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

Ecological Indicators 33 (2013) 19–25

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

The significance of habitats as indicators of biodiversity and their links to species R.G.H. Bunce a,h , M.M.B. Bogers a , D. Evans b , L. Halada c , R.H.G. Jongman a,∗ , C.A. Mucher a , B. Bauch d , G. de Blust e , T.W. Parr f , L. Olsvig-Whittaker g a

Alterra Wageningen UR, P.O. Box 47, 6700AA Wageningen, The Netherlands European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity, Paris, France Institute of Landscape Ecology Slovak Academy of Science, Branch Nitra, Akademicka 2, POB 22, SK-949 10 Nitra, Slovakia d UFZ – Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Department of Conservation Biology, Permoserstr. 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany e Institute of Nature Conservation, Kliniekstraat 25, B-1070 Brussels, Belgium f Centre for Ecology and Hydrology – Lancaster Environment Centre, Library Avenue, Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4AP, United Kingdom g Israel Nature and Parks Authority 3 Am Ve’Olamo St., Jerusalem 95463, Israel h University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 1 Tartu 51014, Estonia b c

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Keywords: Habitat definition Policy Species/habitat association Standardised mapping Spatial models

a b s t r a c t 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. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 1.1. Background The concept of biodiversity, which includes variation at the level of genes, species and ecosystems, has been evolving over the past 25 years after being proposed by Wilson (1988). The present paper first emphasises that habitats are important as indicators of biodiversity in their own right but then shows that they are also linked to species and assemblages both of plants and other taxa in a variety of ways. This is axiomatic for plant species, as habitats are often defined by phytosociological syntaxa which are determined by vegetation composition. Plant species, can also be used as indicators for a habitat as described in the Interpretation Manual for Annex I habitats (European Commission, 2007). These species can then be used in conjunction with ancillary data, such as soils, to predict the distribution of the habitats themselves across Europe as shown by Mücher et al. (2004, 2009). The landscape ecological literature also provides many studies where habitats have been used as a

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 317 481824; fax: +31 317 419000. E-mail address: [email protected] (R.H.G. Jongman). 1470-160X/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.07.014

framework for examining the behaviour of species. Thus Harvey et al. (2006) related tree cover to birds, butterflies and dung beetles while Dover et al. (2010) examined how the structure even within a single habitat can effect butterfly abundance and Hinsley and Bellamy (2000) show how bird assemblages, even within one habitat, a hedge, are related to management. Although widely used, the term ‘habitat’ remains diverse, ambiguous, and difficult to apply consistently because it is has been developed in different contexts with contrasting meanings.

1.2. The legal and policy context Habitats are specifically referred to in the European Union (EU) Habitats Directive which includes a list (Annex I) of habitats to be protected (European Commission, 1992). These habitats are described in various levels of detail in the Interpretation Manual (European Commission, 2007) which has been revised several times to include additional habitats and revised definitions as the EU has expanded. In the Manual there are some diagnostic features as well as lists of associated species. Criteria to identify a particular habitat or to distinguish between them are not included in the legal text of the Directive.

20

R.G.H. Bunce et al. / Ecological Indicators 33 (2013) 19–25

These habitats, together with selected species listed in Annex II, have been used to construct the Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) which together with Special Protection Areas (SPA) designated under the 1979 EU Birds Directive and Marine Protected Areas (MPA) form the Natura 2000 network which is the primary framework for site based nature protection in the EU. EU Member states are also obliged to report on the conservation status of these habitats every six years under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive and Article 12 of the Birds Directive. In addition the RAMSAR Convention (http://www.ramsar.org) relates to one habitat group, wetlands. Habitats are also referred to in the Berne Convention with an agreed list of habitats to be usedfor selection of sites for its Emerald Network (Council of Europe, 2010). Habitat conservation is also one of the 2020 targets (Aichi targets) of the Convention on Biological Diversity and its status is an important category to report on (GEO BON, 2011). Habitats are therefore a central pillar of European nature conservation policy. The categorisation of European habitats started with the earlier CORINE biotopes classification (Devillers et al., 1991) from which the original list of habitats for Annex I was selected and then the Palearctic classification (Devillers and DevillersTerschuren, 1996). Annex I has been progressively modified with the accession of new member states with the most recent version being 2007 and recent changes have been based on the Palearctic classification. Evans (2006) has discussed the background to the Annex I habitats. Although Natura 2000 also protects species listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive together with selected bird species listed in the Birds Directive it is often considered that the maintenance of a series of habitats in good condition is one of the best ways to conserve species.

1.3. The scientific, ecological research context The term habitat has often been defined as the spatial extent of a resource for a particular species. Habitat in this sense is explicitly linked to a species, or species group, that share the same ecological requirements. Dictionary definitions are also not specific and usually refer generally to communities. The terms ‘habitat patch’, ‘micro-habitats’ and ‘temporary habitat’, are also often used in this respect. Other terms such as biotope and ecosystem are also used in similar contexts in the literature but are rarely defined. In recent years the latter term has been increasingly used in the concept of ecosystem services but as described by Fisher et al. (2009) it is usually applied at a range of different scales from the specific e.g. a crop field to the general such as a riparian zone. Ecosystem services have to be considered as a policy category additional to traditional nature conservation (Haslett et al., 2010). The increasing literature on this subject uses ecosystem as a general term and leaves the phrase open to a range of interpretations, although Haines-Young and Potschin (2007) specifically mention the use of habitats as an option to assess. The scientific use of the term habitat shows an evolution in meaning from the vague and broad to the narrow and precise, as shown following examples of definitions:

- “Place, living space, where an organism lives” (Odum, 1963). - “Place where a species normally lives, often described in terms of physical factors such as topography and soil moisture and by associated dominant forms (e.g. intertidal rock pools or mesquite woodland)” (Calow, 1999). - “Habitat is a zone (area) comprising a set of resources, consumables and utilities, for the maintenance of an organism. The resources occur in union and/or intersect and may also be equivalent; links between resource outlets are established by individual

searching movements of the organism” (Dennis and Shreeve, 1996) Reviews of the application of the term have been made by e.g. Hall et al. (1997) and Dennis et al. (2003). The above definitions are primarily theoretical and are not designed for field mapping with the objective to determine the extent of habitats and their spatial distribution. However, recently Bunce et al. (2008) have adapted the principles originally developed in the Great Britain Countryside Survey for mapping European habitats and rules are provided for assignment of a given patch to a habitat class at a defined scale. Bunce et al. (2008) define habitat as “an element of the land surface that can be consistently defined spatially in the field in order to define the principal environments in which organisms live”. Habitat classification can be related to the UN Forest and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Land Cover Classification System (LCCS) described by Di Gregorio and Jansen (2000), which is widely used as a land cover classification system in Africa. In addition to their recognition in their own right habitats also have the following practical advantages: 1. Aerial photographs, especially infra-red, can be used to estimate habitat extent and its change over time e.g. Ståhl et al. (2011) 2. Remote sensing data from satellites can be linked to in situ maps of habitats to larger units, e.g. Mücher (2009). Vanden Borre et al. (2011) provide an overview of the use of satellite imagery in this respect. 3. Relationships between habitats and species assemblage composition or particular taxa important to biodiversity can be used to link habitat records to other biodiversity indicators, such as species e.g. Petit and Usher (1998) 4. Habitat records can be linked to changes over time at the landscape level and to vegetation assemblages, as described by Haines-Young and Potschin (2007) Protocols are now available and can be used to link extant habitat data across Europe for five national major monitoring programmes (Bunce et al., 2012) and could also be developed for other surveys. 1.4. Application of habitats The advantages listed above are the principal reasons behind the adoption of habitats as the linking framework in the European Biodiversity Network (EBONE), an EU 7th Framework project. In this project the definition of habitat was that described by Bunce et al. (2008) in which a restricted list General Habitat Categories (GHCs) were developed for habitat mapping and for linking extant data. The project extended the use of GHCs outside Europe (Bunce et al., 2011) and also carried out a quality control and assurance exercise throughout Europe. The main limitation of using habitats is that the links with assemblages and individual species are not always explicit and need interpretation, further survey or data analysis as described in Section 5. Habitats have also been used as a framework for collecting other biodiversity data e.g. in the Great Britain (GB) Countryside Survey (Firbank et al., 2003) data on plants, vegetation, birds and aquatic species have been collected and linked to 19 Broad Habitats equivalent to the GHCs. These analyses were carried out using the following hierarchical structure, based on Bunce (1999), with the addition of biome at the highest level: 1. Biomes are traditionally defined by a combination of life forms and climate, with the balance between then being rarely explicit.

R.G.H. Bunce et al. / Ecological Indicators 33 (2013) 19–25

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Biomes are widely used to express biodiversity resources at the intercontinental scale. Landscapes are comprised of complexes of habitats but their complexity is often ignored in traditional ecology but in recent years in landscape ecology it has been accepted. Habitats may also be termed biotopes or ecosystems and are mainly made up of mixtures of vegetation types, although as discussed below, in some cases they may equate with a single vegetation class. Vegetation consists of complexes or assemblages of plants. These may be described as syntaxa in phytosociology or by sampling objectively within defined domains. In Annex 1 vegetation types are often synonymous with habitats. Assemblages of other taxa such as birds and butterflies are also used. Species assemblages of plants make vegetation. Species may be important to conservation in their own right or because of their importance in vegetation structure or links with other species, as described in the present paper. Even within a given species there are often different pools of genetic diversity in different parts of the geographical distribution, especially in wide ranging species such as Pinus sylvestris. The use in forestry of provenances for planting appropriate trees in specific regions is a specific example.

Other major national survey and monitoring schemes have used a comparable structure built around habitat records e.g. Northern Ireland (Cooper and McCann, 2000), Sweden (Ståhl et al., 2011) and Austria (Wrbka et al., 2004). In the EBONE project a regionalisation of habitats has been applied according to the European Environmental Stratification (Metzger et al., 2005; Jongman et al., 2006). Habitats have also been linked with recording of vegetation plots and in Israel links have been made between habitat in sites with assemblages of reptiles and insects (Olsvig-Whittaker et al., 2012). 2. History of habitat mapping The concept of habitat developed initially from the biomes was described by the classical bio-geographers of the 19th century e.g. Von Humboldt and Bonpland (1807). Their maps defined the main biomes across the world, e.g. desert and tropical rainforest and were based on a combination of observed vegetation and climate. Some of these biomes are synonymous with modern concepts of habitats e.g. deciduous forest but most are on a larger scale. Biomes have continued to be used at a global scale for modelling impacts on ecosystems across the world e.g. of climate change (Woodward, 1987). Early in the 20th Century Raunkiaer (1904) formalised vegetation structure by using plant life form spectra in order to define regions according to their actual vegetation rather than by also involving climate. This has been elaborated subsequently for veg˝ etation mapping (Kuchler, 1967; Küchler and Zonneveld, 1988; Pignatti, 1982). Recently, Bunce et al. (2008) based the definition of habitats on plant life forms in order to transcend species and local terms and to utilise the underlying regression relationship with environment. In the early 20th century the discipline of vegetation science developed as scientists recognised that plants formed recognisable assemblages leading in due course to the science of Phytosociology (Braun-Blanquet, 1932). Mapping has been an integral part of phytosociology at a variety of scales (Pedrotti, 2004) but, because of the need to apply expert judgement, it has not widely been used for monitoring. Later, in the field of landscape ecology the relationships of land use, land cover and ecology has been elaborated by applying earth observation for air and space into land classifications (Zonneveld, 1995) and these are now integrated in habitat interpretation.

21

Areas have been protected for many reasons, but the use of nature reserves to conserve areas for vegetation, and indirectly habitats, did not start until the 1940s, e.g. with the 1947 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act in the UK. Progressively habitats have been recognised as an essential basis for the selection of representative series of sites for conservation objectives, for example in both the EU Natura 2000 and the Council of Europe’s Emerald networks. Approximately 60% of the habitats of Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive are based on plant communities (Evans, 2010), emphasising the link between vegetation classification and habitat definition. There has also been work providing cross walks between the different classifications e.g. Rodwell et al. (2002) related the EUNIS habitats classification (Davies and Moss, 2004) to vegetation syntaxa. Other national surveys, e.g. the Phase One habitats in England described by JNCC (1992 with subsequent revisions), have been undertaken to record habitats as a basis for policy formulation. There are also a range of national habitat descriptions, often produced in support of Natura 2000, e.g. Czech Republic (Chytry´ et al., 2010) and Estonia (Paal, 2007). 3. Incorporation of species data in spatial models of habitats In recent years several models have been produced that depend on knowledge of the correlation between species and habitats. An example is LARCH (from Landscape Assessment using Rules for Configuration of Habitat) (Verboom and Pouwels, 2004). LARCH determines ecological networks for specific species in a patchy landscape and assesses the sustainability of these networks. LARCH computes potential sustainability of networks based on habitat requirements and traits of selected species. Therefore results can differ from actual distribution data of species. A number of recent LARCH analyses use eco-profiles instead of individual species. Eco-profiles form a classification of animal species that have parameters within certain limits regarding dispersal capacities and area requirements. In this way results become more general and less specific for a single species. Another approach is the BEETLE model described by Watts et al. (2007). As in LARCH, the spatial arrangement of habitat patches in landscapes is used and the model assumes that species respond to habitat fragmentation. Eycott et al. (2007) also describe the use of focal species e.g. surrogates and indicators, as a means of evaluating biodiversity at the landscape scale. 4. Habitats as policy indicators The development of biodiversity indicators in Europe has been heavily influenced by the requirements of the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD). The CBD set a target “to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all on Earth” whilst in Europe 51 countries in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) region adopted the Kiev Resolution in 2003 to “reinforce our objective to halt the loss of biological diversity at all levels by the year 2010”. These targets could not be reached due to adverse societal processes, but there were also difficulties in monitoring them due to the lack of (harmonised) data (Braat and ten Brink, 2007). New targets for 2020 were adopted by the CBD in 2010 – ‘the Aichi targets’ (see http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/). At its Conference of the Parties to the Convention in Nagoya in 2010, the CBD agreed to the new strategic plan for biodiversity including the twenty ‘Aichi targets’ for the period 2011–2020, and asked GEO BON to help advice on how the datasets can be assembled. The initial step in this process was an Adequacy Report (GEO BON, 2011).

22

R.G.H. Bunce et al. / Ecological Indicators 33 (2013) 19–25

Aichi target 5 is to “By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, is at least halved and where feasible brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced.” Within the EU, the Commission has published a biodiversity strategy for 2020 which also includes a series of targets (European Commission, 2011). In the Streamlining European 2010 Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI, 2010) project a set of indicators was developed to meet the CBD requirements. The 26 SEBI “headline” indicators are clustered within the 7 CBD focal areas and were selected according to defined criteria. The set is not designed to be comprehensive, but to provide the best coverage on the basis of available information and resources. The technical report containing specifications of the 26 indicators selected was published in EEA (2007). One of these indicators related to the conservation status of habitats of European interest, as listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive. The extent and condition of habitats is an important and useful measure of biodiversity. It is also a legal requirement in the EU to monitor and regularly report on the Conservation Status of the habitats of Annex 1. The Countryside Survey of the UK (HainesYoung et al., 2000) has shown how habitats can be used to integrate data from the landscape, vegetation and species scales. The EBONE project has recently shown how the same principles can be used throughout Europe and beyond (Roche and Geijzendorffer, 2012). The condition of habitats is considered to be related to the distribution and abundance of many other species and populations of value and there has been much discussion of whether biodiversity can best be conserved by focusing on habitats rather than individual species. Habitats can also provide the basis for assessments of ecosystem services as suggested by Haines-Young and Potschin (2007) and in the Countryside Survey (2000) and GHCs could be adapted for the same objectives. The current policy measures do not however cover many habitats typical of the wider countryside that are often highly managed and disturbed. In practice, the majority of European agricultural landscapes have no habitats protected under current EU legislation but yet much biodiversity is present within them, albeit often restricted to habitat fragments. Such landscapes and habitats therefore need to be included in any overall assessment of biodiversity resources in the EU. 5. Links between habitats and species Relationships between habitats and species can be identified in three ways: 1. Species or assemblages of species can be expected to be found within a certain habitat within a given location in an Environmental Zone, as described by Metzger et al. (2012) 2. Species occurring in a certain habitat are characterising that habitat by their traits such as Ellenberg values The occurrence of a given habitat within an Environmental Zone can be predicted from the presence of a certain species known to be present within it. Information about such links can be carried out using the following sources of information: 1. Distribution maps of species, e.g. the Atlas Flora Europea can be linked to known distribution of habitats. 2. Databases on Ellenberg values can be exploited such as http://statedv.boku.ac.at/zeigerwerte/, http://www.ceh.ac.uk/ products/software/CEHSoftware-MAVIS.htm and literature and related databases can be searched (Pignatti et al., 2005; Fanelli et al., 2007)

3. Information can be extracted from field guides and formal keys to link species to habitats, e.g. Loxia scotica in Caledonian pine forest (Annex I habitat 91C0). 4. Literature reviews can be carried out of detailed work to relate species to habitats, e.g. Sitta europaea to deciduous forest patches. 5. There are monographs on individual species, e.g. Prunella modularis or overviews of species given in for instance the Flora of the British Isles (see http://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/ journals publications/journalofecology/biologicalflora.php) 6. Expert knowledge of individual scientists can be utilised to develop specific relationships. 7. Individual studies can be carried out to determine relationships within given habitats in a given landscape. Some Red Data Book species are related to specific habitats, e.g. arable weeds in crops. However, in many cases the distribution of rare species is accurately known because of the interest of conservation biologists in such species. In these cases the relationship is not with a habitat in general, but with a locality, e.g. Cabo da Roca (Portugal) for Armeria pseudarmeria and Omphalodes kuzinskyanae. Distribution maps of some vascular plant species are available from the Flora Europea and in local flora and atlases e.g. the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom. National Biodiversity Action Plans for species usually specify the habitat measures required to protect such species. Other taxa can be related to individual plant species on which they depend for food e.g. butterflies, and changes can then be modelled e.g. Schweiger et al. (2012). It is also possible to derive links statistically from vegetation databases for some plant species e.g. through the use of SynBioSys (http://www.synbiosys.alterra.nl/synbiosyseu) which is derived from the phytosociological literature. When detailed information is available from samples structured at the landscape level e.g. Firbank et al. (2003) then vegetation assemblages can be related statistically to habitats in order to present results in a format which is understandable to policy makers. They can also be used as a basis for comparing changes in biodiversity. There are a range of different types of relationships between species and habitats and some examples are given below: 1. Generalist species without relationships to specific habitats, e.g. Pica pica, Streptopelia decaocto, Agrostis capillaris. 2. Species that are linked to several habitats, e.g. Columba palumbus, Falco columbarius, Tamus communis. 3. Species which occur in one habitat in different Environmental Zones, e.g. Branta leucopsis, Briza media, Cirsium acaule. 4. Species that occur in one habitat in one Environmental Zone, e.g. Pinus mugo, Abies pinsapo, Ziziphus lotus. 5. Species which are dependent on other species for food and can be predicted from the occurrence of that species, e.g. many bumble bees or butterflies with certain plants; Phengaris alcon is depending on both Gentiana pneumonanthe as a host plant and colonies of various ant species (Myrmica spp). 6. Species which need a high quality of a given habitat type, e.g. some Sphagnum species are only present in undisturbed bogs. 7. Species which have different habitat requirements in different Environmental Zones, e.g. Huperzia selago, Silene acaulis, Saxifraga tridactylites. It is often difficult to attach species to habitat types except for those available in individual scientific papers. This is especially true for generalist species which can occur in a wide range of habitats. As described above, these have been coordinated in some models e.g. LARCH to enable prediction at the landscape sale. Firbank et al. (2003) have also demonstrated links between habitats defined by statistical analysis of vegetation can be linked to species within

R.G.H. Bunce et al. / Ecological Indicators 33 (2013) 19–25

23

Table 1 Relationships between Annex I forest habitat types and environmental zones including characteristic species and compared with non-Annex I forest types (European Commission, 2007; Polunin and Walters,1985; Noirfalise, 1987; Jongman and Bunce, 2000; Bohn et al., 2000). Env. ZONE

Annex I forest habitats

Characteristic species taken from the EU interpretation manual

Non-annex I forest habitats occurring in environmental zone

ALN

9040 Nordic subalpine/subarctic forests with Betula pubescens ssp. Czerepavonii 9010 Western Taiga 9030 *Natural forests of primary succession stages of land upheaval coast 91A0 Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles 9120 Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex and sometimes also Taxus in the shrub layer (Quercion robori-petraeae) 9110 Luzulo-Fagetum beech forests 91H0 *Pannonian woods with Quercus pubescens 9240 Quercus faginea and Quercus canariensis Iberian woods 9420 Alpine Larix decidua and/or Pinus cembra forests 9540 Mediterranean pine forests with endemic Mesogean pines 9260 Castanea sativa woods 9320 Olea and Ceratonia forests

Cornus suecica

Pinus sylvestris forest

Maianthemum bifolium Molinia caerulea

Betula pubescens forest Populus tremula forest

Blechnum spicant

Picea sitchensis plantations

Teucrium scorodonia

Picea abies plantations

Luzula albida Carex humilis

Pinus sylvestris plantations Populus spp. plantations

Quercus faginea

Pinus radiata plantations

Rhododendron ferrugineum

Alnus incana forest

Erica arborea

Populus spp plantations

Castanea sativa Pistacia lentiscus

Pinus sylvestris forest Eucalyptus spp plantations

BOR NEM

ATN ATC

CON PAN LUS ALS MDN MDM MDS

different landscapes. The links between plants and invertebrates have also been used to assess changes in associated taxa e.g. butterflies and bumble bees. The sparsely vegetated habitats described by Bunce et al. (2011) have been used in the desert in Israel to assess their relationships with other taxa as described by Olsvig-Whittaker et al. (2012). GHCs were mapped in Avdat in the Negev desert and statistical procedures used to correlate reptiles, flowering plants and invertebrates with the habitat records. Although species richness was not associated both assemblages and individual species showed significant correlations. Further work is required in other Environmental Zones and habitats. Several theoretical exercises e.g. Halada et al. (2010) have linked species to existing habitat classifications. Such relationships are not quantitative and provide no details of probabilities. There are also many papers in the landscape ecological literature demonstrating how faunal species interact with habitats in the landscape of which the following are examples: 1. Birds respond to habitat composition and structure for example, bird identification books specify the habitat in which a given bird is likely to be found. In the scientific literature. There are also papers, such as Hinsley and Bellamy (2000), which describe the influence of habitat structure and management on bird populations. 2. Beetles have also been widely studied as they also respond to habitat composition and structure. For example Petit and Usher (1998) discuss the ground beetle communities in woody uncultivated habitats. 3. Some butterflies depend upon specific plants for food and nectar but they also depend on habitats. For example Dover et al. (2010) describe how butterflies depend on management within a single habitat. 6. Worked examples of potential links at a European level between species and habitats Expert opinion linked to Environmental Zones. Tables 1 and 2 given below are based on expert judgement and show the type

Table 2 Examples of species in Environmental Zones. The species are linked to conifer forests (FPH/CON) and deciduous forest (FPH/DEC) in these zones (European Commission, 2007; Polunin and Walters, 1985; Noirfalise, 1987; Jongman and Bunce, 2000). Env. zone

GHC

Birds

Plants

ALN

FPH/CON FPH/DEC FPH/CON FPH/DEC FPH/CON FPH/DEC FPH/CON FPH/DEC FPH/CON FPH/DEC

Loxia curvirostra Carduelis flavirostris Lophophanes cristatus Dryocopus martius Tetrao urogallus Parus major Loxia scotica Sitta europea Dendrocopos major

Trientalis europeus Matteuchia struthiopteris Linnae borealis Galium boreale Lycopodium annotinum Anemone ranunculoides Goodyera repens Lonicera periclymenum Pinus sylvestris

Certhia familiaris Columba palumbus Phylloscopus collybita Tetrao tetrix Cyanistes caeruleus Carduelis spinus Sylvia undata Lophophanes cristatus Dryocopus martius Milvus milvus Ciconia ciconia Streptopelia risoria Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax Cyanopica cyana Sylvia mystacea

Maianthemum bifolia Pyrola minor Luzula albida Stachys pannonica Staphylea officinalis Lithospermum diffusum Narcissus triandra Homogyne alpine Alnus incana Pinus nigra Quercus faginea Pinus marítima Quercus pubescens Pinus halepensis Fraxinus ornus

BOR NEM ATN ATC

CON PAN LUS ALS MDN MDM MDS

FPH/CON FPH/DEC FPH/CON FPH/DEC FPH/CON FPH/DEC FPH/CON FPH/DEC FPH/CON FPH/DEC FPH/CON FPH/DEC FPH/CON FPH/DEC

of relationships which are widely known. These tables could be improved by a more detailed literature review of individual studies describing species behaviour in habitats. 7. Discussion The primary policy requirement for habitats in Europe is for estimates of their extent and the changes taking place. The EBONE project has provided a framework for obtaining such estimates. Several individual countries e.g. Great Britain, have already produced figures for stock and change of habitats and these have been linked with vegetation samples at both species and assemblage

24

R.G.H. Bunce et al. / Ecological Indicators 33 (2013) 19–25

levels, as presented by Haines-Young et al. (2000). However, there are still many gaps in the coverage, especially in the Mediterranean Zones. One of the problems is that member states have existing monitoring programmes and the production of international figures is usually not a priority. However, a programme of screening existing data sources could provide a basis for setting up a long term monitoring system. A statistical procedure to develop a sampling framework for the EU has been designed by Metzger et al. (this volume). Several extant EU databases could also be used to develop explicit links between species and habitats e.g. phytosociological data in SynBioSys (http://www.synbiosys.alterra.nl/synbiosyseu) could provide a statistical framework for plant species. Some of the European databases on other taxa, e.g. birds and butterflies, also have the potential for statistical analyses. Studies could lead to better integrated models of habitats and species and provide a stimulus for policy support measures. Inevitably rare species could not be included in such analyses, although they are often related to specific habitats. Finally many countries e.g. the Czech Republic and Estonia have published their own habitat classifications, with links to Annex I, while others (e.g. France, Italy) have published local interpretations of Annex I habitat types (Evans, 2012). It would be valuable if these texts could be linked to provide better overall descriptions of Annex I habitats, and species. 8. Conclusions The present paper emphasises the importance of habitats in the development of biodiversity policies in their own right and also demonstrates that there are strong links with species. These may be formalised through statistical analysis or by expert knowledge but either way habitats are a central pillar of nature protection policy in the EU. The eventual production of estimates of the extent, status and changes in European habitats would provide an important tool for policy makers across the EU. Acknowledgements This research has been carried out in the framework of the EC FP7 project EBONE (EC-FP7 Contract ENV-CT-2008-212322) and co-financed by the Dutch Ministry of Economics, Agriculture and Innovation. Project code KB14-002-007. It is part of the European contribution to GEO BON. References Bohn, U., Gollub, G., Hettwer, C., Neuhäuslová, Z., Schlüter, H., Weber, H., 2000. Map of the Natural Vegetation of Europe. Bundesamt für Naturschutz Bonn, Germany, p. 665. Braat, L., ten Brink, P. (Eds.), 2007. The Cost of Policy Inaction. The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. European Commission, DG Environment ENV.G.1/ETU/2007/0044 (Official Journal reference: 2007/S 95-116033). Braun-Blanquet, J., 1932. Plant Sociology the Study of Plant Communities. McGrawHill Book Company, New York, London. Bunce, R.G.H., 1999. Habitat conservation. In: Golley, F.B., Bello, J. (Eds.), Rural Planning From an Environmental System Perspective. Springer, pp. 131–144. Bunce, R.G.H., Metzger, M.J., Jongman, R.H.G., Brandt, J., Blust, G., de Elena-Rossello, R., Groom, G.B., Halada, L., Hofer, G., Howard, D.C., Kovár, P., Mücher, C.A., PadoaSchioppa, E., Paelinx, D., Palo, A., Pérez-Soba, M., Ramos, I.L., Roche, P., Skånes, H., Wrbka, T., 2008. A standardized procedure for surveillance and monitoring European habitats and provision of spatial data. Landsc. Ecol. 23, 11–25. Bunce R.G.H., Bogers, M.M.B., Roche, P., Walczak, M., Geijzendorffer, I.R., Jongman, R.H.G., 2011. Manual for Habitat and Vegetation Surveillance and Monitoring: Temperate, Mediterranean and Desert Biomes. Wageningen, Alterra Report 2154, 106 pp. Bunce R.G.H., Bogers, M.M.B., Ortega, M., Morton, D., Allard, A., Prinz, M., Peterseil, J., Elena-Rossello, R., Jongman, R.H.G., 2012. Conversion of European habitat data sources into common standards. Wageningen, Alterra Report 2277. Calow, P. (Ed.), 1999. The Blackwell’s Concise Encyclopedia of Ecology. WileyBlackwell.

Chytry´ M., Kuˇcera, T., Koˇcí, M., Grulich, V., Lustyk, P. (Eds.), 2010. Katalog biotopu˚ ˇ republiky (Habitat Catalogue of the Czech Republic). 2nd ed. Agentura Ceské ˇ 445 pp. ochrany pˇrírody a krajiny CR, Council of Europe, 2010. Revised Annex I of resolution 4 (1996) of the Bern Convention on endangered natural habitat types using the EUNIS habitat classification. Available at https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/com.instranet. instraservlet?Command=com.instranet.cmdblobget&instranetimage=1763389 &secmode=1&docid=1648180&Usage=2 (accessed June 2011). Cooper, A., McCann, T.P., 2000. The Northern Ireland Countryside Survey 2000: Summary Report on Broad Habitats. University of Ulster, Coleraine. Davies, C.E., Moss, D., Hill, M.O., 2004. EUNIS Habitat Classification Revised 2004. Available from http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/upload/EUNIS 2004 report.pdf (accessed December 2010). Dennis, R.L.H., Shreeve, T.G., 1996. Butterflies on British and Irish Offshore Islands. Gem Publishing Company. Dennis, R.L.H., Shreeve, T.G., Van Dyck, H., 2003. Towards a functional resourcebased concept for habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102 (2), 417–426. Devillers, P., Devillers-Terschuren, J., Ledant, J.-P., 1991. CORINE Biotopes Manual. Vol. 2. Habitats of the European Community. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Devillers, P., Devillers-Terschuren, J., 1996. A Classification of Palaearctic Habitats. Council of Europe. Nature and Environment No. 78, Strasbourg. ˜ S., Fairburn, J., Carey, P., Lunt, P., Dennis, R.L.H., Dover, J.W., Rescia, A., Fungarino, Dover, C.J., 2010. Can hay harvesting detrimentally affect adult butterfly abundance? J. Insect Conserv. 14, 413–418. Di Gregorio, A., Jansen, L.J.M., 2000. The Land Cover Classification System (LCCS): Classification 445 Concepts and User Manual. FAO/UNEP/Cooperazione, Italiana, Roma, p. 177. EEA, 2007. Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe. Technical Report No 11/2007. Copenhttp://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical report 2007 11/ hagen. at download/file. European Commission, 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, O.J. L206, 22.07.92. European Commission, 2007. Interpretation manual of European Union habitats – EUR27. European Commission, Brussels. European Commission, 2011. Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1 EN ACT part1 v7%5B1%5D.pdf. Evans, D., 2006. The habitats of the European union habitats directive. Biol. Environ. Proc. Roy. Irish Acad. 106 (January (3)), 167–173. Evans, D., 2010. Interpreting the habitats of Annex I. Past, present and future. Acta Bot. Gallica 157 (4), 677–686. Evans, D., 2012. Building the European Union’s Natura 2000 network. Nat. Conserv. 1, 11–26. Eycott, A., Watts, K., Mosely, D., Ray, D., 2007. Evaluating biodiversity in Fragmented Landscapes; the use of focal species. In: Forestry Information Note. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh. Fanelli, G., Pignatti, S., Testi, S.A., 2007. An application case of ecological indicator values (Zeigerwerte) calculated with a simple algorithmic approach. Plant Biosyst. 141 (1), 15–21. Fisher, B., Turner, K.K., Marling, 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 68, 643–655. Firbank, L.G., Barr, C.J., Bunce, R.G.H., Furse, M.T., Haines-Young, R., Hornung, M., Howard, D.C., Sheail, J., Sier, A., Smart, S.M., 2003. Assessing stock and change in land cover and biodiversity in GB: an introduction to Countryside Survey 2000. J. Environ. Manage. 67, 207–218. GEO BON, 2011. Adequacy of Biodiversity Observation Systems to Support the CBD 2020 Targets. URL: http://www.earthobservations.org/ documents/cop/bi geobon/2011 cbd adequacy report.pdf. Haines-Young, R.H., Barr, C.J., Black, H.I.J., Briggs, D.J., Bunce, R.G.H., Clarke, R.T., Cooper, A., Dawson, F.H., Firbank, L.G., Fuller, R.M., Furse, M.T., Gillespie, M.K., Hill, R., Hornung, M., Howard, D.C., McCann, T., Morecroft, M.D., Petit, S., Sier, A.R.J., Smart, S.M., Smith, G.M., Stott, A.P., Stuart, R.C., Watkins, J.W., 2000. Accounting for nature: assessing habitats in the UK countryside. DETR, London. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2007. The ecosystem concept and the identification of goods and services in the English policy context. Review Paper to DEFR. Project Code NR0107. Halada, L., Evans, D., Romão, C., Petersen, J.E., 2010. Which habitats of European Importance depend on agricultural practices? Biodivers. Conserv. 20, 2365–2378. Hall, L.S., Krausman, P.R., Morrison, M.L., 1997. The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25, 173–182. Harvey, C.A., et al., 2006. Patterns of animal diversity in different forms of tree cover in agricultural landscapes. Ecol. Appl., 1986–1999. Haslett, J.R., Berry, P.M., Jongman, R.H.G., Bela, G., Pataki, G., Samways, M., Zobel, M., 2010. Changing conservation strategies in Europe: a framework integrating ecosystem services and ecosystem dynamics. Biodivers. Conserv. 19 (10), 2963–2977. Hinsley, S., Bellamy, P.E., 2000. The influence of hedge structure management and landscape context on the value of hedgerows for birds. J. Environ. Manage. 60, 33–49. JNCC, 1922. Handbook for Phase I Habitat Survey – a Technique for Environmental Audit.

R.G.H. Bunce et al. / Ecological Indicators 33 (2013) 19–25 Jongman, R.H.G., Bunce, R.G.H., 2000. Landscape classification scales and biodiversity. In: Mander, Ü., Jongman, R.H.G. (Eds.), Consequences of Land Use Change. WIT Press, Southampton, Boston, pp. 11–38. Jongman, R.H.G., Bunce, R.G.H., Metzger, M.J., Mücher, C.A., Howard, D.C., Mateus, V.L., 2006. A statistical Environmental Stratification of Europe: objectives and applications. Landsc. Ecol. 21, 409–419. ˝ A.W., 1967. Vegetation Mapping. Ronald Press, New York. Kuchler, Küchler, A.W., Zonneveld, I.S., 1988. Handbook of Vegetation Science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Metzger, M.J., Bunce, R.G.H., Jongman, R.H.G., Mücher, C.A., Watkins, J.W., 2005. A climatic stratification of the environment of Europe. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 14, 549–563. Metzger, M.J., Shkaruba, A.D., Jongman, Bunce, R.G.H., 2012. Descriptions of the European Environmental Zones and Strata. Wageningen, Alterra, Alterra Report 2281, 152 pp. Mücher, C.A., Hennekens, S.M., Bunce, R.G.H., Schaminée, J.H.J., Schaepman, M.E., 2009. Modelling the spatial distribution of Natura 2000 habitats across Europe. Landsc. Urban Plann. 92 (September (2)), 148–159, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.landurbplan.2009.04.003. Mücher, C.A., Hennekens, S.M., Bunce, R.G.H., Schaminée, J.H.J., 2004. Mapping European habitats to support the design and implementation of a pan-European ecological network; the PEENHAB project. Alterra Report 952, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Mücher, C.A., 2009. Geo-spatial modelling and monitoring of European landscapes and habitats using remote sensing and field surveys. Ph.D. Thesis. Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Noirfalise, A., 1987. Map of the natural vegetation of the member countries of the European Community and the Council of Europe. Council of Europe, Commission of the European Communities. Odum, E.P., 1963. Ecology – Holt. Rinehart and Winston, New York. Olsvig-Whittaker, L., Frankenberg, E., Magal, Y., Shkedy, Y., Amir, S., Walczak, M., Luck-Vogel, M., Jobse, D., de Gelder, A., Blank, L., Carmel, Y., Levin, N., HarariKremer, R., Blankman, D., Boeken, B., 2012. EBONE in Mediterranean and desert sites in Israel, with notes on South Africa. Report on field tests in LTER sites and habitat monitoring. Alterra Report 2260. Paal, J., 2007. Loodusdirektiivi elupaigatüüpide käsiraamat [Interpretation Manual of Natura 2000 Habitat Types]. Auratrükk, Tallinn (in Estonian). Petit, S., Usher, M., 1998. Biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: the ground beetle communities of woody uncultivated habitats. Biodivers. Conserv. 7, 1549–1561. Pedrotti, F., 2004. Cartografia Geobotanica. Pitagora Editrice Bologna, p. 236. Pignatti, S., 1982. La flora d’Italia. Bologna, Edagricole. Pignatti, S., Menegoni, P., Pietrosanti, S., 2005. Bioindicazione attraverso le piante vascolari. Valori di indicazione secondo Ellenberg (Zeigerwerte) per le specie della Flora d’Italia. Braun Blanquetia 39, Camerino, Italy.

25

Polunin, O., Walters, M., 1985. A Guide to the Vegetation of Britain and Europe. Oxford University Press, London. Raunkiaer, C., 1904. Om biologiske Typer, med Hensyn til Planternes Tilpasning til at overleve ugunstige Aarstider. Botanisk Tidsskrift 26, 14. Ramsar Convention: Available at http://www.ramsar.org (accessed June 2010). Roche, P., Geijzendorffer, I., 2012. Integrated figures of habitats and biodiversity Indicators. European Biodiversity Observation Network (EBONE, Deliverable 6.1). Rodwell, J.S., Schaminee, J.H.J., Mucina, L., Pignatti, S., Dring, J., Moss, D., 2002. The Diversity of European Vegetation. An Overview of Phytosociological Alliances and Their Relationships to EUNIS Habitats. Ministry of Agriculture Nature Management and Fisheries. The Netherlands and European Environmental Agency, p. 168. Schweiger, O., Heikkinen, R.K., Harpke, A., Hickler, T., Klotz, S., Kudrna, O., Kühn, I., Pöyry, J., Settele, J., 2012. Increasing range mismatching of interacting species under global change is related to their ecological characteristics. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 21 (1), 88–99. SEBI, 2010. Available at http://biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.eu/information/ indicator/F1090245995 (accessed June 2010). Ståhl, G., Allard, A., Esseen, P.-E., Glimskär, A., Ringvall, A., Svensson, H., Sundquist, S., Christensen, P., Gallegos Torell, A., Högström, M., Lagerqvist, K., Marklund, L., Nilsson, B., Inghe, O., 2011. National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden (NILS) – scope, design, and experiences from establishing a multiscale biodiversity monitoring system. Environ. Monit. Assess. 173, 579–595. Vanden Borre, J., Paelinckx, D., Mücher, C.A., Kooistra, L., Haest, B., De Blust, G., Schmidt, A., 2011. Integrating remote sensing in Natura 2000 habitat monitoring: prospects on the way forward. J. Nat. Conserv. 19 (2), 116–125. Verboom, J., Pouwels, R., 2004. Ecological functioning of networks: a species perspective. In: Jongman, R., Pungetti, G. (Eds.), Ecological Networks and Greenways: Concept, Design and Implementation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 56–72. Von Humboldt, A., Bonpland, A., 1807. Essay on the Geography of Plants. University of Chicago Press, p. 274, Reprint 2009. Watts, K., Humphrey, J.W., Griffiths, M., Quine, C.P., Ray, D., 2007. Evaluating Biodiversity in Fragmented Landscapes: Principles. Forestry Commission Information Note No. 073, Forestry Commission, Edinburgh. Wilson, E.O. (Ed.), 1988. Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Woodward, F.I., 1987. Climate and Plant Distribution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Studies in Ecology, p. 174. Wrbka, T., Erb, K.-H., Schulz, N.B., Peterseil, J., Hahn, C., Haberl, H., 2004. Linking pattern and process in cultural landscapes. An empirical study based on spatially explicit indicators. Land Use Policy 12, 12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.012. Zonneveld, I.S., 1995. Land Ecology. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, p. 1999.