R.H.G. Jongman

Essential Biodiversity Variables

A global system of harmonized observations is needed to inform scientists and policy-makers. Reducing the rate of biodiversity loss and averting dangerous biodiversity change are international goals, reasserted by the Aichi Targets for 2020 by Parties to the United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) after failure to meet the 2010 target (1, 2). However, there is no global, harmonized observation system for delivering regular, timely data on biodiversity change (3). With the first plenary meeting of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) soon under way, partners from the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) (4) are developing—and seeking consensus around—Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) that could form the basis of monitoring programs worldwide.

Homogenisation and fragmentation of the European landscape: ecological consequences and solutions

The rural landscapes of Europe are in both a homogenisation and a fragmentations process. Regional differences are disappearing due to the dominating equalising impact of the worldwide market. If regional differences are not maintained and protected then the cultural landscapes of Europe and their biological diversity will decline and only remnants will remain. Models on agricultural management and data on landscape changes from all Europe confirm this. Regional differences have to be maintained through conscious environmental and ecological planning. Concepts for this have been developed in all countries in Europe, such as the ecostabilisation concept and the concept of ecological networks. Nature management by farmers is more and more accepted. Landscape planners should be aware of their changing role from designer towards negotiator with the actors in the landscape with different landscape functions and planning tasks in mind.

European ecological networks and greenways

In the context of European integration, networks are becoming increasingly important in both social and ecological sense. Since the beginning of the 1990s, societal and scientific exchanges are being restructured as the conceptual approaches towards new nature conservation strategies have been renewed. Within the framework of nature conservation, the notion of an ecological network has become increasingly important. Throughout Europe, regional and national approaches are in different phases of development, which are all based on recent landscape ecological principles. Ecological networks are interpreted in a variety of ways depending on different historical roots of nature conservation, planning and scientific traditions, different geographical and administrative levels, different land uses, and in the end the political decision-making is dependent on actors with different land use interests. This complex interaction between cultural and natural features results in quite different ways for the elaboration of ecological networks and greenways.

Objectives and applications of a statistical environmental stratification of Europe

Stratifications are made to divide environmental gradients into convenient units and then to use these as areas in which objects and variables might have relatively consistent characteristics. Statistical classification is a useful approach for obtaining this insight into complex environmental patterns and help to simplify heterogeneity. Traditional classifications of the environment are mostly subjective and based on expert knowledge. They are largely intended for descriptive purposes. Present day techniques now allow for continent wide statistically based environmental stratifications that can be applied consistently throughout Europe. Such environmental stratifications can provide the basis for assessment and monitoring biodiversity, land cover and land use and be a starting point for reporting on the European environment. The stratification presented here allows upscaling and downscaling, if needed to reach specified objectives. It can be applied in environmental reporting. Its application as a framework for land cover estimation is elaborated using Portuguese Land cover data.

The Pan European Ecological Network: PEEN

The pan European biological and landscape diversity strategy (PEBDLS) was developed under the auspices of the Council of Europe in order to achieve the effective implementation of the convention of biological diversity (CBD) at the European level. A key element of PEBLDS has been the development of the Pan European Ecological Network (PEEN) as a guiding vision for coherence in biodiversity conservation. PEEN has been developed in three subprojects: Central and Eastern Europe, completed in 2002; South-eastern Europe, completed in 2006; and Western Europe, also completed in 2006. The methodology of the development of the three maps has been broadly comparable but data availability, differences in national databases, technical developments and geographical differences caused variations in the detailed approach. One of the challenges was to find common denominators for the habitat data in Europe; this was solved differently for the subprojects. The project has resulted in three maps that together constitute the PEEN. They differ in terms of ecological coherence and the need for ecological corridors; for example, in Central and Western Europe corridors are essential to provide connectivity, while in Northern, Eastern and South-eastern Europe larger, coherent natural areas still exist. The future steps in developing PEEN should include the implementation of national ecological networks and, in particular, the pursuit of international coherence through the development of trans-European ecological corridors. The big challenge is to develop a common approach among the over 100 European-wide agencies that are responsible for biodiversity conservation.

Gains to species diversity in organically farmed fields are not propagated at the farm level

Organic farming is promoted to reduce environmental impacts of agriculture, but surprisingly little is known about its effects at the farm level, the primary unit of decision making. Here we report the effects of organic farming on species diversity at the field, farm and regional levels by sampling plants, earthworms, spiders and bees in 1470 fields of 205 randomly selected organic and nonorganic farms in twelve European and African regions. Species richness is, on average, 10.5% higher in organic than nonorganic production fields, with highest gains in intensive arable fields (around +45%). Gains to species richness are partly caused by higher organism abundance and are common in plants and bees but intermittent in earthworms and spiders. Average gains are marginal +4.6% at the farm and +3.1% at the regional level, even in intensive arable regions. Additional, targeted measures are therefore needed to fulfil the commitment of organic farming to benefit farmland biodiversity.

The Earth Observation Data for Habitat Monitoring (EODHaM) System

To support decisions relating to the use and conservation of protected areas and surrounds, the EU-funded BIOdiversity multi-SOurce monitoring System: from Space TO Species (BIO_SOS) project has developed the Earth Observation Data for HAbitat Monitoring (EODHaM) system for consistent mapping and monitoring of biodiversity. The EODHaM approach has adopted the Food and Agriculture Organization Land Cover Classification System (LCCS) taxonomy and translates mapped classes to General Habitat Categories (GHCs) from which Annex I habitats (EU Habitats Directive) can be defined. The EODHaM system uses a combination of pixel and object-based procedures. The 1st and 2nd stages use earth observation (EO) data alone with expert knowledge to generate classes according to the LCCS taxonomy (Levels 1 to 3 and beyond). The 3rd stage translates the final LCCS classes into GHCs from which Annex I habitat type maps are derived. An additional module quantifies changes in the LCCS classes and their components, indices derived from earth observation, object sizes and dimensions and the translated habitat maps (i.e., GHCs or Annex I). Examples are provided of the application of EODHaM system elements to protected sites and their surrounds in Italy, Wales (UK), the Netherlands, Greece, Portugal and India.

Selecting appropriate methods of knowledge synthesis to inform biodiversity policy

Responding to different questions generated by biodiversity and ecosystem services policy or management requires different forms of knowledge (e.g. scientific, experiential) and knowledge synthesis. Additionally, synthesis methods need to be appropriate to policy context (e.g. question types, budget, timeframe, output type, required scientific rigour). In this paper we present a range of different methods that could potentially be used to conduct a knowledge synthesis in response to questions arising from knowledge needs of decision makers on biodiversity and ecosystem services policy and management. Through a series of workshops attended by natural and social scientists and decision makers we compiled a range of question types, different policy contexts and potential methodological approaches to knowledge synthesis. Methods are derived from both natural and social sciences fields and reflect the range of question and study types that may be relevant for syntheses. Knowledge can be available either in qualitative or quantitative form and in some cases also mixed. All methods have their strengths and weaknesses and we discuss a sample of these to illustrate the need for diversity and importance of appropriate selection. To summarize this collection, we present a table that identifies potential methods matched to different combinations of question types and policy contexts, aimed at assisting teams undertaking knowledge syntheses to select appropriate methods.

The Network of Knowledge approach: improving the science and society dialogue on biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe

The absence of a good interface between scientific and other knowledge holders and decision-makers in the area of biodiversity and ecosystem services has been recognised for a long time. Despite recent advancements, e.g. with the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), challenges remain, particularly concerning the timely provision of consolidated views from different knowledge domains. To address this challenge, a strong and flexible networking approach is needed across knowledge domains and institutions. Here, we report on a broad consultation process across Europe to develop a Network of Knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services (NoK), an approach aiming at (1) organising institutions and knowledge holders in an adaptable and responsive framework and (2) informing decision-makers with timely and accurate biodiversity knowledge. The consultation provided a critical analysis of the needs that should be addressed by a NoK and how it could complement existing European initiatives and institutions at the interface between policy and science. Among other functions, the NoK provides consolidated scientific views on contested topics, identification of research gaps to support relevant policies, and horizon scanning activities to anticipate emerging issues. The NoK includes a capacity building component on interfacing activities and contains mechanisms to ensure its credibility, relevance and legitimacy. Such a network would need to ensure credibility, relevance and legitimacy of its work by maximizing transparency and flexibility of processes, quality of outputs, the link to data and knowledge provision, the motivation of experts for getting involved and sound communication and capacity building.

Spatial modeling on the nutrient retention of an estuary wetland

There is a great potential to use the estuary wetland as a final filter for nutrient enriched river water, and reduce the possibility of coastal water eutrophication. Based upon field data, spatial models were designed on a stepwise basis to simulate the nutrient reduction function of the wetland in the Liaohe Delta. The model contained two major subsystems: the canal system and the reed field. In the preliminary model, a non-linear regression model was established for the nutrient reduction in the canal system, while a percentage-based reduction model was used for the reed fields. It was first tested in one of the irrigation areas and finally extrapolated into the whole study area. Validation against field data indicated that the preliminary model was robust enough to simulate the nutrient removal process in the system. But the process model used for the reed field was much too simple compared to the model for the canal system. A more sophisticated linear regression model based on Maunder and Maurings work was finally adopted for the reed system. According to the simulation results, more than 3200 tonnes of total nitrogen (TN) and 77 tonnes of soluble reactive phosphorous (SRP) could be removed by the reed-canal system during the irrigation period in 1998, which was only one tenth of its total reduction capacity.