A review and a framework for the integration of biodiversity monitoring at the habitat level

Abstract

The monitoring of biodiversity at the level of habitats is becoming widespread in Europe and elsewhere as countries establish national habitat monitoring systems and various organisations initiate regional and local schemes. Parallel to this growth, it is increasingly important to address biodiversity changes on large spatial (e.g. continental) and temporal (e.g. decade-long) scales, which requires the integration of currently ongoing monitoring efforts. Here we review habitat monitoring and develop a framework for integrating data or activities across habitat monitoring schemes. We first identify three basic properties of monitoring activities: spatial aspect (explicitly spatial vs. non-spatial), documentation of spatial variation (field mapping vs. remote sensing) and coverage of habitats (all habitats or specific habitats in an area), and six classes of monitoring schemes based on these properties. Then we explore tasks essential for integrating schemes both within and across the major classes. Finally, we evaluate the need and potential for integration of currently existing schemes by drawing on data collected on European habitat monitoring in the EuMon project. Our results suggest a dire need for integration if we are to measure biodiversity changes across large spatial and temporal scales regarding the 2010 target and beyond. We also make recommendations for an integrated pan-European habitat monitoring scheme. Such a scheme should be based on remote sensing to record changes in land cover and habitat types over large scales, with complementary field mapping using unified methodology to provide ground truthing and to monitor small-scale changes, at least in habitat types of conservation importance.

On the Use of Maps and Models in Conservation and Resource Management (Warning: Results May Vary)

“…Critiques on the lack of standardization of methods for robust decision-making have been made for many years in both terrestrial and marine conservation (e.g., Laffoley and Hiscock, 1993;Griffiths et al, 1999;Cork et al, 2000). While those early critiques may have contributed to encouraging many countries to standardize mapping and decision-making processes (Guarinello et al, 2010;e.g., Buhl-Mortensen et al, 2015), judgment calls are still being made (Lengyel et al, 2008;Levin et al, 2014); the inconsistency in the use of different methods is still considered a challenge for decision-making and the development of robust conservation and management measures (Crossman et al, 2012;Gjerde et al, 2016). The most important outcome of standardization is arguably the comparability of the resulting maps (Howell, 2010;Davies et al, 2015) which enables, for instance, the systematic identification of priority conservation targets based on common criteria (Laffoley and Hiscock, 1993;Edgar et al, 2008), comparisons across geographic areas , and multi-temporal assessments as verification process to ensure that conservation objectives are reached (Bisack and Magnusson, 2016;Wells et al, 2016).…”

“…The main challenge for standardization is the scale of management (see Section Scale): while many individual countries are developing their own protocols (Guarinello et al, 2010), calls are being made for common frameworks for instance across the European Union (Lengyel et al, 2008;Levin et al, 2014;Howell et al, 2016) and at the international level for areas beyond national jurisdiction or for the protection of migratory species (Di Sciara et al, 2016;Gjerde et al, 2016;Wenzel et al, 2016). To save time, costs and efforts, each level of protocol should be in line with the others, which is quite challenging considering that no solution is universally applicable at all scales and in all contexts (but see Section Toward a Digital Resilience in Marine Conservation and Management).…”

“…For instance, in agricultural and peri-urban settings, landowners and other stakeholders often verify that the maps/models reflect the reality of the landscape, forcing the mapmaker to ensure that the appropriate data are collected and are representative of the environment, that the method used to produce the maps/models is sound and adequate, and that the output is robust (Wintle et al, 2005). In contrast, data from the marine environment that are used in the production of maps and models are not always easily accessible for decision-makers and stakeholders to further investigate (Lengyel et al, 2008;Cvitanovic et al, 2014).…”

Translating land cover/land use classifications to habitat taxonomies for landscape monitoring: a Mediterranean assessment

“…Habitats offer greater scope for linking EO data to biodiversity (Nagendra 2001). Hence, there is often a need to translate LC/LU maps to those representing habitats with this undertaken through re-labelling and, where appropriate, merging of similar land cover classes (Lengyel et al 2008) and, where needed, through integrating in situ data for habitat discrimination. Difficulties nevertheless arise because of different levels of definition and criteria used by specific classification systems.…”

Comparison of Land Cover/Land Use and Habitat Classification Systems for Habitat Mapping from Space: Strengths and Weaknesses Evidenced in Mediterranean Sites of Natura 2000 Network

“…However, the focus on LC/LU mapping has detracted from the need to provide detailed information on habitats and, in many countries and regions, such mapping has already been put in place. Hence, in many cases, there is a need to translate these maps to those representing habitats with this undertaken through re-labelling and, where appropriate, merging of similar land cover classes (NAGENDRA 2001;LENGYEL et. al.…”