Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 17, Issue 14, pp 3327–3339

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

DOI: 10.1007/s10531-008-9395-3

Cite this article as:
Lengyel, S., Déri, E., Varga, Z. et al. Biodivers Conserv (2008) 17: 3327. doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9395-3

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 

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