Journal of Arid Environments (2003) 54: 91114

doi:10.1006/jare.2001.0887

Application of GIS to biodiversity monitoring

B. B. Salem
Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, Alexandria
University, 21511 Moharram Bey, Alexandria, Egypt

Recently, there has been a revolution in the availability of information and in

the development and application of tools for managing information. Informa-
tion needs for biodiversity are many and varied. Any database that deals with
biodiversity information has to be geographically based, and able to predict
where new populations of endangered species with a limited known range
might be expected, indicating potential hot spots. An important tool for
monitoring biodiversity is a geographic information system (GIS), which
accommodates large varieties of spatial and aspatial (attribute) data. The
information embedded in a GIS is used to target surveys and monitoring
schemes. Data on species and habitat distribution from different dates
allow monitoring of the location and the extent of change. This paper discusses
issues related to (a) the need for biodiversity information and databases, (b) the
importance of national information strategies, and (c) the application of GIS as
a tool in monitoring biodiversity, and (d) a case study of a GIS-based approach
applied to endangered arboreal species in Egypt. It applies the overlay analysis
of maps of endangered plant species ranges onto the maps of protected areas
(declared and proposed). The output is threefold: (a) a complete database of
endangered arboreal species as they are listed in the Egyptian Plant Red Data
Book (El-Hadidi et al., 1991) and their spatial distribution, (b) the relative
contribution index for each of the protected areas (proposed and declared) in
the conservation of the biodiversity of threatened arboreal species in Egypt, (c)
a gap analysis that identifies the areas in need of conservation, and (d) an
illustration of the relationship between the location of arboreal species and the
location of internationally important bird areas.
 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd.
Keywords: biodiversity; conservation; protected areas; databases; geographic
information system (GIS); endangered species; gap analysis; hot spots

Background
Assessing information needs for biodiversity conservation

Over the last few years, there has been a revolution in the availability of information and
in the development and application of tools for managing information (Harrison, 1995).
Organizations and countries are being drawn into the so-called information super
highway. Assessing the need for biodiversity information has been addressed by
managers of protected areas, scientists, decision makers, researchers and many others.
Protected area managers meeting at the Fourth World Parks Congress recognized that
individuals and organizations involved in protected areas work need better information
for making decisions (IUCN, 1993). They also recognized that information on protected
0140}1963/03/010091#24 $30.00/0  2003 Elsevier Science Ltd.
92 B. B. SALEM

areas must be equally accessible to all interested parties and integrated with other relevant
information. They made a range of recommendations concerning the need for better
information and information management practice. Also, in its inaugural meeting, held at
the National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development (NCWCD) in
Riyadh, 910 June 1996, the Arabian Plant Specialist Group (APSG), identified a number
of problems facing botanists and conservationists working in the region. The most
important of these were that the availability of information on the distribution and
occurrence of plant species across the region was inadequate, that there was no networking
between botanists in the region, and that there was a lack of a centralized organization.
Information needs for biodiversity are many and varied, and the state of knowledge is all
too often unsatisfactory for proper evaluations to be made (Heywood, 1997). The absence
of reliable information and, consequently, sound assessments can have the most serious
consequences for the understanding of biodiversity, and for the development of indicators
and indices which allow changes and trends to be monitored and changed over time.
Modern technology now makes it possible for electronic management of these kinds of
biodiversity data to be carried out by biodiversity developers working with already
developed computer technology. Many methodologies exist for characterizing biodiver-
sity, and an extensive knowledge base is generated by research on wild biodiversity ranging
from population genetics to ecology. These research efforts have resulted in the disci-
pline of conservation biology, which now provides the research methodology to support
an elaborate global system of protected areas and national parks.
The best conservation strategy should integrate the available methods and the better
use of existing information in a complementary manner. This information is needed to
develop model strategies for different species. Users require biodiversity informa-
tion on the context within which and the issues on which they need to focus. They want
options backed by documents, maps and expert opinion.
These data will be in the form of text documents, tabular databases, spatial databases
(locations), image files (satellite images), and so on, and will include topographic,
environmental, species, administrative, socioeconomic and other themes. The role of
geographical information system (GISs) is to integrate and analyse all these forms of data
for assessment and monitoring purposes. International agencies such as UNEP and the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) have been working in this
area for many years. Also, individual nations are building systems, e.g. ERIN in Australia.
Another example is the initiative of UNEP in collaboration with the World Conservation
Monitoring System (WCMC) who designed and submitted to the Global Environment
Facility (GEF) a project proposal entitled Biodiversity data management capacitation in
developing countries and networking biodiversity information (BDM). This project was
approved in June 1994. Its overall objective is to enhance the capacity of developing
countries for data management to support the implementation of the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD). A diversity information system should support the assessment
and monitoring processes by providing the data needed to describe current environmental
baseline conditions, identify the species and habitats at greatest risk, guide land management
decisions, and model the effects of alternative conservation policies (Davis et al., 1990).
Given the increasing demand for information on the status of biological diversity, many are
realizing the need for improved information systems (Davis et al, 1990).

National information strategies

The 1992 CBO, signed by 175 countries, reflects the global consensus on the import-
ance of biodiversity in maintaining the planets life-sustaining systems. Yet, traditional
reactive approaches will not suffice if the complex biodiversity conservation chal-
lenges are to be confronted successfully. All too often, conservationists, scientists, and
decision makers face major threats to biodiversity only after potentially manageable
situations have solidified into intractable losses.
 APPLICATION OF GIS TO BIODIVERSITY 93

As the majority of countries have now signed the Convention on Biodiversity (UNEP,
1992), these countries are committed to this convention that explicitly recognizes that
the conservation of biological diversity requires the development and implementation of
national strategies and action plans (Article 6). In turn, development of these strategies
and action plans requires the development of improved mechanisms for information
collection and management (Article 7), since without adequate information, it is dif-
ficult to develop effective strategies and action plans, and without information on
the implementation of these plans, it is impossible to monitor how well they are
implemented and what adjustments are necessary. Nations, therefore, have the motiva-
tion to develop national information management strategies (needs, sources, means of
collection, management and accessibility). No country yet has a perfect information
management system, with appropriate information available to whomever needs it
(Harrison, 1995), but there have been significant developments.
Article 7 of the CBD commits each contracting party as far as possible and as
appropriate to identify components of biological diversity important for its conservation
and sustainable use (UNEP, 1992). In order for a country to comply fully with this article,
it is necessary to inventory the organisms present within their territories (country studies).
An inventory is a prerequisite for assessments of conservation status and sustainable
utilization, and for prescribing appropriate actions. A particular value of inventories is to
identify organisms which can be used as bio-indicators of ecosystem health and provide
early warning of changes in protected and other areas (Hawsksworth, 1992). In order to
maintain an appropriately balanced equilibrium between human population, ecosystems
and the many forms of economic development, it is necessary to know which activities are
already affecting the natural resources upon which economies are based before
changes become irreversible. No country has a comprehensive species list for any of the
species-rich groups, and furthermore, the costs of undertaking the preparation of such
a list, which generally requires work from ground zero, will generally be prohibitive.
However, for organisms that have been selected as priorities for inventorying, ascertaining
what is already known in the country is the essential first step. Data sources available to
address the above task fall into five categories. These are (1) nomenclatures, or catalogues
covering the literature of organisms names including countries of origin and updating
issues; nomenclatures enable new species names based on material from a particular
country to be ascertained, which is of special interest for conservation purposes as some of
these may be endemic; (2) checklists and biotas (floras and faunas), which are com-
plementary tools that provide a basis for a full account of species including descriptions
and keys; (3) reference collection, which provides the only verifiable source of the
accuracy of reports of particular species in a country in the form of specimens preserved in
reference collections within a country; (4) unpublished reports, such as field notes and
records, reports degree. Theses, etc., which can all be sources of additional information;
and (5) indigenous knowledge on biota, which has hardly been tapped; indigenous people
may also have particular knowledge of endangered species within a country or region,
which can increase the level of awareness of conservation biologists. It is, therefore,
necessary to spread awareness of the need to treat biological resources as capital assets and
invest accordingly to prevent their depletion.
In all five categories, a GIS has a role in analysing, measuring, locating and planning
for monitoring and assessment. This issue will be dealt with in more detail later.
Biosystematic data of all kinds arising from national inventory programs first need to be
incorporated into national GIS databases and made accessible to the widest possible
audience, e.g. scientists, health workers, crop protection specialists, ecologists and
conservationists, decision makers and local people. The addition of the geographic
dimension to the database in the form of GISs, provides another perspective to the data,
and contributes effectively to enhancing the conservation of biodiversity by provid-
ing integration of information in spatial overlays that are readily available on soft media
(i.e. maps and images) for analysis and interpretation, and viewing.
94 B. B. SALEM

Biodiversity databases

No survey of the conceptual aspects of assessing biological diversity is complete without

consideration of how the effort is being deployed, and how the emerging informa-
tion will be organized. Internationally, there are two significant obstacles to progress in
the scientific study of biodiversity: (1) the inadequate size and inappropriate location of
the work force with appropriate biosystematic skills; and (2) the state and location of the
collections and literature database. Databases must be widely available and user friendly.
Current efforts for international cooperation and coordination are highly needed
and should be accelerated, so that common formats are increasingly agreed upon and
used. Databases need to be compiled using CD-ROM, which can store images of
type-specimens and 3-D hologram images. Aims should be directed towards integrating
and combining synoptic databases with computerized keys. In this way, the laborious
and time-consuming tasks of identifying species and assessing which species among
a new collection have previously been recorded, could be made faster. To accomplish
this goal of developing overall species information, the data perspective should be
broadened and the overall flow from data capture to analysis and management should be
considered and added to the content of a GIS database in order to provide spatial and
attribute data.
Technical scientists working in the field of conservation of biodiversity are examining
the needs and opportunities for information flows in support of world priorities in
biodiversity. Increasingly, information flows through electronic networks, particularly
the internet and supporting tools such as the World Wide Web (WWW). Solutions to
key issues such as priority environmental data sets, standards, metadata and custodian-
ship, and developments in tools for data management, analysis and visualization are well
advanced. Using the ability of available internet tools to develop innovative ways of
carrying out traditional tasks, i.e. writing taxonomic descriptions, and publishing books,
reports and journals, virtual libraries and referral collections, speeds up work in biodiver-
sity conservation. Digital documents, besides having embedded figures and tables, may
have the added power of multimedia and hypertext links to items distributed broadly
around in the world. Also, the widespread and increasing use of Internet-based tech-
nologies for information sharing and dissemination makes use of sound conceptual
frameworks for data and information exchange. Indeed, with the surfeit of data and
information on the internet, one of the greatest challenges will be to extract relevant
information (Stein, 1997). The challenge is to better integrate environmental informa-
tion into decision making processes at all levels of society, from international priority
setting, through government policy makers, to decisions made by management agencies
and resource users such as individual farmers or fishermen. The answer is: the flow and
exchange of data and information via the internet.
It is also worth mentioning that the organization of the background event-based
hypertext markup language (HTML) (an internet language) documents and all the sorts
of aggregate derivative information, has a multitude of interesting consequences and
opportunities for conserved wildlands. Any given conserved wildland encompasses
a very complex and very large package of information, manifest in the organisms and
their interactions (Janzen & Gamez, 1997). The task is to extract that information in
a timely and effective manner, and in a usable format. National human resources
are the key to the information extraction process. Full integration with the taxasphere
(the guild of taxonomists and their goals, their supporting institutions, and their
economic relationships) is the secret to maximum-value added (Janzen, 1993). In Costa
Rica, the realization of these processes has taken the form of an All Taxa Biodiversity
Inventory (ATBI), of the Guanacaste Conservation Area (GCA) by the Instituto
Nacional Biodiversidad (INBio) and the GCA. The seven-year goal is to use the ATBI
as a protocol to integrate 120,000 ha of highly diverse wildlands in northwestern Costa
Rica into the national plan to become a sustainable integrated complex of wildland
 APPLICATION OF GIS TO BIODIVERSITY 95

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

GIS for assessing and monitoring biodiversity

An aspect of nature conservation that deserves special attention in the context of GIS, is
analysis, measurement and planning related to biodiversity (Aspinall, 1995). A GIS
plays an important role as a tool for environmental management, with the current greater
concern for sustainable use of resources, and conservation and monitoring of biodiver-
sity. The most widely used definition of GIS is a computer-based system that captures,
stores, manages, analyses, and displays georeferenced data (geographic data). Many
data relating to environmental and ecological systems have been collected and stored in
forms suited to management and analysis using GIS (Aspinall, 1995). Reserve pres-
ence/absence data for biota have been recorded at biological records centers and
mapped to indicate and monitor the geographic ranges or other limits on different
species. Records of species or habitat can be stored in a database and mapped to show
where they occur. This geographic information can be used to target surveys and
monitoring schemes (Marqules & Austin, 1991). Data on species or habitat distribution
from different dates allow monitoring of the location of change (where) to be
identified and the extent (how much) measured. The variety of data potentially able to
be entered into a GIS is large (Maguire et al., 1991). These data are in different
forms and are either aspatial or spatial. Aspatial data include tables of measurements,
species and habitat, attributes, photographs, videos, sound, etc. Spatial data include
maps, satellite imagery and aerial photographs. Maps have scales, and according to
scale, information can be stored and/or extracted (Table 1). Davis et al. (1990) shows
the taxonomic, ecological and cultural variables required for assessment of biological
diversity and their corresponding information scales. The biological and conservation
databases contain several major logical entities that have a geographic property or spatial
characteristic that can be mapped. Examples are species occurrences, sites, and
managed areas. The biological and conservation database systems also incorporate
geographically hierarchical design features to support the conservation efforts at
different geographic scales. For examples, the conservation status of a particular
species is rarely uniform across its range: in some places a species may be critically
imperiled, while at a wider scale (national, regional or global), it may be secure. This
hierarchical structure, through the use of GISs, allows the setting of local priorities. To
summarize, the GIS is associated with two different roles for a geographical
perspective on biodiversity data and other environmental issues. Firstly it contains
a powerful reference base (geographic location), i.e. maps of natural vegetation (en-
demic, multipurpose, and endangered), soil, land cover, topography, hydrology, bird
migration, distribution of fauna, etc. Locating features associated with their attributes
allows diverse data to be combined, compared and analysed in a single database to
produce new relationships between environmental features and associations between
different biota. Secondly it is a powerful and effective way of communicating
a large variety of information.
Walker & Faith (1993) developed a GIS-based approach for the analysis of biodiver-
sity. This approach links species lists for different geographic locations with other
geographic data describing the locations of nature reserves and geographic variations in
environmental conditions. The relative contribution of each nature reserve to biodiver-
96 B. B. SALEM

Table 1. Taxonomic, ecological and cultural variables required for assessment of

biological diversity and their corresponding information scales (after Davis, 1990)

Scale Biogeographic Regional Local

scale scale scale

Areal extent (km2) 106 104 102 10\2
Map scale range
Max 1 : 10,000,000 1 : 2500,000 1: 100,000
Min 1 : 2500,000 1 : 100,000 1 : 10,000

Taxon distribution Species range Species and Narrowly endemic

subspecies range species
Population Population
occurrences occurrences
(rare, endangered, Observational data
or indicator)
Habitat factors Climate type Climate province Microclimate
Physiography Landform Topography
Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
formation series association
Community Community
interactions interactions
Soil order Soil order Soil series
Surface geology Surface geology
Hydrology
Cultural features Dominant landuse Land use
Prime farmlands
Land capability
Energy/mineral
resources
Air/water quality Air/water quality
Administrative Transportation Primary/secondary
boundaries corridors roads
Land ownership Zoning
Nature reserves

sity at different geographic scales is analyzed by comparing the contribution of

species present in each nature reserve to the biodiversity of species represented by the
network of reserves. Recent developments in GISs are in the analysis modelling applied
to environmental data (Aspinall, 1995), notably predicting the distribution of wildlife
species under present and changed environmental conditions, understanding the inter-
action of habitats and other aspects of ecological infrastructure within landscapes, and
interpreting and monitoring biodiversity for use in land use planning and management.
Also, the GIS is an integral part in any biodiversity information management system
(BIMS). Such systems are designed to harness the data that are available, and extract the
information that creates the kinds of knowledge needed to truly address conservation
challenges and meet the needs of the users who may not be biodiversity specialists (e.g.
decision makers). With the available tools, it is now possible to build comprehensive,
integrated, biological diversity information management systems on networks (from
papers to bits). Networked information not only provides speedy answers to scientific
 APPLICATION OF GIS TO BIODIVERSITY 97

queries, but also broadens the universe of possible questions on the conservation and
sustainable utilization of biological diversity (Canhos et al., 1998). Therefore, network-
ing mechanisms are required to facilitate the sense of collective intelligence and
cooperation in order to promote approaches to solve the crisis of biodiversity conserva-
tion and sustainable development. The great challenge is to integrate the use of
biodiversity information into decision-making processes at all levels of society.
The Nature Conservancy (U.S.A.), which is an international nongovernmental or-
ganization, which has its mission to preserve the plants, animals and natural communi-
ties that represent the diversity of life on Earth, has long been interested in the
application of sound scientific information for biodiversity conservation. For more than
20 years this organization has been designing biodiversity management systems. The
Nature Conservancy has taken a very direct, on-the-ground approach to biodiversity
conservation. With habitat destruction representing one of the greatest threats to
biodiversity, the Conservancy identified sites of outstanding biological and ecological
significance, and acquired them for establishment as nature reserves. In defining the
most ecologically sensitive sites, the Nature Conservancy enabled available information
to be used as an early warning to avoid or minimize unnecessary damage from
development activities. This has led to the establishment of the Natural Heritage and
Conservation Data Center Network. Key to the success of the Nature Conservancys
protection efforts is the ability to set clear conservation priorities based on good
scientific information (Stein, 1997). Given the rapid pace of technology development,
and the parallel improvements in the understanding of what is needed for biodiversity
conservation and monitoring, plans already are underway to design and develop the next
generation of the Nature Conservancys BIMS, which focuses on a modular, open-
architecture approach with increased linkages between relational database management
technologies and GISs.
Generally, assessment of biodiversity is based on data on the range of species, as these
are the most prevailing data for the majority of taxa. A species range is the area occupied
by a species, and is used to refer to a distribution area. To determine species range,
biologists record the geographic location of their observations and collect specimens.
These data can be plotted on maps to represent species range using (1) points on a base
map (McGranaghan & Wester, 1988), (2) synthetic methods where artificial boundaries
of counties are delineated with raster or vector formats (Morse et al., 1981) and shading
of the entire polygon indicates species presence, or (3) synthetic grid maps (Perring
& Walters, 1962).
For a comprehensive assessment of species and habitat biodiversity, habitat factors
(e.g. environmental factors such as climate, physiography, vegetation, soils, and geol-
ogy) must be considered as well as species ranges (i.e. richness). Environmental data
may be used in assessing the relative biodiversity of the area, not because of interest in
environmental variation per se, but because environmental (habitat or ecosystem) vari-
ation indicates species diversity. Species ranges and richness are often correlated with
the habitat factors, and thus, both species ranges and habitat factors can be predicted
from one another. Sometimes these two variables are combined into synthetic maps of
ecoregions at the biogeographic scale (e.g. Bailey, 1976; Omernik, 1987). Climate is
generally regarded as the dominant control over the potential range of taxa. The
bioclimatic factors, such as absolute minimum temperature and annual temperature
range conditions during critical phases of a species life cycle (phenological stages), are
limiting factors to species ranges. Vegetation is also an important variable that incorpor-
ates a characteristic species community, habitat and, in most, cases animal species.
There are also climate conditions with which plant species are associated. A typical
bioclimatic analysis describes the relationships between species distribution and envir-
onmental characteristics. It is of interest for predicting and modelling possible impacts of
climate change on wildlife. The most common situation in which these modelling
approaches are applied is when the distribution of a species or habitat is not fully known,
98 B. B. SALEM

but environmental data that are thought to influence the species or habitat distribution
are recorded. Models of the distribution can be constructed to predict where survey
efforts may be targeted, to be used as substitutes for full surveys of species in
analysis of biodiversity at a regional scale, and to predict possible impacts of environ-
mental changes (Aspinall, 1995).
Because range mapping is so labor-intensive, i.e. all species in a region can never be
directly observed or counted, indirect methods for practical evaluation of the relative
biodiversity of areas (or sets of areas) are often used to infer range from the distribution
of the habitat requirements of the species and constraints (surrogate data) that are often
easier to map than the species themselves. Depending on surrogate data, a surrogacy
approach uses one or more groups of indicator taxa, the geographic distribution of
which in the region are known. Areas or sets of areas that are species-rich for these
groups may be assumed to be rich in general. An important issue is determining how to
use this information to best predict relative species biodiversity among sets of areas
(Faith & Walkery, 1996). A more powerful surrogate approach makes use of some
expression of environmental and/or biotic pattern. Phylogenetic pattern as a surrogate
for biodiversity has been explored by Faith & Walkey, 1996). This approach requires the
identification of priority areas (i.e. objects), and the units of biodiversity (i.e. species) to
be represented by any set of objects. This approach requires some expansion of the full
pattern of environmental variation among areas that will be predictive of species-level
diversity. The GIS was used as an effective tool for mapping the pattern of
environmental variations among areas and sets of areas. Another approach for assessing
biodiversity using GIS based on either species or community, is to evaluate the degree
that each type of vegetation community has been preserved (i.e. conserved). The degree
of conservation would then be considered as a criterion for recommending new areas for
formal designation. Davis et al. (1990) wrote that Crumpacker et al. (1988) conducted
a GIS analysis of the U.S.A. by intersecting KuK chlers potential vegetation map (KuK ch-
ler, 1964) with federal and Indian islands. They found many terrestrial and wetland
ecosystems to be under-represented in these lands.
The above examples illustrate the monitoring assessment of the status of and trends in
biodiversity using GIS. However, there are some difficulties in this assessment,
including: (1) data quality, i.e. low spatial and/or uneven spatial coverage, map in
accuracy and cartographic uncertainty, and ecological relationships of species and their
habitats; (2) locating and consolidating large volumes of data, and integrating various
data structures to a common system; (3) manipulating very large numbers of map sheets
and analysing of their contents; and (4) rebuilding the database.

Case study: GIS-based approach to the spatial analysis of endangered

arboreal species in Egypt

Introduction

Data showing species and habitat distribution, or sometimes models that predict these
distributions, are used to analyse the effectiveness of existing conservation areas.
The gap analysis system developed in the U.S.A. uses GIS to identify significant areas of
habitat and parts of the geographic range of a species that are not protected by any
form of conservation designation (Scott et al., 1993). Gap analysis is a technique for
identifying vegetation types and species that are not adequately represented in an
existing protective network of biological diversity (Spellerberg & Sawyer, 1999). Gap
analysis helps to locate priority areas for conservation action and research. The tech-
nique can therefore be used as a means to prioritize human effort in habitat
protection and management in order to achieve the conservation of a regions biological
diversity (Scott et al., 1996). The principle application of gap analysis is to describe
 APPLICATION OF GIS TO BIODIVERSITY 99

spatially, in any particular region, the priority areas for habitat protection to conserve
species and animal communities that are not already protected. It is considered to be
a rapid method for evaluating conservation requirements for the protection of biological
diversity. In North America, gap analysis has been used to identify shortfalls in conser-
vation programs to protect biological diversity (Spellerberg & Sawyer, 1999). Gap
analysis projects have several applications, including the following: they can be used to
determine the representations of species, and natural plant and animal communities
within areas being managed for biodiversity conservation; they provide data to model
wildlife habitat distributions, and they provide a baseline of information about the
distributions of plant and animal species and communities that can be used for compara-
tive analysis of future changes in those distributions (that is, monitoring environmental
change).
Distributions of a range of species are modeled with GIS using maps of
vegetation types and observations on the distributions of species of interest. These
distributions are combined within the GIS to identify areas of the greatest diversity or
core areas for different species. The composite information could then be com-
pared with the distribution of protected areas to highlight significant areas that need
conservation. An ideal set of data for assessing the status of biodiversity includes the
distribution of species and their conservation status, the habitat characteristics of these
species, and human activities affecting these habitats and their impact. Also some
data on the ecological and economic value of species are required. These data can be
stored on a map (distribution) associated with tabular data to show attributes. Davis et
al. (1990) described, conceptually, a comprehensive national diversity information
system, using GIS techniques to organize existing data and improve the spatial aspects
of the assessment. In this study, Davis et al. stated that a potential GIS analysis is to
identify gaps in the network of Californias natural reserves, and concluded that available
data can then be used more effectively and better management strategies can be
formulated.
The present case study is an illustration of the above concepts. It presents a specific
component of a conservation program: the distribution of a range of plant species
(arboreal) associated with attribute data describing the ecological and economic
importance of each species, its life form and degree of threat. These data are modeled in
a GIS-based database and overlaid on spatial data of the protected areas (declared
and proposed) in Egypt, to identify significant areas that require conservation. The
data on arboreal species used in the present study are the threatened species of trees and
shrubs in Egypt as recognized by El-Hadidi et al. (1991). The species were selected as
they constitute the main framework of the ecosystems in which they occur and therefore,
have high ecological significance for these ecosystems. Arboreal species can be con-
sidered as indicator taxa that incorporate other vegetation communities and animal
species (specially birds). Therefore the present study examines, using GIS, the relation
of the distribution of arboreal species with other existing spatial data, e.g. phytogeog-
raphical subdivisions and internationally important bird areas in Egypt. Generally,
arboreal species represent a part of the wealth of Egyptian flora that is threatened or
endangered to different degrees, and calls for conservation actions to be taken.
The objectives of the present study are: (1) establishing a digital database of endan-
gered arboreal species including their spatial distribution, ecological importance, degree
of threat, commonness and economic importance; (2) analysing the relative contribu-
tion of each protected area in terms of contribution to conserving the biodiversity of
threatened arboreal species in Egypt; (3) conducting gap analysis to identify hot spots
and gaps in the network of protected areas (declared and proposed) for formulating
sound biodiversity conservation management strategies; and (4) assessing the relation-
ships between the distribution of arboreal species, phytogeographical subdivision and
internationally important bird areas in Egypt by integrating these data in a common
GIS-based system.
100 B. B. SALEM

Data acquisition and treatment

The present study demonstrates how a compilation of existing data in a GIS-based

approach can be used to organize, synthesize, and analyse spatially these data using
different overlays (an asset of GIS analysis) to improve the assessment and
monitoring of biodiversity. The following is a list of the core data used to establish
a nucleus for a biodiversity database management system based on GIS:
(1) A base map of Egypt of appropriate scale.
(2) Data extracted from the Egyptian Plant Red Data Book by El-Hadidi et al. (1991).
These data form a list of 101 threatened arboreal species, their distribution,
ecological importance and degree of threat. A point indicating the location of each
species in the above list was plotted on a base map of Egypt, and other data were
attached to the map as attribute data. These data describe the degree of threat,
commonness, life form (i.e. ecological importance), and uses (economic import-
ance) of each species.
(3) Data extracted from The Multipurpose Species in Arab African Countries (Ayyad,
1998) on the economic importance of arboreal species in Egypt in terms of their
numbers of uses.
(4) A map of the phytogeographical subdivision in Egypt as depicted by Boulous
(1995).
(5) A list of endemic species in each phytogeographic subdivision as listed by
Boulous (1995).
(6) A map of protected areas of Egypt produced by the Nature Conservation sector,
i.e. the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA).
(7) The spatial distribution of important bird areas in Egypt as recognized by Baha
El-Din (1999).
The data were sorted according to type as spatial or aspatial. The spatial data were
digitized, edited and made usable as GIS data layers using PC Arc/Info and ArcView

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

Criterion Degree Score

1. Status Extinct 10
Endangered 7
Intermediate (endangered/vulnerable) 5
Vulnerable 4
2. Commonness Endemic 10
Very rare 7
Rare 4
Common 2
3. Life form Tree 10
(ecological importance) Intermediate (small tree or large shrub) 8
Shrub 7
Woody herb 4
Perennial herb 2
4. Use More than three uses 10
(economic importance) Three uses 8
Two uses 6
One use other than above 4
Single use (wood production) 2
 APPLICATION OF GIS TO BIODIVERSITY 101

Table 3. Overlay analyses of the study data

Overlay no. Overlay description Indication

1 All maps of species distribution Range and distribution of the 101

onto the map of Egypt.
2 Overlay 1 onto the
phytogeographical subdivisions
and the map of protected
areas (declared and proposed).
3 Overlay 1 onto maps of
protected areas (declared
and proposed).
4 Overlay 1 onto the map of
the distribution of important
bird areas and the map of
protected areas (declared
and proposed).
endangered species (names
identified in the associated
database).
Distribution of threatened arboreal
species ineach phytogeographical
subdivision determination of how
well protected areas representing
the phytogeographical subdivisions.
Representation of the gap analysis
that identifies the areas in need
of conservation
Assessment of the relationship be-
tween
the distribution of arboreal species as
indicator taxa and important bird
areas.
Assessment of the overlap between
protected areas (declared and
proposed) and important bird areas.

GIS software packages produced by the Environmental Systems Research Institute

(ESRI). The aspatial data were associated within the spatial database as appropriate.
The species names were revised using the checklist published by Boulous (1995).
The aspatial data on threatened arboreal species, degree of threat, and ecological and
economic value were assembled in the database for every species, and were used to
calculate a conservation value, CV, for each species. This value was obtained according
to a scoring system on a graduated scale of 10 identified by the criteria listed in Table 2.
The CV for each species, as a function of four criteria (each scored out of 10) were
added to yield a value out of 40 which was then divided by four to produce an average
conservation value (ACV) out of 10 for each of the 101 plant species listed in the
database.
The ACVs for all arboreal species occurring spatially inside the boundaries of any
particular protected area were summed to produce a cumulative conservation value
(CCV) for each protected area. This value is an index of the areas contribution to the
conservation of biodiversity of threatened arboreal species in Egypt. Several overlay
analyses were applied to the data in the present study. They are presented in Table 3.

Results

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

Average conservation
value (ACV)

Cumulative conservation value (CCV)

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

(a)

Average conservation
value (ACV)

Cumulative conservation value (CCV)

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

(b)

Figure 1. (a) Established protected area. Cumulative conservation value (CCV) of threatened
arboreal species existing in the established protected areas. (b) Proposed protected areas.
 APPLICATION OF GIS TO BIODIVERSITY 103

The ACVs and CCVs described in the previous section were plotted for the declared
and proposed protected areas in Fig. 1(a) and 1(b) respectively, and ranked as a func-
tion of the CCVs in Table 4.
Figure 1(a) illustrates the scale of conservation values (010) on the Y-axis versus the
declared protected areas (21) on the X-axis. The bars in the figure indicate the range of
ACVs for arboreal species in each particular protected area, while the numbers between
brackets on the bars indicate the number of species have each this particular ACV. The
numbers in circles on the X-axis indicate the CCVs for all species that exist in any
particular protected area. Protected areas with no corresponding CCV are either not
applicable (marine areas) or do not include any of the threatened arboreal species. The
CCVs are used to indicate the contribution of each protected area to the conservation of
biodiversity of threatened arboreal species. If information on other plant life-forms are
similarly treated and their CCVs are added to the above values, an average value for each
protected area could be calculated as an assessment of its conservation index (CI). From
the same figure, it is clear that the Elba protected area has the highest CCV and, thus,
contributes highly to the conservation of the biodiversity of threatened arboreal species.
This is followed by the St.Catherine and Taba protectorates. Similarly, in Fig. 1(b), the
Sallum proposed protected area has the highest CCV and, thus, can contribute highly to
the conservation of biodiversity of threatened arboreal species. This is followed by the
Great Red Sea Reef and the Gebel Maghara proposed protected areas.
Table 4 summarizes the CCVs and provides relative rankings for the 40 protected
areas according to their contribution to the conservation of biodiversity of threatened
arboreal species. Accordingly, the 40 protected areas were fall into 18 levels. These levels
when analysed were categorized into five orders from the highest to the lowest levels.
The first order category is consists of three of the already declared protectorates. It is
remarkable that some of the proposed protected areas have higher relative rankings than
some of the already declared protected areas. Thus, the second order category is
comprised of five protectorates, three of which are proposed protected areas, with
relative CCVs of 4, 5 and 6, while the third order category is comprised of six
protectorates rankings, five of which are proposed protected areas. Thirteen of the
analysed protected areas do not contribute to the conservation of the biodiversity of
threatened arboreal species, either because they are marine or do not contain any of the
threatened arboreal species in their vegetation composition.
The overlay analysis in the present study (Table 3), starts with five main coverages:
(1) the base map of Egypt; (2) the location map of the 101 threatened arboreal species;
(3) the location map of the phytogeographical subdivisions (Fig. 2); (4) the location
map of protected areas, both declared and proposed (Fig. 3); and (5) the location map
of internationally important bird areas. Four overlays were carried out to highlight the
relationships imbedded in the data. Each of these overlays will be discussed and
interpreted separately.

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

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

Table 4. Ranking of protected areas (declared and proposed) according to cumulat-

ive conservation value (CCV) of threatened arboreal species

Protectorate name Declared (D)/ Cumulative Conservation Value (CCV)

Proposed (P) Value Relative rank Orders


1. *Elba D 189.00 1
2. *St. Catherine D 94)75 2 1st (13)
3. *Taba D 33)25 3


4. -Salluga & Ghazal D 17)75 4
-Salum P 17)75 4
5. *Great Red Sea Reef P 16)50 5 2nd (47)
6. Gebel Maghara P 15)25 6
7. *Zaranik D 15)00 7


8. -Omayed D 0)75 8
-El-Galala P 10)75 8
9. -Um l-Ghuzlan P 9)75 9 3nd (810)
-Sabkhat Ras Shukeir P 9)75 9
-*Quseima P 9)75 9


10. Showela P 9)00 10
11. Qattara P 6)75 11
12. -Al-Ahrash D 6)5 12
-Ras El-Hekma P 6)5 12
13. Hamata P 6)25 13
14. -Sanur Cave D 5)75 14
-Gilf Kebir P 5)75 14
15. *El-Qasr P 5)25 15 4th ('10)
16. -*Nabq D 5)00 16
-Abu-Ghallum D 5)00 16
-El-Shayeb P 5)00 16
17. -El-Hasna D 4)5 17
-Wadi Allaqui D 4)5 17


18. *Lake Quarun D 3)75 18
19. Karkur & Dungul P
20. White desert P
21. Wadi Qena P
22. Girafi P
23. Um-Dabadib P
24. *Ras Mohammed D
25. Ashtoum El-Gamil D No contribution
26. Pet. Forest D
27. *Wadi Rayan D
28. *El-Burullus D
29. Nile islands D
30. Wadi Assuti D
31. Wadi Degla D

* Internationally important bird areas.

 APPLICATION OF GIS TO BIODIVERSITY 105

Mediterranean Sea
(M)
(M) (M)

(Di)
N
(Dl)
(O) (Nv)
(S)
Out of Study Area
(O) (Nv) (Dg) Mediterranean Sea
Red Sea
Lake
(O) Arabian Desert (Da)
(O) Delta
(R) Galalah Desert (Dg)
Gebel Uweinat (Gw)

Re
Isthmic Desert (Di)
(Da) Lybian Desert (DL)

d
(O) Mediterranean Region (M)

Se
Nile Valley (Nv)

a
Nubian Desert (Dn)
(O) Nubian Nile (Nn)
(Dn) Oases (O)
(Nn) Red Sea Coastal Plain (R)
Sahelian scrub (Sa)
Sinai region (S)
(O) (Nn) (Sa)

(Gw) (O)

200 0 200 400 Kilometers

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

Overlay 2: Map of the phytogeographical subdivisions overlaid on the above map

of the distribution of threatened arboreal species (Fig. 5) in order to classify the subdivisions
according to their species richness.

It is clear that the Sahelian Scrub (Sa) was the richest phytogeographical subdivision, with
about 46 arboreal threatened species followed by the Isthemic Desert phytogeographic
subdivision (Di) with about 15 species. This contrasts with the Arabian Desert (Da) with
three threatened arboreal species, the Gebel Uweinat subdivision with only one species,
and the Nubian Desert (Dn) subdivision with no threatened arboreal species.
Overlay 3: Gap analysis. The map of protected areas in Egypt (Fig. 3) overlaid onto the
map of the distribution of threatened arboreal species (Fig. 6).

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

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

It is obvious that about 15 of the 34 important bird areas coincide with the areas of high
diversity of threatened arboreal species, e.g. Gebel Elba (four areas) and the Southern
Sinai (six areas). This calls for consideration of the establishment of birdwatching
facilities in the management plans of these protected areas to encourage ecotourism.
106 B. B. SALEM

(P8) (P9) Mediterranean Sea

(19) (8) (7) (6)
(P7) (P10)
(P17) N
(P18) El-Galala (P11)
(9) El-Qasr (P7)
(P6) (11) (10) El-Shayeb (P13)
(P19) Gebel Maghara (P18)
(12) (21) Gilf Kebir (P1)
Girafi (P19)
Great Red Sea Reef (P16)
(13) (P11) (4) Hamata (P14)
(3) Kurkur and Dungul (P2)
(P5) Qattara (P5)
(14) (P15) (5) Quseima (P17)
(2) Ras El-Hekma (P10)
Sabkhat Ras Shukeir (P15)
(P12) Salum (P8)
(1) Showela (P9)
Um Dabadib (P3)
(P4) (15) Um El-Ghuzlan (P6)
Wadi Qena (P12)
White Desert (P4)
(P13) (P16)
(20) Abu-Gallum Protectorate (3)

Re
(P3) Al-Ahrash (6)
All River Nile Island (20)

d
Ashtum El-Gamil (8)

Se
Brullus (19)
El-Omayed Biosphere Reserve (9)

a
El-Zaranik (7)
Gebel Elba (18)
(P14) Hassana Dome (11)
Kahf Wadi Sanur (14)
(16) Nabq Protectorate (2)
Petrified Forest (10)
(P2) Qarun (12)
Ras-Mohammed National Park (1)
Saint Katherine Protectorate (5)
(P1) Salluga-Ghazal (16)
(18) Taba Protectorate (4)
Wadi Allaqui Biosphere Reserve (17)
(17) Wadi Asyuti (15)
Wadi Deglah (21)
Wadi-ElRayan (13)

200 0 200 400 Kilometers

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

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

Discussion

Conversion of natural habitats by man is the major cause of the loss of biological
diversity that needs to be surveyed, mapped, monitored and quantified. No survey or
monitoring of biodiversity is complete without considering how efforts are being
deployed, and how the emerging information will be organized and compiled in
databases. These efforts have to be associated with coordination of information that
already exists for better usage in a complementary manner to highlight subtle relation-
ships between biota and associated environmental features. The Convention on
Biodiversity makes clear that access to good information about biological diversity
is key to mobilizing resources in support of conservation and sustainable use of
these biological resources. Biodiversity conservation efforts, in particular, are in
need of being informed about where and what species and ecosystems should be
targeted for protection, where they occur, and how they and the areas that sustain them
should be protected and managed, for the benefit of present and future generations.
Generally, protected areas contribute to conserving biodiversity. However, few pro-
tected areas have yet to give full attention to the biodiversity issue. Many national parks,
for example, have been declared primarily for their scenic, touristic and recreational
value (McNeely, 1994). Therefore, all countries should review their protected area
systems and identify additional sites of critical importance for conservation of biological
diversity.
Natural environments in Egypt are assailed on every side through the unprecedented
and rapid expansion of human activities. In the absence of conservation responses on
a scope and scale to match these activities, the country will shortly witness environmental
 APPLICATION OF GIS TO BIODIVERSITY 107

#
# # ### # #### ###
Mediterranean Sea
# # #
## #
# # # #### N
## #
## # # #
# # ###
# ##
##
# # # #
# # #
##
# #
# # #
# #
## # #
## #
# #
# #####
# ## ####
# # ### ## # ##
############
#### ##
## ##
#

##
# # Threatened species
#
#

Re
d
Se
#
#

a
#
#
###
#
#
#
# # ##
######
####
# #############
### ##########
# # # # ## ###### #######
##### ####### ###
##
######
# ####

200 0 200 400 Kilometers

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

degradation and destruction of many of its fragile habitats and their biotas. Fortunately,
we still have time to slow down the degradation process and the loss of biodiversity. This
can be achieved by (1) initiatives directed at the sustainable development of all habitats
and communities in every phytogeographic zone, (2) the establishment of many more
protected areas (and better protected areas), and (3) the restoration of degraded
ecosystems.
The past few decades have witnessed tremendous advances in information
technology and efforts to harness the power of these technologies on behalf of
biodiversity conservation. GIS technology comes at the top of the technologies that favor
biodiversity conservation applications. The case study presented here demonstrates that
using GIS, existing information can be input, managed and analyzed, and the additional
information can be identified. The present study also directs a message to the GIS
community of the need for their skills to address biodiversity problems, and for use of
GIS as a tool for managing biodiversity databases to achieve a national biodiversity data
systems based on a GIS approach. Such systems would assist in the sustainable
management of natural resources, which is a major component of any biodiversity
strategy.
The present study used the threatened arboreal species and their spatial distribution in
Egypt in a surrogacy approach. Areas that are rich in diversity for these species are
assumed to be rich in general. The locations of threatened arboreal species were plotted
on a base map of Egypt using points to represent their ranges. Other plotting techniques
could have been used; however synthetic methods generalize data into units that are not
ecologically relevant, and precision location is lost in the process of generalization. This
conclusion is in accordance with that of Davis et al. (1990).
The ACVs and CCVs of threatened arboreal species in each of the protected areas
proved to be appropriate for assessing rank orderings of protected areas in terms of their
contribution to the conservation of biodiversity of these species. The results presented in
108 B. B. SALEM

#
# # ### # ### # ###
Mediterranean Sea
# (M)
# #
##
## (M)# # #
#
(M) #### N
#
## # #
# # ###
#
# ##
## # # #
## # (Di) #
## #
# (Dl) #
#
#
### #
## #
(O) ## #
(Nv) # # ##### # Threatened species
# ## ####
# #
# ## ## # (S) ## Out of Study Area
############
#### Mediterranean Sea
(O) (Nv) (Dg) ###### Red Sea
#
Lake
Arabian Desert (Da)
(O) ## Delta
(O) # Galalah Desert (Dg)
(R)
# Gebel Uweinat (Gw)
# Isthmic Desert (Di)

Re
Lybian Desert (DL)
(Da) Mediterranean Region (M)

d
(O) # Nile Valley (Nv)

Se
# Nubian Desert (Dn)

a
Nubian Nile (Nn)
(O) # Oases (O)
(Dn) # Red Sea Coastal Plain (R)
(Nn) Sahelian scrub (Sa)
###
# Sinai region (S)
#
(O) (Nn) (Sa)
#
# # ##
######
###
(Gw) (O) # # ###############
# # # # ###########################################
#########

200 0 200 400 Kilometers

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

subdivisions.

Table 4 show that the first order category is composed of three of the already declared
protected areas, and that these areas are also three of the 34 internationally important
bird areas in Egypt. This finding provides evidence that arboreal species can be
considered as indicator taxa and that these taxa are associated with other important
communities. It also affirms the wisdom of the conservation actions taken by the
national environmental agencies in conserving the biodiversity of important ecological
regions, e.g. Gebel Elba and the Sinai.
The same composite information, i.e. threatened arboreal species ACVs and interna-
tionally important bird areas was used to highlight the significant areas for conservation.
According to this information, three of the proposed protected areas, namely Sallum, the
Great Red Sea Reef, and Gebel Maghara, should be given higher priority than the others
for establishment in the short term.
The gap analysis conducted in the present study identifies gaps in the network of
protected areas, and provides baseline information that can be used for monitoring,
assessing and managing the biodiversity conservation of protected areas. This is evident
from Overlay 3 (Fig. 6), which demonstrates clearly that some of the proposed protected
areas need further study and analysis to reposition them so that they may fit with the
identified hot spots. This analysis also revealed that there are gaps in the network of
protected areas, e.g. the northern and eastern Sinai, the Isthemic Desert and the Nubian
Nile subdivisions. It could then be appropriate to consider these gaps in the formation of
a national strategic action plan for biodiversity conservation.

Conclusions and recommendations

(1) The present study proposes guidelines for a model framework for a comprehens-
ive biodiversity information system. More information on other biota may be
included. Data for other species (flora and fauna) should be treated the same way
 APPLICATION OF GIS TO BIODIVERSITY 109

#(P8) (P9)
# # ### # ### # ###
Mediterranean Sea
# # (19) (M) (8) (7) #(6)
##(P10) #
(P7) (M)# # # (M) #### N
## #
## # # # (P17) # Threatened Species
(9) # # ###
# # ## Abu-Gallum Protectorate (3)
##
(11)# (10) # #
#
(Di) Al-Ahrash (6)
(P6) # # # (P19) All River Nile Island (20)
Ashtum El-Gamil (8)
#
(Dl) (12) (21) # # Brullus (19)
# # #
El-Omayed Biosphere Reserve (9)
# # El-Zaranik (7)
## ## # Gebel Elba (18)
(O) ## (13) # # Hassana Dome (11)
(Nv) # #### (4)
(P11) # Kahf Wadi Sanur (14)
## ####
Nabq Protectorate (2)
(P5) # (3) Petrified Forest (10)
# ### ##(P15) ####
(5) (S) ##
# ## Qarun (12)
(14) # ############ #(2) Ras -Mohammed National Park (1)
(Nv) (Dg) ## # Saint Katherine Protectorate (5)
(O) #
Salluga-Ghazal (16)
Taba Protectorate (4)
(P12) (1) Wadi Allaqui Biosphere Reserve (17)
Wadi Asyuti (15)
Wadi Deglah (21)
##
(P4) (O)
Wadi-ElRayan (13)
(O) (15) # El-Galala (P11)
(R)
#
El-Qasr (P7)
El-Shayeb (P13)
Gebel Maghara (P18)
# (P16) Gilf Kebir (P1)
(20) Girafi (P19)

Re
(P3) Great Red Sea Reef (P16)
Hamata (P14)
(Da) Kurkur and Dungul (P2)

d
Qattara (P5)
(O) #

Se
Quseima (P17)
# Ras El-Hekma (P10)
Sabkhat Ras Shukeir (P15)

a
Salum (P8)
Showela (P9)
(O) #
Um Dabadib (P3)
Um El-Ghuzlan (P6)
(Dn) ##
(P14) Wadi Qena (P12)
White Desert (P4)
(Nn)
(16)
#
# ###
Out of Study Area
(P2) # # Mediterranean Sea
Red Sea
# # Lake
(O) (Nn) (Sa)
# Arabian Desert (Da)
(P1) # # ## Delta
Galalah Desert (Dg)
Gebel Uweinat (Gw)
(18) ###### Isthmic Desert (Di)
# #####
# #####################
Lybian Desert (DL)
(Gw) (O) # (17) # ######################################
Mediterranean Region (M)
# # # ####### Nile Valley (Nv)
Nubian Desert (Dn)
Nubian Nile (Nn)
Oases (O)
Red Sea Coastal Plain (R)
Sahelian scrub (Sa)
200 0 200 400 Kilometers Sinai region (S)

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

and compiled in a national GIS-based system. By overlaying all the data on living
organisms and their spatial distribution, a clear understanding of the status of the
biodiversity in Egypt could be gained, and better decisions could be made
regarding biodiversity conservation. The achievement of this goal would repres-
ent the real wealth of the country in terms of its biological currency.
(2) The declared network of protected areas in Egypt includes relatively
adequate representation of the countrys phytogeographic subdivisions.
However, the threatened arboreal species that occur in the Mediterranean and
western desert need urgent conservation action to be taken in the form of
establishing protected areas and encouraging the declaring of the proposed
protected areas of Sallum, the Great Red Sea Reef and Gebel Maghara, as actual
protected areas.
(3) Gebel Elba and the Sinai protected areas play a significant role in conserving the
threatened arboreal species of Egypt (with the highest species richness including
most of the endemic species, and representing internationally important bird
areas). This calls for efficient management plan for each of these protector-
ates to ensure coherent conservation action, and the use of these protectorates as
centers of environmental research activities. It is recommended that birdwatching
areas in these protected areas be established in these protected areas to enhance
ecotourism.
(4) The use of GIS is recommended as a more effective approach than either
manual methods or non-spatial automated means, of making biodiversity assess-
ments. The present study supported the vertical flow of spatially distributed
information driven by GIS. Data can be aggregated and generalized to produce
information about gaps and reserves that could suit a wide variety of users
including policy makers and researchers, as well as donor-funded projects. If the
110 B. B. SALEM

Mediterranean Sea # Threatened Species

#(P8) (P9)
# # ### # ### # ###

Important Birds Area
# #
(19)(M)
(8)
#(6)
#

(7)#

(P7)
# (P10)
(M)## # (M) # N
Abu-Gallum Protectorate (3)
## # # ## Al-Ahrash (6)
## #
##
# (P17) All River Nile Island (20)
# ###
Ashtum El-Gamil (8)
(9) #
## Brullus (19)
(11)# ### (10) # # # El-Omayed Biosphere Reserve (9)
(P6) # (Di) # (P19)
El-Zaranik (7)
## Gebel Elba (18)
# (Dl) (12) (21) # # # Hassana Dome (11)
#
# Kahf Wadi Sanur (14)
###(O) # ## # Nabq Protectorate (2)
Petrified Forest (10)
# (13)
(Nv) (P11) # # #
# # ## # (4) Qarun (12)
Ras-Mohammed National Park (1)
(P5) # ### # #
##(S) (3) Saint Katherine Protectorate (5)
# # ### ##(P15) ####
#(5) ##
#
# ###############
Salluga-Ghazal (16)
(14)
(2) Taba Protectorate (4)
(O) (Nv) (Dg) ## Wadi Allaqui Biosphere Reserve (17)
#

Wadi Asyuti (15)
(P12) (1)
Wadi Deglah (21)
Wadi-El Rayan (13)


(P4) (O) # El-Galala (P11)
El-Qasr (P7)
(O) (15) # El-Shayeb (P13)
(R) Gebel Maghara (P18)
# Gilf Kebir (P1)
(20) # (P16) Girafi (P19)
Great Red Sea Reef (P16)

Re
(P3) Hamata (P14)
Kurkur and Dungul (P2)
(Da)

d
Qattara (P5)
(O) Quseima (P17)
#

Se
Ras El-Hekma (P10)
# Sabkhat Ras Shukeir (P15)

a
Salum (P8)

Showela (P9)
(O)
# Um Dabadib (P3)
(P14) Um El-Ghuzlan (P6)
(Dn) # Wadi Qena (P12)
#(16)
(Nn) White Desert (P4)
# #### #

Out of Study Area
(P2) # Mediterranean Sea
# #
Red Sea
(O) (Nn) (Sa)
# Lake
(P1) # # ## Arabian Desert (Da)

Delta
########
#
(18) Galalah Desert (Dg)
#
# ####################
Gebel Uweinat (Gw)
(Gw) (O) #
# #################################
(17) Isthmic Desert (Di)
# # # #######
########## Lybian Desert (DL)
Mediterranean Region (M)
Nile Valley (Nv)
Nubian Desert (Dn)
Nubian Nile (Nn)
200 0 200 400 Kilometers Oases (O)
Red Sea Coastal Plain (R)
Sahelian scrub (Sa)
Sinai region (S)

Figure 7. The distribution of the threatened arboreal species, the phytogeographical

subdivisions and protected areas (established and proposed) overlaid on a map of the important
bird areas.

quality of land-use planning and decisions can be improved by incorporating

a better understanding of the locations of the important elements of diversity and
of our effects upon them, sustainable development of our biosphere may
succeed (Davis et al., 1990).

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

References

Aspinall, R.J. (1995). Geographic information systems: their use for environmental management
and nature conservation. Parks, 5: 2031.
Ayyad, M. (1998). Multipurpose Species in Arab African Countries. Cairo, Egypt: UNESCO. 90 pp.
Baha El-Din, S.M. (1999). Directory of Important Bird Areas in Egypt. The Palm Press. 113 pp.
Bailey, R.G. (1976). Ecoregions of the United States. Ogden, Utah: VSPA Forest Service. 412 pp.
Boulous, L. (1995). Flora of Egypt (Checklist). La: Al-Hadara Publishing. 287 pp.
Canhos, V.P., Manfio, G.P. & Canhos, A. (1998). Networks for distributing information. In:
Hawksworth, D.L., Kirk, P.M. & Clarke, S.D. (Eds), Biodiversity Information Needs and
Options, pp. 5}20. Proceeding of the 1996 International Workshop on Biodiversity Information. La:
CAB International. 194 pp.
Crumpacker, D.V., Hodge, S.W., Friedley, D. & Gregg, W.P. (1988). A preliminary assessment
of the status of major terrestrial and wetland ecosystems on Federal and Indian lands in the
United States. Conservation Biology, 2: 103.
Davis, F.W., Stoms, D.M., Estes, J.E., Scepan, J. & Scott, J.M. (1990). An information systems
approach to the preservation of biological diversity. International Journal of Geographic Informa-
tion Systems, 4: 5578
 APPLICATION OF GIS TO BIODIVERSITY 111

El-Hadidi, M.N., Batanouny, K.H. & Fahmy, A.G. (1991). The Egyptian Plant Red Data Book.
La: UNEP, Cairo University, Faculty of Science. 223 pp.
Faith, D.P. & Walker, P.A. (1996). Environmental diversity: on the best possible use of surrogate
data for assessing the relative biodiversity of sets of areas. Biodiversity and Conservation, 5:
399415.
Harrison, J. (1995). Finding the information. Parks, 5: 1219.
Heywood, V.H. (1997). Information needs in biodiversity assessments: from genes to ecosystems.
In: Hawksworth, D.L., Kirk, P.M. & Clarke, S.D. (Eds), Biodiversity Information Needs and
Options, pp. 520. Proceedings of the 1996 International Workshop on Biodiversity Information. La:
CAB International. 194 pp.
IUCN (1993). Parks for life. Report of the IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected
Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 260 pp.
Janzen, D.H. (1993). Taxonomy: universal and essential infrastructure for development and
management of tropical wildland biodiversity. In: Sandlund, O.T., Hinder, K. & Brown,
A.H.D. (Eds) Conservation of Biodiversity for Sustainable Development, pp. 100113. Oslo:
Scandinavian University Press. 194 pp.
Janzen, D.H. & Gamez, R. (1997). Assessing information needs for sustainable use and conserva-
tion of biodiversity. In: Hawksworth, D.L., Risk, P.M. & Clarke, S.D. Biodiversity Information
Needs and Options, pp. 2129. Proceedings of the 1996 International Workshop on Biodiversity. La:
CAB International. 194 pp.
Kuchler, A.W. (1964). Potential Natural Vegetation of the Conterminous United States. Special
publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society.
Maguire, D.J., Goodchild, M.F. & Rhind, D.W. (1991). Geographic Information Systems. London:
Longman. 273 pp.
Marqules, C.R. & Austin, M.P. (Eds) (1991). Nature conservation: cost effective biological
surveys and data analysis. Australia: CSIRO.
McGranaghan, M. & Wester, L. (1988). Prototyping an herbarium collection mapping system.
Technical Papers of the 1988 ACSM-ASRRS. Annual Convention, 5: 232238. St. Louis,
Missouri, 1318 March 1988.
McNeely, J.A. (1994). Protected areas for the 21st century: working to provide benefits to society.
Biodiversity and Conservation, 3: 390405.
Morse, L.Z., Henifin, M.S., Ballman, J.C. & Lawler, J.I. (1981). Geographical data organization
in botany and plant conservation: a survey of alternative strategies. In: Morse, L.E. & Henifin,
M.S. (Eds), Rare Plant Conservation: Geographical Data Organization, pp. 929. Bronx, New
York: The New York Botanic Garden.
Omernik, J.M. (1987). Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annuals of the Association of
American Geographers, pp. 77118.
Perring, F.H. & Walkers, S.M. (1962). Atlas of British Flora. London: Nelson and Sons. 189 pp.
Scott, J.M., Davis, F., Csuti, B., Noss, R., Butterfield, G.C., Anderson, H. Caccio, S., DErchia,
F., Edwards, T.C., Ulliman, J. & Wright, R.G. (1993). Gap analysis: a geographic approach to
conservation of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs, 123: 141.
Scott, J.M., Tear, T.H. & Davis, F.W. (1996). Gap Analysis: A Landscape Approach to Biodiversity
Planning. Maryland, USA, American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing.
Spellerberg, I.F., & Sawyer, W.D. (1999). An Introduction to Applied Biogeography. La: Cambridge
University Press. 243 pp.
Stein, B.A. (1997). Designing information systems to support biodiversity conservation. In:
Hawksworth, D.L., Kirk, P.M. & Clarke, S.D. (Eds), Biodiversity Information Needs and
Options, pp. 520. Proceedings of the 1996 International Workshop on Biodiversity Information.
CAB International.
UNEP. (1992). Convention on Biodiversity. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP Environmental Laws and
Institutions Programme Activity Center.
Walker, P. & Faith, D.P. (1993). Diversity: a software package for sampling phylogenetic and
environmental diversity. Division of Wildlife and Ecology. Australia: CSIRO.
 Appendix 1

112
ID Species name Ecological value Commonness Conservation Economic value Total Average
(life form) status (multipurpose#no. of uses)

1 Juniperus phoenicea 8 2 7 4 21 5)25

2 Ephedra ciliata 7 2 4 2 15 3)75
3 Ephedra foeminea 7 2 7 2 18 4)5
4 Ephedra sinaica 7 2 7 2 18 4)5
5 Populus euphratica 10 2 7 2 21 5)25
6 Ficus carica 7 2 7 2 18 4)5
7 Ficus palmata 10 2 4 2 18 4)5
8 Plicosepalus curviflorus 7 4 4 2 17 4)25
9 Plicosepalus acaciae 7 7 7 2 23 5)75
10 Atraphaxis spinosa 7 2 4 2 15 3)75
11 Calligonum polygonoides 7 2 4 2 15 3)75

B. B. SALEM
12 Boerhavia africana 4 2 4 2 12 3)0
13 Boerhavia repens 4 7 7 2 20 5)0
14 Boerhavia elegans 2 7 4 2 15 3)75
15 Silene schimperiana 4 10 4 2 20 5)0
16 Silene fruticose 4 2 8 2 16 4)0
17 Bufonia multiceps 7 10 7 2 26 6)5
18 Suaeda vermiculata 7 7 4 2 20 5)0
19 Salsola tetragona 7 2 7 2 18 4)5
20 Salsola schweinfurthii 7 4 4 2 17 4)25
21 Seidletzia rosmarinus 7 7 4 2 20 5)0
22 Anabasis syriaca 7 2 4 2 15 3)75
23 Cornulaca ehrenbergii 7 7 10 2 26 6)5
24 Haloxylon persicum 8 2 7 6 23 5)75
25 Aerva lanata 2 2 4 2 10 2)5
26 Capparis decidua 7 7 5 2 21 5)25
27 Cadaba rotundifolia 8 7 7 2 24 6)0
28 Cadaba glandulosa 7 4 4 2 17 4)25
29 Cadaba farinosa 7 4 2 13 3)25
30 Boscia senegalensis 8 7 7 2 24 6)0
31 Boscia angustifolia 10 2 7 2 21 5)25
32 Maerua crassifolia 8 4 4 6 22 5)5
33 Maerua oblongifolia 7 2 8 2 19 4)75
34 Matthiola elliptica 2 2 4 2 10 2)5
35 Matthiola arabica 2 2 4 2 10 2)5
36 Zilla spinosa 7 2 4 4 17 4)25
37 Radonia africana 7 2 7 2 18 4)5
38 Moringa peregrina 10 4 4 2 20 5)0
39 Rosa arabica 7 10 7 2 26 6)5
40 Crataegus sinaica 7 2 4 2 15 3)75
41 Contoneaster obricularis 8 2 4 2 16 4)0
42 Anagyris foetida 7 7 10 2 26 6)5
43 Indigofera arabica 7 7 8 2 24 6)0
44 Indigofera lotononoides 7 7 7 2 23 5)75

APPLICATION OF GIS TO BIODIVERSITY

45 Colutea istria 7 7 4 2 20 5)0
46 Astrachantha echinus 7 2 7 2 18 4)5
47 Taverniera lappacea 7 7 7 2 23 5)75
48 Ebenus armitagei 7 10 7 2 26 6)5
49 Delonix elata 10 7 4 2 23 5)75
50 Mimosa pigra 7 7 7 2 23 5)75
51 Acacia mellifera 8 7 4 6 25 6)25
52 Acacia asak 8 2 8 2 20 5)0
53 Acacia iraqensis 8 2 4 2 16 4)0
54 Acacia nilotica 7 7 4 2 20 5)0
55 Acacia seyal 10 7 7 8 32 8)0
56 Acacia etbaica 8 2 4 2 16 4)0
57 Dichrostachys cinerea 7 2 10 2 21 5)25
58 Fagonia taeckholmiana 7 10 10 2 29 7)25
59 Fagonia tenuifolia 7 2 7 2 18 4)5
60 Fagonia isotricha 7 4 4 2 17 4)25
61 Zygophyllum
propinquum 7 7 4 2 20 5)0
62 Zygophyllum dumosum 7 10 4 2 23 5)75
63 Zygophyllum fabago 7 2 10 2 21 5)25
64 Chrozophora brocchiana 7 7 4 2 20 5)0
65 Jatropha glauca 7 7 7 2 23 5)75
66 Securinega securidaca 7 2 4 2 15 3)75
67 Phyllanthus reticulatus 8 7 7 2 24 6)0
68 Euphorbia nubica 10 4 4 2 20 5)0
69 Euphorbiamauritanica 10 4 4 2 20 5)0
70 Euphorbia dendroides 7 4 4 2 17 3)75

113
71 Euphorbia arguta 7 4 7 2 20 5)0
 Appendix 1*Continued

114
ID Species name Ecological value Commonness Conservation Economic value Total Average
( life form) status (multipurpose#no. of uses)
72 Euphorbia erinacea 7 7 8 2 24 6)0
73 Euphorbia obovata 7 10 7 2 26 6)5
74 Commiphora gileadensis 10 4 4 8 26 6)5
75 Commiphora
quadricincta 10 7 7 2 26 6)5
76 Polygala sinaica 7 7 4 2 20 5)0
77 Rhus coriaria 8 2 10 2 22 5)5
78 Rhus abyssinica 10 4 4 2 20 5)0
79 Rhus tripartita 7 2 4 6 19 4)75
80 Pistacia khinjuk 10 2 4 8 24 6)0
81 Pistacia atlantica 10 2 7 6 25 6)25
82 Dodonaea viscosa 8 4 4 2 18 4)5

B. B. SALEM
83 Maytenus senegalensis 7 4 4 2 17 4)25
84 Rhamnus lycioides 7 2 4 2 15 3)75
85 Rhamnus disperma 8 7 4 2 21 5)25
86 Sageretia thea 7 7 7 2 23 5)75
87 Ziziphus lotus 7 2 7 2 18 4)5
88 Triumfetta flavescens 7 7 4 2 20 5)0
89 Grewia villosa 7 7 10 2 26 6)5
90 Abutilon figarianum 7 2 8 2 19 4)75
91 Pavonia kotschyi 4 2 10 2 18 4)5
92 Pavonia arabica 4 2 8 2 16 4)0
93 Gossypium arboreum 7 7 7 6 27 6)75
94 Melhania denhamii 7 7 4 2 20 5)0
95 Viola scorpiuroides 4 10 8 2 24 6)0
96 Helianthemum ventosum 7 7 4 2 20 5)0
97 Helianthemum
sancti-anto 7 7 7 2 23 5)75
98 Helianthemum
schweinfurt 7 10 8 2 27 6)75
99 Helianthemum
crassifoliu 7 10 7 2 26 6)5
100 Fumana arabica 7 2 7 2 18 4)5
101 Rhizophora mucronata 10 7 7 2 26 6)5