Vegetations- und landschaftsökologische Indikatoren des Kulturlandschaftswandels

Österreichische Kulturlandschaften sind heutzutage stark von intensiver Bewirtschaftung und naturferner Biotopausstattung geprägt. In einer stark transformierten Agrarlandschaft wird linearen, naturnahen Biotopen eine besondere Bedeutung für den Erhalt der Biodiversität zugeschrieben. McCollin et al. (2000) betonen die Eignung von Hecken als Refugial und Habitat für Waldrandarten. In einer agrarisch geprägten Landschaft erfüllen Hecken eine wichtige Funktion als Korridore für Tiere und Pflanzen (Forman & Godron 1986). Die Veränderung der Kulturlandschaften in Zuge der Industrialisierung zeigt sich auch in der Struktur der Landschaft. Peterseil et al. (2004) beschreiben die Landschaftsstruktur sensu Forman & Godron (1986) als guten Prädiktor für Biodiversität als auch für die jeweilige Landnutzungsintensität. Diese Arbeit basiert auf dem Projekt „Landschaftsökologische Strukturmerkmale als Indikatoren der Nachhaltigkeit (SINUS)“ (Wrbka et al. 1999, Peterseil et al. 2004). Knapp fünfzehn Jahre nach den in Zuge von SINUS durchgeführten Kartierungen wurden in dieser Arbeit a) landschaftsökologische Entwicklungen in den ausgewählten Quadranten im Wiener Becken beschrieben und b) die Eignung der in Zuge von SINUS verwendeten Landschaftstrukturmerkmale als Indikatoren des Landschaftswandels getestet. Zusätzlich wurde die Auswirkung der Landnutzung auf die Vegetation der Hecken untersucht. In Zuge dessen sollte die Eignung der Hecken als potentielle Indikatoren des Landschaftswandels geprüft werden. Die Ergebnisse dieser Arbeit zeigen einen starken Trend zur Polarisierung der Landschaft. Intensivierungen auf der einen Seite und Brachlegung, bzw. Umwandlung weniger rentabler Flächen auf der anderen Seite konnten festgestellt werden. Ebenso zeigen die Ergebnisse meiner Arbeit einen Verlust an linearen, naturnahen Elementen wie Hecken und Feldraine. Die verwendeten Landschaftsstrukturmerkmale wurden auf ihre Eignung als Indikatoren geprüft, wobei sich vor allem die Merkmale, die die Störungsintensität oder das Regenerationspotential von Flächen beschreiben als am besten geeignet erwiesen. Durch einen Vergleich der Assoziationen in den unterschiedlichen Quadranten und durch die Anwendung eines multivariaten Ansatzes, bei dem ein Set von „Landscape Metrics“ verwendet wurde konnte ein Zusammenhang zwischen der Landnutzung bzw. der Landschaftsstruktur und der Heckenvegetation festgestellt werden. Vor allem der Anschluss zu großflächigeren Gehölzgruppen und eine möglichst große Distanz zu intensiv genutzten Agrarflächen scheinen eine entscheidende Rolle für die Artenzusammensetzung in Hecken zu spielen.Today Austrian cultural landscapes are characterised by intensive agriculture and more or less non-natural biotopes. Surrounded by heaviliy modified landscapes the often isolated remnants are not able to fulfil their function anymore (Loos 1995). In a transformed agricultural landscape, linear semi-natural landscape elements are of great importance for biodiversity conservation. McCollin et al. (2000) emphasise the suitability of hedges as refugial habitats for forest edge species. In intensive agricultural landscapes hedges are substantial as corridors for plants and animals (Forman & Godron 1986). The transformation of cultural landscapes during the industrialisation also affects landscape structure. Peterseil et al. (2004) describe landscape structure sensu Forman & Godron (1986) as a good predictor for biodiversity and land use intensity. This study is based on the results of the project „SINUS“ (Wrbka et al. 1999, Peterseil et al. 2004). Almost fifteen years after the landscape structure mappings in context of SINUS, this study a) investigates potential changes on landscape level in the selected research areas in the Vienna Basin and b) examines the suitability of landscape features in context of SINUS as indicators of landscape changes. Also the impact of land use on hedge vegetation was investigated, examining the suitability of hedges as potential indicators of landscape change. The results of this study indicate a trend towards landscape polarisation. Intensification of agriculture on the one hand and abandonment or transformation of less-profitable areas on the other hand were discovered. Also a loss of linear, semi-natural landscape elements, such as hedgerows and field margins, could be shown. The suitability of the landscape features (Wrbka et al. 1997, Peterseil et al. 2004) as indicators were investigated, showing that above all, features discribing anthropogenic disturbance or regeneration were the most appropriate for detecting landscape changes. By comparing plant communities of the research areas and using a multivariate approach, based on a set of landscape metrics, there has been a significant correlation between variables describing land use/landscape structure and hedge vegetation. Above all, connections to wide areas of wooded groves and a maximum distance to intensive agricultural areas seemed to be crucial for species composition in hedges.

Floodplain management in temperate regions : is multifunctionality enhancing biodiversity?

Background: Floodplains are among the most diverse, dynamic, productive and populated but also the most threatened ecosystems on Earth. Threats are mainly related to human activities that alter the landscape and disrupt fluvial processes to obtain benefits related to multiple ecosystem services (ESS). Floodplain management therefore requires close coordination among interest groups with competing claims and poses multi-dimensional challenges to policy-makers and project managers. The European Commission proposed in its recent Biodiversity Strategy to maintain and enhance European ecosystems and their services by establishing green infrastructure (GI). GI is assumed to provide multiple ecosystem functions and services including the conservation of biodiversity in the same spatial area. However, evidence for biodiversity benefits of multifunctional floodplain management is scattered and has not been synthesised. Methods/design: This protocol specifies the methods for conducting a systematic review to answer the following policy-relevant questions: a) what is the impact of floodplain management measures on biodiversity; b) how does the impact vary according to the level of multifunctionality of the measures; c) is there a difference in the biodiversity impact of floodplain management across taxa; d) what is the effect of the time since implementation on the impact of the most important measures; and e) are there any other factors that significantly modify the biodiversity impact of floodplain management measures? Within this systematic review we will assess multifunctionality in terms of ESS that are affected by an implemented intervention. Biodiversity indicators included in this systematic review will be related to the diversity, richness and abundance of species, other taxa or functional groups. We will consider if organisms are typical for and native to natural floodplain ecosystems. Specific inclusion criteria have been developed and the wide range of quality of primary literature will be evaluated with a tailor-made system for assessing susceptibility to bias and the reliability of the studies. The review is intended to bridge the science-policy interface and will provide a useful synthesis of knowledge for decision-makers at all governance levels

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL Open Access

Background: Floodplains are among the most diverse, dynamic, productive and populated but also the most threatened ecosystems on Earth. Threats are mainly related to human activities that alter the landscape and disrupt fluvial processes to obtain benefits related to multiple ecosystem services (ESS). Floodplain management therefore requires close coordination among interest groups with competing claims and poses multi-dimensional challenges to policy-makers and project managers. The European Commission proposed in its recent Biodiversity Strategy to maintain and enhance European ecosystems and their services by establishing green infrastructure (GI). GI is assumed to provide multiple ecosystem functions and services including the conservation of biodiversity in the same spatial area. However, evidence for biodiversity benefits of multifunctional floodplain management is scattered and has not been synthesised. Methods/design: This protocol specifies the methods for conducting a systematic review to answer the following policy-relevant questions: a) what is the impact of floodplain management measures on biodiversity; b) how does the impact vary according to the level of multifunctionality of the measures; c) is there a difference in the biodiversity impact of floodplain management across taxa; d) what is the effect of the time since implementation on the impact of the most important measures; and e) are there any other factors that significantly modify the biodiversity impact o

Multifunctional floodplain management and biodiversity effects : a knowledge synthesis for six European countries

Floodplain ecosystems are biodiversity hotspots and supply multiple ecosystem services. At the same time they are often prone to human pressures that increasingly impact their intactness. Multifunctional floodplain management can be defined as a management approach aimed at a balanced supply of multiple ecosystem services that serve the needs of the local residents, but also those of off-site populations that are directly or indirectly impacted by floodplain management and policies. Multifunctional floodplain management has been recently proposed as a key concept to reconcile biodiversity and ecosystem services with the various human pressures and their driving forces. In this paper we present biophysics and management history of floodplains and review recent multifunctional management approaches and evidence for their biodiversity effects for the six European countries Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, Slovakia, Hungary and the Ukraine. Multifunctional use of floodplains is an increasingly important strategy in some countries, for instance in the Netherlands and Hungary, and management of floodplains goes hand in hand with sustainable economic activities resulting in flood safety and biodiversity conservation. As a result, biodiversity is increasing in some of the areas where multifunctional floodplain management approaches are implemented. We conclude that for efficient use of management resources and ecosystem services, consensual solutions need to be realized and biodiversity needs to be mainstreamed into management activities to maximize ecosystem service provision and potential human benefits. Multifunctionality is more successful where a broad range of stakeholders with diverse expertise and interests are involved in all stages of planning and implementation