Transcript Human impact and its mitigation

Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Islands and Archipelagos
Species survival in fragmented landscapes
(Human impact and its mitigation)
G. Kaule
European biodiversity issues seen from the Atlantic
Açores 15th of May
Ç
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Principle of survival of structured populations in habitat patterns
The tidal model and its metamorphic application in landscapes
Human impact on habitat patterns (connectivity)
Consequences for the design of NATURA 2000 and the national and local habitat
networks and nature reserve system
Examples: Environmental impact assessment and mitigation measures
Agro-policy and suitability of the landscape matrix
Intensification of cereal production
agro schemes and their impact on
habitat quality and landscape connectivity
Infrastructure Highway planning near Halle
Baltic Sea highway
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
The validated model ( Oedipoda
caerulescens after Kuhn 1998)
shows that the viability of the
population in one large or several
small habitats is the same.
The incidence in one large patch
(for this species 1ha) and a high
connectivity (density of the islands
in the archipelago) results in the
same value
Incidence :
likelihood that a patch is permanently settled
Connectivity: value of likelihood of individual exchange and recolonisation
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Maintaining biodiversity we need:
•islands (secure habitats, refuges) = nature reserves inclusive buffer zones controlling nutrient and
other disturbance inputs and invasion of competitive species)
NATURA 2000 network and national nature reserve systems
•biodiversity ”highways” for normal migration and population exchange = specifically managed
corridors which integrate economic production with maintaining sub-optimal habitat qualities ( e.g.
flooded plains, forest belts, sheep migration corridors (Trans- humans)
NATURA 2000 corridors and co-ordinated national system
•temporary footpaths for colonisation and re-colonisation = the black box in the system.
local systems, e.g. forest edge habitats, field margins, fallow land
•sub-optimal habitats for buffering stochastic events and creeping landscape changes and for
stabilisation of populations (extensively used, marginal land). In the model these are temporary
islands in extreme years.
productive meadows but with limited intensity; forests with indigenous tree species and
long turn over rates; low input arable land (combined with water protection zones)
•limited land use intensity considering the natural productivity and landscape vulnerability
(minimum habitat quality of arable land, plantations e.t.c. minimum standard of biodiversity)
controlled production systems in the landscape matrix
controlled production systems in the landscape matrix
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and examples of mitigation measures
•The existing and planned stable network of human infrastructure and permanent intensive
managed (stabilised) land use systems are controversy to dynamic processes and cause
in naturally extreme years cumulative impacts.
•mitigation measures in modern land use systems:
related to transportation systems
need of changes in the agricultural land use policy (Agenda 2000)
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
(Case Studies: Highway north of Halle)
•All alternatives cross the fertile loess plain with porphyric hills covered with dry grassland
•The hills are islands in large fields
•Target of the case study (Kuhn 1998) are:
Direct habitat losses
Losses of connectivity in the archipelago
•The indicator species is Oedipoda caerulescens
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Using simple habitat losses alternative 4+ is the best
one and 5a the second best.
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Highway alternatives north of Halle (Sachsen-Anhalt):
Direct impact on dry grassland habitats and connectivity losses using
Oedipoda caerulescens as an target species
Using simple habitat losses alternative 4+ is the best one and 5a the second best.
Considering connectivity losses (reduced connectivity in the archipelago)
6a and ”north” are much better than 5a.
In the ranking the second best is switching to the worst.
This change in the ranking is important if it is necessary to find a compromise between the
demands of several species or habitat types or between biodiversity targets and social targets.
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
EIA /..FFH Baltic Sea highway near Lübeck
(For methodological reasons simplified)
The construction and the mitigation measures have to consider:
FFH corridor function of the river and the flooded plain Sand grass
ecosystems (2330 annex 1 FFH)
Map 1 :
•Each alternative is crossing FFH habitats or corridors
•The EIA indicates that one of the northern variants is less impacting
than the southern alternatives
•The decision for the southern bypass follows transportation Targets.
(Public interests to upgrade the access to southern development sites).
Map 3 :
• The highway has to cross the Wakenitz river and the valley with sand
grass ecosystems on its shoulder
•The selected diagonal crossways avoids the EU bird protection
reserve (southern) and the villages in the north.
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Map 2: Overview Lübeck and highway alternatives
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Map1: Interference of habitats and alternative roads
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Map 3: Wakenitz biodiversity corridor and highway altenatives
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Target species selection
Lutra lutra Otter
–Potential recolonisation and migration
– Representative for large undisturbed homeranges,
–use of lakes, rivers and river-side ecosystems
–floaters migrate right across the landscape
–(Kingsfisher, Bluethroat)
Crex crex Corncrake
–extensive and scattered grassland
–high fluctuation in the population size.
–stochastic use of changing breeding places.(Kite
........
Stenobotrys lineatus Grashopper
–Target species of extensive Grassland, in the specific case seoundary sand dune
grassland with high percentage of bare sand.´ (Grassland with Corynephorus)
–Migration distance “middle”.
–High connectivity of habitats necessary (several other species use the open
heath and sand grassland: saltatoria, butterflies, Woodlark, Nightjar,Tawany
Pitpit (Anthus campestris)
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Mitigation measures:
biodiversity corridor and highway
intersection
Conflict:
River and riverside ecosystems and
connectivity secondary dry sand
grassland on the slope shoulder
Landscape matrix
Crex crex, corncrake and species with
similar habitat schemes:
Extensification of wet grassland by EU
agri- environmental schemes
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
The landscape matrix, the ocean
Populations of species need the pysical existence of habitats and their patterns (size and distances),
but also sufficient or good habitat qualities. In the landscape matrix, the main space is dominantly
controlled by agriculture.
The fig. Indicates the ecologically defined basic yield (max) in the agro-climatic regions of Europe. In
average and bad years this yield is not reached (depression). The upper section in the columns
indicates the effect of intesification (fertilisation, pest control, stalk sabilisation). Forced by EU-policy,
the farmers apply high amounts to reach the maximum. But in 3-4 of 5 years this is not possible. The
surplus is lost.
Leaches from arable land cause eutrophication. 15-25% of the fertiliser input is not converted in yield
biomass. The surplus is polluting the environment, especially oligotrophic or mesotrophic habitats:
•edge habitats
•flooded plains
•swamps
•grassland
•leaches in the aquifer and by this spring and stream habitats
Eutrophication is one of one dominant factors reducing habitat quality.
The red line defines the yield level in the different regions which can be reached without high losses.
The policy should consider this in the schemes. Only production systems which remain in these limits
should be subsidised. VIc (ES) overuse of non renewable aquifers.
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
The surplus is not transformed
into biomass yields, it pollutes the
environment:
Air pollution, ammonia,
methane, nitrogen oxide
Erosion and direct run off, polluting edge
habitats, flooded plains, rivers, swamps.
Nitrate leaching, polluting
groundwater and spring ecosystems
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Effect of intesification of agro production and yield potentials in European agro-climatic regions
( Schulzke & Kaule 2000)
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
• We know basic principle of species survival in landscapes.
• We have expert knowledge to deliver answers on urgent planing .
• There is no need to wait with decisions on research results.
• We have fascinating theories and models but the way from expert
knowledge based decision finding to rule and model based
procedures is still in construction.
• From my viewpoint we can structure it in three steps:
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
(1) Priority action
Compilation of national species data bases:
–habitat schemes; life cycle, bottlenecks
–Population dynamics (fluctuation)
–distributional range; actual records, situation of the population
–habitat development
–indicator value,
–specific suitability to forecast impact effects, e.g. road fragmentation,
eutrophication
EU-wide comparative analysis of national data base:
changes of habitat requirement in the distributional range
Refinement of FFH list
link of the species data base to the FFH list
Identification of gaps and additional research needs
especially important species with data deficits
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
(2) key action and research
• Standardisation of biodiversity investigations and evaluation, especially:
-Environmental impact studies
-agro-environmental schemes
• Minimum standard of integration of biodiversity in planning
• Biodiversity indicator systems in the landscape scale
”how many species describe a landscape?”
target species selection
• Design of monitoring programmes
quantitative population development of key species
• Tools in GIS-supported integrated biodiversity evaluation
species data base: habitat schemes; life cycle. population
dynamics; distributional data
environmental data base; Land use, physical factors
• Integration of biodiversity protection and land use systems.
Development of actions (approaches) maintaining biodiversity with new socioeconomic programmes
•Identification of gaps and additional needed research
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Example for Integration of
biodiversity protection and
land use systems.
Abb.1: South German Transhumanz
Abb.2: migrating sheepherd
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Fragmented dry grassland
habitats and major road
systems (Swabian Jura)
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
Human impact and its mitigation
G. Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG
(3) key research priorities
field research - model input
•Life cycle, population dynamics, habitat schemes (PVA) of key species. Validated results in research
programmes with min. 3 years period.
Model development, simplification and adoption to practice
•Importance of stochastic events in population dynamics especially for (re)-colonisation processes;
Landscape dynamics and population dynamics
•Dependence of habitat networks (key species) on the landscape matrix
Interactions of matter and energy flow
Biodiversity indicator systems in the landscape scale (model input)
model and tool development
•Methods of generation of sufficient data base from incomplete data:
Combination of point data of species with habitat characteristics in a data base;
Validation control of generated results
•GIS and model supported population analysis.
Methods and examples of (semi-) quantitive population analysis in landscape scale
(from incidence to semi-quantitative methods)
•scale dependence of models and methods, upscaling and downscaling; cross scale development of
model families
© Kaule, Stuttgart University FRG