Mapping Succession in Non-Forest Habitats by Means of Remote Sensing: Is the Data Acquisition Time Critical for Species Discrimination?

The process of secondary succession is one of themost significant threats to non-forest (natural and semi-natural open) Natura 2000 habitats in Poland; shrub and tree encroachment taking place on abandoned, low productive agricultural areas, historically used as pastures or meadows, leads to changes to the composition of species and biodiversity loss, and results in landscape transformations. There is a perceived need to create amethodology for themonitoring of vegetation succession by airborne remote sensing, both from quantitative (area, volume) and qualitative (plant species) perspectives. This is likely to become a very important issue for the effective protection of natural and semi-natural habitats and to advance conservation planning. A key variable to be established when implementing a qualitative approach is the remote sensing data acquisition date, which determines the developmental stage of trees and shrubs forming the succession process. It is essential to choose the optimal date on which the spectral and geometrical characteristics of the species are as different from each other as possible. As part of the research presented here, we compare classifications based on remote sensing data acquired during three different parts of the growing season (spring, summer and autumn) for five study areas. The remote sensing data used include high-resolution hyperspectral imagery and LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data acquired simultaneously from a common aerial platform. Classifications are done using the random forest algorithm, and the set of features to be classified is determined by a recursive feature elimination procedure. The results show that the time of remote sensing data acquisition influences the possibility of differentiating succession species. This was demonstrated by significant differences in the spatial extent of species, which ranged from 33.2% to 56.2% when comparing pairs of maps, and differences in classification accuracies, which when expressed in values of Cohen’s Kappa reached ~0.2. For most of the analysed species, the spring and autumn dates turned out to be slightly more favourable than the summer one. However, the final recommendation for the data acquisition time should take into consideration th

Assessing the role of EO in biodiversity monitoring: options for integrating in-situ observations with EO within the context of the EBONE concept

The European Biodiversity Observation Network (EBONE) is a European contribution on terrestrial monitoring to GEO BON, the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network. EBONE’s aims are to develop a system of biodiversity observation at regional, national and European levels by assessing existing approaches in terms of their validity and applicability starting in Europe, then expanding to regions in Africa. The objective of EBONE is to deliver: 1. A sound scientific basis for the production of statistical estimates of stock and change of key indicators; 2. The development of a system for estimating past changes and forecasting and testing policy options and management strategies for threatened ecosystems and species; 3. A proposal for a cost-effective biodiversity monitoring system. There is a consensus that Earth Observation (EO) has a role to play in monitoring biodiversity. With its capacity to observe detailed spatial patterns and variability across large areas at regular intervals, our instinct suggests that EO could deliver the type of spatial and temporal coverage that is beyond reach with in-situ efforts. Furthermore, when considering the emerging networks of in-situ observations, the prospect of enhancing the quality of the information whilst reducing cost through integration is compelling. This report gives a realistic assessment of the role of EO in biodiversity monitoring and the options for integrating in-situ observations with EO within the context of the EBONE concept (cfr. EBONE-ID1.4). The assessment is mainly based on a set of targeted pilot studies. Building on this assessment, the report then presents a series of recommendations on the best options for using EO in an effective, consistent and sustainable biodiversity monitoring scheme. The issues that we faced were many: 1. Integration can be interpreted in different ways. One possible interpretation is: the combined use of independent data sets to deliver a different but improved data set; another is: the use of one data set to complement another dataset. 2. The targeted improvement will vary with stakeholder group: some will seek for more efficiency, others for more reliable estimates (accuracy and/or precision); others for more detail in space and/or time or more of everything. 3. Integration requires a link between the datasets (EO and in-situ). The strength of the link between reflected electromagnetic radiation and the habitats and their biodiversity observed in-situ is function of many variables, for example: the spatial scale of the observations; timing of the observations; the adopted nomenclature for classification; the complexity of the landscape in terms of composition, spatial structure and the physical environment; the habitat and land cover types under consideration. 4. The type of the EO data available varies (function of e.g. budget, size and location of region, cloudiness, national and/or international investment in airborne campaigns or space technology) which determines its capability to deliver the required output. EO and in-situ could be combined in different ways, depending on the type of integration we wanted to achieve and the targeted improvement. We aimed for an improvement in accuracy (i.e. the reduction in error of our indicator estimate calculated for an environmental zone). Furthermore, EO would also provide the spatial patterns for correlated in-situ data. EBONE in its initial development, focused on three main indicators covering: (i) the extent and change of habitats of European interest in the context of a general habitat assessment; (ii) abundance and distribution of selected species (birds, butterflies and plants); and (iii) fragmentation of natural and semi-natural areas. For habitat extent, we decided that it did not matter how in-situ was integrated with EO as long as we could demonstrate that acceptable accuracies could be achieved and the precision could consistently be improved. The nomenclature used to map habitats in-situ was the General Habitat Classification. We considered the following options where the EO and in-situ play different roles: using in-situ samples to re-calibrate a habitat map independently derived from EO; improving the accuracy of in-situ sampled habitat statistics, by post-stratification with correlated EO data; and using in-situ samples to train the classification of EO data into habitat types where the EO data delivers full coverage or a larger number of samples. For some of the above cases we also considered the impact that the sampling strategy employed to deliver the samples would have on the accuracy and precision achieved. Restricted access to European wide species data prevented work on the indicator ‘abundance and distribution of species’. With respect to the indicator ‘fragmentation’, we investigated ways of delivering EO derived measures of habitat patterns that are meaningful to sampled in-situ observations

Potential Analysis for Further Nature Conservation in Azerbaijan

Financed by the MAVA Foundation (Switzerland), the Michael Succow Foundation (MSF), in cooperation with various experts from Azerbaijan, conducted a detailed gap analysis of potential future protected areas in Azerbaijan. This report presents the results of this project and constitutes a part of the strategy of the MSF: to provide sound background information on the biological value and its further potential for protection in Azerbaijan. From the very beginning of the foundation’s engagement in Azerbaijan nine years ago, the sciencebased protection of landscapes and species has been the main focus of our work in the country.researc

Potential Analysis for Further Nature Conservation in Azerbaijan: A Spatial and Political Investment Strategy

Financed by the MAVA Foundation (Switzerland), the Michael Succow Foundation (MSF), in cooperation with various experts from Azerbaijan, conducted a detailed gap analysis of potential future protected areas in Azerbaijan. This report presents the results of this project and constitutes a part of the strategy of the MSF: to provide sound background information on the biological value and its further potential for protection in Azerbaijan. From the very beginning of the foundation’s engagement in Azerbaijan nine years ago, the sciencebased protection of landscapes and species has been the main focus of our work in the country.researc

Forest landscapes and global change. New frontiers in management, conservation and restoration. Proceedings of the IUFRO Landscape Ecology Working Group International Conference

This volume contains the contributions of numerous participants at the IUFRO Landscape Ecology Working Group International Conference, which took place in Bragança, Portugal, from 21 to 24 of September 2010. The conference was dedicated to the theme Forest Landscapes and Global Change - New Frontiers in Management, Conservation and Restoration. The 128 papers included in this book follow the structure and topics of the conference. Sections 1 to 8 include papers relative to presentations in 18 thematic oral and two poster sessions. Section 9 is devoted to a wide-range of landscape ecology fields covered in the 12 symposia of the conference. The Proceedings of the IUFRO Landscape Ecology Working Group International Conference register the growth of scientific interest in forest landscape patterns and processes, and the recognition of the role of landscape ecology in the advancement of science and management, particularly within the context of emerging physical, social and political drivers of change, which influence forest systems and the services they provide. We believe that these papers, together with the presentations and debate which took place during the IUFRO Landscape Ecology Working Group International Conference – Bragança 2010, will definitively contribute to the advancement of landscape ecology and science in general. For their additional effort and commitment, we thank all the participants in the conference for leaving this record of their work, thoughts and science

Linking and Harmonizing Forest Spatial Pattern Analyses at European, National and Regional Scales for a Better Characterization of Forest Vulnerability and Resilience

The project ¿Linking and harmonizing the forests spatial pattern analyses at European, national and regional scales for a better characterization of the forests vulnerability and resilience¿ (JRC contract 382391 F1SC) covers one of the seven topics to be studied in the frame of the Regulation (EC) 2152/2003 on the monitoring of forest and environmental interactions, the so-called "Forest Focus" Regulation. It first demonstrates the application of the mathematical morphology based forest spatial pattern analysis tool developed at the Joint Research Centre (GUIDOS); it then develops one index related to potential forest vulnerability, resistance and resilience (FVRR index) on the basis of multi-criteria fuzzy modelling technics. Its final aim is to address linkages between forest spatial pattern and forest ecological functionality with emphasis on forest vulnerability, resistance, resilience. This study was conducted by a European consortium coordinated by the University of Molise (Italy) and included partners from the University of Hamburg (Germany), the European Forest Institute (Finland) and the Forest Research (United Kingdom). The overall supervision of the project and the processing of forest spatial pattern were done by the Joint Research Centre.JRC.DDG.H.7-Land management and natural hazard