Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Islands and Archipelagos Species survival in fragmented landscapes (Human impact and its mitigation) G. Kaule European biodiversity issues seen from the Atlantic Açores 15th of May Ç © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Principle of survival of structured populations in habitat patterns The tidal model and its metamorphic application in landscapes Human impact on habitat patterns (connectivity) Consequences for the design of NATURA 2000 and the national and local habitat networks and nature reserve system Examples: Environmental impact assessment and mitigation measures Agro-policy and suitability of the landscape matrix Intensification of cereal production agro schemes and their impact on habitat quality and landscape connectivity Infrastructure Highway planning near Halle Baltic Sea highway © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG The validated model ( Oedipoda caerulescens after Kuhn 1998) shows that the viability of the population in one large or several small habitats is the same. The incidence in one large patch (for this species 1ha) and a high connectivity (density of the islands in the archipelago) results in the same value Incidence : likelihood that a patch is permanently settled Connectivity: value of likelihood of individual exchange and recolonisation © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Maintaining biodiversity we need: •islands (secure habitats, refuges) = nature reserves inclusive buffer zones controlling nutrient and other disturbance inputs and invasion of competitive species) NATURA 2000 network and national nature reserve systems •biodiversity ”highways” for normal migration and population exchange = specifically managed corridors which integrate economic production with maintaining sub-optimal habitat qualities ( e.g. flooded plains, forest belts, sheep migration corridors (Trans- humans) NATURA 2000 corridors and co-ordinated national system •temporary footpaths for colonisation and re-colonisation = the black box in the system. local systems, e.g. forest edge habitats, field margins, fallow land •sub-optimal habitats for buffering stochastic events and creeping landscape changes and for stabilisation of populations (extensively used, marginal land). In the model these are temporary islands in extreme years. productive meadows but with limited intensity; forests with indigenous tree species and long turn over rates; low input arable land (combined with water protection zones) •limited land use intensity considering the natural productivity and landscape vulnerability (minimum habitat quality of arable land, plantations e.t.c. minimum standard of biodiversity) controlled production systems in the landscape matrix controlled production systems in the landscape matrix © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and examples of mitigation measures •The existing and planned stable network of human infrastructure and permanent intensive managed (stabilised) land use systems are controversy to dynamic processes and cause in naturally extreme years cumulative impacts. •mitigation measures in modern land use systems: related to transportation systems need of changes in the agricultural land use policy (Agenda 2000) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (Case Studies: Highway north of Halle) •All alternatives cross the fertile loess plain with porphyric hills covered with dry grassland •The hills are islands in large fields •Target of the case study (Kuhn 1998) are: Direct habitat losses Losses of connectivity in the archipelago •The indicator species is Oedipoda caerulescens © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Using simple habitat losses alternative 4+ is the best one and 5a the second best. © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Highway alternatives north of Halle (Sachsen-Anhalt): Direct impact on dry grassland habitats and connectivity losses using Oedipoda caerulescens as an target species Using simple habitat losses alternative 4+ is the best one and 5a the second best. Considering connectivity losses (reduced connectivity in the archipelago) 6a and ”north” are much better than 5a. In the ranking the second best is switching to the worst. This change in the ranking is important if it is necessary to find a compromise between the demands of several species or habitat types or between biodiversity targets and social targets. © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG EIA /..FFH Baltic Sea highway near Lübeck (For methodological reasons simplified) The construction and the mitigation measures have to consider: FFH corridor function of the river and the flooded plain Sand grass ecosystems (2330 annex 1 FFH) Map 1 : •Each alternative is crossing FFH habitats or corridors •The EIA indicates that one of the northern variants is less impacting than the southern alternatives •The decision for the southern bypass follows transportation Targets. (Public interests to upgrade the access to southern development sites). Map 3 : • The highway has to cross the Wakenitz river and the valley with sand grass ecosystems on its shoulder •The selected diagonal crossways avoids the EU bird protection reserve (southern) and the villages in the north. © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Map 2: Overview Lübeck and highway alternatives © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Map1: Interference of habitats and alternative roads © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Map 3: Wakenitz biodiversity corridor and highway altenatives © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Target species selection Lutra lutra Otter –Potential recolonisation and migration – Representative for large undisturbed homeranges, –use of lakes, rivers and river-side ecosystems –floaters migrate right across the landscape –(Kingsfisher, Bluethroat) Crex crex Corncrake –extensive and scattered grassland –high fluctuation in the population size. –stochastic use of changing breeding places.(Kite ........ Stenobotrys lineatus Grashopper –Target species of extensive Grassland, in the specific case seoundary sand dune grassland with high percentage of bare sand.´ (Grassland with Corynephorus) –Migration distance “middle”. –High connectivity of habitats necessary (several other species use the open heath and sand grassland: saltatoria, butterflies, Woodlark, Nightjar,Tawany Pitpit (Anthus campestris) © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Mitigation measures: biodiversity corridor and highway intersection Conflict: River and riverside ecosystems and connectivity secondary dry sand grassland on the slope shoulder Landscape matrix Crex crex, corncrake and species with similar habitat schemes: Extensification of wet grassland by EU agri- environmental schemes © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG The landscape matrix, the ocean Populations of species need the pysical existence of habitats and their patterns (size and distances), but also sufficient or good habitat qualities. In the landscape matrix, the main space is dominantly controlled by agriculture. The fig. Indicates the ecologically defined basic yield (max) in the agro-climatic regions of Europe. In average and bad years this yield is not reached (depression). The upper section in the columns indicates the effect of intesification (fertilisation, pest control, stalk sabilisation). Forced by EU-policy, the farmers apply high amounts to reach the maximum. But in 3-4 of 5 years this is not possible. The surplus is lost. Leaches from arable land cause eutrophication. 15-25% of the fertiliser input is not converted in yield biomass. The surplus is polluting the environment, especially oligotrophic or mesotrophic habitats: •edge habitats •flooded plains •swamps •grassland •leaches in the aquifer and by this spring and stream habitats Eutrophication is one of one dominant factors reducing habitat quality. The red line defines the yield level in the different regions which can be reached without high losses. The policy should consider this in the schemes. Only production systems which remain in these limits should be subsidised. VIc (ES) overuse of non renewable aquifers. © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG The surplus is not transformed into biomass yields, it pollutes the environment: Air pollution, ammonia, methane, nitrogen oxide Erosion and direct run off, polluting edge habitats, flooded plains, rivers, swamps. Nitrate leaching, polluting groundwater and spring ecosystems © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Effect of intesification of agro production and yield potentials in European agro-climatic regions ( Schulzke & Kaule 2000) © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG • We know basic principle of species survival in landscapes. • We have expert knowledge to deliver answers on urgent planing . • There is no need to wait with decisions on research results. • We have fascinating theories and models but the way from expert knowledge based decision finding to rule and model based procedures is still in construction. • From my viewpoint we can structure it in three steps: © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG (1) Priority action Compilation of national species data bases: –habitat schemes; life cycle, bottlenecks –Population dynamics (fluctuation) –distributional range; actual records, situation of the population –habitat development –indicator value, –specific suitability to forecast impact effects, e.g. road fragmentation, eutrophication EU-wide comparative analysis of national data base: changes of habitat requirement in the distributional range Refinement of FFH list link of the species data base to the FFH list Identification of gaps and additional research needs especially important species with data deficits © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG (2) key action and research • Standardisation of biodiversity investigations and evaluation, especially: -Environmental impact studies -agro-environmental schemes • Minimum standard of integration of biodiversity in planning • Biodiversity indicator systems in the landscape scale ”how many species describe a landscape?” target species selection • Design of monitoring programmes quantitative population development of key species • Tools in GIS-supported integrated biodiversity evaluation species data base: habitat schemes; life cycle. population dynamics; distributional data environmental data base; Land use, physical factors • Integration of biodiversity protection and land use systems. Development of actions (approaches) maintaining biodiversity with new socioeconomic programmes •Identification of gaps and additional needed research © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Example for Integration of biodiversity protection and land use systems. Abb.1: South German Transhumanz Abb.2: migrating sheepherd © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Fragmented dry grassland habitats and major road systems (Swabian Jura) © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG Human impact and its mitigation G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG (3) key research priorities field research - model input •Life cycle, population dynamics, habitat schemes (PVA) of key species. Validated results in research programmes with min. 3 years period. Model development, simplification and adoption to practice •Importance of stochastic events in population dynamics especially for (re)-colonisation processes; Landscape dynamics and population dynamics •Dependence of habitat networks (key species) on the landscape matrix Interactions of matter and energy flow Biodiversity indicator systems in the landscape scale (model input) model and tool development •Methods of generation of sufficient data base from incomplete data: Combination of point data of species with habitat characteristics in a data base; Validation control of generated results •GIS and model supported population analysis. Methods and examples of (semi-) quantitive population analysis in landscape scale (from incidence to semi-quantitative methods) •scale dependence of models and methods, upscaling and downscaling; cross scale development of model families © Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG