lophostrix cristata
White-throated
Screech Owl
Eastern Screech
Owl
Black-capped
Screech Owl
Megascops albogularis
Megascops asio
Megascops atricapilla
Bearded Screech
Owl
Tropical Screech
Owl
Bare-shanked
Screech Owl
Colombian
Screech Owl
Megascops barbarus
Megascops choliba
Megascops clarkii
Megascops colombianus
Pacific Screech
Owl
Megascops cooperi
Flammulated Owl Megascops flammeolus
Middle American
Screech Owl
Yungas Screech
Owl
Megascops guatemalae
Megascops hoyi
Rufescent Screech Megascops ingens
IUCN
Conservation
Status*
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
CE
DD
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
CE
NE
V
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
NT
LC
LC
NT
LC
NE
LC
LC
LC
Appendices
Restricted
Range?
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Region
Original
Data
South America
South America
South America
South America
Central America
South America
Asia and Europe
Africa
South America
India
North America
Caribbean
Africa
Africa
Caribbean
India
Africa
SE Asia
SE Asia
Middle East, SE Asia
Central and South
America
South America
North America
South America
Central America
Central and South
America
South America polygon polygon
Field Guide polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon
Central America
South America
Central America
North America
Central America
South America polygon
Field Guide
Field Guide polygon polygon polygon
44
IOC English
Name. Ver 2.9.13
IOC, 11 July 2011
Owl
Scientific Name
Western Screech
Owl
Long-tufted
Screech Owl
Balsas Screech
Owl
Whiskered
Screech Owl
Tawny-bellied
Screech Owl
Elf Owl
Megascops kennicottii
Koepcke's Screech
Owl
Cloud-forest
Screech Owl
Megascops koepckeae
Megascops marshalli
Napo Screech Owl Megascops napensis
Puerto Rican
Screech Owl
Megascops nudipes
Cinnamon Screech
Owl
Megascops petersoni
Megascops roboratus West Peruvian
Screech Owl
Roraiman Screech
Owl
Megascops roraimae
Megascops sanctaecatarinae
Megascops seductus
Megascops trichopsis
Megascops watsonii
Micrathene whitneyi
Giant Scops Owl
Fearful Owl
Andaman Hawk-
Owl
Mimizuku gurneyi
Nesasio solomonensis
Ninox affinis
Southern Boobook Ninox boobook
Togian Boobook
Barking Boobook
Ninox burhani
Ninox connivens
Cinnabar Boobook Ninox ios
IUCN
Conservation
Status*
LC
LC
NT
NE
LC
LC
LC
NE
LC
NT
LC
LC
NE
NT
LC
V
LC
V
V
NT
Solomons
Boobook
Manus Boobook
Rufous Boobook
Ninox jacquinoti
Ninox meeki
Christmas
Boobook
Morepork
Ninox natalis
Ninox novaeseelandiae
Ninox ochracea Ochre-bellied
Boobook
New Britain
Boobook
Ninox odiosa
Philippine Hawk-
Owl
Ninox philippensis
Speckled Boobook Ninox punctulata
Sumba Boobook Ninox rudolfi
Ninox rufa
Brown Hawk-Owl
Little Sumba
Ninox scutulata
Hantu Boobook Ninox squamipila
Powerful Boobook Ninox strenua
Ninox sumbaensis
LC
LC
V
LC
NT
V
LC
LC
NT
LC
LC
LC
LC
NT
Restricted
Range?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Region
Original
Data polygon polygon polygon
Field Guide polygon polygon
Field Guide
Field Guide polygon polygon polygon polygon
Field Guide polygon polygon polygon
Field Guide polygon polygon
Journal
Article polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon
South America
North America
South America
South America
South America
Caribbean
South America
South America
South America
South America
Central America
Central America
Central and South
America
South America
North America
South Pacific
South Pacific
Asia
Australia
South Pacific
Australia
South Pacific
South Pacific
South Pacific
South Pacific
Asia
South Pacific
South Pacific
South Pacific
South Pacific
South Pacific
South Pacific
South Pacific
South Pacific
Appendices 45
IOC English
Name. Ver 2.9.13
IOC, 11 July 2011
Hawk-Owl
Scientific Name
White-browed
Hawk-Owl
Papuan Boobook
Ninox superciliaris
Ninox theomacha
New Ireland
Boobook
Ninox variegata
Flores Scops Owl Otus alfredi
Nicobar Scops Owl Otus alius
Javan Scops Owl Otus angelinae
Indian Scops Owl Otus bakkamoena
Andaman Scops
Owl
Biak Scops Owl
Rajah Scops Owl
Pallid Scops Owl
Otus balli
Otus beccarii
Otus brookii
Otus brucei
Anjouan Scops
Owl
Sangihe Scops
Owl
Otus capnodes
Otus collari
Ryukyu Scops Owl Otus elegans
Enggano Scops Otus enganensis
Owl
Palawan Scops
Owl
Otus fuliginosus
Sao Tome Scops
Owl
Otus hartlaubi
Sandy Scops Owl Otus icterorhynchus
Seychelles Scops
Owl
Otus insularis
Sokoke Scops Owl Otus ireneae
Sunda Scops Owl Otus lempiji
Collared Scops Otus lettia
Owl
Luzon Scops Owl Otus longicornis
Torotoroka Scops
Owl
Moluccan Scops
Owl
Otus madagascariensis
Otus magicus
Sulawesi Scops
Owl
Mantanani Scops
Owl
Otus manadensis
Otus mantananensis
Mayotte Scops Owl Otus mayottensis
Philippine Scops
Owl
Mentawai Scops
Owl
Otus megalotis
Otus mentawi
Mindoro Scops
Owl
Mindanao Scops
Owl
Otus mindorensis
Otus mirus
Moheli Scops Owl Otus moheliensis
Karthala Scops
Owl
Otus pauliani
Appendices
IUCN
Conservation
Status*
Restricted
Range?
NT
NT
NT
CE
CE
LC
LC
NT
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
E
DD
V
LC
NT
E
LC
LC
CE
LC
NT
NT
NT
V
LC
E
E
NE
NE
NT
NE
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Region
Original
Data polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon
Field Guide
Field Guide polygon
Field Guide
46
South Pacific
South Pacific
South Pacific
SE Asia
South Pacific
Australia
South Pacific
Africa
South Pacific
South Pacific
South Pacific
SE Asia
South Pacific
India
Asia
South Pacific
SE Asia
Middle East
Africa
South Pacific
South Pacific
SE Asia
South Pacific
Africa
Africa
Africa
Africa
India
SE Asia
South Pacific
Africa
South Pacific
South Pacific
South Pacific
IOC English
Name. Ver 2.9.13
IOC, 11 July 2011
Scientific Name
Pemba Scops Owl Otus pembaensis
Reddish Scops
Owl
Otus rufescens
Rainforest Scops
Owl
White-fronted
Scops Owl
Otus rutilus
Otus sagittatus
Eurasian Scops
Owl
Japanese Scops
Owl
Otus scops
Otus semitorques
African Scops Owl Otus senegalensis
Siau Scops Owl Otus siaoensis
Wallace's Scops
Owl
Otus silvicola
Socotra Scops Owl Otus socotranus
Mountain Scops
Owl
Sula Scops Owl
Otus spilocephalus
Otus sulaensis
Oriental Scops Owl Otus sunia
Serendib Scops
Owl
Otus thilohoffmanni
Simeulue Scops
Owl
Striped Owl
Otus umbra
Jamaican Owl
Pseudoscops clamator
Pseudoscops grammicus
Ptilopsis granti Southern Whitefaced Owl
Northern Whitefaced Owl
Ptilopsis leucotis
Tawny-browed Owl Pulsatrix koeniswaldiana
Band-bellied Owl Pulsatrix melanota
Spectacled Owl
Palau Owl
Pulsatrix perspicillata
Pyrroglaux podargina
Vermiculated
Fishing Owl
Pel's Fishing Owl
Rufous Fishing
Owl
Rufous-banded
Owl
Tawny Owl
Hume's Owl
Scotopelia bouvieri
Scotopelia peli
Scotopelia ussheri
Strix albitarsis
Strix aluco
Strix butleri
Chaco Owl
Pere David's Owl
Fulvous Owl
Strix chacoensis
Strix davidi
Strix fulvescens
Black-banded Owl Strix huhula
Rusty-barred Owl Strix hylophila
IUCN
Conservation
Status*
V
NT
LC
V
LC
NE
LC
CE
LC
NE
LC
NE
LC
E
NT
LC
LC
NE
NE
LC
LC
LC
NE
LC
LC
V
LC
LC
LC
LC
NE
LC
LC
NT
Restricted
Range?
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Region
Original
Data
Africa
Pacific Islands
India
South Pacific
South Pacific
Africa
Africa
Africa
South Pacific
Africa
SE Asia
Africa, Europe, West
Asia
SE Asia
Africa
South Pacific
South Pacific
Africa
SE Asia
South Pacific
Asia
India
SE Asia
Central and South
America
Caribbean
Africa
Africa
South America
South America
Central and South
America
South Pacific
Africa
Africa
Africa
South America
Field Guide polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon
Field Guide
Field Guide polygon polygon polygon
Field Guide polygon polygon polygon
Field Guide polygon polygon polygon
Field Guide
Journal
Article polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon
Field Guide polygon polygon polygon
Field Guide polygon
Appendices 47
IOC English
Name. Ver 2.9.13
IOC, 11 July 2011
Brown Wood Owl
Great Grey Owl
Black-and-white
Owl
Spotted Owl
Scientific Name
Strix leptogrammica
Strix nebulosa
Strix nigrolineata
Strix occidentalis
Mottled Wood Owl Strix ocellata
Rufous-legged Owl Strix rufipes
Spotted Wood Owl Strix seloputo
Ural Owl
Barred Owl
Strix uralensis
Strix varia
Mottled Owl Strix virgata
African Wood Owl Strix woodfordii
Northern Hawk-
Owl
Surnia ulula
Papuan Hawk-Owl Uroglaux dimorpha
Long-whiskered
Owlet
Xenoglaux loweryi
* IUCN Conservation Status Definitions:
LC: Least Concern
DD: Data Deficient
NT: Near Threatened
NE: Not Evaluated
IUCN
Conservation
Status*
LC
LC
LC
NT
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
DD
E
Restricted
Range?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
V: Vulnerable
Region
Europe
Middle East
South America
China
Central America
South America
South America
SE Asia, India
Europe, Asia, North
America
Central and South
America
Asia
North America
India
South America
Original
Data polygon polygon polygon
Journal
Article polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon polygon
EN: Endangered CE Critically Endangered
Appendices 48
APPENDIX II: G LOBAL O WL P ROJ ECT D ATABASE M ETADATA
Owl Species distribution maps of the world
Last Updated: 2 May 2012
Abstract
This dataset contains digital distribution information for owl species. This database and assessment for owls has never been done before and the completion of such work is a core objective of the Global Owl Project.
The data are comprised either as an ESRI ArcView Geodatabase or as a set of individual shapefiles. DBF files accompanying the dataset contain taxonomic information, distribution status, sources, and other details about the maps (see Data Attributes below).
Terms of Use
The data are supplied only for conservation purposes, scientific analysis or research.
Errors and Omissions
As of the compilation date of this database, 10 owl species in the Family Strigidae do not have available range maps. These species are recent splits so the individual owls comprising the species are encompassed by other ranges in the database.
IOC English Name.
Ver 2.9.13 IOC, 11
July 2011
Choco Screech Owl
Vermiculated Screech
Owl
Tanimbar Boobook
Halmahera Boobook
Northern Boobook
Hume's Hawk-Owl
Chocolate Boobook
Himalayan Owl
Everett’s scops owl
Scientific Name
Megascops centralis
Megascops vermiculatus
Ninox forbesi
Ninox hypogramma
Ninox japonica
Ninox obscura
Ninox randi
Strix nivicolum
Otus everetti
Taxonomic Notes
Megascops centralis is split from M. guatemalae (König et al.1999)
Megascops vermiculatus is split from M. guatemalae (König et al.1999)
Ninox forbesi is split from N. squamipila (Rheindt & Hutchinson,
2007)
Ninox hypogramma is split from N. squamipila (Rheindt &
Hutchinson, 2007)
Ninox japonica , including florensis and totogo is split from
N.scutulata
(King, 2002)
Ninox obscura is split from N. scutulata (Rasmussen & Anderton,
2005).
Ninox randi is split from N.scutulata
(King, 2002)
Strix nivicolum is split from S. aluco (Rasmussen & Anderton
2005).
Otus everetti is split from O. megalotus (Miranda et al. 2011)
Contact
Contact Person :David H. Johnson
Appendices 49
Contact Organization : the Global Owl Project
Contact emailaddress :djowl@aol.com
For queries relating to the global dataset please contact chelsie.romulo@gmail.com
Dataset Citation
Please cite individual shapefiles per the source information in the attribute table. The global dataset should be cited as:
Global Owl Project. 2012. Owl species distribution maps of the world. Global Owl Project,
Alexandria, Virginia USA.
Spatial Reference Information
Projection : All data is unprojected
Datum: World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84)
Data Compilation and References
Taxonomy
Taxonomy and nomenclature follow the International Ornithological Union (IOC) list of bird names, version 2.10.
Gill, F., and D. Donsker (eds). 2012. IOC World Bird Names (v 2.11). Accessed online March
2012 at http://www.worldbirdnames.org/.
King, B. 2002. Species limits in the Brown Boobook Ninox scutulata complex. Bulletin of the
British Ornithologists’ Club 122:250-257.
König, C., F. Weick, and J. Becking. 1999. Owls: a guide to the owls of the world . Yale
University Press, New Haven, CT. 462 pp.
Rasmussen, P., and J. Anderton. 2005. Birds of South Asia: the Ripley Guide . Lynx Edicions,
Barcelona, Spain. 384 pp.
Rheindt, F., and R. Hutchinson. 2007. A photoshot odyssey through the confused avian taxonomy of Seram and Buru (Southern Moluccas). Birding Asia 7:18-38.
GIS Data
Amante, C., and B. Eakins. 2009. ETOPO1 1 Arc-Minute Global Relief Model: Procedures,
Data Sources and Analysis. NOAA Technical Memorandum NESDIS NGDC-24. 25pp.
Appendices 50
BirdLife International and NatureServe. 2011. Bird species distribution maps of the world.
BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK and NatureServe, Arlington, USA. (Digital Maps)
König, C., and F. Weick. 2008. Owls of the World. Yale University Press, New Haven and
London. 528 pp.
North American Cartographic Information Society. 2012. Natural Earth 1:110m Physical
Vectors. Accessed online March 2012 at http://www.naturalearthdata.com.
Metadata information
Creation date: 10 November 2011
Most recent update: 2 May 2012
Appendices 51
Data Attributes
The data is available as both an ArcGIS File Geodatabase or as a series of shapefiles. Attribute data for the shapefiles are available as a table that can be joined via the Binomial field.
Attribute
Field
POP_Source
IUCN_Status
Restricted
SRC_Date
SRC_Type
Compiler
Comp_Date
Citation
Source
Field Type
IOC_English String
BINOMIAL String
Subspecies
Origin
String
Number
Seasonal
Resolution
Population
Number
String
Number
String
Number
String
Date
Number
String
Date
String/Memo
Memo
Definition
International Ornithological Union English Name (Version 2.9, 11 July 2011)
Scientific name of the species
Subspecies epithet
Why/How the species is in the area (definition of codes listed below)
The seasonal presence of the species in the area (definition of codes listed below)
The resolution of the generated data written as 1:x
Estimated Population of the species
Source of the information for the estimated population. Written as: "Last Name, First initial. Year. Titled of the Document. Publishing Organization/Journal Name. Volume.
Example: Koenig, C. and Weick, F. 2008. Owls of the World, 2nd Ed. Yale University
Press, New Haven and London.
IUCN conservation status (definition of codes listed below)
Whether the species qualifies as a restricted-range species per the Bird Life
International definition (total global breeding range of < 50,000 km
2
).
Date of the original data
The type of data for the original range map (Definitions of codes listed below)
Name of the person who entered the data into the geodatabase
Date that the polygon was entered into the database, or modified
Name and year of the individual/s or institution responsible for providing the original data.
Title of the source of original data
Origin Codes
Native The species is/was native to the area.
Reintroduced The species is/was reintroduced through either direct of indirect human activity.
Introduced
Vagrant
Uncertain
The species is/was introduced outside of its historical distribution range through either direct or indirect human activity.
The species is/was recorded once or sporadically, but is known not to be native to the area.
The species provenance in the area is not known (it may be any of the above).
Seasonal Codes
Resident
Breeding
Season
Non-Breeding
Season
Passage
The species is/was known or thought very likely to be resident throughout the year.
The species is/was known or thought very likely to occur regularly through the breeding season and to breed.
The species is/was known or thought very likely to occur regularly through the non-breeding season.
The species is/was known or thought very likely to occur regularly during a relatively short period(s) of the year on migration between breeding and non-breeding ranges.
Uncertain The species is/was present, but it is not known if it is present during part of all of the year.
Appendices 52
Source Type Codes
Polygon
Point
Field Guide
Article
The original data was a polygon shapefile
The original data was a point shapefile
The original data was a field guide map that was digitized
The original data was a journal article map that was digitized
IUCN Codes
EX
EW
CR
EN
VU
NT
LC
DD
NE
Extinct
Extinct in the Wild
There is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died.
The species is known only to survive in cultivation, in captivity, or as a naturalized population well outside the historic range.
Critically
Endangered
Endangered
Vulnerable
The best available evidence indicates that this species meets any of the IUCN criteria for
Critically Endangered and is therefore considered to be facing an extremely high risk for extinction in the wild.
The best available evidence indicates that this species meets any of the IUCN criteria for
Endangered and is therefore considered to be facing a very high risk for extinction in the wild.
The best available evidence indicates that this species meets any of the IUCN criteria for
Vulnerable and is therefore considered to be facing a high risk for extinction in the wild.
The species has been evaluated against the IUCN criteria but does not qualify for
Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable, now, but is close to qualifying for or is likely to qualify for a threatened category in the near future.
Near
Threatened
Least
Concern
Data
Deficient
The species has been evaluated against the IUCN criteria but does not qualify for
Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable. Widespread and abundant taxa are included in this category.
There is inadequate information for IUCN to make a direct or indirect assessment of this species' risk of extinction.
Not
Evaluated The species has not yet been evaluated by IUCN against the criteria.
Appendices 53
