Advertisement

Trees

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 791–812 | Cite as

Canopy Operation Permanent Access System: a novel tool for working in the canopy of tropical forests: history, development, technology and perspectives

  • Gerhard GottsbergerEmail author
Review

Abstract

Key message

The development of a new, low-impact, canopy-access system is described from its original idea until the final realization after about 30 years.

Abstract

Based on the experience with previously existing methods, a new Canopy Operation Permanent Access System (COPAS), featuring a gondola or harness moveable in a three-dimensional way has been developed. The basic idea was to provide a novel canopy access system with a low impact to the ecosystem regarding vegetation structure, noise, and disturbances to animals. French Guiana was chosen for this permanent, long-term project, as it was considered to be the most appropriate country, owing to strong work conditions and the protection status of the forest. The realisation of the project started when a group of six researchers from France, the Netherlands and Germany were awarded by the Körber European Science Prize 1996 in Hamburg. The original partners to construct and erect COPAS in Saut Pararé (Les Nouragues reserve) were Ulm University and the CNRS in Paris. During the years of preparation and construction, along with experimentation, transportation and the final on-site construction, there were many political, financial and technical problems to overcome, which could not be foreseen. In this paper the problems, failures and setbacks will be described, along with the achievements and the final success of the project. After the Original vision, the project passed a Balloon Concept, a failure which ended with a Final Suspended Seat Concept. There are two aspects of the COPAS-project which have to be emphasized besides the important possibilities for biological and global change research: (1) the project involved international administration and funding, and (2) it was also a technological engineering and development research project.

Keywords

Canopy access Prototype development Amazon forest French Guiana 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to many people and the organisations that supported COPAS from its early conception to its realisation. The Körber Foundation in Hamburg was fundamental in providing the first large financial support, which started the enterprise (Prof. Dr. Reimar Lüst, Prof. Dr. Hubert Ziegler and the entire Scientific Curatorium of the Körber European Science Award, Dr. Ulrich Voswinckel, Dr. Nikolaus Besch). Further funding from Germany came from Ulm University and the Landesregierung Baden-Württemberg. French funding came from the CNRS and the European Community. Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Barthlott kindly brought me into contact with Dr. Loki Schmidt. Ulm University assumed responsibility for the initial administrative duties of COPAS, in particular the Chancellor of the University, Dr. Dietrich Eberhardt. Many collaborators of my working groups were actively involved with COPAS during the years: Joachim Döring from Giessen University elaborated the original and first triangle-mast-gondola concept. All other collaborators (in alphabetic order) were from Ulm University: Dr. Andrea Bernecker, Dr. Heiko Hentrich, Dr. Elke Freiberg, Dr. Martin Freiberg, Graciela Hintze, Dr. Bernhard Lohr, Dr. Robert Lücking, Hans Malchus, Evelin Schäfer, Dr. Michael Schessl, Dr. Albert-Dieter Stevens, Dr. Holger Teichert. We were also supported by the administrators and engineers of the Baudezernat of the University Ulm (Mr. Diepold, Mrs. Wechsel, Mrs. Wachter) and the Staatliches Hochbau- und Universitätsbauamt Ulm (Mr. Semmler, Mr. Hofmann, Mr. Lindenthal, Mr. Nethe, Mr. Frey, Mr. Saur). Many thanks must also go to the members of the Botanical Garden Ulm and to Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lüttge and the other Körber Prize Winners for their support and their patience in relation to the long and tedious COPAS process. I want to give my thanks also to Prof. Dr. Pierre Charles-Dominique, Dr. Philippe Gaucher and Prof. Dr. Alain Pavé, all CNRS, who were the initial and permanent force from the French team to bring COPAS to a positive end. The two following directors of CNRS in French Guiana, Dr. Anne Corval and Dr. Annaig Le Guen as well as Dr. Jerome Chave believed in COPAS and were also responsible for finishing it. Many further French colleagues and persons worked on COPAS. My quite incomplete list includes: Dr. J. P. Pascal (CNRS), Alain Weil (CNRS) Olivier Laroussini (ECOFOR), Denis Girou (SILVOLAB), Jean Weigel (CIRAD), Dr. Francis Cailliez (SILVOLAB), Mireille Charles-Dominique, Patrik Chatelet, Wémo Bétian, Desmo Bétian, Gilles Peroz, Hervé Serpette, Gérard Bons, Nathaniel Smith, Jacques Bonnefille, Pierre Koesse, Eugène Joseph, Christophe Bienaimé and Marcel Bertier (the last two are the skilled helicopter pilotes). Thanks also to Regina’s mayors Pierre Désert, Justin Anatole, Ange Mancini, and Michel Quammie, and the President of the Region Rodolphe Alexandre. My thanks go to the companies and engineer bureaus Happold, Kiessling, Glocker, Hammerl, Wörner, Kuder, to the Luftfahrtbundesamt (LBA), the Prüfamt für Baustatistik der Zweigstelle Augsburg, the APAVE and AIM. The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and the European Science Foundation kindly financed several trips to French Guiana and Brazil to evaluate possible sites for COPAS, and permitted a joint trip of the Körber Prize winners to French Guiana to get to know the Les Nouragues reserve and the future site of COPAS. Many thanks to Prof. Dr. Pierre Charles Dominique and Dr. Philippe Gaucher for providing many information about the whole COPAS process and to Pierre also for the larger part of the photo material illustrating this report. Graciela Hintze kindly elaborated the illustrations. Dr. Hugh Morris was very helpful in correcting language and style of the manuscript. To my wife Ilse the best thanks for her support during all the years.

References

  1. Adis J (1997) Terrestrial invertebrates: survival strategies, group spectrum, dominance and activity patterns. In: Junk WJ (ed) The central Amazon floodplain. Ecological studies, vol 126. Springer, Berlin, pp 318–330Google Scholar
  2. Adis J, Bassett Y, Floren A, Hammond PM, Linsenmair KE (1998) Canopy fogging of an overstorey tree—recommendations for standardization. Ecotropica 4:93–97Google Scholar
  3. Basset Y, Springate ND, Aberlene H-P, Delvare G (1997) A review of methods for collecting arthropods in tree canopies. In: Stork NE, Adis J, Didham RK (eds) Canopy arthropods. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 27–52Google Scholar
  4. Bassett Y, Horlyck V, Wright SJ (eds) (2003) Studying forest canopies from above: the International Canopy Crane Network. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and the United Nations Environmental Programme, Panama CityGoogle Scholar
  5. Bongers F, Charles-Dominique P, Forget P-M, Théry M (eds) (2001) Nouragues. Dynamics and plant-animal interactions in a neotropical rainforest. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  6. Butler D (2004) Treetop ecologists brought down by miners. Nature 430:127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Charisius H (2016) Wipfeltreffen. In der botanischen Kampfzone. Süddeutsche Zeitung 163: 34–35Google Scholar
  8. Charles-Dominique P, Gottsberger G, Freiberg M, Stevens A-D (2003) COPAS: a new permanent system to reach the forest canopy. In: Basset Y, Horlyck V, Wright S J (eds.) Studying forest canopies from above: the International Canopy Crane Network. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and the United Nations Environmental Programme, Panama, pp 115–119Google Scholar
  9. Dean W (1995) With Broadax and firebrand. Destruction of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  10. Dial R, Sillett SC, Spickler JC (2004) “Canopy trekking”: a ground-independent, rope-based method for horizontal movement through forest canopies. In: Lowman MD, Rinker HB (eds) (2004) Forest canopies, 2nd edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  11. Dieterlen F, Nill T (1993) Möglichkeiten der Erforschung der Baumkronenregion des tropischen Regenwalds. In: Barthlott W, Naumann CM, Schmidt-Loske K, Schuchmann KL (eds) Animal–plant interactions in tropical environments. Zool Forsch Mus Alexander Koenig BonnGoogle Scholar
  12. Erwin TL (1988) The tropical forest canopy. The heart of biotic diversity. In: Wilson EO (ed) Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, pp 123–129Google Scholar
  13. Erwin TL (2004) The biodiversity question: how many species of terrestrial arthropods are there? In: Lowman MD, Rinker HB (eds) Forest canopies, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 259–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Galindo-Leal C, Gusmão Câmara Ibsen de (2003) The Atlantic Forest of South America. Biodiversity status, threats, and outlook. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  15. Ghazoul J, Sheil D (2011) Tropical rain forest ecology, diversity, and conservation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Gottsberger G, Döring J (1995) “COPAS”, an innovative technology for long-term studies of tropical rain forest canopies. Phyton (Horn, Austria) 35: 165–173Google Scholar
  17. Gottsberger G, Freiberg E, Lücking, A, Freiberg M, Lücking R, Döring J (1995) Baumkronen tropischer Wälder—Interdisziplinäre Ansätze zum Verständnis der Diversität und Funktion eines wenig erforschten Lebensraums. Ulmensien Schr Univ Ulm 10: 51–96Google Scholar
  18. Gottsberger G, Freiberg M, Freiberg E, Lücking R, Lücking A, Stevens A-D (1997) Lebensraum tropische Baumkronen. Nat Rundsch 50(10): 379–385Google Scholar
  19. Hallé F, Gaillarde R (1990) A raft atop the rain forest. Natl Geogr Mag: 128–138Google Scholar
  20. Hallé F, Pascal O (1992) Biologie d’une canopée der forêt équatoriale. II. Rapport de Mission: Radeau des Cimes Octobre–Novembre 1991, Reserve de Campo, CamerounGoogle Scholar
  21. Janzen DH (1988) Tropical dry forests—the most endangered major tropical ecosystem. In: Wilson EO (ed) Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington DC, pp 130–137Google Scholar
  22. Körber Foundation (1996) Körber European Science Award 1996. Körber-Stiftung, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  23. Laurance WF, Bergen S, Cochrane MA, Fearnside PM, Delamônica P, D´Angelo SA, Barber C, Fernandes T (2005) The Future of the Amazon. In: Bermingham E, Dick CW, Moritz C (eds) Tropical rainforests. Past, present, and future. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 583–609Google Scholar
  24. Leponce M, Corbara B, Bassett Y (2012) IBISCA: a collaborative program to study the diversity and distribution of arthropods from canopy to forest floor. In: Lowman MD, Schowalter TD, Franklin JF (2012) Methods in forest canopy research. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 34–39Google Scholar
  25. Lowman MD, Rinker HB (eds) (2004) Forest canopies, 2nd edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  26. Lowman MD, Schowalter TD, Franklin JF (2012) Methods in forest canopy research. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  27. Lücking R, Freiberg M, Lücking A, Freiberg E, Gottsberger G (eds) (1995) Second international ESF-workshop on tropical canopy research, Schloß Reisensburg (Günzburg), Germany, 27–30 July 1995. “Forest Canopies as an Environment for Arthropods and Epiphytes, with Special Reference to the Phyllosphere”, Final Scientific Report. Ulm, pp 1–61Google Scholar
  28. Mitchell AW, Secoy K, Jackson T (eds) (2002) The global canopy handbook. Techniques of access and study in the forest roof. Global Canopy Programme, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Myers N (1991) Tropical forests, present status and future outlook. Clim Change 19:3–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Perry DR (1978) A method of access into the crowns of emergent and canopy trees. Biotropica 10:155–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Perry DR (1986) Life above the jungle floor. Don Perro Press, San JoséGoogle Scholar
  32. Perry DR, Williams J (1981) The tropical rain forest canopy: a method providing total accesss. Biotropica 13:283–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rascher U, Freiberg M, Lüttge U (2012) Functional diversity of photosynthetic light use of sixteen vascular epiphyte species under fluctuating irradiance in the canopy of a giant Virola michelii (Myristicaceae) tree in the tropical lowland forest of French Guyana. Front Plant Sci 2:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reichholf JH (1991) Der Tropische Regenwald. Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  35. Stork NE (1988) Insect diversity: facts, fiction, and speculation. Biol J Linn Soc 35:321–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stork NE, Hammond PM (1997) Sampling arthropods from tree-crowns by fogging with knockdown insecticides: lessons from studies of oak tree beetle assemblages in Richmond park (UK). In: Stork NE, Adis J, Didham RK (eds) Canopy arthropods. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 3–26Google Scholar
  37. Wilson EO (1988) The current state of biodiversity. In: Wilson EO (ed) Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington DC, pp 1–18Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Botanischer Garten/HerbariumUniversität UlmUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations