Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Coordination Team (CT)
Biosphere
Mark Frenzel, Cornelia Baessler, Mathias Scholz & Stefan Klotz
TERENO-Workshop Potsdam 24.-25. January 2012
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ
Dept. Community Ecology
Harz/Central German Lowland Observatory
Magdeburg
Halle
Leipzig
Bode
Saale
Unstrut
Elbe
Core sites with (historical) data held by UFZ
Core sites established in 2009
Floodplain sites Agricultural sites
Agricultural sites
Page 3 Frenzel, Baeßler, Klotz: CT Biospere
Global change
climate
land use
biodiversity
…
Evolutionary processes
Species interactions
Ecosystem functioning
net primary production
matter cycling
stability …
Issues of CT Biosphere
Approaches:
1. Monitoring and observation
2. Experimentation on different
scales
SWOT-Analysis
Strengths: characteristics of business / project team
Weaknesses (or Limitations): characteristics placing the team at a disadvantage relative to others
Opportunities: external chances to improve performance
Threats: external elements that could cause trouble for business / project
Source: Wikipedia
Page 4 Frenzel, Baessler, Klotz: CT Biosphere
Origin Helpful Harmful
Internal
(attribute of
organization)
Strengths
Weaknesses
External
(attribute of
environment)
Opportunities
Threats
Strengths (helpful, internal)
Hypothesis-driven
Page 5 Frenzel, Baessler, Klotz: CT Biosphere
CT Biosphere Hypotheses
Climate and land use change influence…
1. … local adaptation => depends on genetic variation
2. … population genetics of plants => microevolutionary processes
3. … areal shifts of species => changes in existing communities
4. … ecological communities => consequences for ecosystem
functions and services (productivity, erosion control, pollination)
5. …the adaptability of selected ecosystems in the long-term
Page 6 Frenzel, Baeßler, Klotz: CT Biospere
S C
A L
E
Strengths (helpful, internal)
Hypothesis-driven
Bioindication: organism-based integrative indication (reaction or
accumulation) of diverse (anthropogenic) impacts on / characteristics of
ecosystems
Page 7 Frenzel, Baessler, Klotz: CT Biosphere
Bioindication: community similarity
Responses of community similarity in seven different communities to
land-use intensity (pesticide index)
landscape structure (splitting index of herbaceous vegetation)
Page 8 Frenzel, Baessler, Klotz: CT Biosphere
Dormann et al. (Global Ecol Biogeogr; 2007)
Bioindication: community similarity
Response of bird and bee community similarity to landscape configuration
Page 9 Frenzel, Baessler, Klotz: CT Biosphere
Dormann et al. (Global Ecol Biogeogr; 2007)
Strengths (helpful, internal)
Hypothesis-driven
Bioindication: organism-based integrative indication (reaction or accumulation) of diverse (anthropogenic) impacts on / characteristics of ecosystems
Indispensible Important indicator groups (what happens to the biotic part of ecosystems?)
Vascular plants => Primary producers (overall biodiversity indicators)
Bees & Hoverflies => Important pollinators (ecosystem service agents) (TMD – Tagfalter Monitoring)
Butterflies => Indicators for habitat quality, pollinators
Birds => Highly mobile, sensitive to landscape context, integrative on landscape scale
Page 10 Frenzel, Baessler, Klotz: CT Biosphere
Weaknesses (harmful, internal)
Small team (UFZ staff only): biodiversity related research within TERENO main focus at UFZ
Harz/Central German Lowland Observatory (6 sites à 4x4km, 6 floodplain sites)
SoilCan sites (4 + replications)
Selected species groups (organism groups, frequency)
Low frequency data (e.g. bird surveys each third year)
Labor-intensive observations (traps, field surveys)
Not device-based (no automated measurements possible)
Extra budget for external assistance (specialists for specific groups)
Integration with abiotic measurements can still be improved
Page 11 Frenzel, Baessler, Klotz: CT Biosphere
Opportunities (helpful, external)
Well-embedded in European initiatives (biotic and abiotic issues as well):
NETWORKS
LTER-Europe (Long-Term Ecosystem Research and Monitoring): Expert Panel Standardization & Technology
LTER-D (German network)
PROJECTS: WP‘s related to standardization of parameters and methods based on ecological integrity concept
• EnvEurope (Life+; 2010-13): Environmental quality and pressures assessment across Europe: the LTER network as an integrated and shared system for ecosystem monitoring
• Expeer (FP7; 2010-14): Experimentation in Ecosystem Research
• DBU Nature heritage sites: Monitoring concept
Page 12 Frenzel, Baessler, Klotz: CT Biosphere
Threats (harmful, external)
Biodiversity measurements: Basic measurements comparable in
international context, but others (e.g. ECN – Environmental Change
Network UK) have resources to do more
All our efforts may be (suddenly ) overridden by unexpected climate
change effects (see worst scenarios of CO2 increase of the past have
already become true…)
Page 13 Frenzel, Baessler, Klotz: CT Biosphere
Proposals for improvement
Within TERENO
Enhancing interdisciplinary links
Joint workshops
Tuning of measurement campaigns (see SoilCan)
… and of course some more
Page 14 Frenzel, Baessler, Klotz: CT Biosphere
Relationships between plant functional types and
ecosystem properties/ecosystem services
Topography
Land use Environmental parameters
(e.g. Soil properties)
Ecosystem properties
Biomass production
Water balance
Soil condition (e.g. carbon content)
Flowering onset mean & div.
Plant species diversity
Ecosystem services
Agronomic value
Cultural value
Pollination value
Soil carbon stock
Water quality
Plant functional traits (CWM, FD)
Biomass
C / N concentration
Biological traits (e.g. Flowering onset, Pollen vector)
Ecological traits (e.g. Ellenberg Indicator values)
Direct effects
Trait effects = Indirect effects
Trait response
(nach Lavorel et al. 2011)
Relationships between plant functional types and
ecosystem properties/ecosystem services
TERENO Observatory Schäfertal
Magdeburg
Halle
Leipzig
Bode
Saale
Unstrut
Elbe
Floodplain sites Agricultural sites
Agricultural sites
Relationships between plant functional types and
ecosystem properties/ecosystem services
TERENO Observatory Schäfertal
Magdeburg
Halle
Leipzig
Bode
Saale
Unstrut
Elbe
Floodplain sites Agricultural sites
Agricultural sites
Relationships between plant functional types and
ecosystem properties/ecosystem services
TERENO Observatory Schäfertal
Magdeburg
Halle
Leipzig
Bode
Saale
Unstrut
Elbe
Floodplain sites Agricultural sites
Agricultural sites
Permanent plots
• Historical data: landscape
structure, land use & vegetation
data (1970, 2003, 2010)
• Collection of species frequency
data at permanent plots since
2010 – biennial (annually)
Relationships between plant functional types and
ecosystem properties/ecosystem services
TERENO Observatory Schäfertal
Magdeburg
Halle
Leipzig
Bode
Saale
Unstrut
Elbe
Floodplain sites Agricultural sites
Agricultural sites
Permanent plots
• Historical data: landscape
structure, land use & vegetation
data (1970, 2003, 2010)
• Collection of species frequency
data at permanent plots since
2010 – biennial (annually)
Analyses of multidimensional functional diversity indices (FD) and
community weighted mean trait values (CWM) using plant functional traits
Relationships between plant functional types and
ecosystem properties/ecosystem services
• Analysis of functional diversity
indices using different
biological and ecological trait
values, taking the frequency of
each species into account
Changes in functional diversity
across time
Period
1970 2003 2010
Fu
ncti
on
al
Ric
hn
ess
a
b
c
Multidimensional functional diversity (FD)
(ANOVA, Tukey HSD with Bonferroni correction)
Relationships between plant functional types and
ecosystem properties/ecosystem services
• Significant shifts of
Community-weighted
traits across time
Period Period Period
1970 2003 2010 1970 2003 2010 1970 2003 2010
Fo
od
Qu
ality
Tem
pera
ture
Hu
mu
s
So
il M
ois
ture
N
utr
ien
ts
Community Weighted Mean trait values (CWM)
(ANOVA, Tukey HSD with Bonferroni correction)
a
b c
a
b c a b c
a
b
c
a
b c
1970 2003 2010
Te
mp
era
ture
a
b
c
Land-use
Intensity
Soil conditions
Water balance
Species composition
(traits)
Soil erosion
Water quality
Species – Gene pool
Pollination
PRESSURE
• landscape
structure
• fertilizer
application
Ecosystem
function
Biodiversity
Ecosystem
services
Social,
Environmental
and
Economic
value
Policy
(EU, national)
(Baessler 2008)
N
Environmental
parameter +
Vielen Dank!
Thank you very much!
Landscape structure (Core site Friedeburg)
FB 2000
FB 1969
FB 1953
GH 1960
GH 1976
GH 2000
WAN 1955
WAN 1978
WAN 2000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Meters
Dry grasslands
Meadows Wetlands
Woodlands
Arable Fields Built-up Areas
Water Traffic Network
N
FB 2000
FB 1969
FB 1953
GH 1960
GH 1976
GH 2000
WAN 1955
WAN 1978
WAN 2000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Meters
Dry grasslands
Meadows Wetlands
Woodlands
Arable Fields Built-up Areas
Water Traffic Network
N
Period Nitrogen
(N; kg/ha)
Phosphorus
(P2O5; kg/ha)
1950s 35 31
1970s 124 61
2000 178 32
Period Shannon
Diversity
Share semi-
natural habitats
PROX whole
landscape (*10³)
Mean size
arable fields (ha)
1950s 0.97 36.1 1.6 1.6
1970s 0.85 29.8 3.4 8.1
2000 0.77 25.8 4.8 10.5
Baessler & Klotz 2006
Vegetation analyses: arable weeds species richness (3 core sites)
Baessler 2008
arable weeds
Proximity whole landscapes
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
sp
ecie
s n
um
be
r
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
woodland species
Proximity meadows
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
sp
ecie
s n
um
be
r
0
1
2
3
4
5
arable weeds
Habitat diversity (SHDI)
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
sp
ecie
s n
um
be
r
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
arable weeds
nitrogen application (kg*ha-1
)
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
sp
ecie
s n
um
be
r
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
all study sites
WAN
FB
GH
a) b)
c) d)
arable weeds
share of semi-natural habitats (%)
15 20 25 30 35 40
sp
ecie
s n
um
be
r
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
e)
arable weeds
Proximity whole landscapes
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
sp
ecie
s n
um
be
r
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
woodland species
Proximity meadows
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
sp
ecie
s n
um
be
r
0
1
2
3
4
5
arable weeds
Habitat diversity (SHDI)
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
sp
ecie
s n
um
be
r
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
arable weeds
nitrogen application (kg*ha-1
)
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
sp
ecie
s n
um
be
r
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
all study sites
WAN
FB
GH
a) b)
c) d)
arable weeds
share of semi-natural habitats (%)
15 20 25 30 35 40
sp
ecie
s n
um
be
r
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
e)
F = 27.8*
F = 11.7*
sp
ec
ies
ric
hn
es
s
sp
ec
ies
ric
hn
es
s
wetlands
MPS meadows
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
30
35
40
45
50
woodlands
livestock density (ha-1
)
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
c) d)
e)
all semi-natural habitats
MPS meadows
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
sp
ec
ies
nu
mb
er
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
all semi-natural habitats
Proximity meadows
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
sp
ec
ies
nu
mb
er
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
all semi-natural habitats
phosphorus application (ha-1
)
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
sp
ec
ies
nu
mb
er
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
a) b)
f)
wetlands
phosphorus application (ha-1
)
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
30
35
40
45
50
FB
WAN
GH
all study sites
Dates of relevés: 50ties, 70ties, 2000
• High habitat diversity => high
species richness
• High nitrogen application => low
species richness
Land-use
Intensity
Soil conditions
Water balance
Species composition
(traits)
Soil erosion
Water quality
Species – Gene pool
Pollination
PRESSURE
landscape
structure
fertilizer
applications
ecosystem
function
Biodiversity
ecosystem
services
Social,
Environmental
and
Economic
value
Policy
(EU, national)
Baessler 2008
FB 2000
FB 1969
FB 1953
GH 1960
GH 1976
GH 2000
WAN 1955
WAN 1978
WAN 2000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Meters
Dry grasslands
Meadows Wetlands
Woodlands
Arable Fields Built-up Areas
Water Traffic Network
N
FB 2000
FB 1969
FB 1953
GH 1960
GH 1976
GH 2000
WAN 1955
WAN 1978
WAN 2000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Meters
Dry grasslands
Meadows Wetlands
Woodlands
Arable Fields Built-up Areas
Water Traffic Network
N
N
Concepts I: DPSIR
Page 27
Ecological
integrity
Provision
of ecosystem
services
Human
well-being
Land use Drivers of
human action Response
Decision process
STATE IMPACT
of Ecosystems Decline (or improvement)
RESPONSE
Improve or mitigate
DRIVER
Need for…
PRESSURE
Human influence…
Connection Ecol. Integrity - Ecosystem Services
Page 28
Ecosystem structures
- biotic diversity
- abiotic heterogeneity
Ecosystem processes
- energy balance
- water balance
- matter balance
Regulating services
- climate regulation
- water purification
. . .
Provision services
- food
- fuels
. . .
Cultural services
- inspiration
- genetic ressources
. . .
Social well-being
- health
- social security
- education
- nutrition
- accommodation
- leisure
. . .
Economy
- employment
- spending power
- infrastructure
- progress
. . .
STATE ESS HUMAN WELFARE
ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
Ec
os
ys
tem
Str
uctu
res
Biotic Diversity / Processes and
Interactions
flora diversity
fauna diversity
habitat structure
additional variables
Abiotic Heterogeneity
soil heterogeneity
water heterogeneity
air heterogeneity
habitat heterogeneity
additional variables
Ec
os
ys
tem
Pro
ce
ss
Energy Budget
input exergy capture
storage exergy storage
output entropy production
additional state variables meteorology
efficiency measures metabolic efficiency
Matter Budget
input matter input
storage matter storage
output matter loss
additional state variables element concentrations
efficiency measures nutrient cycling
Water Budget
input water input
storage water storage
output water output
additional state variables element concentrations
efficiency measures biotic water flow
Page 29