Download file of this presentation

The Swedish Landscape
Monitoring Programme
Stickprovsvis Landskapsövervakning (SLÖ)
Anders Glimskär
Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences
SLÖ’s large-scale design
• Randomly placed sample units
(~ 5-700)
• Five-year intervals
• All terrestrial biotopes
• Stratification towards the
agricultural landscape
• Co-ordination with the Swedish
National Forest Survey
Information analysis (interviews)
The agricultural landscape
Grazing and mowing
Eutrophication
Small biotopes, ponds
Landscape composition
Cultural remnants
Urban areas
Parks and naturally vegetated areas
Old deciduous trees
Small biotopes, ponds
Recreation, accessibility
Wetlands and shores
Drainage
Natural or disturbed water regime
Grazing and mowing
Exploitation and ground disturbance
Chemical impact (eutrophication)
Forests
Tree cutting and other disturbances
Landscape composition
Forest stand properties
Substrates, dead wood
Forest continuity
Mountain areas
Reindeer grazing
Climatic change
Ground disturbance (vehicles, tourism)
Three types of sample units
5 x 5 km units
Simplified aerial photo interpretation
Focus on areal elements
Landscape structure
1 x 1 km units
Detailed aerial photo interpretation
Areal, linear and point elements
Quality and detailed structure
Permanent plots and line intersect
sampling
Special objects (wetlands,
semi-natural grasslands)
Detailed aerial photo interpretation
Quality and detailed structure
Focus on specific disturbances
Permanent plots
Colour-IR photo interpretation
Areal elements (polygons)
Grasslands
Forests
Wetlands, etc.
Linear elements
Road verges
Water courses
Fences, etc.
Point elements
Solitary trees
Pools
Buildings, etc.
Layout of field plots
•
•
1 x 1 km units
Line intersect sampling
•
•
100 m2 sample plots
4 x 0.25 m2 vegetation plots
Field variables (preliminary)
Veg.
100m
Edges,
Linear
Point
plots
plots
shores
elem.
elem.
•
Vegetation structure (% cover)
x
•
Vascular plants (lists of spp.)
x
•
?
(ind)
(p,w)
Canopy cover, vertical structure
x
x
x
x
•
Status of old deciduous trees
x
x
x
x
•
Quality of cultural remnants
x
x
x
x
•
Water quality and substrate
x
x
x
x
•
Dead wood, amount and quality
x
x
•
Traps for flying insects (pollinators)
x
x
•
Epiphytic lichens
x
•
Traces from woodpeckers and wood-
x
living insects
(p,w) (p,w)
Types of analyses
Abundance and extent of elements
Area, length
Number, density
% cover
Quality, management and disturbances
% bare soil, litter, etc.
Signs of grazing, dung, fences
Decomposition stage of dead wood
Species frequencies and composition
Species number, dominance
Indicator species
Surroundings
Exposure, microclimate
Distance, fragmentation
Buffer zones
Landscape structure
Connectivity
Variation, mosaic structure
Species-specific demands (feeding, nesting, over-wintering)
Co-ordination of SLÖ with
other programmes
The Swedish National Forest Survey
Randomly placed plots
Bird Monitoring
Randomly placed plots
Natura 2000
Biotope-specific programmes
Meadows and pastures – butterflies, fungi, birds
”Key biotopes” in forest – epiphytes, dead wood
Wetlands – hydrology, land-use, bryophytes
Freshwater biotopes – hydrology, fauna, vegetation, substrate
Integrating field inventories and
remote sensing – examples
• Independent estimates of quantities of landscape elements
• Additional, detailed estimates of quality and structure
• Effects of surrounding land use and biotopes on species
composition, indicator species and quality (e.g., of water)
• Additional data of the ”similarity” of areal, linear or point
elements (e.g., as corridors or stepping stones)
• Incorporation of gradients and borders in the landscape
analysis
• Additional data on ”hidden” elements, e.g., under a dense
forest canopy
Example 1: Border zones to water
Surrounding land-use: influences the inflow of nutrients or
sediment
Buffer zones: reduces external impact, depending on width,
slope and vegetation cover
Shore characteristics: variation in form or substrate
indicating ”naturalness” and potential biodiversity
Water quality: buffering capacity, nutrient richness and
sedimentation as indicators of sensitivity and disturbance
level
Organisms: indicators of changing conditions and
conservation value (water fauna, vegetation)
Example 2: Dispersal corridors
Size and extent: width and connectivity, as seen from aerial
photographs
Quality: similarity to the ”habitat islands” and homogeneity, may
require detailed field descriptions
Sensitivity to disturbances: depends on the surroundings
(climatic effects, buffering), within-object factors
(management) and organisms (predation)
Organisms: mobility, habitat specificity and sensitivity
Example 3: Old, solitary trees
Immediate surroundings: shading of the trunk or dust from
gravel roads influences the biological values and tree
survival
Landscape context: distance to closest tree, long-term
sustainability dependent on continuous regeneration of old
trees at a landscape scale
Cultural context: location in relation to historical land use and
villages.
Structural traits of the tree: signs of pollarding, bark structure,
cavities
Shape and age: may indicate growth conditions at earlier
stages
Organisms: indicator organisms (epiphytes, wood-living
insects)
Conclusions
A close integration of field and landscape data in
monitoring gives:
* higher quality and more reliable results
* links between patterns and processes
* a broader scope and wider applicability
* higher relevance to actual problems
* feed-back for the evaluation of indices