1 / 28

Monitoring of habitat types in the Netherlands

Monitoring of habitat types in the Netherlands. Rense Haveman & John Janssen. Content. Introduction Why monitoring? Requirements Present state Natura 2000 Part 1. EU-report June 2007 Part 2. Future monitoring. Why monitoring habitat types?. (1) EU-report (every 6 years)

herb
Download Presentation

Monitoring of habitat types in the Netherlands

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Monitoring of habitat typesin the Netherlands Rense Haveman & John Janssen

  2. Content Introduction Why monitoring? Requirements Present state Natura 2000 Part 1. EU-report June 2007 Part 2. Future monitoring

  3. Why monitoring habitat types? (1) EU-report (every 6 years) Monitoring on national level Responsibility: Ministry LNV (2) Standard Data Forms (update every 6 year) (3) Evaluation management (site goals) (4) Environmental Impact Assessment Monitoring on site level Responsibility: different organizations Update SDFs: Ministry LNV

  4. Required data EU-Report conservation status (51 habitat types): • Distribution, range + trend • National area + trend • Structure & function + typical species (quality) • Future prospects • CS score (traffic light approach) Site level: • Location and area + trend • Quality (Structure & function + species composition) + trend • Abiotic conditions • Relation with management and activities

  5. Part 1. EU-report June 2007 Basic information: in habitat type ‘profiles’ http://www2.minlnv.nl/thema/groen/natuur/natura2000_2006/achtergrond.htm Overview of habitat types with: definition abiotic conditions typical species distribution trends Conservation Status scores goals at a national level

  6. EU-report June 2007 Range based on National Vegetation Database Area Literature, sum of sites, expert knowledge Structure & function  profiles (expert knowledge, literature) Future prospects  profiles Conservation Status  profiles

  7. Definition Structure & function vs Future prospects Structure & function: • Conditions directly influencing species composition of the community + species composition itself (typical species) • Structure, buffering of soil, pH, hydrological conditions at the site… Future prospects • Conditions indirect influencing species composition (further away, higher scale level); effects are not (always) yet measurable in species composition • Atmospheric deposition, habitat fragmentation, management, regional hydrological system

  8. Example 6120* Xeric sand grasslands Distribution

  9. Example 6120* Xeric sand grasslands Range

  10. Example 6120* Xeric sand grasslands Trend • < 1975 1975-2005

  11. Example 6120* Xeric sand grasslands

  12. Example 6120* Xeric sand grasslands Trend negative

  13. Example 6120* Xeric sand grasslands Trend negative 600 ha (1950) 30 ha (1994) Improved by restoration projects

  14. Example 6120* Xeric sand grasslands Red List Artemisia campestris ssp campestris Veronica prostrata Carex ligerica Euphorbia seguieriana Hippocrepis comosa† Orobanche lutea etc.. Trend negative 600 ha (1950) 30 ha (1994) Improved by restoration projects

  15. Example 6120* Xeric sand grasslands Red List Artemisia campestris ssp campestris Veronica prostrata Carex ligerica Euphorbia seguieriana Hippocrepis comosa† Orobanche lutea etc.. Trend negative 600 ha (1950) 30 ha (1994) Improved by restoration projects Most locations suffer from eutrophication, inadequate management, acidification (no buffering) and loss of hydrological dynamics

  16. Example 6120* Xeric sand grasslands Red List Artemisia campestris ssp campestris Veronica prostrata Carex ligerica Euphorbia seguieriana Hippocrepis comosa† Orobanche lutea etc.. Trend negative 600 ha (1950) 30 ha (1994) Atmospheric condition poor, fragmentized Improved by restoration projects Most locations suffer from eutrophication, inadequate management, acidification (no buffering) and loss of hydrological dynamics

  17. CS scores 2004

  18. Natura 2000: present status Site goals Based on CS scores and relative importance of sites: conservation goals have been formulated for all Natura 2000 sites (now under public consultation) - Conservation of area / quality of types - Increase of area - Improvement of quality These goals will be worked out in detail (space and time) within management plans next years

  19. Part 2. Future monitoring System under development • More based on data, less on expert knowledge • Efficient • Sensible for changes • Using data from existing monitoring programs • Many organizations involved in nature monitoring • Different methods may be used (within quality demands) • Information from sites used for national report (up-scaling) • Use data from last 12 year for each 6 year report • If CS is favorable: lower effort

  20. Future monitoring Two options studied • National monitoring program •  Using a random stratified sample + distribution data •  existing data: NEM (permanent plots), distribution data species and plant communities • Site monitoring program + up-scaling to national level •  Using vegetation maps etc. •  existing data: from site managers

  21. Future monitoring Option 1 (national program) • Pioneer types • Small area within sites • Dynamical types • Large part outside Natura 2000 • Example: 2110 (embryonic dunes), 3130 (oligotrophic pools), 3270 (pioneer vegetation along rivers) • Option 2 (site program + up-scaling) • Stable types, mainly situated within Natura 2000 • Example: grasslands, heathlands, salt marsh, forest types

  22. Future monitoring Range mainly National Vegetation Databank Area Partly from sites (vegetation maps)  Central Database Habitat Maps Partly from national sample, distribution data, … (less accurate) Future prospects Expert knowledge, according to a certain protocol

  23. Monitoring per aspect Quality (structure & function + typical species) Options (or a combination): • Quality maps (good/poor) on site level •  based on size, structure, vegetation type, species composition, etc… •  national scale  up-scaling •  example: salt-marshes (1330) • National sample (abiotic, biotic) •  according to Water Framework monitoring, NEM (permanent plots), …. •  example: oligotrophic pools, some forests, … • Using vegetation distribution data •  explore change in species composition of relevés •  example: pioneer vegetation river banks • Status typical species (on a national level) •  using distribution data, frequency or Red List-status

  24. Example 2130 Grey Dunes Three subtypes, large areas, many typical species, large problems (grass and shrub encroachment) Option 1: Quality maps on site level (up-scaling) or Option 2: Using permanent plot data (NEM) and Option 4: assessing status of typical species

  25. Example 7210 Cladium mariscus - vegetation Small areas, one typical species, one permanent plot in NEM Option 3: Distribution data of plant community: percentage of sites with well developed form (containing Caricion davallianae species)

  26. Future monitoring: summary • Still under development • Different approach for different (groups) of habitat types • Dependent on character of habitat types, existing monitoring programs, conservation status, distribution within and outside Natura 2000, money • Combine data on national and site level • (if possible)

  27. Approach in other countries We are very interested in your approach !!

  28. Questions ?

More Related