Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Reflection in 2018

Aichi Biodiversity Targets Reflection in 2018 shows we are very far from achieving the goals. People are still not aware of values of biodiversity, values of biodiversity still need to be integrated into national and local development and poverty reduction strategies……science, technology, mobilisation of all resources…not yet possible. I outline here the Aichi Biodiversity targets and hope to get succinct responses.

-Five strategic goals have been given, which are:

(A) Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society

(B) Reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use

(C) To improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity

(D) Enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services
(E) Enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building.

The goals have to be met by 2020 ( in the next two years). On reflection I thought we again look at these goals:

Strategic Goal  Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society
Target 1
By 2020, at the latest, people are aware of the values of biodiversity and the steps they can take to conserve and use it sustainably.
Target 2
By 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values have been integrated into national and local development and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and are being incorporated into national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting systems.
Target 3
By 2020, at the latest, incentives, including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity are eliminated, phased out or reformed in order to minimize or avoid negative impacts, and positive incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are developed and applied, consistent and in harmony with the Convention and other relevant international obligations, taking into account national socio economic conditions.
Target 4
By 2020, at the latest, Governments, business and stakeholders at all levels have taken steps to achieve or have implemented plans for sustainable production and consumption and have kept the impacts of use of natural resources well within safe ecological limits.
Strategic Goal B: Reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use
Target 5
By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, is at least halved and where feasible brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced.

Target 6
By 2020 all fish and invertebrate stocks and aquatic plants are managed and harvested sustainably, legally and applying ecosystem based approaches, so that overfishing is avoided, recovery plans and measures are in place for all depleted species, fisheries have no significant adverse impacts on threatened species and vulnerable ecosystems and the impacts of fisheries on stocks, species and ecosystems are within safe ecological limits.
Target 7
By 2020 areas under agriculture, aquaculture and forestry are managed sustainably, ensuring conservation of biodiversity.
Target 8
By 2020, pollution, including from excess nutrients, has been brought to levels that are not detrimental to ecosystem function and biodiversity.
Target 9
By 2020, invasive alien species and pathways are identified and prioritized, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their introduction and establishment.
Target 10
By 2015, the multiple anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs, and other vulnerable ecosystems impacted by climate change or ocean acidification are minimized, so as to maintain their integrity and functioning.
Strategic Goal C: To improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity
Target 11
By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes.
Target 12
By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained.
Target 13
By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and of wild relatives, including other socio-economically as well as culturally valuable species, is maintained, and strategies have been developed and implemented for minimizing genetic erosion and safeguarding their genetic diversity.
Strategic Goal D: Enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services
Target 14
By 2020, ecosystems that provide essential services, including services related to water, and contribute to health, livelihoods and well-being, are restored and safeguarded, taking into account the needs of women, indigenous and local communities, and the poor and vulnerable.

Target 15
By 2020, ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks has been enhanced, through conservation and restoration, including restoration of at least 15 per cent of degraded ecosystems, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation and to combating desertification.
Target 16
By 2015, the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization is in force and operational, consistent with national legislation.
Strategic Goal E: Enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building
Target 17
By 2015 each Party has developed, adopted as a policy instrument, and has commenced implementing an effective, participatory and updated national biodiversity strategy and action plan.
Target 18
By 2020, the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and their customary use of biological resources, are respected, subject to national legislation and relevant international obligations, and fully integrated and reflected in the implementation of the Convention with the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities, at all relevant levels.
Target 19
By 2020, knowledge, the science base and technologies relating to biodiversity, its values, functioning, status and trends, and the consequences of its loss, are improved, widely shared and transferred, and applied.
Target 20
By 2020, at the latest, the mobilization of financial resources for effectively implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 from all sources, and in accordance with the consolidated and agreed process in the Strategy for Resource Mobilization, should increase substantially from the current levels. This target will be subject to changes contingent to resource needs assessments to be developed and reported by Parties.

Native mangrove tree species(c)

Light dependent properties of five Native Mangrove species(c)by Promila Kapoor-Vijay
A brief note
Promila Kapoor-Vijay(ID name Promila Kapoor)

There are about 80 species of true mangrove trees worldwide, mangrove ecosystems comprise a relatively low number of habitat-forming tree species, are rich with a high diversity of decomposer, detritivorous and consumer species. Although the overall level of diversity in mangrove ecosystems is low relative​ to those of other key tropical habitats such as coral reefs and tropical rainforests​s, these species collectively support many important ecosystem services (Lee​ et al.,(2017).
The key feature of Mangrove study relates to the ​adaptive capacity of five mangrove tree species and their response to strong light. The study​ by Kitao et al, describes and reports an ​examination of photosynthesis specifically the light-dependent​ properties of five mangrove native tree species which are: Sonneratia alba, Rhizophora stylosa, Rhizophora apiculata, Bruguiera gymnorrhiza and Xylocarpus granatum)”.


1.Mangrove Ecosystems: A Global Biogeographic Perspective.Rivera-Monroy V.H. et al. (2017)

2. Light-dependent photosynthetic characteristics indicated by chlorophyll fluorescence in five mangrove species native to Pohnpei Island, Micronesia
DOI: 10.1034/j.1399-3054.2003.00042.x

Wild relatives of Native species- Rice, Sweet potato, ​Chenopods and others.

Wild relatives of Native Species- have been since time memorial found to be useful.These plants, and also other organisms are closely related to biological wealth of nations. Mrs.Promila Kapoor PhD
( I prefer to use my professional name Dr.Mrs. Promila Kapoor-Vijay (c)

Rice genome`s recent studies have brought out 3000 plant races of wild rice.Similar work on Sweet potato, Amaranth, Buckwheat, and Chenopods is ongoing.
The Latest development in the ​search for new plants to answer problem of hunger and malnutrition- focus on future crops such as Chenopodium Quinoa( Quinoa) is being given high attention.
“Quinoa for Future Food and Nutrition Security in Marginal Environments
The global population is expected to increase to 9.7 billion in 2050 and there are concerns about the capacity of agriculture to produce enough food for the growing population. By some estimates, food production will need to go up by about 60 percent either through an ​increase in crop yields per unit area or expansion in the arable land by 2050 to meet the demand (World Population Prospects-the 2008 Revision, UN, 2009).
Several regions already suffering from malnutrition, water scarcity and soil degradation have been forecast to have a large population growth which raises serious concerns about whether traditional agricultural methods and crops species will have the capacity to sustain global food production targets.
Major cereal crops like wheat, rice, barley and corn are progressively failing to withstand increasing salinity and scarce water resources in marginal environments that are most vulnerable to climate change.
There is an urgent need to identify alternative solutions to sustaining, and, possibly, increasing agricultural productivity in areas where growing conventional crops has become difficult, but the alternative/underutilised traditional crops such as Millets, Amaranths, Buckwheat, Quinoa have great potential. Some species such as Chenopods and their wild relatives can play an important role in eradicating hunger, malnutrition, ​and poverty.(c)

Native plant species of Himalayas©

​Native plant species of the Himalayas©
Promila Kapoor-Vijay©(ID name Promila Kapoor©

There are no studies giving data from the field on native plant species​ of Himalayas. A programme is being developed by PBK-2100{c)to study the biology of native species, ​for which available information from published literature and databases on plants and floras is important. Contributions of experts from other fields such as taxonomy,plant biosystematics, ecology, biogeography, ethnobotany ​, population biology will be important in this work.
It is very important news that a plant database has been successfully developed by the Wildlife Institute of India at Dehradun, based on the floras published in the literature​ (Rana and Rawat,2017).All published floras (31 floras in 42 volumes spanning the years 1903–2014) from the Indian Himalayan region, Nepal, and Bhutan were examined(Rana and Rawat,2017),to compile a comprehensive checklist of all gymnosperms and angiosperms. The database has a ​total of 10,503 species representing 240 families and 2322 genera are reported. Further all botanical names and synonyms are evaluated. There are 1134 species which​ presently remain taxonomically unresolved and 160 species with missing information in the global plant database (The Plant List, 2013). This is the most comprehensive estimate of plant species diversity in the Himalaya.
Conservation of native species of the Himalayas, it is important to prepare databases,​ work of Rana and Rawat(2017) is an important contribution.

Data Set:
Database of Himalayan Plants Based on Published Floras During a Century by

Naming of Organisms – A case study of Chenopodium album linn.(c)

What’s in the name of an Organism?
A case study of Chenopodium album Linn.

Author: Promila Kapoor-Vijay*
PBK-2100:A platform for Probioknowledge
14, Chemin Colladon, Geneva, CH-1209, Switzerland

An organism is an individual entity that exhibits the properties of life. It is a synonym for “life form”. They can be unicellular, multicellular, and can be aggregated as a colony.

Organisms are grouped together into taxa and defined based on their characteristics.

The system of naming species was first developed by Swedish botanist and physician, Carolus Linnaeus in the mid 1700s. Linnaeus is the father of the branch of biology called taxonomy, which seeks to describe, name and classifies organisms. His system of naming species, still in use today, begins with assigning all species a two-part Latin name called a binomial. The first word of the binomial is the genus name of the species, and the second word is the specific epithet for the species. For example (see figure above), the scientific name for the blue crab is Callinectes sapidus. Callinectes, the genus name, is the collective term which includes many species of crabs closely related to the blue crab. The specific epithet, sapidus, describes exactly which of the Callinectes species is being identified.

*Following Identification codes have been devised to provide identifiers for species, like:

(1)National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) employs a numeric ‘taxid’ or Taxonomy identifier, a “stable unique identifier”, e.g., the taxid of H. sapiens is 9606.

(2)Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) employs a three- or four-letter code for a limited number of organisms; in this code, for example, H. sapiens is simply hsa.

(3)UniProt employs an “organism mnemonic” of not more than five alphanumeric characters, e.g., HUMAN for H. sapiens.

(4)Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) provides a unique number for each species.

(5) The LSID for Homo sapiens is

A Case study of a plant species, Chenopodium album Linn., is used here to illustrate value and conflicts associated with names.

Chenopodium album

This plant species is highly diverse and is widely distributed, and is known commonly as a nuisance weed of the crop fields. It also grows wild, in disturbed habitats in both urban and rural settings all over the world, and some of its forms are popular as a leafy vegetable and/or as a grain crop. Different names are given to describe its plants, and is still very difficult to taxonomically identify its various ecological, morph-ecological populations distinctly as Chenopodium album Linn. Recently Devi and Chungroo(2015) have stated this is due to more interest in the cultivated species of Chenopodium. Earlier work of Kapoor(1985, 2012) has referred to this conflict.
The name ​and classification( wikipedia,2017 of the species is given below:

Chenopodium album Linn.
Familia: Amaranthaceae s.l.
Cladus: Chenopodiaceae s.str.
Subfamilia: Chenopodioideae
Tribus: Atripliceae
Genus: Chenopodium
Species: Chenopodium album

Subspecies: C. a. subsp. album – C. a. subsp. borbasii – C. a. subsp. iranicum – C. a. subsp. pedunculare

Name: Chenopodium album L. (1753)

According to Clemants, S.E. & Mosyakin, S.L.(2003), C. album is a loosely arranged aggregate of still insufficiently understood races, with hundreds of segregate microspecies and infraspecific entities (including nomenclatural combinations).

Atriplex alba (L.) Crantz (1766)
Botrys alba (L.) Nieuwl. (1914)
Heterotypic (ref. Uotila 2011:)
Chenopodium diversifolium (Aellen) F. Dvořák, in Scripta Fac. Sci. Nat. Univ. Purkyn. Brunensis, Biol. 16: 10. 1986
Chenopodium album subsp. diversifolium Aellen, in Bot. Not. 1928: 209. 1928
Chenopodium reticulatum Aellen, in Bot. Not. 1928: 205. 1928
Chenopodium album subsp. reticulatum (Aellen) Greuter & Burdet, in Willdenowia 13: 282. 1984
Chenopodium glomerulosum Rchb., Fl. Germ. Excurs.: 579. 1832
Chenopodium griseochlorinum F. Dvořák, in Feddes Repert. 105: 426. 1994
Chenopodium lanceolatum Willd., Enum. Pl.: 291. 1809
Chenopodium neoalbum F. Dvořák, in Feddes Repert. 103: 66. 1992
Chenopodium paganum Rchb., Fl. Germ. Excurs.: 579. 1832
Botrys pagana (Rchb.) Lunell, American Midland Naturalist 4(7): 305. 1916.
Chenopodium viride L., Sp. Pl.: 219. 1753
Atriplex viridis (L.) Crantz, Institutiones Rei Herbariae 1: 207. 1766
Blitum viride (L.) Moench, Methodus (Moench) 359. 1794
Chenopodium viridescens (St.-Amans) Dalla Torre & Sarnth., Fl. Tirol 6(2): 109. 1909
Chenopodium album subsp. fallax Aellen, in Bot. Not. 1928: 208. 1928
Chenopodium album subsp. ovatum Aellen, in Bot. Not. 1928: 209. 1928
(additional synonym species by The Plant List, 2016)

Anserina candidans (Lam.) Montandon
Chenopodium agreste E.H.L.Krause
Chenopodium bernburgense (Murr) Druce
Chenopodium bicolor Bojer ex Moq.
Chenopodium borbasiforme (Murr) Druce
Chenopodium browneanum Schult.
Chenopodium candicans Lam.
Chenopodium catenulatum Schleich. ex Steud.
Chenopodium concatenatum Willd.
Chenopodium × densifoliatum (Ludw. & Aellen) F. Dvořák
Chenopodium elatum Shuttlew. ex Moq.
Chenopodium laciniatum Roxb.
Chenopodium leiospermum DC.
Chenopodium lobatum (Prodán) F. Dvořák
Chenopodium missouriense Aellen
Chenopodium neglectum Dumort.
Chenopodium opulaceum Neck.
Chenopodium ovalifolium (Aellen) F. Dvořák
Chenopodium paucidentatum (Aellen) F. Dvořák
Chenopodium probstii Aellen
Chenopodium pseudoborbasii Murr
Chenopodium riparium Boenn. exMoq.
Chenopodium serotinum Ledeb., nom. illeg. (later homonym)
Chenopodium subaphyllum Phil.
Chenopodium superalbum F. Dvořák
Chenopodium vulgare Gueldenst. ex Ledeb..
Chenopodium vulpinum Buch.-Ham., nom. inval.
Chenopodium zobelii Murr ex Asch. & Graebn., nom. inval.
Vulvaria albescens Bubani


Linnaeus, C. von 1753. Species Plantarum, Tomus I: 219.

Crantz, H.J.N.v. 1766. Institutiones Rei Herbariae 1: 206.

Nieuwland, J.A. 1914. American Midland Naturalist 3(9): 276.
Additional References

Uotila, P. 2011. Chenopodiaceae (pro parte majore). Chenopodium album In: Euro+Med Plantbase – the information resource for Euro-Mediterranean plant diversity.
Clemants, S.E. & Mosyakin, S.L. ‘eFloras 2008. Chenopodium album in Flora of North America. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO & Harvard University Herbaria, Cambridge, MA.

International Plant Names Index. (2016). Chenopodium album. Published on the Internet. Accessed Mar. 3 2016.

The Plant List (2016). Chenopodium album in The Plant List Version 1.1. Published on the internet. Accessed: 2016 Mar. 3. 2016. Chenopodium album. Missouri Botanical Garden. Published on the internet. Accessed: 2016 Mar. 3.

USDA, ARS, Germplasm Resources Information Network(2006). Chenopodium album in the

Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN), U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service.

Jashmi, Devi R K., ​and Churunugoo, ​N. Journal of Applied Biology and Biotechnology Vol. 3 (06), pp. 029-033, Nov-Dec, 2015 Species relationships in Chenopodium quinoa and Chenopodium album on the basis of morphology and SDS-Page profiles of soluble seed proteins.

Pratap,Tej and Kapoor Promila.(1985) Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
Volume 14, Issues 3–4, Pages 185-199

Address for communication-Dr Mrs. ​Promila Kapoor-Vijay (my ID name is Dr. ​Mrs. Promila Kapoor), ​PBK-2100:*Email: ​Fax:0041227885858,,
Affiliated scientist: ​Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich, ​Switzerland.Twitter account; @kapoorvijayP and @probio3.

Definitions of Native Species

Native Tree Species:

The UK Native trees definition is given by The Woodland trust ( The term native is used for any species that has made its way to the UK naturally, not intentionally or accidentally introduced by humans. In terms of trees and plants, these are species that recolonised the land when the glaciers melted after the last ice age and before the UK was disconnected from mainland Europe.

During the ice age itself, areas of the UK were completely covered by a huge ice sheet. This prevented many trees and plants from growing and many species retreated south to survive the freeze. The ice sheets that covered large areas of the planet locked up lots of water from the Earth’s system. This made sea levels much lower than today and exposed a strip of land (now submerged beneath the Channel Sea) that connected the UK to mainland Europe.

As the Earth warmed and ice began to melt and retreat (over 10,000 years ago), species began to recolonise the once frozen land from the warmer south. However, trapped water released back into the system from the melting ice caused sea levels to rise again. Gradually the rising sea flooded the land bridge from the UK to Europe and prevented any more species (unless they could fly) from colonising the UK.

Non-native Tree Species:
Any species that has been brought to the UK by humans is non-native. This means species which were not naturalised here if it were not for humans intentionally or accidentally bringing them to UK.
About 8,000 years ago, Neolithic man first arrived in Britain and brought new species, such as plant crops and livestock, and a few stowaways like the house mouse.There are many non-native species living in the UK. Some, like Douglas fir and Sitka spruce, are used in forestry; and others, such as copper beech and London plane, were brought here for their beauty.

British tree pages feature​ some of the most common non-native trees that have naturalised in the ​the landscape.

The triangular seed mass-leaf area relationship holds for annual plants and is determined by habitat productivity

Functional Ecology: Plain Language Summaries

Bianca A Santini, John G Hodgson, Ken Thompson, Peter J Wilson, Stuart R Band, Glynis Jones, Mike Charles, Amy Bogaard, Carol Palmer & Mark Rees

The relationships between plant traits tells us about the amount of resources species invest on a given trait. For example, thicker leaves are long-lived, but their construction is expensive for the plant and have lower photosynthetic rates than thin leaves. Another example, related to our study, is the triangular relationship found between seed mass and leaf area in woody species. This relationship tells us that small-seeded species can have either small or large leaves, whereas big-seeded species have large leaves. However, the combination of big seeds with small leaves does not occur. Again, this give us insights into resource allocation, in this case of the photosythates in a leaf and how are they distributed, either into small seeds or big seeds.

Indeed, resource allocation changes…

View original post 225 more words

Journal ranks 2015

graduate_barsBack in February I wrote about our new bibliometric paper describing a new way to rank journals, which I still contend is a fairer representation of relative citation-based rankings. Given that the technique requires ISI, Google Scholar and Scopus data to calculate the composite ranks, I had to wait for the last straggler (Google) to publish the 2015 values before I could present this year’s rankings to you. Google has finally done that.

So in what has become a bit of an annual tradition, I’m publishing the ranks of a mixed list of ecology, conservation and multidisciplinary disciplines that probably cover most of the journals you might be interested in comparing. Like for last year, I make no claims that this list is comprehensive or representative. For previous lists based on ISI Impact Factors (except 2014), see the following links (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 

View original post 238 more words