Species Richness Score

This is such a great way to make data easily available as a measure of the value of natural assets! Also recognises the people who do the sightings. Thank you

This looks to be a great advance on the previous scoring suggestion. However, I’d like to point out a couple of issues.

For example, I’m not sure why cosmopolitan species should receive such a low weighting. Cosmopolitan species that occur in the Canberra region include the Barn Owl and Peregrine Falcon. Both are also locally indigenous, and also highly significant top predators, so I’d argue that they should be given the same weighting as the other locally indigenous species.

Migratory species too are possibly weighted too high. For example, Rufous Whistler, Rainbow Bee-eater, the Tasmanian race of Silvereye, Golden Whistler, Eastern Spinebill and White-throated Needletail are all migratory, but each have different origins and thus different levels of conservation significance. Lumping all under a single weighting does not seem to be a logical step.

I’d also be uncomfortable to add the contribution of exotic species to the overall species richness score. Non-local natives and exotic species have the effect of reducing local species richness by directly competing against locally indigenous species for resources (e.g., space, nutrients, light, nesting resources, etc). I’d suggest that there be two separate scores for each site, with locally indigenous natives contributing to one score, and non-locals and exotics contributing to another score.

And finally, in the case of locally extinct species, a low weighting similarly does not appear logical. For example, should a species be formerly known from a site, or region, and there’s a reintroduction attempt or a successful reintroduction of that species at the site, then I think that species should be given a much higher weighting. Examples of this phenomenon may include successful reintroductions of say of Hoary Sunray, Lepidium hyssopifolium or Grassland Earless Dragon. Of course each of these two would be given a high weighting as threatened species, but there may be cases where a non-threatened and locally previously extinct species is reintroduced at a site.

Hi Aaron, a major improvement. But I agree with Rainer re the score for cosmopolitan and migratory species as well as having a separate score for local & exotic.

How about a rating of -1 for Exotic invasive? That would account for competition. Non-local natives could be rated according to their invasiveness.

Hi Aaron,
A very useful tool but I agree with Rainer that
a) the migratory category rating is probably too high as dispersal and migration are an integral part of the life cycle of many animals and plants.
b) that exotics should not be included e.g honey bees that have a negative impact on other flower-visiting insects.
c) a higher rating for cosmopolitan species is warranted as some of these could be at the edge of their range locally.

Locally extinct species are difficult to assess. Historical records are available for only a few species usually those that already declared threatened. For example, several orchids, Swainsonas, reptiles, birds and Keys Matchstick grasshopper and GSM, among others. Some of these disappearances are due to loss and degradation of habitat but in other instances suitable habitat may be present but the species in question is still absent possibly due to historic events and low dispersive ability. For example, Keys Matchstick is now probably extinct at Hall Cemetery due to the mowing regime that would affect other plants and animals as well, giving the cemetery an overall very low biodiveristy rating. So I would suggest keeping the weighting in this category as is. Reintroductions may need a different category.

Bias. Some places seem to have only been visited by birdos, others by plant people. Do we need to recommend places that would seem to support high biodiversity for a greater scrutiny of a wider range of biota?

See Table 4 Reserve Prioritisation Report in the KMP 2023. It ranks all the Reserves in the manner similar to your proposal. This priority system has led to many of the Nature Reserves with lower scores left in total neglect. Over the years I have witnessed serious biodiversity decline in the Reserves near me because weeds that should be suppressed or weeds that should be contained are left year after year to seed and spread. Removal of kangaroos has also led to altered nutrient balance in soils endangering hundreds of local species that are reliant on nutrients no longer available to them. Not to mention the potential fire hazard after three years of above average rain.

It's a cool idea and neat to see the development of new uses for these data. However, I'm trying to wrap my head around whether or not it will actually be indicative of the "health" of the local environment - because how would you define environmental health? If you've got a bunch of locally threatened species that are weighted higher, is that site "unhealthy" simply because many of the species present are threatened, or healthy, because they are threatened but still hanging on in that area? It also kind of implies that all areas with lower species richness are unhealthy, when it could be naturally lower due to other environmental factors. Maybe comparing species richness as an indicator of health works better on a smaller spatial scale, but I'd be hesitant to compare across larger regions varying in veg communities/elevation/climate, etc and claim that it's related to environmental health - it feels a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Would it be possible to provide a measure of change over time for the same region, to show general trends in sightings?

I do like the idea of separating the scores for native and non-native species, otherwise a site that shelters a large number of non-natives could appear as biodiverse and "healthy" as one with a lower number of native species.

Hi everyone, thank you for your feedback.

I agree that the cosmopolitan species should have a higher value and will readjust their conservation level to 3.

We gave migratory (indicator) species (mostly birds) the highest conservation level based off formal advice. In the grand scheme of things if they are found in a region this indicates a healthy habitat. Birds generally migrate to regions with a high abundance of food which indicates a thriving environment.

We decided to give exotic species a conservation score of 1 because although they do compete with native flora and fauna, they still play a significant role in the Australian landscape, whether this is stabilising the soil profile or a source of food for graziers. Additionally, the make-up of Australian biodiversity does involve a large number of exotic/introduced species which in some cases have successfully co-evolved with the native ecosystem for example the dingo. For noxious weeds and pests for example, rabbits we are thinking of assigning them an invasiveness level that won't contribute a conservation level score.

Regarding the pre-existing, locally extinct species category, our intention for this score is to provide a single at-a glance score with no temporal dimension yet, just a current indication of species richness.

There will be further opportunity to better this score as we develop the SRS and location dash board which will provide more in-detail information for example, reintroduced species but at this stage we are keeping it as simple as possible.

The Dingo is not a good example of an exotic species as it has been here for many thousands of years and has had time to adapt. Most exotics have been introduced deliberately and accidentally in the last 200 years. Apart from those introduced for biolocal control most are not co-evolving with the environment but are often competing and outperforming native species. Examples such as African Love Grass, Serrated Tussock, St Johns Wort, come to mind as well as the tramp ants, Indian Mynahs and Starlings, foxes and cats, the list goes on.

Totally agree about the dingo

Personally I imagine its very hard to use data from sites like Naturemapr for this kind of purpose. The majority of sightings recorded are the unusual, not the spread of diversity at a site on that day/time. Not everyone goes nuts like I do and takes everything they see, but even then I'm only taking about 60% of what I see. It can be dangerous to then declare sites with nothing 'valuable' as ok to decommission when they are actually serving a purpose if only part of a corridor, for the common species today, which may be the endangered tomorrow. What we don't know today, we can't learn tomorrow if the site is completely gone. But this is from a completely non-scientific person.

Yes Kylie I totally agree with you. Over 7 years myself and people from the Native Plant Society recorded over 180 native species of plants in the Reserve near me. When Nature Map started, it was designed to capture rare species of plants and I was a moderator for 2 Reserves so I kept watch on what was recorded and can say Nature Map pictures only captured probably less than around 30% of what was actually there. People then started recording Weeds, so I lost interest. It is by no means an accurate depiction of what actually exists and shouldn't be used as such. It is good for giving GPS details to the Park Managers for extraction of weeds, but they are missing in action.

Yep @KylieWaldon - sighting data is opportunistic and therefore sporadic, as opposed to formal surveys, which are more uniform and standardised following a repeatable methodology. That is exactly why the species richness score that @Choyster is designing does not take into account the number of sightings of a particular species - it is purely an indicative measure that recognises that a particular species exists or does not exist (at all) within the location. NatureMapr data is ideal for this - contributors recognise quite quickly that a particular species may not have been reported, yet, within their particular location or reserve and can act to "fill in the gaps" i.e. flesh out the species richness for their favourite locations.

No platform or methodology in the world will ever have 100% consistent, uniform coverage of all species recorded on every single day of the year in every single square meter of a reserve - not even the professionals. But the Species Richness Score (general indicator) combined with the indicator of survey effort will definitely help users identify and fill in the gaps - further strengthening the data set over time.

A good example of the problems interpreting species richness score is by comparing Melrose NR to the east of Monaro Highway and Tuggeranong Hill NR directly to the west. Both contain a rich diversity of woodland and grassland flora although Tuggers has a higher woodland cover. Melrose has a RS of 595 compared with 2263 for Tuggers. Few NMs seem to visit Melrose, possibly because its not surrounded by suburbs (where NMs live) and has no well defined access points and there are gates that have to be climbed over rather than through. It also has an impassable water filled creek (Dunns) that splits it in half. Nevertheless, it has lots of biodiversity potential (a wonderful spring display of epacrids) and definitely needs more survey effort.

Yep agree @RogerF and that's exactly what the accompanying "XXX sightings per hectare" survey effort score will tell you. A lower species richness accompanied by a low survey effort score simply means the place needs to be surveyed more. If Melrose and Tuggers have a similar survey effort score and a similar species richness score, then you are dealing with apples and apples and you can assume the species richness of both locations is similar - unless even further survey effort proves otherwise.

If we put a top 10 list of "lowest survey effort score" locations on the home page, it could help guide people to explore the parks that would benefit from increased data.

Robin Hood and his Merry Staff could go to Sherwood Forest (NR) in the the very north of the ACT to help rectify this situation.
Another area with high potential diversity are the Hall Horse Paddocks ( next to the village) that don't even merit a map and even support a substantial population of Keyacris. This would be a good place for a Blitz: over to you Ciaran,

Hi Aaron. Since you are displaying the number of sightings per hectare, it would be very useful to show the number of hectares.

Good feedback @michaelb - thanks will try to do today.

Also: we are going to implement the multiple attachments upgrade for your community pages too. Soon.

Great, thanks Aaron !

Hi All,

Area (hectares) and survey effort scores have been added to all map pages. E.g.

Mount Majura

Scores are heavily skewed by inclusion of records from such as ACTWildLifeAtlas and Canberra Ornithologists Group, and by weed control such as serrated tussock and Cootamundra wattle. Perhaps there needs to be a date cutoff and a separation of native/exotic species. It is good to have some figures as long as there is a clear understanding that they have different baselines and inputs.

We can now view a clear spectrum of the species breakdown of all reserves and get started on filling in the gaps!

Soon: when a sighting is confirmed, we will let the contributor know how many points they have influenced the location's species richness score by, in the event that the species did not previously exist in that reserve.

"Thank you, you have increased the SRS for Mount Majura by 3 points".

Longer term: We may calculate year on year SRS values and chart the change over time. There is likely to be more work directed at building up a location dashboard page with more of a breakdown on natives vs exotics and some charts showing change over time.

So I have to take more and more photos ...

Exactly @Mike - you have to catch and blow away @michaelb who is in the elite mile high 10k club now.

I wonder if @MichaelMulvaney can hit 50,000 moderator confirmations.

Hi @AaronClausen - the hectare info looks good and the wagon wheel is very cool with the floating text. Because we have a single figure for for the SRS, it would be very useful to have a break up by conservation level:- rare, native, non-local native, exotic, migratory etc. That would complete the data picture. What do you think?

Hi @michaelb, yep agree, that would be cool.

We are likely to end up enhancing that location spectrum/dashboard page quite a bit once we knock over a few other things.

Agree! That would really complete the picture. However does it expose the endangered species? That would be a consideration for who can see the information.

I like naturemapr that it can have the weeds and 'common' things as well as the rare things. For beginners like me I don't know one from the other, so it helps people like me to learn. :)