**1. Introduction**

346 The Dynamical Processes of Biodiversity – Case Studies of Evolution and Spatial Distribution

[15] Ren Z M, Ma E B, Guo Y P. Genetic relationships among *Oxya agavisa* and other relative species revealed by cyt b sequences. Acta Genetica Sinica, 2002, 29(6):507-513. [16] Ren Z M, Ma E B, Guo Y P. Mitochondrial DNA sequences and interrelationships of

[17] Sun Q X, Zhang Y L. Analyses of DNA sequence polymorphism in the mitochondrial

[18] Wang R J, Wan H, Long Y, Lei G C, Li S W. Phylogenetic analysis of *Polyura* in China

[19] Yuan Y Y, Gao B J, Li M, Yuan S L, Zhou G N. The genetic diversity of *Dendrolimus* 

[20] Yuan Y Y, Gao B J, Li M, *et al*. The genetic diversity of *Dendrolimus tabulaeformis* Tsai et Liu in forests of different stand types. *Acta ecologica sinica.* 2008, 28(5): 2099–2106. [21] Zhang A B, Kong X B, Li DM, *et al*. DNA fingerprinting evidence for the phylogenetic

Lasiocampidae) in China. *Acta Entomolqogica Sinica*, 2004, 47 (2): 236–242. [22] Zeng W M, Jiang G F, Zhang D Y, Hong F. Evolutionary relationships among six

[23] Zhang A B, Kong X B, Li D M, Liu Y Q. DNA fingerprinting evidence for the

2003,46(1):51-57.

2004, 26(2):107-113.

2008,28(5):2099-2106.

2004, 47 (2): 282-252.

242.

Entomologica Sinica, 2004, 47(2): 243-247.

*Oxya japonica* from different Areas in China. Acta Entomologica Sinica ,

16S rRNA gene of Pentatominae (Hemiptera:Pentatomidae). Entomotaxonomia,

inferred from mitochondrial COII sequences(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Acta

*tabulaeformis* Tsai et Liu in forests of different stand types. Acta ecologica Sinica,

relationship of eight species and subspecies of *Dendrolimus* (Lepidoptera:

Chinese grasshoppers of two genera of Catantopidae(Orthoptera: Acridoidea) inferred from mitochondrial 12S rRNA gene sequences. Acta Entomologica Sinica,

phylogenetic relationship of eight species and subspecies of *Dendrolimus* (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae) in China. Acta Entomologica Sinica, 2004, 47(2): 236Biodiversity science has been evolving quickly and moved from a focus on systematics and taxonomy in the 1970–80s, to a more dynamic view of biodiversity's role in ecosystem functioning throughout the 1990s. The early 2000s have placed biodiversity within the context of ecosystem services and human well-being, and some efforts are currently focusing on putting this concept into practice, and on valuing and mapping ecosystem services in order to shed light on economic and environmental consequences of decisions (Larigauderie and Mooney, 2010a).

Ecosystem services are defined as the benefits that humans obtain from ecosystems (Seppelt et al., 2011). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005) contributed substantially to pose the ecosystem services concept as a policy tool to achieve the sustainable use of natural resources bringing a broad research approach, where ecological, economic and institutional perspectives are integrated to produce insights into human impacts on ecosystems and the welfare effects of management policies.

In December 2010, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) was asked to convene a meeting to determine modalities and institutional arrangements of a new assessment body to track causes and consequences of anthropogenic ecosystem change (Perrings et al., 2011). This was an important step to the foundation of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) that works closely with UNESCO, FAO, UNDP and other relevant organizations (Larigauderie and Mooney, 2010b). The establishment of IPBES provides an important link with international policy, proposing a relationship between key scientific organizations, environmental policy bodies, and research funding organizations, which is a critical feature to address both scientific capacity and the policy relevance of research aiming to build capacity for and strengthen the use of science in policy making.

As pointed out by Mooney et al. (2009), the capacity of ecosystems to deliver essential services to society is already under stress and it is urgent to track the changing status of ecosystems, deepen the understanding of the biological underpinnings for ecosystem service delivery and develop new tools and techniques for maintaining and restoring resilient biological and social systems. Additionally, solving problems posed by global change requires coordinated international research, and as much attention to social science as it does to natural science (Carpenter et al. 2009).

Biodiversity in a Rapidly Changing World: How to Manage and Use Information? 349

Despite the broad use already in place, biological collection data still has a great potential to be used in research, on natural and agricultural resources management, on education and

A broader, more open and easier access to specimen data is vital to distribute information and in turn create knowledge (Canhos et al., 1994; Baird, 2010). However for this to become effective it is necessary to digitize data and make it available on the web. Only then we will be able to make plain use of the wealth of data and information which is hardly accessible in many cases in collections throughout the world and which, in many cases, only integrated

The digitization of collection data is in itself a challenge. It implies an important effort in terms of cost and time, which sometimes competes with other demands on those who digitize. The cost-effectiveness of data digitization is not easy to prove, especially when resources are scarce, although its scientific value can be agreed upon. In cases where an economically important question can directly benefit from the data, this can be less of a problem. Since both volume and quality of data are essential, digitization in a larger scale demands the effort to be prioritized, focused and sustained, according to Scoble (2010). The author also mentions the difference in digitization efforts that is required for different taxa, such as plants and insects, as a result of the methods used for mounting the specimens and

Currently biological data digitization is a global effort which is led by institutions such as GBIF and TDWG. The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF, www.gbif.org) was created in 2001 after a recommendation from a working group of the Megascience Forum of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and is open to participation of any country or international organization that agrees with its purpose of making scientific biodiversity information freely available. Its three core services and products are: "1. an information infrastructure – an Internet-based index of a globally distributed network of interoperable databases that contain primary biodiversity data; 2- Community-developed tools, standards and protocols – the tools data providers need to format and share their data; and 3 - Capacity-building – the training, access to international experts and mentoring programs that national and regional institutions need to become part of a decentralized network of biodiversity information facilities". Besides developing tools to be used by itself and by others, such as a data portal, GBIF provides access to more than 276 million occurrence registers (including specimens and observations) integrating in a

Other regional and national initiatives have collaborated and participated actively on the global effort towards digitizing and standardizing biological data: in Europe (ENHSIN – European Natural History Specimen Information Network, and EDIT - European Distributed Institute of Taxonomy), in America (IABIN – InterAmerican Biodiversity Information Network, with data from many countries in the continent – www.iabin.net). The Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG – www.tdwg.org), also known as the Taxonomic Databases Working Group, was originally formed to establish international collaboration among biological database projects. It now focuses on the development of standards for the exchange of biological data, having as mission also the promotion of the standards. Maybe the most important existing standard is Darwin Core (DwC), a standard for exchange of biological information. It is primarily based on taxa and their occurrence in nature as documented by observations, specimens, and samples, and related information. Other important standard is a protocol for data exchange, TAPIR - TDWG Access Protocol

on sustainability science (Scoble, 2010).

can provide a better picture of a species scenario.

the labels that contain the data to be digitized.

single access point data of data providers from all over the world.

Pollination is considered as a key element of ecosystem services (Daily, 1997). Ollerton et al. (2011) estimated that the proportion of animal-pollinated species is near 78% in temperatezone communities and 94% in tropical communities and that the global number and proportion of animal pollinated angiosperms is 308 006, which means 87.5% of the estimated species-level diversity of flowering plants.

The decline of pollinators has received attention since the 1990 decade (Buchmann e Nabhan, 1996; Kearnes et al., 1998). Recently, multiple drivers were suggested as the main causes to this decline (Schweiger et al., 2010; Potts et al., 2010) such as loss and fragmentation of habitat, aggressive agricultural practices, pathogens, invasive species and climate changes.

In order to achieve a better understanding about pollinator species threats it is necessary new research approaches, especially considering the necessity to build useful public policies to protect them. Here, we discuss new approaches to research on pollinators, especially bees, based mostly on Information Technology tools, such as, Biodiversity Databases, DNA Barcode, Morphometric Analysis and Species Distribution Modeling. At the end, a study case is presented, considering some Brazilian bee species and the potential impact of climate change on their distribution.
