The network BiodiversityKnowledge in practice: insights from three trial assessments

In order to develop BiodiversityKnowledge, a Network of Knowledge working at the European science–policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services, we conducted three trial assessments. Their purpose was to test structure and processes of the knowledge synthesis function and to produce knowledge syntheses. The trial assessments covered conservation and management of kelp ecosystems, biological control of agricultural pests, and conservation and multifunctional management of floodplains. Following the BiodiversityKnowledge processes, we set up expert consultations, systematic reviews, and collaborative adaptive management procedures in collaboration with requesters, policy and decision-makers, stakeholders, and knowledge holders. Outputs included expert consultations, systematic review protocols, a group model and a policy brief. Important lessons learned were firstly that the scoping process, in which requesters and experts iteratively negotiate the scope, scale and synthesis methodology, is of paramount importance to maximize the scientific credibility and policy relevance of the output. Secondly, selection of a broad array of experts with diverse and complementary skills (including multidisciplinary background and a broad geographical coverage) and participation of all relevant stakeholders is crucial to ensure an adequate breath of expertise, better methodological choices, and maximal uptake of outcomes: Thirdly, as the most important challenge was expert and stakeholder engagement, a high visibility and reputation of BiodiversityKnowledge, supported by an incentive system for participation, will be crucial to ensure such engagement. We conclude that BiodiversityKnowledge has potential for a good performance in delivering assessments, but it requires adequate funding, trust-building among knowledge holders and stakeholders, and a proactive and robust interface with the policy and decision making communityPeer reviewe

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

Species richness in dry grassland patches of eastern Austria: A multi-taxon study on the role of local, landscape and habitat quality variables

AbstractAccording to island biogeography theory, the species richness of patches is determined by their size and spatial isolation, while in conservation practice, it is patch quality that determines protection and guides management. We analysed whether size, isolation or habitat quality are most important for the species richness in a set of 50 dry grassland fragments in agricultural landscapes of eastern Austria. We studied two plant taxa (vascular plants, bryophytes) and 11 invertebrate taxa (gastropods, spiders, springtails, grasshoppers, true bugs, leafhoppers and planthoppers, ground beetles, rove beetles, butterflies and burnets, ants and wild bees). The species richness of three categories was analysed: (1) dry grassland specialist species, (2) all grassland species and (3) all species. We used regression and hierarchical partitioning techniques to determine the relationship between species richness and environmental variables describing patch size and shape, patch quality, landscape configuration and landscape quality. The area-isolation paradigm was only applicable for dry grassland specialists, which comprised 12% of all species. Richness of all grassland species was determined mostly by landscape heterogeneity parameters. Total species richness was highly influenced by spillover from adjacent biotopes, and was significantly determined by the percentage of arable land bordering the patches. When analysing all taxa together, species richness of dry grassland specialists was significantly related to historical patch size but not to current patch size, indicating an extinction debt. At the landscape scale, the variable ‘short-grass area’ was a better predictor than the less specific variable ‘area of extensively used landscape elements’. ‘Distance to mainland’ was a good predictor for specialists of mobile animal taxa. Plant specialists showed a pronounced dependence on quality measures at the patch scale and at the landscape scale, whereas animal specialists were influenced by patch size, patch quality, landscape quality and isolation measures. None of the taxa benefited from linear structures in the surroundings. In conclusion, high patch quality and a network of high-quality areas in the surrounding landscape should be the best conservation strategy to ensure conservation of dry grassland specialists. This goal does not conflict with the specific demands of single taxa

Do landscape patterns reflect ecosystem service provision? – A comparison between protected and unprotected areas throughout the Lake Neusiedl region. eco.mont (Journal on Protected Mountain Areas Research)|eco.mont Vol. 6 No. 2 6 2|

Nowadays, anthropogenic landscape fragmentation and land-use change are recognized as major driving forces for the ongoing worldwide loss of biodiversity. Though nature conservation areas, such as Austria’s national parks, serve as retreat habitats for a broad range of biota, they are embedded in a complex of landscapes where diverse conflicts of interests meet, for instance tourism, agriculture and nature conservation. As a first step to improving the multifunctional quality of landscapes in terms of connectivity and flows of energy, material and information across the boundaries of protected zones, the status quo of such landscape mosaics has to be evaluated. The main aim of this study was to test if protected areas generally supply a higher share of environment-related ecosystem services than the surrounding landscape. We also investigated to which extent the structural composition and configuration of landscape sections reflects their volume of ecosystem service provision. We selected our study sites within the Austrian-Hungarian transnational study region around Lake Neusiedl and developed a methodological framework for assessing and mapping ecosystem services based on expert knowledge, spatial information and field data. The crucial linkage between landscape structure and its contribution for sustaining distinct ecological key functions was investigated through comprehensive use of landscape metrics, habitat and connectivity mapping. We were able to verify that levels of ecosystem service provision as well as the share and function of ecologically viable landscape elements were higher within the national park and that a statistical correlation between the aforementioned assessments exists. The outcomes of this study may support local stakeholders with valuable information on the service provision capacity and functional state inside and outside protected landscapes and illustrate hot and cold spots of network patterns. This in turn will allow the development of well-focused and efficient planning measures to strengthen ecosystematic functioning in terms of sustainable landscape development vis-à-vis society