Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 17, Issue 14, pp 3327–3339 | Cite as

Habitat monitoring in Europe: a description of current practices

  • Szabolcs Lengyel
  • Eszter Déri
  • Zoltán Varga
  • Roland Horváth
  • Béla Tóthmérész
  • Pierre-Yves Henry
  • Andrej Kobler
  • Lado Kutnar
  • Valerija Babij
  • Andrej Seliškar
  • Chysoula Christia
  • Eva Papastergiadou
  • Bernd Gruber
  • Klaus Henle
Original Paper

Abstract

Monitoring of biodiversity at the level of habitats is becoming increasingly common. Here we describe current practices in habitat monitoring based on 150 schemes in Europe. Most schemes were initiated after 1990 in response to EU nature directives or habitat management/restoration actions, with funding mostly from European or national sources. Schemes usually monitor both the spatial distribution and the quality of the habitats, and they frequently collect data on environmental parameters and potential causes of changes. Many schemes are local or regional rather than national or international in scope, and sampling effort varies greatly across spatial and temporal scales. Experimental design is used in half of the schemes, however, data are rarely analysed by advanced statistics. Most schemes require two months or less per year in manpower and are typically run by professionals rather than by volunteers. Estimated salaries plus equipment costs average 650,000 Euro per year per scheme, and add up to 80 million Euros annually. Costs are particularly high for schemes based on European or international law and for schemes funded by European or national sources. Costs are also high in schemes in which sampling sites are selected subjectively rather than based on sampling theory, and in schemes that do not use field mapping or remote sensing to document spatial variation in habitats. Our survey demonstrates promising developments in European habitat monitoring but also underlines the need for better spatial coverage, documentation of spatial variaton, improved sampling design and advanced data analysis. Such improvements are essential if we are to judge progress towards the 2010 biodiversity targets.

Keywords

2010 target Biodiversity research Ecosystem monitoring Habitats Directive Nature conservation 

References

  1. Asner GP, Knapp DE, Broadbent EN et al (2005) Selective logging in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 310:480–482. doi:10.1126/science.1118051 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakker JP, Olff H, Willems JH et al (1996) Why do we need permanent plots in the study of long-term vegetation dynamics? J Veg Sci 7:147–156. doi:10.2307/3236314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balmford A, Green RE, Jenkins M (2003) Measuring the changing state of nature. Trends Ecol Evol 18:326–330. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00067-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bock M, Xofis P, Mitchley J et al (2005) Object-oriented methods for habitat mapping at multiple scales—case studies from Northern Germany and Wye Downs, UK. J Nat Conserv 13:75–89. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2004.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Council of the European Communities (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Official J Eur Commun, series L, 206:7–50Google Scholar
  6. Devillers P, Devillers-Terschuren J, Ledant JP (1991) CORINE biotopes manual—habitats of the European community. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  7. Di Stefano J (2001) Power analysis and sustainable forest management. For Ecol Manage 154:141–153. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00627-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duro DC, Coops NC, Wulder MA et al (2007) Development of a large area biodiversity monitoring system driven by remote sensing. Prog Phys Geogr 31:235–260. doi:10.1177/0309133307079054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Gottschalk TK, Huettmann F, Ehlers M (2005) Thirty years of analysing and modelling avian habitat relationships using satellite imagery data: a review. Int J Remote Sens 26:2631–2656. doi:10.1080/01431160512331338041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gregory RD, van Strien A, Vorisek P et al (2005) Developing indicators for European birds. Philos Trans R Soc B 360:269–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Groom MJ, Meffe GK, Carroll R (2006) Principles of conservation biology, 3rd edn. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  13. Heer M, de Kapos V, ten Brink BJE (2005) Biodiversity trends in Europe: development and testing of a species trend indicator for evaluating progress towards the 2,010 target. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 360:297–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hellawell JM (1991) Development of a rationale for monitoring. In: Goldsmith FB (ed) Monitoring for conservation and ecology. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  15. Henry P-Y, Lengyel S, Nowicki P, Julliard R, Clobert J, Čelik T, Gruber B, Schmeller DS, Babij V, Henle K Integrating ongoing biodiversity monitoring: potential benefits and methods. Biodivers Conserv (this issue)Google Scholar
  16. Legg CJ, Nagy L (2006) Why most conservation monitoring is, but need not be, a waste of time. J Environ Manage 78:194–199. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.04.016 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lengyel S, Kobler A, Kutnar L, Framstad E, Henry P-Y, Babij V, Gruber B, Schmeller D, Henle K (2008) A review and a framework for the integration of biodiversity monitoring at the habitat level. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9359-7
  18. Lengyel S, Tóthmérész B, Henry P-Y et al What determines scientific quality and cost-effectiveness in European habitat monitoring? An evaluation and a method. Conserv Biol (in review)Google Scholar
  19. Mace G, Delbaere B, Hanski I et al (2005) A user’s guide to biodiversity indicators. Eur Acad Sci Advis Counc. Available at http://www.easac.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id = 44
  20. Nagendra H (2001) Using remote sensing to assess biodiversity. Int J Remote Sens 22:2377–2400. doi:10.1080/01431160117096 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hiearchical approach. Conserv Biol 4:355–364. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1990.tb00309.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Papastergiadou ES, Retalis A, Kalliris P et al (2007) Land use changes and associated environmental impacts on the mediterranean shallow lake Stymfalia, Greece. Hydrobiologia 584:361–372. doi:10.1007/s10750-007-0606-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pereira HM, Cooper HD (2006) Towards the global monitoring of biodiversity change. Trends Ecol Evol 21:123–129. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.015 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peres CA, Barlow J, Laurance WF (2006) Detecting anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests. Trends Ecol Evol 21:227–229. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.03.007 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Platt JR (1964) Strong inference. Science 146:347–353. doi:10.1126/science.146.3642.347 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Polastre J, Szewczyk R, Mainwaring A et al (2004) Analysis of wireless sensor networks for habitat monitoring. In: Raghavendra CS, Sivalingam KM, Znati T (eds) Wireless sensor networks. Springer US, New York, pp 399–423Google Scholar
  27. Popper KR (1968) The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Schmeller DS, Henry P-Y, Julliard R, Clobert J, Gruber B, Dziock F, Lengyel S, Nowicki P, Déri E, Budrys E, Kull T, Tali K, Bauch B, Settele J, van Swaay C, Kobler A, Babij V, Papastergiadou E, Henle K. Advantages of volunteer-based biodiversity monitoring in Europe. Conserv Biol (in review)Google Scholar
  29. Scholes RJ, Biggs R (2005) A biodiversity intactness index. Nature 434:45–49. doi:10.1038/nature03289 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Turner W, Spector S, Gardiner N et al (2003) Remote sensing for biodiversity science and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 18:306–314. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00070-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Underwood AJ (1997) Experiments in ecology. Their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) (2004) World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). http://www.unep-wcmc.org/wdbpa Cited 31 Aug 2007
  33. White PCL, Jennings NV, Renwick AR et al (2005) Questionnaires in ecology: a review of past use and recommendations for best practice. J Appl Ecol 42:421–430. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01032.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. World Bank (2006) World Development Indicators. http://go.worldbank.org/QKRICC4WI0, Cited 31 Aug 2007
  35. Yoccoz N, Nichols JD, Boulinier T (2001) Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time. Trends Ecol Evol 16:446–453. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02205-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Szabolcs Lengyel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Eszter Déri
    • 3
  • Zoltán Varga
    • 3
  • Roland Horváth
    • 3
  • Béla Tóthmérész
    • 1
  • Pierre-Yves Henry
    • 4
  • Andrej Kobler
    • 5
  • Lado Kutnar
    • 5
  • Valerija Babij
    • 6
  • Andrej Seliškar
    • 6
  • Chysoula Christia
    • 7
  • Eva Papastergiadou
    • 7
  • Bernd Gruber
    • 8
  • Klaus Henle
    • 8
  1. 1.Department of EcologyUniversity of DebrecenDebrecenHungary
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  3. 3.Department of Evolutionary Zoology and Human BiologyUniversity of DebrecenDebrecenHungary
  4. 4.UMR 5173 & UMR 7179, Département Écologie et Gestion de la BiodiversitéMuséum National d’Histoire NaturelleParisFrance
  5. 5.Department of Forest EcologySlovenian Forestry InstituteLjubljanaSlovenia
  6. 6.Jovan Hadži Institute of Biology, Scientific Research Centre of Slovenian Academy of Sciences and ArtsLjubljanaSlovenia
  7. 7.Department of BiologyPlant Ecology and Ecosystems Management, University of PatrasPatrasGreece
  8. 8.Department of Conservation BiologyUFZ-Helmholtz Centre for Environmental ResearchLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations