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

Priority questions for biodiversity conservation in the Mediterranean biome: Heterogeneous perspectives across continents and stakeholders

The identification of research questions with high relevance for biodiversity conservation is an important step towards designing more effective policies and management actions, and to better allocate funding among alternative conservation options. However, the identification of priority questions may be influenced by regional differences in biodiversity threats and social contexts, and to variations in the perceptions and interests of different stakeholders. Here we describe the results of a prioritization exercise involving six types of stakeholders from the Mediterranean biome, which includes several biodiversity hotspots spread across five regions of the planet (Europe, Africa, North and South America, and Australia). We found great heterogeneity across regions and stakeholder types in the priority topics identified and disagreement among the priorities of research scientists and other stakeholders. However, governance, climate change, and public participation issues were key topics in most regions. We conclude that the identification of research priorities should be targeted in a way that integrates the spectrum of stakeholder interests, potential funding sources and regional needs, and that further development of interdisciplinary studies is required. The key questions identified here provide a basis to identify priorities for research funding aligned with biodiversity conservation needs in this biome

Distinguishing signal from noise: Long-term studies on plant population dynamics in Makhtesh Ramon.

AgriwetenskappeBewaringsekologiePlease help us populate SUNScholar with the post print version of this article. It can be e-mailed to: [email protected]

Distinguishing signal from noise: Long-term studies on plant population dynamics in Makhtesh Ramon.

AgriwetenskappeBewaringsekologiePlease help us populate SUNScholar with the post print version of this article. It can be e-mailed to: [email protected]

The significance of habitats as indicators of biodiversity and their links to species

The first section of the paper discusses the background to the use of habitats as indicators for biodiversity including a discussion of the range of definitions that have been used. Habitats can now be recorded consistently across Europe at different time intervals in order to estimate stock and change as an indicator of biodiversity that is efficient and relatively easy to record. Habitats are considered to be the third level in a hierarchy with biomes and landscapes as higher categories and vegetation, species and genetic diversity as lower levels. An advantage of using habitats is that many other taxa are associated with them and examples are given from the literature. Examples are also given of the association between habitats and species in European Environmental Zones using expert judgement. Statistical analysis using a range of procedures can also be used to assess the association between species and habitats. Reliable data on the extent, status and changes in European habitats is essential for policy makers across the European Union and would also be important for promoting species conservation