Quantifying targets for nature conservation in future European landscapes

I.AN~

URBANPLANNING

ELSEVIER

Landscape znd Urban Planmng 37 (1997) 73-84

Quantifying targets for nature conservation in future European landscapes Friedrich Duhme *, Stephan Pauleit, Hermann Baier Lehrstuhl fiir Landschafisi~kologie, Technische Unit'ersitiit Miinchen. D-85350 Freising, Germany

Abstract

One of the most important outcontes of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro was the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). Nature conservation practice in Central Europe has long been defensive, focusing on the protection of nature in reserves, on the one hand, and on the preservation of particular species, on the other. However, about two-thirds of plant and animal species in Central Europe belong to agro-ecosystems and are hence dependent on human land-uses. Biodiversity strategies have thus to be incorporated into agro-ecosystem development considerations. Results from a test study are presented to show how quantitative targets for nature conservation planning, in a fine-grained landscape of individual farming, can be developed for this purpose. Documentation on large vertebrates in Europe clearly aemonstrates that there is a connection with the coarse-grained agronomy structures of the former Eastern Bloc countries, where the~ large vertebrates are still abundant, whereas these latter are rare, endangered or already extinct in European Union (EU) countries. There is some evidence that on the large contiguous tracts of agricultural lands of the former Easteru Bloc countries, there is only sporadic disturbance owing to fanning activities (pulse disturbance) whereas, in most of the EU 'amenity' small-scale landscapes, activities on the land create a pressing disturbance for wildlife. Thus, large-scale farming is essential for the. maintenance of the more conspicuous large vertebrates. This approach towards nature conservation may he described as site-oriented land-use separation. In this respect, the 'new' Europe offers a tremendous opportunity for research networks, within which the different structures of agro-ecosys.'ems may be compared with each other (e.g. Poland, with its agroqndustrial, private and mixed systems, or South Moravia,, with intensity rings around villages, or even on a continental scale). There is a pressing need for this type of comparative research for new nature conservation strategies, to steer fundamental changes in agricultural landscapes by the new Community Agricultural Policies. Keywords: Nature Conservation Planning: Targets: Agro-ecosystems;Landscape Ecology: Large Vertebrates

1, I n t r o d u c t i o n One of the most important outcomes of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro was the Convention on

• Corresponding author. I Landesamt fiir Umwelt und Natur, Mecklenburg-Vorpommere, Wampenerstr',~e. D-17498 Neuenkirchen, Germany.

Biodiversity (CBD) which, by February. 1995~ had been signed by 114 nations (Rojas and McNee|y, 1995). The Convention was incorporated into 2~e legislation of the European Union in 1993 (CEC, 1993). In addition to this, the flora-fanna-habitats directive (CEC, 1992; Ssymank, 1994) places particular emphasis on the conservation of wildlife habitats as a prerequisite of biodiversity. From a historical perspective, biodiversity in Cen-

0169-2046/97/$17.00 Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science B.V All rights reserved. PII SO 169-2046(96)00371-4

74

F. Dahme et aL / L~mdscape and Urban Planning 37 ( IfC~7J 73-84

tral Europe is determined basically by two factors: glaciation and the various impacts of cultivation by man. Successive glaciations drastically impoverished the flora of natural Central European vegetation. Land cultivation, on the other hand, has greatly increa~d biodiversity by introducing new vegetation fomaations into the natural landscape, specifically grasslands (with a straightforward moisture gradient from fen to dry meadows) and arable lands including hedgerows, vineyards, orchards, etc. Fig. ! is an idealized representation of the change of ecosystem types and the interrelated changes of biodiversity since the end of the last glaciation in Central Europe. Accordmg to Haber (1990), the main ecosystem types can be defined by their different capacities for self-control and thus ordered on a gradient, ranging from pristine, self-regulated ecosystems to urban-industrial ecosystems that depend entirely on human steering. Following from this, we can develop a time scale for the recovery of the different ecosystem and habitat types, respectively (Table 1). Even after several centuries, a forest

on formerly arable land carl be distinguished from a primary woodland by its floristic composition (Peterken, 1974; Rackham, 1986). The physiognomy of a grassland, on the other hand, can be quickly reproduced, although it may take several decades to develop into a species-rich hay meadv~ (Biirkhardt and Duhme, 1995). Thus, the classes of reproduction time indicate the responsibility of the present generation for what has to be strictly preserved and what may be reproduced within the time span of one human generation (recovery time approximately 30years). However, "fable I also re~eals that modified natural vegetation (reproduction time approximately 100years, in specific oligotrophic grasslands) contains by far the largest number ~f endangered plant species. Furthermore, in Central Europe, a large part of the total number of (plant) species are, in one way or another, dependent on specific types of human land-uses and interventions (SRU, 1987; Haber and Duhme, 1990). Thus, Fukarek and Henker (1987) show that about 60% of the 1558 taxa of plants in Mecklenburg are indigenous, whereas the

I/if: intensive agile, & urban; RL: 95

RL = Red List plant species

! 500

10 0 0 0

End ofGlaciation

year

0

today Industrial L~ds,--~ Middle Ages

Fig. I. Change of cover of the mainecosystemtypes and of speciesdiversityover time (data from Sukoppet al. (1978)).

F. Duhme el aL / Landscape and Urban Planning 37 (1997) 73-84

75

Table I Number of red list plant species in the different habitat types with regard to reproduction time and land~ape con~rvaxion and devetopme~ strategies I: urban & in~lusldaP

< Syears**

Ul: intensive agric."

.~- JOyeor~**

II1: extensive agri¢. °

IV: modified natural"

V: pd~ne"

• 100yeors**

> 500yeav~"

$0 - IOOyears**

an~l vqet~ou of arable lands

vesetation of waste-,~ lands & clearings

annual hygrophytes

eutrophicfi-ethwaters c o a s ~ l ~ t i o n

5

I S 5 17 I -

2 I'

wet forest

Jl2O

6

-dwarf dm~bs ~,d

s i l i a ~ bc~lleaf x, aJeifer fem~ . i--"~r~ j

"~ -dry meadows

p.io~ands

8

& fanland for~ta

~ 3 2

6 ~ 6

~mbalpinevegetation I r-6"~

alp~aevqetatiea

17

sFring vegetation - ['i"T~ -

ve~-t~ion of rocks

lU 269 11)c * Ecmystam typ~ ** Classes of reproduction time, for explanalion see text. Arrows indicate overlap of habi~ types in the d~ffcRmclasses of Rpmdtmtioa time Data on Red List plant species for Western G m n a a ~ e a from Sukopp et al., 1978 and are oniered by increasingdellXeeof ¢ n d a n g ~ l ~ ~ u m k . . . . . f endangered to near extinct R~ecies rA~-t ~emex~ct I

~.d1~lla~l ra~=

¢n~np~l I: ud0an & industrial*

I1: intensive agdc.* Rural

Ill: extensive agric.*

IV: modif~l natucal'

V: pristine*

Eurcme.,

Flora, Fauna, Habitat

Ecological Farming Protected Landscapes Threatened Valuable Landscapes

Nature Reserves & National Parks

Biosphere Reserves *

Ecosyst~n types

Comervattom atrategtu

Development ilrategleJ I n c r ~ d a | K,mitivity for disturbance

41,--Decreasing need for dl-turblm:e

76

F. Duhme et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 37 (1997) 73-84

remaining 40% of taxa are non-native and mostly dependent on man-made habitats. The corresponding figures for plant species that have become extinct or are endangered, according to Mecklenburg's red list, are 38% for indigenous species but some 45% for non-natives (Fukarek, 1988). Hence, the designation of strict reserves to protect natural landscapes and habitats (e.g. national parks and nature reserves) or outstanding ensembles with a mixture of natural and cultural landscapes in biosphere reserves, must be complemented by policies for 'normal' rural landscapes. Fundamental changes in the Community Agricultural Policy (CAP)--necessary to reduce overproduction, to cut down subsidies and to open the agro-market to non-memb-~,r countries of the European Union (EU)--pose new challenges for nature conservation in this respect. Whereas agricultural productivity is likely to increase in regions with predominantly fertile soils a n d / o r near large urban markets, land abandonment will most probably mainly occur in areas with unfavourable conditions for industrial farming, e.g. low mountain regions. Furthermore, nature conservation policies will have to take into account the differences between landscapes structured by individual small-scale fanning, on the one hand, and the large-scale farms of former Eastern Bloc countries, on the other, In particular, there is a need to implement biodiversity targets into regional land-use planning. This will be feasible only if nature conservation guidelines and programmes can be developed--ones that are specific to the landscape in focus, and will make the needs for preservation and re-establishment of the natural assets transparent, as this paper intends to show. In the tbllowing section, we will present an approach towards defining targets for nature conservation planning, in a highly productive, yet fine-grained landscape in Upper Bavaria (Haber et al., 1993; Duhme et ai., 1994). We will then address the prerequisites for nature conservation in the large-scale farming landscapes of the new federal countries of Gennany. From this, conclusions can be drawn, with regard to regional nature conservation strategies for future European landscapes and the need for landscape ecological research, in order to meet these challenges.

2. Developing quantity*lye targets for nature conservation planning in a fine-grained landscape

The study area, some 50 km north of Munich in the Terti~-Hiigelland region ('Hallertau') around Pfaffenhofen (one topographic map, scale 1:25000, approximately 14000ha), exemplifies the typical environmental problems of modern agriculture. Arable lands predominate in the rolling countryside (maximum relief differences approximately 100 m), mainly covered by loessic, highly fertile soils. Furthermore, the 'Hallertau' is the largest hop-growing area in the world (see Table 2). Owing to this specialization on world market, high-income cash crops, over 90% of the individual farmsteads are still smaller than 30ha. The traditional land-use pattern of small-scale (terraced) fields, however, has dramatically changed in the last decades through land consolidation and intensified farming. Ecologically important sites, as recorded by Bavarian habitat surveys (Kaule, 1976; LfU (Bayerisches Landesamt fiir Umweltschutz), unpublished data, 1991), cover less than I% of the research area (Table 2). Even populations of common agro-ecosystem species, such as hare and partridge, rapidly declined because of the removal of hedgerows and grassy verges, and owing to the use of pesticides and the constant disturbances caused by farming activities (Fig. 2). Similar trends have been rei3orted from all over Europe and the USA (O'Connor and Shrubb, 1986; Sch~ifers, 1990; O'Connor and Boone, 1993; Panek, 1994; Freemark, 1995). Table 2 Cover of land uses and habilats in th,, study area Type.of [and use Area ha %of total Woodland 2948 21.6 Arable land(withouthops) 5730 41.9 Hops 2281 16.7 Grassland 1562 I 1.4 Settlements 1035 7.6 Ecologicallyimportantsites 107 0.8 woodlands 9 0.07 hedgerowsand woodlots 56 0.41 freshwaters and wetlands 23 0.17 diy haymeadow~,;and pastures 16 0.12 urban habitats 3 0.02 Total area 13663 100.0

77

F. Duhme et al. / Landscape and Urban Planni.g 37 (1997) 73-.8q 1200

w'e,~aaeam~laal~alma. ~ ~ c ~ r~~ e t a .~ m ,

4O0 I"

70

," ," ," ," ,° ,' o ," ," °" ,°

71

72

75

74

7~2 Year

76

"17

"/a

79

80

81

Fig. 2. Results of hare and partridge hunting, for aunting districts in the "Terti~-Hiigelland'. (Data from: Fiiehr and We~h¢, 1982 and Pauleit et al, 1985.)

As intensive agriculture is likely to continue to operate in the Pfaffenhofen region in the future, the main tasks for nature conservation will be: (1) to protect and enhance the biota of natural habitats (woodlands, t~nbogs) in a representative reserve system; (2) to reintroduce the typical habitats of agricultural land-uses within this fine-grained landscape, as a basic habitat rec.-_,itment, while at the same time minimizing the negative impacts of agriculture on soils and groundwater. In this study, quantitative targets for nature conservation planning were adopted by reviewing relevant literature on the rehabilitation of impoverished fine-grain agroecosystems, to serve as references for defining landscape-specific conservation targets. Several studies (e.g. Heydemann, 1981; Kaule, 1986;

Finke, 1987; SRU, 1987) indicate that priority should be given to nature conservation on at least 10% o f the land in intensive farming areag, with a minimum density of 100m of hedgerows per hectare to support characteristic wildlife in viable populations (e.g. Zw~ilfer et al., 1984: Broggi and Schlegel, 1989). This hedgerow density could also be observed as the "optimum' for the research area. Furthermore, arable lands will have to be converted back to permanent grasslands or woodlands, on steep slopes as well as in the floodplains a::a_ on very. dry sites. Buffer corridors along the freshwaters are needed for additional non-point source pollution control (Vought et

al., 1995). A well-establisbed method for defining potential natural vegetation (Trautmann, 1966; Rodi, 1975)

Table 3 Areas required to meet targets for nature conservation in Pfaffenhofen Area Woodland reserve system in (existing) commercial forets afforestation (arable lands) Hedgerows (on a~'able~ands: target ~ 90mha- i ) Wooded buffer stips for non-point pollution control of fresh waters Extensive meadows and pastures: conversion of arable L,:ds f,~.~rsoil and groundwater protection Total area a Percentage of the total .,tudy area ( 13663 ha).

ha

% of to~al a

1934 649 1285 268 71 967 3240

14.2 4.8 9.4 2.0 0.5 7.1 23.8

78

F. Duhme et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 37 (1997) 73-84

was used to identify the different types of woodland to be protected, representatively, in a nature reserve system. To establish priorities for site selection of the reserves, several criteria were use~ (for details, see Haber et al. (1993), Lenz and Stak'y (1995) and Duhme et a|. (1994)). Landscape structure units, on the other hand, were mapped by a visual inte~retafion of air photographs, to quantify conservation targets for areas with predominantly agricultural use. The uni~ are multiples of the individual fields, and generally follow field boundaries. They can therelbre be easily linked to land-use planning. For each unit, land-use and structural features were recorded (in particular, the cover of different crops, ecologically

~

important sites and other small-scale habitat structures such as hedges, grassy field verges, and fallow lands). The geographic information system (GIS) allowed us to calculate the specific deficits of each unit, as compared with the target of 100 m hedgerows per hectare (width of hedgerows approximately 5 m, or 5% of land cover). Table 3 lists the total area required for nature conservation in the researck area. The figures result from a tes~ design of a reserve system (see Duhme et al., 1994). Standard-setting is basically a political decision prccess. Given this fact, the ecological implications of standards from various other sources could also be tested with the GIS, based on the structure unit

¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸=¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸==¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸: = ¸¸¸/¸¸¸%¸ : Idnd~apes along the former border of East and West Germany (left, Schleswig-Holstein;fight. Mecklenburg-Vorpommcrn)(from Wimei and Beckel (! 991)).

Fig. 3. Sa:eIIR.-image of fine-grained and C ~ - g ~ i ~

F. Duhme et aL / Landscape and Urban Planning 37 (1#97) 73-84

Table 4 Endangered large vertebrates in Meck~enburg-VorL,mmmern and Schleswig-Holstein,Germany Mecklenburg-Vorpommern BP a %b Lesser spotted eagle ( Aquila pomarina) White-tailedeagle (Haliaeetus albacillus) Osprey (Pandion haliaetus ) Crane (Gras grus) White stork (Ciconia ciconia) Otter (laara lutra)

Schleswig-Holstein BP ~ %~

95 120

80 50

16

7

I00

40

-

-

lifO0 1000 whole territory

50 30 60

60 230 sporadic

3 7 -

Breeding pairs. b Percentage of populationin Germany.

approach. In a previous study for the City of Munich (Duhme and Pauleit, 1997), we were able to take locally observable 'optima' as a reference, to fix specific conservation standards for urban structure types. Furthermore, the environmental impact, of different policy options can be checked on this basis and communicated to the public (e.g. Aspinal!, 1993: Harms et al., 1993; Nip et al., 1993; Van Latesteijn, 1994). This, in turn, should help make the whole process of nature conservation planning more trans-

parent, and thus more competitive with other societal goals.

3. C o n s e r v a t i o n strategies for |arge-scale f a n ~ landscapes In former Eastern Bloc countries, including the new federal states of Germany, the situation is very different from that in regions such as the "Terrier--

•

o,~

coo

~_..~

q

o.

.~-,~ ..... (.A~j~ .•. ~- \

e-

coO•

~ •. ~ • .~.~ • • t .~, ~.6~ooeoOe'~' ~ . ,F~ . " " ~ - . " * • op e e e e

•

Fig. 4. Distributionof crane (left) and white stork (right) in Germany(from Rheinwald(1993)).

~n~pe •

80

F. Duhme el aL / Landscape and Urban Planning 37 (1997) 73-84

Hiigelland'. The differences in grain, of small-scale vs. large-scale fanning, can be seen from the satellite image of the borderland between Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, in Fig. 3. The size of collective farms for plant production averaged some 4600ha in the former GDR. In 1989, more than 10% of the labour force was still employed in the agricultural sector (approximately 13 employees per 100ha) as compared with less than 5% in the Federal Republic (approximately 7 employees per 100ha; all data from DRL (1993)). After reunification, in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern alone, 80% of all jobs in the agricultural sector were lost. Forty per cent of the total territory consists of marginal lands, and it has been estimated that about one-third of the agricultural land will be abandoned (Baier et al., 1994; Miksch, 199:~). This situation presents an enormous challenge for nature conservation to direct the impending changes towards environmental sustainability. Small biotopes (such as woodlots, hedgerows, grassy field verges, etc.) have largely disappeared in large-scale farming landscapes. Interestingly, on the other hand, large vertebrates that require large territories (such as birds of prey or the otter) are still abundant, but have become extinct in most parts of the "horticultural style' landscapes of Germany's old

federal states. Thus, more than 50% of the German populations of white-tailed eagle, lesser spotted eagle, crane and otter live within the MecklenburgVorpommern territory (Table 4). The corresponding figures for the neighbouring state of Schleswig-Holstein, however, are well below 10%, although the natural features of both states are similar. 121 1934, a census was taken of half of the approximately 9000 breeding pairs of white stork in the east,~.rn and western states of Germany. Ttraa), i.'.,~ ovelaii nu~,; ber of breeding pairs has declined to 4200, but the relationship has changed to 5:1, with the larger proportion in the new federal states (Waterstraat et al., 1996). The range limits of these animal species coincide well with the fo:a'ner 'iron curtain' (Fig. 4). However, the distribution of small animals, such as the common tree frog, also follows the same pattern (Fig. 5). An explanation for this may be that collective farming has favoured the separation between fertile, intensively laboured areas or. the one hand and marginal lands on the other, the latter being of low interest to farmers. Thus, large contiguous tracts of land still exist in a more natural state in the new federal states of Germany (e.g. floodplains and fenlands). Fortunately, some of the most valuable of these were designated biosphere reserves and national parks just before reunification.

Fig. 5. Dislributionof common~mefrog in Mecklenburg-Vorpommernand Schleswig-Holstein(from Waters:raatet al. (1996)).

F. Duhme et aL / Landscape and Urban Planning 37 (1997) 73-84

Another feature of the new federal states is the much lower density of population, resulting in much smaller traffic infrastructure networks. Seventy-ninc per cent of the territory of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is made up of continuous areas larger than 100 km 2, unfragmented by frequented roads and railway lines. The corresponding figure for the former federal states of Germany drops to 19% (LAUN, 1994). Furthermore, disturbance by farming activities on large fields is restricted to short periods (and thus may be characterized as 'pulse' disturbance) whereas, in fine-grained landscapes, these is a continuous level of high disturbance ('press' disturbaaed, loagcr thau o1~ life- t)~ reproduction-cycle of species) by independently working, single farmers. This, in particular, may be an important source of disturbance for sensitive vertebrates (e.g. the otter), and Fig. 6 shows a strong spatial correlation between

coverage of anttloments and ~

8[

low-disturbance areas and the Oi+tribution of whitetailed eagles and lesser spotted eagles, in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Several conclusions can be drawn for nature conservation strategies in coarse-grained landscapes: I. there is a strong need for .safeguarding coarsegrained landscapes fo;" the benefit of large vertebr.'~es. Therefore, the destruction of open r u r a l space of ecological aItd aesthetic value through non-agrarian land-uses and development schemes is to be strictly avoided. Marginal lands are predominantly to be developed into extensive conservation-oriented land-use types. These policies will have to be linked to programmes for landscapebased tourism and leisure facilities, marketing of regional food products, organic farming, etc. 2. The clue for finding a compromise between the pressing need for rural develop.meat and nature

infrastructure:

<1.5% B O

>1"5"3"0% whlto-ta!~ Eagle(Ha~oetusa,oac,~,s)

~ ~

r

~ ~:,~,e~,.

Fig. 6. Low-disturbanceareas and distribution of white-tailed cagle (Ha!;.aeetusalbaciP,~') and lesser spotted eagle (Aquila pomarina) in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern(from Waterstraatet al. (1996)).

82

FI Duhme el u l . / Lal:dscaf c and Urban Phtm~;.ag 37 (1997) 73-84

conservation is 'site-oriented' land-use separation: intensive agriculture on the best sites with high buffer capacities of soils: extensive agriculture on sites of lower production and buffer capacities; increase in size of existing reserve areas and strengthening of habitat linkages. 3. The concept of a real separation can only be implemented by careful integrative, spatial and functional planning of agronomic, conservational and social issues. The segregation approach is heavily dependent on economic ince,uives in rural development, to secure sustainable employment petspecii~.es. Thus, EU policies for rural development must find a harmony between agriculture and environment and, as far as environment is concerned, between environmental safety, on the one hand, and ~he conservation of flora, fauna and habitat, on the other.

4. Conclusions Nature conservation policies have traditionally been defensive, focusing on the protection of natuce in rescrt, es, on the one hand, and on the preservation of particular species, on the other. However, both strategies have failed to meet their original goal of safeguarding biodiversity in an adequate manner and, even more so, they have failed to reach their projected objective of sustainability. Two main reasons for this are: (l) global pollution phenomena do not stop at the borderline of reserves; (2) many plant and animal communities depend on specific natura! and human interferences, and are hence not likely to survive in 'static' protected areas in the long run (Piachter, 1995). The=., biodiversity strategies have to be incorporated into agro-ccosystem development considerations. In this respect, natm~ conservation theory and research in Western societies (see Brandt and Agger, 1984; Kaule, 1986; Schreiber, 1988; Haber, 1990; Saunders and Hobbs, 1991) have focused mainly on small-scale landscapes of pre-industrial, subsistence farming, and there has been some evidence that these highly diversified landscapes do also meet nature conservation needs. Our Pfaffenhofen study represents a methodological approach to transfer this knowledge (e.g. the minimum density of hedgerows needed to support hedgerow

wildlife in viable populations) into quantitative targets for minimum habitat recruitment, in a finegrained (quasi-subsistence) landscape. Documentation on large vertebrates in Europe clearly demonstrates that there is a connection with the coarse-grained agronomy structures of the former Easte,n Bloc countries, where these species are still abundant. In EU countries, however, such species are e;.lher rare or endangered, if not already extinct. Despite the absence of hedgerows, field verges and other connective ecological networks, this type of agricultural land-use obviously has other beneficial characte.fi,gfics for wildlife: there is some evidence that ou large contiguous tracts of lands there is only sporadic disturbance owing to agricultural activities (pulse disturbance), whereas in most of the EU 'amenity' small-scale landscapes, activities on the land create a pressing disturbance for wildlife. Thus, large-scale farming may be essential for the maintenance of the more conspicuous large vertebrates. This approach towards nature conservation may be described as site-oriented land-use separation. The concept will go lar~.:ely in line with the aggregate with outliers model, proposed by Forman (1995), which will provide for the conservation of large natural and semi-natural vegetation areas as top-priority patterns for protection along with wide, vegetated corridors, to protect water courses and p:'ovi~,~ connectivity for 'key' species. Interspersed patches of small-scale structures, on the other hand, may provide habitats for plant and animal species of hedgerow landscapes as well. In this respect, the 'new' Europe offers a tremendous opportunity for research networks, wherein lhe different structures of agro-ecosystems may be compared with each other (e.g. in Poland, with its agroindustrial, private and mixed systems, or South Moravia. with intensity rings around villages, or even on a continental scale). Such studies a~e also possible from 'European' l~odscapes on the east coast, to modern agriculture in the very west, in North America.

References Aspinall. R.. 1993. Use of geographic info~nation systems for

interpreting land-u~ policyarid modellingeffects of land-use change, in: R. Haines-Young, D.R. Green and S. Cousins

F. Duhme et oL / Landscape and Urban Planning 37 t 1997) 73-84

(Editors). Landscape Ecology and Geographic information Systems. Taylor ahd Francis. London, pp. 223-236. Baler, H., Holz. R...Ieschke. L.. Miiller-Motzfeld. G. and Succow. M., 1994. Sicherung der natiirlichen Umwelt dutch Natm~hutz unti Landnutzung--ein Diskussionspapier ffir ein landesweites Handlungsprogramm des Natur~hutzes. Natur~hutzarbeit in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, I: I-7. Brandt, J. and Agger, P. (Editors), 1984. Proc. Ist Int. Seminar of the International Association of Landscape Ecology (IALE). Roskilde University Centre, Denmark. Roskilde Unive~itetsforlag GeoRu~,. Broggi. M.F. and Schlegel, H., 1989. Mindestbedaff an naturnahen Fl~ichen in der Kulturlandschaft. Bericht 31 des Nationalen Forschungsprogramms Boden. Liebefeld-Bern, Switzerland. Burkhardt, I. and Duhme, F.. 1995. A method to define the ecological compensation requirements of new economic developments. Land Contam. Reclam., 3(2): I I I-I 13. CEC. 1992. Richtlinie 9 3 / 4 3 / E W G des Rates vom 21. Mai 1992 znr Erhaltung der na,,i~dichen L~bensr~iume sowie der wildlebenden Tiere und Pflanz~n. Abl. EG Nr. L 206. Commission of the European Communities, Brus~ls pp. 7-50, CEC. 1993. Richtline 93/626/EWG des Rates vom 25. Oktober 1993 iibcr den Abschlul.I des Ubereinkommens iiher die biologi~he Vielfalt. Abh EG Nr. L 309, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels pp. 1-20. DRL. 1993. Wege zur umweltvetlr'iiglichen Landnutzung in den neuen Bundesl?;ndern. Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Rates ['fir Landespflege, 63, Meckenheim. Duhme, F. and Pauleit. S.. 1997. A landscape ecological masterplan lbr the City of Munich. In: J.O. Rieley and S.E. Page (Editors). Habitat Creation and Wildlife Con~rvation in Urban attd Post-Industrial Environments. Packard. Chichester. UK, in press. Finke, L. i987. l:li~.ehenanspriiche aus ~ikologischer Sicht. In: Forschungs- and Sitzungsberichte, 165. Akademie fiir Raumf0rschung und Landesplanung. Hannover, pp. 179-201. Fliehr. J. and Wesche. R.-J.. 1992. Die Flurbereinigung im Tetti:.iren Hhgelland zwischen Haimhausen and Siinzhausen unter besonderer Beriicksichtigang der Fauna. Project Seminar, Landscape Ecology Department. Munich Technical University, Freising. 60 pp. Forman, R.T.T., 1995. Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. Landscape Ecol., IL~3): 133-142. Freemark, K.. 1995. Assessing effects of agriculture im terrestrial wildlife: developing a hierarehicai approach for the US EPA. Landscape Urban Plann.. 31:99-115. Haber, W.. 1990. Using landscape ecology in planning and management. In: I.S. Zonneveld and R.T.T Forman (Editors). Changing Landscapes: an Ecological Pcrspccti'~c. Springer. Berlin pp. 217-232. Haber. W. and Dnhme. F., 1990. Naturraumspezifische Emwickh,,ngsziele als Kriterium zur Liisung regionalplanerischer Zielkimflikte. Ranmforsch. Raumordn., 48(2-3): 84-91. Haher. W.. Duhme, F., Pauleit. S., Schild, J. and Slaty. R., 1993. Qnantifizierung raumspezifischer Entwicklungsziele des Naturschutzes, dargestellt am Beispiel des Kartenblatts 7435

83

Pfaffenhofen. Beitr~ige. 125, Akademie for Raumforsch~ng und Landesplanung. Hannover. 107 pp. Harms. B.. Knaapen. J.P. and Rademakers. J.G.. 1993. Landscape planning for nature restoration: comparing regional ~ e ~ . In: C.C. Vos and P. Opdam (Editors). Landscape Ecobgy of a Stres!.ed Enviro~nncflt. tALE Studi~s in Landscape Ecology, I. Chapmann and Hall. London. pp. 197-218. Heydemann, B.. 1981. Zur Frag¢ der R~chengfi~$¢ vim Biotopbestlinden fiir den Arten- and Okosystemschutz. Jahrb. Naturschutz Landschaftspflege. 31: 21-51. Kaul¢. G., 1976. Kartiernng schutzwiirdiger Biotope in Bayem. Jahrbuch des Vereins zum Schutze der AIpenpflanzen and -item c.V.. 41. Miinchen. pp. 25-42. Kaule. G.. 1986. Arten- and Bioto~hntz. E. UImer. Stuttgart, 461 pp. LAUN (I.,andesamt ftir Umwelt und Natur Mecklenburg-Vm'pommern. Abteilung Naturschutz). 1994. Pressemitteilungen and Ausstellungsmaterialien zum BMFT-Verbundprojekt "Auswirkungen und Funktiim unzerschnittener st/irungsarm~ Landschaft:,r~ume fiir Wi'.-beltierarten mit groSen Raumanspriichen'. LAUN. Neuenkirchen. Lenz. R.J.M, and Slaty. R.. 1995. Landscape diversity and land-g~e planning: a .oase study in Bavaria Landscape Urban Pinna., 31: 387-..Jg. Miksch. S.P.. 1995. Konzept eincr standortorientiertcn Nutzungs~:parierung nnter besonderer Beriick¢ichtigung der Entwicklungsm:/glichkeiten landwirtschaftlieher GrenzertraDsstand~,, ~::~.estellt am Beispiel des Landkreises Anklam- ein Beitrag zur gutachtedichen LandschaftsrahmenplanungMeck!enburg-Vorpommerns. MSC. Thesis. Landscape Ecology Department. Munich Technical University, 114 pp. Nip. MJ.. Latour. J.B.. Klijn. F.. Koster. P.K.. Groen, C.L.G.. Udo de Hues, H.A. and de Kruijf. H.A.M.. 1993. Environmental quality as~ssment of ecodistricts: a comprehensive n~thod for environmental policy. In: D.H. McKenzie, D.E. Hyatt and V.L McDonald (Editors). Ecological Indicators. VOl. 2. EI~vier Applied Sciences, Barking. UK. pp. 865-881. O'Connor. R.J. and Boone. R.B., 1993. A retrospective study of agricultural bild populations in North America. In: D.H. McKenzie, D.E. Hyatt and V.J. McDonald (Editors). Ecological Indicato.'x, Vol. 2. Elsevier Applied Sciences, Barking, UK. pp. 1165-1184. O'Connor, R.J. and Shrabb, M.. 1986. Farming and Birds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 290 pp. Panck. M.. 1994. The effect of land-use changes on populaliims of pamidge (Perdix perdix) in Poland. In: U Ryszkowski and S. Balazy (Editors), Functional Appraisal of Agricultural Lands c a ~ in Europe. EUROMAB Re,arch Programme and INTECOL. Semin~ 1992. Re~atch Centre for Agricultural and Forest EnvirimmenL Polish Academy of Sciences, Poznan, pp. 197-203. Pauleit, S.. Tobias, K. and Weld, S.. 1985. "Ro~e Lisle" der Natzungstypen am Beispiel vim Agrar-Nutz-Okosystemen. Project Seminar. Landscape Ecology Department. Munich Technical University. Freising. 156 pp. Plachter. H.. 1995. Schutz vim Naturgebieten in der Welterbenkimventiim. Geogr. Rundsch.. 47(6): 348-354.

84

F. Duhme et al, /Landscape and Urban Planning 37 (i997) 73-84

Rheinwald. G., 1993. Atlas der Verbreitang und H~iufigkeit der Brutv~3gel Deutschlands--Kartierung um 1985. Schriftenreibe des Dachverbandes Deutscber Avifaunisten. 12. Berlin. Rodi, D.. 1975. Die Vegetation des nordwestlichen T:rti~ir-Hiigeliandes (Oberbayern). Schriftenreibe fdr Vegetationskun~e, 8. Hiltrnp, pp. 21-77. Rojas, M. and McNeely. J.A., 1995. The Con,ention on Bk, logical Diversity: New Roles and Opportunities for Bios?here Re,ryes. Paper pre~nted at the InternaticJnal Covferencc on Biosphere Reserves, Sevilla. Spain, 20-25 March 1995. IUCN. Saunders, D.A. and Hobbs, R.J. (Editors), 1991. Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors. Surrey Beatty and Sons. Chipping Norton, Australia. 442 pp. Sch~ifers. G.. 1990. Die Bestand~mwicklung des Rebhuhns (Perdri¢ perdrix) yon 1955 bis 1984 in Hamburg und seine Abh~ingigkeit yon der Landwirt~hafis-Struktur. Hamburger avifaunistische Beitr~ige, 22: 25-64. Schreiber, K.-F. (Editor). 1988. Connectivity in Landscape Ecology. Proc. 2nd Int. Seminar of the "International Association for Landscape Ecology'. Mdnstersche Geographische Arbeiten. 29. Miinster. SRU (Rat yon Sachversfiindigen ['fir Umweltfragen). 1987. Umwe!tgutachten 1987. W. Kohlhammer. Stuttgart. 674 pp. Ssymank, A., 1994. Neue Anforde~ungen im europ~iischen Naturschutz. Das Schutzgebietssystem NATURA 2000 und die 'FFH-Richtlinie" der EU. Natur Landschafl. 69(9): 395406. Sukopp, H.. Trautmann, W. and Korneck. D.. 1978. Auswertung der Roten Liste geffihrdeter Farm- und Bliitenpflangen in der

Bundesrepublik Deutschland fdr den Arten- und Biotopschutz. Schriftenreibe f'dr Vegetationskunde, 12, Bonn-Bad Godesberg. Trautmann, W., 1966. Erl'~iuterungen zur Katie der potentiellen natiirlichen Vegetation der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Blair 85, Minden. Schriftenreihe fur Vegeta~ionskunde. i, Hiltrup. 138 pp. Van Latesteijn. H., 1994. Ground for choice: a policy-oriented survey of land-use changes in the E.C. In: L. Ryszkowski and S. Balazy (Editors), Functional Appraisal of Agricultural Landscape in Europe. EUROMAB Research Programme and INTECOL. Seminar 19920 Research Centre for Agricultural and Forest Environment, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poznan. pp. 197-203. Vought, LB.-M, Pinay. G., Fuglsang. A. and Ruffinoni, C., 1995. Structure and function of buffer s:rips from a water quality perspective in agricultural landscapes. Landscape Urban Plann., 3 I: 323-33 I. Watcrstraat0 A., Baier. H.. Holz. R.0 Spie6, H.-J. and UIbdcht..L, 1996. Unzerschnittene. sttirnngsarme Landschaftsfiiume-Versuch der Beschreibung eines Sehutzgutes. Schriflenreihe des Landesamtes ftir Umwelt und Natur MecklenburgVorpommei'n, I, pp, 5-24. Winter, R. and Beckel, L. (Editors), 1991. Geo Satellitenbildatlas Deutschland. RV. Berlin. 239 pp. Zw/~lfer, H., Bauer. G., Heusinger. G. and Stechmann, D.. 1984. Die tieri~kologische Bedeutung yon Hecken. Berichte der Akademie ftir Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege (ANL), Betheft 3. Teil 2. Laufen, 155 pp.