Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Habitat monitoring in Europe: a description of current practices

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Monitoring of biodiversity at the level of habitats is becoming increasingly common. Here we describe current practices in habitat monitoring based on 150 schemes in Europe. Most schemes were initiated after 1990 in response to EU nature directives or habitat management/restoration actions, with funding mostly from European or national sources. Schemes usually monitor both the spatial distribution and the quality of the habitats, and they frequently collect data on environmental parameters and potential causes of changes. Many schemes are local or regional rather than national or international in scope, and sampling effort varies greatly across spatial and temporal scales. Experimental design is used in half of the schemes, however, data are rarely analysed by advanced statistics. Most schemes require two months or less per year in manpower and are typically run by professionals rather than by volunteers. Estimated salaries plus equipment costs average 650,000 Euro per year per scheme, and add up to 80 million Euros annually. Costs are particularly high for schemes based on European or international law and for schemes funded by European or national sources. Costs are also high in schemes in which sampling sites are selected subjectively rather than based on sampling theory, and in schemes that do not use field mapping or remote sensing to document spatial variation in habitats. Our survey demonstrates promising developments in European habitat monitoring but also underlines the need for better spatial coverage, documentation of spatial variaton, improved sampling design and advanced data analysis. Such improvements are essential if we are to judge progress towards the 2010 biodiversity targets.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Asner GP, Knapp DE, Broadbent EN et al (2005) Selective logging in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 310:480–482. doi:10.1126/science.1118051

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker JP, Olff H, Willems JH et al (1996) Why do we need permanent plots in the study of long-term vegetation dynamics? J Veg Sci 7:147–156. doi:10.2307/3236314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balmford A, Green RE, Jenkins M (2003) Measuring the changing state of nature. Trends Ecol Evol 18:326–330. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00067-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock M, Xofis P, Mitchley J et al (2005) Object-oriented methods for habitat mapping at multiple scales—case studies from Northern Germany and Wye Downs, UK. J Nat Conserv 13:75–89. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2004.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Communities (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Official J Eur Commun, series L, 206:7–50

  • Devillers P, Devillers-Terschuren J, Ledant JP (1991) CORINE biotopes manual—habitats of the European community. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Stefano J (2001) Power analysis and sustainable forest management. For Ecol Manage 154:141–153. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00627-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duro DC, Coops NC, Wulder MA et al (2007) Development of a large area biodiversity monitoring system driven by remote sensing. Prog Phys Geogr 31:235–260. doi:10.1177/0309133307079054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottschalk TK, Huettmann F, Ehlers M (2005) Thirty years of analysing and modelling avian habitat relationships using satellite imagery data: a review. Int J Remote Sens 26:2631–2656. doi:10.1080/01431160512331338041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory RD, van Strien A, Vorisek P et al (2005) Developing indicators for European birds. Philos Trans R Soc B 360:269–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groom MJ, Meffe GK, Carroll R (2006) Principles of conservation biology, 3rd edn. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  • Heer M, de Kapos V, ten Brink BJE (2005) Biodiversity trends in Europe: development and testing of a species trend indicator for evaluating progress towards the 2,010 target. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 360:297–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellawell JM (1991) Development of a rationale for monitoring. In: Goldsmith FB (ed) Monitoring for conservation and ecology. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry P-Y, Lengyel S, Nowicki P, Julliard R, Clobert J, Čelik T, Gruber B, Schmeller DS, Babij V, Henle K Integrating ongoing biodiversity monitoring: potential benefits and methods. Biodivers Conserv (this issue)

  • Legg CJ, Nagy L (2006) Why most conservation monitoring is, but need not be, a waste of time. J Environ Manage 78:194–199. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.04.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lengyel S, Kobler A, Kutnar L, Framstad E, Henry P-Y, Babij V, Gruber B, Schmeller D, Henle K (2008) A review and a framework for the integration of biodiversity monitoring at the habitat level. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9359-7

  • Lengyel S, Tóthmérész B, Henry P-Y et al What determines scientific quality and cost-effectiveness in European habitat monitoring? An evaluation and a method. Conserv Biol (in review)

  • Mace G, Delbaere B, Hanski I et al (2005) A user’s guide to biodiversity indicators. Eur Acad Sci Advis Counc. Available at http://www.easac.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id = 44

  • Nagendra H (2001) Using remote sensing to assess biodiversity. Int J Remote Sens 22:2377–2400. doi:10.1080/01431160117096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hiearchical approach. Conserv Biol 4:355–364. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1990.tb00309.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papastergiadou ES, Retalis A, Kalliris P et al (2007) Land use changes and associated environmental impacts on the mediterranean shallow lake Stymfalia, Greece. Hydrobiologia 584:361–372. doi:10.1007/s10750-007-0606-9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira HM, Cooper HD (2006) Towards the global monitoring of biodiversity change. Trends Ecol Evol 21:123–129. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peres CA, Barlow J, Laurance WF (2006) Detecting anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests. Trends Ecol Evol 21:227–229. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.03.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Platt JR (1964) Strong inference. Science 146:347–353. doi:10.1126/science.146.3642.347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Polastre J, Szewczyk R, Mainwaring A et al (2004) Analysis of wireless sensor networks for habitat monitoring. In: Raghavendra CS, Sivalingam KM, Znati T (eds) Wireless sensor networks. Springer US, New York, pp 399–423

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper KR (1968) The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmeller DS, Henry P-Y, Julliard R, Clobert J, Gruber B, Dziock F, Lengyel S, Nowicki P, Déri E, Budrys E, Kull T, Tali K, Bauch B, Settele J, van Swaay C, Kobler A, Babij V, Papastergiadou E, Henle K. Advantages of volunteer-based biodiversity monitoring in Europe. Conserv Biol (in review)

  • Scholes RJ, Biggs R (2005) A biodiversity intactness index. Nature 434:45–49. doi:10.1038/nature03289

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Turner W, Spector S, Gardiner N et al (2003) Remote sensing for biodiversity science and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 18:306–314. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00070-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underwood AJ (1997) Experiments in ecology. Their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) (2004) World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). http://www.unep-wcmc.org/wdbpa Cited 31 Aug 2007

  • White PCL, Jennings NV, Renwick AR et al (2005) Questionnaires in ecology: a review of past use and recommendations for best practice. J Appl Ecol 42:421–430. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01032.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2006) World Development Indicators. http://go.worldbank.org/QKRICC4WI0, Cited 31 Aug 2007

  • Yoccoz N, Nichols JD, Boulinier T (2001) Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time. Trends Ecol Evol 16:446–453. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02205-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to our colleagues in the EuMon project who have helped in contacting coordinators in each EU country. We are also indebted to the many coordinators who filled out the online questionnaire or provided us data in any other form. Financial support for the EuMon database and this study was provided by the EuMon project (“European-wide monitoring methods and systems of surveillance for species and habitats of Community interest”, http://eumon.ckff.si), funded by the European Commission (contract number 6463).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Szabolcs Lengyel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lengyel, S., Déri, E., Varga, Z. et al. Habitat monitoring in Europe: a description of current practices. Biodivers Conserv 17, 3327–3339 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9395-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9395-3

Keywords

Navigation