95

Overview of Open Biodiversity Data around the Fukushima
Disaster Area and the Nuclear Power Plants in Japan
Akira YOSHIOKA1*, Nao KUMADA2, Yui OGAWA2 and Keita FUKASAWA2
Fukushima Branch, National Institute for Environmental Studies
10-2 Fukasaku, Miharu Town, Tamura-gun, Fukushima, 963-7700, Japan
2
Center for Environmental Biology and Ecosystem Studies, National Institute for Environmental Studies
16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba-shi Ibaraki, 305-8506, Japan*E-mail: yoshioka.akira@nies.go.jp*1

Abstract
Examining the comprehensive impacts of the nuclear accidents in Fukushima on biodiversity continues
to be a challenge. Data availability may be one problem. Previous studies have used hardly any ecological
data from before the accidents. Furthermore, raw data from the previous studies have been not adequately
released for re-analysis and integration into new analyses. To examine the current status and problems with
open biodiversity data and monitoring systems related with nuclear plants, we surveyed (1) datasets registeredin GBIF (the Global Biodiversity Information Facility) around the Fukushima evacuation zone (including the“difficult to return zone,” Fig. 1) and (2) monitoring sites of the Monitoring Sites 1000 Project and JaLTER(Japan Long-Term Ecological Research Network) around Japan’s nuclear power plants. The GBIF databaseshows that few datasets on wild organisms exist covering periods both before and after the Fukushima
accident around the evacuation zone, except on birds. The present monitoring sites near the nuclear power
plants are shown mainly to target wild birds and sites targeting other taxa are limited. In addition, themonitoring surveys have been highly dependent on citizen scientists. To enhance biodiversity data availability
in preparation for evaluating impacts of nuclear emergencies, it would be desirable to improve monitoring
systems and technologies for integrating monitoring by citizen scientists in normal times with monitoring by
scientists belonging to institutes in times of emergency.
Key words :	citizen science, ecology, monitoring, nuclear power plant, open science

1. Introduction
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant(FDNPP) accident in 2011 following the Great East Japan
Earthquake and Tsunami resulted in increased radiationlevels over a large area owing to radioactive materials
released from the FDNPP. Many studies have examinedthe ecological and biological impacts of that radiation on
biodiversity from the genetic to the population level(Tamaoki, 2016; UNSCEAR, 2017). Some studies havesuggested remarkable negative effects on wild plants andanimals (e.g., Hiyama et al., 2012; Møller et al., 2012,2013; Akimoto, 2014; Ochiai et al., 2014; Watanabe et al.,2015; Horiguchi et al., 2016), while others have not (e.g.,
Matsushima et al., 2015; Yoshioka et al., 2015; Okano etal., 2016; Lyons et al., 2020). It is difficult to explainsome of the remarkable negative results only fromdirect radiation dose effects considering the spatial
distribution of the air dose in the disaster area
(Garnier-Laplace et al., 2011; UNSCEAR, 2017). Wildorganisms and environments not only interact with each
Global Environmental Research
24/2020: 095-104
printed in Japanother in complicated ways, but can also be affected byinterruption of anthropogenic activities as a result ofevacuation orders (Yoshioka et al., 2015; Lyons et al.,2020). Although United Nations Scientific Committee on
the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) (2017)concluded that any radiation effects would have been
constrained to a limited area and that the potential for
effects on biota beyond that area was insignificant, thelong-term impacts of the nuclear disaster on biodiversity
and ecosystems remain to be seen.
One difficulty in evaluating the impacts on
biodiversity may be limited availability of data. First,
studies based on data covering periods both before andafter the accident are limited. Murase et al. (2015)
compared the data on reproductive performance of thegoshawk Accipiter gentilis before and after the
Fukushima accident and suggested that the reproductive
rate was negatively affected by the radiation doses. The
study site, however, was more than 100 km from the
FDNPP and the air dose rate was quite low (0.27– 0.85
µSv/h) compared to the derived consideration reference©2020 AIRES

96

A. YOSHIOKA et al.

level (DCRL) for birds: 0.1–1 mGy/day by International
Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP, 2008).
Please note that the air dose rate measured using adosimeter (TERRA-P, Sparing-Vist Center, Lviv,
Ukraine) in Murase et al. (2015) was considered tocorrespond to a gamma-ray dose equivalent rate and weassumed that 1µSv≒1µGy (Morishita, 2007). Comparing
data around the FDNPP and the evacuation zone before
and after the accidents would provide morecomprehensive inferences on the direct and indirect
effects of the radiation. Although no one desires a nuclear
accident, preparation in advance for evaluating the impact
is desirable.
The second problem with data availability is
openness and transparency of the data. The biologicalimpacts of the nuclear accidents are of interest not only toscientists in multiple fields, but also to citizens. Amongscientists, lack of underlying data makes appropriate
interpretation difficult (Beresford et al., 2012). Citizens
have become skeptical of science and technology as aresult of the nuclear accident (Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan, 2012).
To meet their expectations with limited information,
accumulating and sharing raw data in the most open andtransparent manner as possible would be helpful. In
addition, considering serious nuclear accidents have been
relatively infrequent (e.g., the Fukushima accident
happened about 25 years after that in Chernobyl.) and theimpacts can continue for a long time, contacting
corresponding authors of papers on past accidents is notalways easy. Sharing data in an open manner (e.g., using
data repositories) would be desirable for integrating pastdata and novel data. Therefore, the concept of open
science and citizen science (Silvertown, 2009) would besuitable as a research theme (Fukasawa et al., 2017a).
Out of 20 papers on the biological and ecologicalimpacts of the Fukushima accident that Tamaoki (2016)
reviewed, however, only two papers (Murase et al., 2015
and Yoshioka et al., 2015) published the raw data they
had used for statistical analysis, which is a basic
component of ecological research (Økland, 2007). After
2016, some research groups that had reported remarkable
results immediately after the accident published related
studies presenting raw analyzed data (Morelli et al., 2017;
Hiyama et al., 2017; Akimoto et al., 2018), but that’s notalways the case (e.g., Hayama et al., 2017; Møller &Mousseau, 2019). Thus, open data has not been astandard assumption under this research theme.
Interdisciplinarity may be one reason open data havebeen uncommon in this area. Differences in the culture ofdata sharing and access between different disciplines, andthe lack of obvious, public, community repositories canpose a significant barrier to public data deposition(Nature Research, 2016). Nevertheless, leading scientificjournals are working to improve the situation. Nature
Research (2019) stated that sharing of data in earth, spaceand environmental sciences will be required through datarepositories at Nature and the related Nature Research
journal; and Scientific Data, a nature research group
journal for data papers, will be updating its list ofrecommended data repositories to help authors from thesefields comply with these new policies. This movement
may encourage researchers studying environmental
impacts of radiation to publish their raw data as well.
As matters stand, there is room for improvement indata availability and openness in research on the
biological and ecological impacts of the nuclear accident.
To improve the situation from the viewpoint of ecologists,
we have published ecological datasets collected inside
and around the Fukushima evacuation zone in the form ofdata papers (Fukasawa et al., 2016; Fukasawa et al.,2017b; Ishiniwa et al., 2019; Yoshioka et al., 2020).
Likewise, compiling open data collected in the past
regardless of the FDNPP may be useful for evaluating theimpact of the accident. Furthermore, current ecologicalmonitoring systems not related to the nuclear disaster
could potentially play an important role in evaluating theecological risks of nuclear accidents in the future. In thispaper, we examine open data and related projects
regarding the distribution and population dynamics ofwild organisms that can potentially play a role inbiodiversity monitoring in the event of nuclear accidents
via two approaches: (i) datasets collected around the
FDNPP and registered in GBIF (the Global Biodiversity
Information Facility), which is one of the largest worldwide platforms for open data on biodiversity, areexamined, and (ii) monitoring sites around nuclear power
plants in Japan and the monitoring targets of the“Monitoring Sites 1000 Project,” a national project formonitoring biodiversity, are examined as indicators of
preparation for future emergencies. Based on theseresults, the characteristics and limitations of data
availability on biodiversity data in Japan from theviewpoint of nuclear accidents are discussed.

2. GBIF Data around the FDNPP
GBIF is an international network and research
infrastructure funded by governments around the world
and aimed at providing anyone, anywhere, open access todata about all types of life on Earth (GBIF, 2020).
Through the GBIF website, datasets on biological
specimens and species distribution data registered byresearch institutes and scientists worldwide are available
for free. Using the filter function of the website, we
extracted datasets within a rectangular area enclosing theevacuation zone of Fukushima registered through June30, 2020 (Fig. 1, GBIF.org, 2020). The latitudes andlongitudes of the corners of the area are (N37.2402º,
E140.61826 º), (N37.2402 º, E141.04526 º), (N37.76172 º,
E141.04526 º), (N37.76172 º, E140.61826 º). Please notethat the filer function on the GBIF web site is able toOpen biodiversity data around nuclear plants

N

FDNPP

Fig. 1 S
 patial distribution of ecological data registered in GBIF
(Global Biodiversity Information Facility) near the FDNPP(Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant) through 30th June
2020. The sky blue circles and deeper blue circles show
locations where the data were obtained before and after 2011,
respectively. The latitudes and longitudes of the corners of thedata-extracted area are (N37.2402º, E140.61826º), (N37.2402º,
E141.04526º), (N37.76172º, E141.04526º) and (N37.76172º,
E140.61826º). Please note that GBIF data outside the region
were not extracted. The background map was obtained from
National Land Numerical Information (Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, 2014). The green, yellow
and red zones correspond to the “areas preparing for the liftingof the evacuation order,” “restricted residential areas” and“areas to which it is difficult to return” sub-zones, respectively.
The evacuation zone classification was based on conditions in
October 2013 (Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, 2013).

10000

extract only simple polygonal regions.
Based on “occurrences” (records of when and wherea species existed, used as a unit in GBIF data), 75,556
occurrence records were extracted. Among them,
however, 137 records lacked information on the year ofsampling. Most of data had been obtained after 2011
(only 2,891 occurrence records had been obtained before
2011, see Fig. 2 also) and consisted of birds (Fig. 3).
Actually, a large part of the data set on birds was obtainedby NIES (National Institute for Environmental Studies,Japan) for monitoring the evacuation zone starting from2014 (Fukasawa et al., 2016; Fukasawa et al., 2017b;
Fig. 4). Excluding avian and mammalian data setsobtained by NIES for its biodiversity monitoring project
after the accident (66,226 and 5,267 records, respectively),
the volume of the remaining data decreased to about 5%.
The remaining data consisted mainly of data on waterfowl
populations and plant specimens (Fig. 3(c)). The waterfowl
population data were based on a continuous census
conducted by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan,
and the abundance data were also published through thenational government’s website (Biodiversity Center ofJapan, 2020a). Thus, the dataset may give someinferences through ecological analysis. On the other hand,the dataset on plant specimens was obtained in thecontext of natural history and most of the data had beenobtained before the accident. Several assumptions areneeded and additional data may be required to analyze
the dataset from an ecological viewpoint. The specimen
data do not always show that the species were absent orrare in locations where specimens were not recorded.
There are some ecological analysis methods for presenceonly data such as Maxent (Phillips et al., 2006), so
inferences of the results should be carefully conducted.
Results of such an analysis will be biased due to spatial
heterogeneity of the monitoring effort. Anyway, the taxa
in the species distribution data available from GBIF arehighly biased toward birds as matters stand. In particular,
data before the nuclear accident are limited conspicuously.
NIES
Others

1000
100
10
1
0.1

1895
1909
1921
1929
1934
1939
1954
1958
1962
1966
1971
1975
1979
1983
1987
1991
1995
1999
2003
2007
2011
2015
2019

Number of occurrence records
registered in GBIF

10000097

year

Fig. 2 Number of GBIF occurrence records registered by NIES (National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan)
and other institutes near the FDNPP per year as of 30 June 2020.

98

A. YOSHIOKA et al.
(a) ~2010

Names of datasets registered in GBIF.

2,891 records
3%

2%

1% 1%3%

1

Number of occurrence records

10

100

1000

10000 100000

Acoustic monitoring data of avian species inside andoutside the evacuation zone of the Fukushima
Daiichi power plant accident
Mammal assemblages recorded by camera traps
inside and outside the evacuation zone of the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident
Annual Census on Waterfowl (Anatidae) Population

31%

14%

FKSE-Herbarium of Faculty of Symbiotic Systems
Science, Fukushima University, Japan
Vascular plant specimens of National Museum of
Nature and Science (TNS)

17%

Vascular plant specimens of Nagano Environmental
Conservation Research Institute, Nagano Prefecture

28%

Fungal Specimens of National Museum of Natureand Science (TNS)
Ibaraki Nature Museum, Vascular Plants collection(b) 2011~ 72,528 records

Paleobiology Database1%

7%

Geographically tagged INSDC sequences
Vascular Plant Specimen database of Kanagawa
Prefectural Museum of Natural History
Ibaraki Nature Museum, Lichen collection
Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh Living Plant
Collections (E)Database of Native Plants in Taiwan

92%

Ibaraki Nature Museum, Arthropoda collection
Plant specimens in the Museum of Nature andHuman Activities, Hyogo Prefecture, JapanThe others(c) 2011~ 1,032 records
3%

2%
2%

1%

Fig. 4 Names of datasets containing GBIF data near the FDNPP
and numbers of occurrence records included. The first andsecond largest dataset correspond to data published by
Fukasawa et al. (2017b) and Fukasawa et al. (2016),
respectively.

4%

13%

37%

3. Ecological Monitoring Sites around the
Nuclear Plants in Japan

15%
23%

Animalia
Mammalia
Aves
Insecta

Plantae
Magnoliopsida
Polypodiopsida
Liliopsida

Fungi
Agaricomycetes
Sordariomycetes
Lecanoromycetes
Pezizomycetes

Bacteria
Bacilli
Gammaproteobacteria
OthersFig. 3 
Proportions of GBIF occurrence records of each taxon(class) near the FDNPP (a) through 2010, and (b) from2011. Occurrence records from 2011 other than datasetsfrom NIES (Aves: 66,226 records, Mammalia: 5,267
records, Insecta: three records, respectively) are also shown(c). In each graph, taxa accounting for less than 1% aresummed under “Others.”

Including decommissioned plants such as the
FDNPP, there are 17 nuclear plant location points inJapan as of 2020 (Table 1). Although no nuclear accident
should ever happen again, the existing biodiversity
monitoring systems around the nuclear power plants are
expected to be useful in evaluating the status ofbiodiversity and ecosystems at normal times and the datafrom them to contribute to analysis of changes in status if
nuclear emergencies should happen.
The Monitoring Sites 1000 Project is a long-term
nationwide project for monitoring biodiversity andecosystems that has been conducted by the Ministry of
the Environment, Japan since 2003 (Watanabe et al., 2012;
Kobori et al., 2015). To cover Japan’s wide variety of
ecosystems, the monitoring data are collected not only by
scientists belonging to research institutes, but also trained
citizen scientists associated with the Wild Bird Society ofJapan and the NACS-J (Biodiversity Center of Japan,
2019, 2020b). In long-term and broad-area biodiversity
monitoring projects, citizens’ cooperation has often

Open biodiversity data around nuclear plants

99

Table 1 The existing nuclear power plants in Japan (including decommissioned plants) and “Monitoring Sites 1000 Project” sites,
important for monitoring the current status of the ecosystems around the nuclear plants. The terrestrial area within 30 km of eachnuclear power plant is based on Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Japan (2014) and calculated using
ArcGIS 10.2 (ESRI Inc.). The land area of Japan overall is based on Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (2020).
Nuclear power plant Prefecture

Monitoring Sites 1000 within 20km
(focal ecosystem)

Tomari
Higashidori

Hokkaido
Aomorin.a.
n.a.

Onagawa

Miyagi

Ashijima (small islet)

Fukushima Daiichi
Fukushima Daini

Fukushima
Fukushima

Tokai & Tokai Daini Ibaraki

n.a.
n.a.

Shiga

Ishikawa

Tsuruga

Fukui

Namekawahama (rural area)
Ibaraki-kenminnomori(forest and grassland)
Koshijihara hill (rural area)
Kashiwazaki-yumenomori park(rural area)
Besshodake (forest and grassland)
Ochigata (lake and wetland)
Nosaka-ikoinomori (forest and grassland)

MihamaFukui

Nosaka-ikoinomori (forest and grassland)

Ohi

Fukui

n.a.

Takahama
Hamaoka

Fukui
Shizuoka

Kashiwazaki Kariwa Niigata

Shimane

Ikata
GenkaiSendai

Kanmurijima & Kutsujima (small islet)
Ogasayama (forest and grassland)Omaezaki coast (sandy shore)
Sagara coast (sandy shore)
ShimaneLake Nakaumi (lake and wetland)
Lake Shinji (lake and wetland)
Esturay of Hii River (lake and wetland)
Sada River (tidal flat)
Ehime
Suwazaki-shizenkyuyorin(forest and grassland)
Sanctuary-donguri (rural area)
Saga
n.a.
Kagoshima
Shibisan (forest and grassland)

played quite an important role (Silvertown, 2009; Bonney
et al., 2009). The compiled dataset has been available
from the project’s website and partly from the GBIF
website, though some parts of the dataset are closed (e.g.,
data on species at risk from poaching and overexploitation). Because this project aims to detectdegradation of ecosystems at early stages through longterm continuous monitoring, the dataset is expected tocontribute to evaluation of the state of biodiversity aroundnuclear plants now and in the future.
Here, we examine the spatial distribution of themonitoring sites (Fig. 5; Table 1; Table 2) based on the
project’s website (Monitoring Site 1000 Project, 2020).
We extracted the geographic coordinates of theMonitoring Sites 1000 within 20 –30km(focal ecosystem)
Nakoma (rural area)
Mutsuyokohama (forest and grassland)
North coast of Shimokita peninsula (lake and wetland)
Obuchinuma (lake and wetland)
North part of Mutsu bay (lake and wetland)
Takasegawa-Mutsuogawara port (tidal flat)
Bentenjima (small islet)
Monomiishiyama forest road (forest and grassland)
Downstream of Kyu-Kitakami River(forest and grassland)
Haden-ya (rural area)
Shizugawa (seaweed bed)
Hirusone-Ohatake forest road (forest and grassland)
Hirusone-Ohatake forest road (forest and grassland)
Estuary of Natsui River (tidal flat)
Tanodairasandou (forest and grassland)
Hinuma (lake and wetland)

The number of sites perterrestial area within
30 km (sites/km2 )
5.26×10-4
6.82×10-3

6.40×10-3

7.19×10-4
1.44×10-3
2.59×10-3

Tsukioka forest road (forest and grassland)

1.96×10-3

Tokinofurusato-Notomaruyama (rural area)
Chirihama (tidal flat)
Sanriyama (forest and grassland)
Kuroko forest road for Mikuniyama(forest and grassland)
Kuroko forest road for Mikuniyama(forest and grassland)
Ashiu (forest and grassland)
Ashiukamitani (forest and grassland)
Kanmurijima & Kutsujima (small islet)
Ashiu (forest and grassland)
Oigawachofujimori-Yaizushitajiri (tidal flat)

3.28×10-3

Hoshikamiyama (forest and grassland)
Esturay of Iinashi River (tidal flat)

4.55×10-3

Dogadani-tonbonosato (rural area)

3.79×10-3

Ochi (forest and grassland)
Urushinosatoyama (rural area)

9.96×10-4
1.65×10-3

Mean ± SD

2.68×10-3 ± 1.90×10-3

Number of sites in Japan (24 June 2020)
Land area of Japan overall (sites/km2 )Density of monitoring sites in Japan (sites/km2 )

1,014
377,975.21
2.68×10-3

1.83×10-3
1.33×10-3
2.06×10-3
1.31×10-3
4.35×10-3

representative points of each monitoring site from the liston the website and examined whether the monitoringsites were included within a 20-km radius of a nuclear
power plant using ArcGIS 10.2 (ESRI Inc.). The
geographic coordinates of nuclear power plants wereobtained from the National Land Numerical Information(Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism,2013). We adopted the distance of 20 km here because
the area within the 20 km of the FDNPP was declared atemporary evacuation zone in Fukushima when
information on the spatial distribution of air radiation
doses was inadequate. Considering that the values ofcoordinates of the monitoring sites on the website wererelatively rough (about 0.01– 0.1 degrees), we also

100

A. YOSHIOKA et al.

(a)

(b)

N
N

Copyright of the background map:
Geospatial Information Authority of Japan

Copyright of the background map:
Geospatial Information Authority of Japan

Fig. 5 Spatial distribution of the monitoring points of the Monitoring Sites 1000 Project and nuclear power plants in the (a) eastern and(b) western part of Japan, respectively. The blue points indicate representative points of each monitoring site. The black points
indicate nuclear power plants. The circles of solid and dotted grey lines indicate the areas within a 20 km and 30 km radius fromthe nuclear plant, respectively.

Table 2 Relationships between focal ecosystems and monitoring targets (surveyed indicators) in the Monitoring Sites 1000 Projects.
Please note that only cases within 30 km of a nuclear plant are shown.
Focal ecosystem
Forest and grassland

Monitoring target
Terrestrial birds, Vegetation

Rural area

Flora
Water environment
Vegetation (Anthropogenic impacts)
Birds
Large-middle size mammals
Harvest mouse Micromys minutus
Frogs
Butterflies
Fireflies

Lake and wetland

Waterfowl
Plankton, Benthos, Vegetation

Sandy shore
Tidal flat
Seaweed bed
Small islet

Turtles
Shorebirds
Seaweed vegetation, Benthos
Seabirds

examined areas within 30 km of each nuclear power plant
as a buffer. In addition, areas 30 km from nuclear power
plants usually correspond to “Urgent Protective Action
Planning Zones” based on Japan’s Nuclear Emergency
Response Guidelines (Nuclear Regulation Authority,2019), in which precautionary sheltering and emergency
monitoring of environmental radiation levels are required
under nuclear emergency situations.
As a result, all nuclear power plants in Japan(including decommissioned plants) are located within

Remarks
In addtion, ground-dwelling beetles, litter and tree growth have also beensurveyed in “Ashiu,” which is one of the core sites for forest monitoring.
Targeting indicators of traditional agricultral landscapes in Japan, the socalled “satoyama.” Usually, more than one from the nine targets issurveyed by citizen scientists (see Table 3). In the core sites, multiple
indicators are surveyed (only the “Urushinosatoyama” site in Kagoshima
Pref. is a core site for rural area monitioring within 30 km of a nuclear
power plant).

At “Shinjiko” and “Nakaumi,” plankton, benthos and vegetation have beensurveyed. At the other sites within 30 km of a nuclear plant, waterfowl has
been surveyed.

30 km of one or another of the monitoring sites, though
six of the 17 nuclear power plants have no corresponding
monitoring sites within 20 km. In particular, the numberof monitoring sites in Hokkaido and Kyushu (Saga andKagoshima prefectures) is likely to be small. The numberof the monitoring sites near the nuclear power plants inFukushima Prefecture is also small (three sites in total
within 30 km). However, the mean density of sites within
the 30 km zone (site number per terrestrial area) was-32
2.68×10 sites/km , almost equivalent to the site number

Open biodiversity data around nuclear plants

101

Table 3 Monitoring targets of rural (satoyama) sites of the Monitoring Sites 1000 Project near nuclear power plants, based on Biodiversity
Center of Japan (2019).
Monitoring sites
NakomaHaden-ya
Namekawahama
Koshijihara hill
Kashiwazaki-yumenomori park
Tokinofurusato-Notomaruyama
Sanctuary-donguri
Dogadani-tonbonosato
Urushinosatoyama

Flora Water environment

Vegetation○

Large-middle size mammals

Harvest mouse Frogs Butterflies Fireflies

○

○
○

Birds

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○
○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○
○

per land area of Japan overall (Table 1).
Considering focal ecosystems and monitoringtargets, most sites have targeted birds (Tables 1 and 2). In
addition, these bird monitoring surveys have been
conducted by citizen scientists. Therefore, citizen scienceis essential to monitoring the current status of biodiversity
and ecosystems around nuclear plants. Sites surveying
taxa other than birds are quite scarce. Although the sites
focusing on rural areas (so-called satoyama, a traditional
heterogeneous agricultural landscape of Japan; Takeuchi,
2001; Kadoya & Washitani, 2011) have mainly surveyed
flora as well as birds, the total number of these sites isless than 10 (Table 3). There are even fewer sites
surveying mammals, frogs or insects.
Furthermore, we also examined JaLTER (Japan
Long-Term Ecological Research Network) monitoringsites near the nuclear plants. JaLTER was established in
November 2006 to provide scientific knowledge
contributing to conservation, advancement andsustainability of the environment, ecosystem services,
productivity and biodiversity for society by conducting
long-term and interdisciplinary research in ecologicalscience including human dimensions (JaLTER, 2020a).
This scientific network became an official member of the
ILTER (International Long-Term Ecological Research)
project (Ohte et al., 2012), which along with GBIF plays
an important role in ecological data archiving (Osawa etal., 2013). Monitoring of the sites has been mainly
conducted by scientists belonging to research institutes(JaLTER, 2020b) and the datasets have been available
from a database called JalTER Metacat (JaLTER, 2020c).
The 61 representative points of the JaLTER sites wereextracted from a Google Maps map. The Ashiu Forest
Research Station was located within 30 km of the Oi
nuclear power plant, while the Maizuru Fisheries
Research Station was located within 20 km of the
Takahama nuclear power plant and within 30 km of theOi nuclear power plant. The Lake Shinji and Lake
Nakaumi sites were located within 20 km of the Shimane
nuclear plant. The locations and associated institutes of
the JaLTER site in Ashiu, Lake Shinji and Lake Nakaumi
overlapped to some extent with the sites of theMonitoring Sites 1000 Project. Therefore, JaLTER’s sites

○
○

○

○
○

○

○

○

may not adequately complement the Monitoring Site
1000 Project’s.

4. Discussion
In this study, we have obtained an overview of theecological motoring data/sites around Japan’s nuclear
plants that could play an important role owing to theiravailability. The results suggest that datasets on bird
dynamics are relatively abundant, while datasets on othertaxa are inadequate. In addition, the datasets on birds
have been collected by not only researchers, but also
citizen scientists from NGOs such as the Wild Bird
Society of Japan and NACS-J (Biodiversity Center ofJapan, 2019, 2020b), though research institutes such as
NIES play an important role in publishing data aroundthe Fukushima evacuation zone. The waterfowl census
data conducted by the Ministry of the Environment, Japanand registered in GBIF have also been based on
considerable cooperation from environmentalorganizations such as the Wild Bird Society of Japan(Ministry of the Environment, Japan, 2020a). Therefore,
availability of open biodiversity data is highly dependent
on taxa, and interest among citizens will be important.
The caveat here is that our overview is not acomplete review of open biodiversity datasets near
nuclear power plants. We may have overlooked otherfreely available ecological datasets and long-termmonitoring sites which were not registered in GBIF or the
Monitoring Sites 1000 Projects, respectively. In addition,
the datasets from these projects cannot cover certain
types of biodiversity components. For example, detailed
information on endangered species has usually not beenreleased by these projects to avoid poaching andoverexploitation. In addition, data based on hunting andfishing (i.e., economically important data) which havebeen compiled by national or local governments (orrelated organizations) are often not released. Some
databases have been released, but not adequately
integrated into these world-wide projects (e.g., Ministryof Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, 2007).
Furthermore, it goes without saying that the biodiversity
datasets and monitoring sites have not usually conducted102

A. YOSHIOKA et al.

surveys assuming nuclear accidents. Data and samples oninternal exposure or mutation have not been monitored,
though part of the data followed by preserved samples or
specimens may make it possible to examine thesebiological effects later. Nevertheless, the biodiversity
status should be rapidly assessed in emergent situations
and easily available datasets representing normal
situations will be required for comparison. GBIF and theMonitoring Sites 1000 Project are convenient and readily
accessible to researchers and citizens. The open data
provided by them will be important for rapid assessmentof the status and dynamics of biodiversity.
From the viewpoint of improving preparation for
future emergencies, what is needed is not only to maintainthe current monitoring system, but also to provide asystem for encouraging surveys of taxa diversity. Of
course, the available manpower is usually limited, so
indicator taxa should be well considered. If monitoringtaxa other than birds is difficult, we should know how
birds, which have often been assumed to be a good
indicator of biodiversity (Greenwood, 2007), indicate or
surrogate the status of other taxa in the event of nuclear
accidents. Promoting registration of long-term datacollected by local governments to GBIF or other available
platforms may relieve the bias in monitored taxa in open
biodiversity data. In principal, construction of nuclear
power plants must accompany environmental surveys
based on the Environmental Impact Assessment Act andthe data associated with surrounding biodiversity shouldhave been collected, though only summarized results
were published for a limited period of time under thecurrent system (Ministry of the Environment, 2020b).
Furthermore, as our review shows, enhancing andmaintaining participation of citizen scientists inecological monitoring will be essential. The problem isthat if a nuclear disaster happens, the citizens will not beable to collect data around the nuclear plants as before theaccident. Therefore, methodology for follow-up of citizen
scientists by scientists belonging to research institutes
will also be important. In the case of the Fukushima
accident, NIES has been conducting acoustic bird surveys
using voice recorders and has set up opportunities toshare their recordings of bird songs with local bird
watchers (Fukasawa et al., 2017a). To prepare for futurenuclear emergencies (or other disasters with movement
restricted long term) appropriately and sustainably, ahybrid of surveys by citizen scientists and automateddigital devices may be key. Ideally, a scheme that
integrates monitoring by citizen scientists in normal times
and that by scientists belonging to institutes in emergency
times should be established from the viewpoint of bothtechnologies and systems.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dr. M. Tamaoki (National
Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan) and tworeviewers for their valuable comments.
References
Akimoto, S. (2014) Morphological abnormalities in gall-forming
aphids in a radiation-contaminated area near Fukushima Daiichi:
selective impact of fallout? Ecology and Evolution, 4, 355–369.
Akimoto, S., Li, Y., Imanaka, T., Sato, H. and Ishida, K. (2018)
Effects of radiation from contaminated soil and moss inFukushima on embryogenesis and egg hatching of the aphid
Prociphilus oriens. Journal of Heredity, 109, 199–205.
Beresford, N.A., Adam-Guillermin, C., Bonzom, J.M., GarnierLaplace, J., Hinton, T., Lecomte, C. and Copplestone, D. (2012)
Comment on “Abundance of birds in Fukushima as judged from
Chernobyl” by Møller et al. (2012) Environmental Pollution,
169, 136.
Biodiversity Center of Japan (2019) Summary report of the third
SATOYAMA survey (2013–2017) as part of the ongoing
Monitoring Sites 1000 program, Biodiversity Center of Japan,
Fujiyoshida. (in Japanese with English abstract) Retrieved fromhttps://www.biodic.go.jp/moni1000/findings/reports/pdf/third_
term_satoyama.pdf (Accessed 31 August 2020)
Biodiversity Center of Japan (2020a) Gankamorui-no-seisokuchousa (Annual Census on Waterfowl (Anatidae) Population).
(in Japanese) Retrieved from https://www.biodic.go.jp/gankamo/
gankamo_top.html (Accessed 14 August 2020)
Biodiversity Center of Japan (2020b) Third Synthesis Report of theMonitoring Sites 1000 Project: Forest and Grassland Ecosystems,
Biodiversity Center of Japan, Fujiyoshida. (in Japanese withEnglish summary) Retrieved from http://www.biodic.go.jp/
moni1000/findings/reports/pdf/2004-2017_forests_and_glasslands.pdf (Accessed 31 August 2020)
Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T.,
Rosenberg, K. V. and Shirk, J. (2009) Citizen science: A
developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific
literacy. BioScience, 59, 977–984.
Cabinet Office, Government of Japan (2013) About revision of theevacuation zone. (in Japanese) Retrieved from http://www.meti.
go.jp/earthquake/nuclear/pdf/131009/131009_02a.pdf (Accessed
26 November 2020)
Fukasawa, K., Mishima, Y., Yoshioka, A., Kumada, N., Totsu, K.
and Osawa, T. (2016) Mammal assemblages recorded by camera
traps inside and outside the evacuation zone of the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear power plant accident. Ecological Research, 31,
493.
Fukasawa, K., Mishima, Y., Kumada, N., Takenaka, A., Yoshioka,
A., Katsumata, K., Haga, A., Kudo, T. and Tamaoki, M. (2017a)
Bird data challenge: new approach for cooperation between
birders and researchers on acoustic identification. Bird Research,
13, A15–A28. (in Japanese with English abstract)
Fukasawa, K., Mishima, Y., Yoshioka, A., Kumada, N. and Totsu,
K. (2017b) Acoustic monitoring data of avian species inside andoutside the evacuation zone of the Fukushima Daiichi power
plant accident. Ecological Research, 32, 769.
Garnier-Laplace, J., Beaugelin-Seiller, K. and Hinton, T.G. (2011)
Fukushima wildlife dose reconstruction signals ecologicalconsequences. Environmental Science and Technology, 45,
5077–5078.
Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (2020) Statisticalreports on the land area by prefectures and municipalities inJapan, Geospatial Information Authority of Japan, Tsukuba. (inOpen biodiversity data around nuclear plants
Japanese) Retrieved from https://www.gsi.go.jp/KOKUJYOHO/MENCHO/backnumber/GSI-menseki20200101.pdf (Accessed 3
September 2020)
Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) (2020) What is
GBIF? Retrieved from https://www.gbif.org/what-is-gbif(Accessed 31 August 2020)
GBIF.org (2020) GBIF Occurrence Download. Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.15468/dl.uebs85
Google Maps (2020) JaLTER Sites. https://www.google.com/maps/
d/viewer?mid=1QKt3RTKYE8Fu3wBalMMDUkOeePR_
vKJ7&ll=36.02608349978372%2C140.56991000000002&z=5(Accessed 23 August 2020)
Greenwood, J.J.D. (2007) Citizens, science and bird conservation.
Journal of Ornithology, 148, 77–124.
Hayama, S., Tsuchiya, M., Ochiai, K., Nakiri, S., Nakanishi, S.,
Ishii, N., Kato, T., Tanaka, A., Konno, F., Kawamoto, Y. andOmi, T. (2017) Small head size and delayed body weight growthin wild Japanese monkey fetuses after the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear disaster. Scientific Reports, 7, 3528. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-03866-8 (Accessed
28 August 2020)
Hiyama, A., Nohara, C., Kinjo, S., Taira, W., Gima, S., Tanahara,
A. and Otaki, J.M. (2012) The biological impacts of the
Fukushima nuclear accident on the pale grass blue butterfly.
Scientific Reports, 2, 570. Retrieved from https://www.nature.
com/articles/srep00570 (Accessed 28 August 2020)
Hiyama, A., Taira, W., Iwasaki, M., Skauchi, K., Gurung, R. andOtaki, J.M. (2017) Geographical distribution of morphologicalabnormalities and wing color pattern modifications of the palegrass blue butterfly in northeastern Japan. Entomological
Science, 20, 100–110.
Horiguchi, T., Yoshii, H., Mizuno, S. and Shiraishi, H. (2016)
Decline in intertidal biota after the 2011 Great East Japan fieldobservations. Scientific Reports, 6, 20416. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nature.com/articles/srep20416 (Accessed 28 August
2020)
ICRP (2008) Environmental protection: the concept and use ofreference animals and plants. In: Annals of the ICRP Vol. 38,
ICRP Publication, 108, Elsevier, Oxford. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/ANIB_38_4–6
Ishiniwa, H., Okano, T., Yoshioka, A., Tamaoki, M., Yokohata, Y.,
Shindo, J., Azuma, N., Nakajima, N. and Onuma, M. (2019)
Concentration of radioactive materials in small mammals
collected from a restricted area in Fukushima, Japan since 2012.
Ecological Research, 34, 7.
JaLTER (2020a) What is JaLTER? Retrieved from http://www.
jalter.org/en/whats/ (Accessed 17 August 2020)
JaLTER (2020b) Research Sites. Retrieved from http://www.jalter.
org/en/researchsites/ (Accessed 25 August 2020)
JaLTER (2020c) Data Catalog Search. Retrieved from http://
db.cger.nies.go.jp/JaLTER/metacat/style/skins/jalter-en/index.jsp(Accessed 25 August 2020)
Kadoya, T. and Washitani, I. (2011) The Satoyama Index: abiodiversity indicator for agricultural landscapes. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment, 140, 20–26.
Kobori, H., Dickinson, J. L., Washitani, I., Sakurai, R., Amano, T.,
Komatsu, N., Kitamura, W., Takagawa, S., Koyama, K.,
Ogawara, T. and Miller-Rushing, A. J. (2015) Citizen science: a
new approach to advance ecology, education, and conservation.
Ecological Research, 31, 1–19.
Lyons, P. C., Okuda, K., Hamilton, M. T., Hinton, T. G. and
Beasley, J. C. (2020) Rewilding of Fukushima’s humanevacuation zone. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 18,
127–134.
Matsushima, N., Ihara, S., Takase, M. and Horiguchi, T. (2015)

103

Assessment of radiocesium contamination in frogs 18 months
after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Scientific Reports,
5, 9712. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/
srep09712 (Accessed 28 August 2020)
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology,
Japan (2012) White Paper on Science and Technology 2012(provisional translation): Toward a Robust and Resilient Society:Lessons from the Great East Japan Earthquake. Retrieved fromhttps://warp.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/11293659/www.mext.go.jp/
en/publication/whitepaper/title03/detail03/1372831.htm(Accessed 28 August 2020)
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Japan(2007) River Environmental Database. (in Japanese) Retrieved
from http://www.nilim.go.jp/lab/fbg/ksnkankyo/index.html(Accessed 3 September 2020)
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Japan(2013) National Land Numerical Information. (in Japanese)
Retrieved from https://nlftp.mlit.go.jp/ksj/gml/datalist/
KsjTmplt-P03.html (Accessed 22 June 2020)
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Japan(2014) National Land Numerical Information. (in Japanese)
Retrieved from https://nlftp.mlit.go.jp/ksj/gml/datalist/KsjTmpltN03-v2_3.html (Accessed 2 September 2020)
Ministry of the Environment, Japan (2020a) Annual report: the 50th
annual census on waterfowl (Anatidae) population, Biodiversity
Center of Japan, Fujiyoshida. (in Japanese with English abstract)
Retrieved from https://www.biodic.go.jp/gankamo/data/report/
h30gankamo_report.pdf (Accessed 31 August 2020)
Ministry of the Environment, Japan (2020b) Environmental Impact
Assessment in Japan. Retrieved from http://assess.env.go.jp/files/
1_seido/pamph_e.pdf (Accessed 3 September 2020)
Møller, A.P., Hagiwara, A., Matsui, S., Kasahara, S., Kawatsu, K.,
Nishiumi, I., Suzuki, H., Ueda, K. and Mousseau, T. A. (2012)
Abundance of birds in Fukushima as judged from Chernobyl.
Environmental Pollution, 164, 36–39.
Møller, A.P., Nishikimi, I., Suzuki, H., Ueda, K. and Mousseau,
T.A. (2013) Differences in effects of radiation on abundance ofanimals in Fukushima and Chernobyl. Ecological Indicator, 24,
75–81.
Møller, A.P. and Mousseau, T.A. (2019) Interactive effects ofionizing radiation and climate change on the abundance of
breeding birds. Ecological Indicators, 99, 178–182.
Monitoring Site 1000 Project (2020) List of sites. (in Japanese)
Retrieved from https://www.biodic.go.jp/moni1000/list.html(Accessed 24 June 2020)
Morelli, F., Mousseau, T. A. and Møller, A.P. (2017) Cuckoos vs.
top predators as prime bioindicators of biodiversity in disturbed
environments. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 177,
158–164.
Morishita, Y. (2007) A survey to establish ambient and personaldose equivalent standards in the X- and γ-ray field. (in Japanese)
AIST Bulletin of Metrology, 6, 215–223.
Murase, K., Murase, J., Horie, R. and Endo, K. (2015) Effects of
the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident on goshawk
reproduction. Scientific Reports, 5, 9405. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09405 (Accessed 28 August 2020)
Nuclear Regulation Authority (2019) The Nuclear Emergency
Response Guidelines. (in Japanese) Retrieved from https://www.
nsr.go.jp/data/000024441.pdf (Accessed 25 November 2020)
Nature Research (2016) Announcement: Where are the data?
Nature, 537, 138.
Nature Research (2019) Announcement: FAIR data in earthscience. Nature, 565, 134.
Ochiai, K., Hayama, S., Nakiri, S., Nakanishi, S., Ishii, N., Uno, T.,
Kato, T., Konno, F., Kawamoto, Y., Tsuchida, S. and Omi, T.

104

A. YOSHIOKA et al.

(2014) Low blood cell counts in wild Japanese monkeys after
the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Scientific Reports, 4,5793. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/srep05793(Accessed 28 August 2020)
Ohte, N., Nakaoka, M. and Shibata, H. (2012) ILTER and JaLTER:
Their missions and linkage to database development in the AsiaPacific region. In: Nakano, S., Yahara, T. and Nakashizuka, T.
(eds.) The Biodiversity Observation Network in the Asia-PacificRegion: Toward Further Development of Monitoring (EcologicalResearch Monographs), 205–215.
Okano, T., Ishiniwa, H., Onuma, M., Shindo, J., Yokohata, Y. andTamaoki, M. (2016) Effects of environmental radiation on testes
and spermatogenesis in wild large Japanese field mice
(Apodemus speciosus) from Fukushima. Scientific Reports,
6, 23601. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/
srep23601 (Accessed 28 August 2020)Økland, R.H. (2007) Wise use of statistical tools in ecological fieldstudies. Folia Geobotanica, 42, 123–140.
Osawa, T., Kamauchi, H., Hosoya, T. and Ito, M. (2013) Current
status and future perspective of biodiversity information both on
LTER and GBIF. Japanese Journal of Ecology, 63, 269–273. (inJapanese)
Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P. and Robert, E. S. (2006) Maximum
entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. EcologicalModelling, 190, 231–259.
Silvertown, J. (2009) A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in
Ecology & Evolution, 24, 467–471.
Takeuchi, K. (2001) Nature conservation strategies for the‘SATOYAMA’ and ‘SATOCHI,’ Habitats for secondary nature in
Japan. Global Environmental Research, 5, 193–198.
Tamaoki, M. (2016) Studies on radiation effects from the
Fukushima nuclear accident on wild organisms and ecosystems.
Global Environmental Research, 20, 73–82.
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation (2017) Developments since the 2013 UNSCEAR
report on the levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the
nuclear accident following the Great East-Japan Earthquake andTsunami: A 2017 white paper to guide the Scientific Committee’s
future programme of work. Retrieved from https://www.unscear.
org/docs/publications/2017/UNSCEAR_WP_2017.pdf (Accessed
28 August 2020)
Watanabe, Y., Ichikawa, S., Kubota, M., Hoshino, J., Kubota, Y.,
Maruyama, K., Fuma, S., Kawaguchi, I., Yoschenko, V.I. andYoshida, S. (2015) Morphological defects in native Japanese firtrees around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
Scientific Reports, 5, 13232. Retrieved from https://www.nature.
com/articles/srep13232 (Accessed 28 August 2020)
Watanabe, T., Okuyama, M. and Fukamachi, K. (2012) A Review
of Japan’s environmental policies for Satoyama and Satoumi
landscape restoration. Global Environmental Research, 16, 125–
135.
Yoshioka, A., Mishima, Y. and Fukasawa, K. (2015) Pollinatorsand other flying insects inside and outside the Fukushima
evacuation zone. PLOS ONE, 10, e0140957. Retrieved fromhttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.
pone.0140957 (Accessed 28 August 2020)
Yoshioka, A., Matsushima, N., Jingu, S., Kumada, N., Yokota, R.,
Totsu, K. and Fukasawa, K. (2020) Acoustic monitoring data ofanuran species inside and outside the evacuation zone of the
Fukushima Daiichi power plant accident. Ecological Research,
35, 765–772.

Akira YOSHIOKA
Akira Yoshioka is a senior researcher at the
Fukushima Branch of the National Institute forEnvironmental Studies, Japan. To evaluate theimpacts of evacuation orders on biodiversity,
since 2014, he together with the coauthors has
been conducting biodiversity monitoring of theevacuation zones necessitated by the FDNPP
accident. His main field of study has been flying insects in the evacuation
zone and he is now developing original camera traps to monitor red
dragonflies. He has also studied development of an index for satoyama, thetraditional agricultural landscape of Japan, which plays an important role inbiodiversity conservation but is threatened by increasingly prevalent land
abandonment.

Nao KUMADA
Nao Kumada is a specialist at the Center for
Environmental Biology and Ecosystem Studies,
National Institute for Environmental Studies,Japan. She has supported biodiversity monitoringof the Fukushima evacuation zone and her
contributions range from data compilation todevelopment of a novel method for estimating the
population density of birds. She is also a member of the Japan Bird
Research Association and has studied the ecology of cormorants vigorously.

Yui OGAWA
Yui Ogawa is a junior research associate at theCenter for Environmental Biology and Ecosystem
Studies, National Institute for Environmental
Studies, Japan. She has studied citizen scientists’attitudes contributing to biodiversity datacollection, especially on birds, and is now
developing online training tools for assisting
acoustic bird monitoring in the Fukushima evacuation zones.

Keita FUKASAWA
Keita Fukasawa is a senior researcher at theCenter for Environmental Biology and Ecosystem
Studies, National Institute for Environmental
Studies, Japan. He has studied statistical modelingand population density estimation for various
plants and animals from the viewpoint ofmanaging wildlife and alien species, as well as
biodiversity conservation in underused agricultural ecosystems.
(Received 4 September 2020, Accepted 21 December 2020)