Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Pierre Ibisch presented the research results of his group at the special wilderness symposium during the 3rd European Conference on Conservation Biology in Glasgow on August 2012. He argues for a definition of functional wilderness. His conclusions include the argument of functionality leads to functions which ultimately results in better ecosystem services.
Citation preview
Pierre L. Ibisch, Lisa Freudenberger, Julia Sauermann, Nuria Selva & Peter Hobson
[email protected] Symposium Wilderness at the edge of survival in Europe
ECCB 2012, Glasgow
Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
Towards a quantification of wilderness? Innovative approaches to spatial planning and
functionality-based priority setting for conservation
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
P. Ibisch 2011
Scots Pine Plantation, Stechlin-Ruppiner Land Nature Park, Brandenburg, Germany
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
Grumsin Beech Forest,
UNESCO World Heritage Site „Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Ancient Beech Forests of Germany“
Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere Reserve, Brandenburg, Germany
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
590 ha
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
Uholka Beech Forest,
UNESCO World Heritage Site „Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Ancient Beech Forests of Germany“
Carpathian Biosphere Reserve, Ukraine
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
11.860 ha
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
The relative absence or presence of wilderness: beech forests
Main sources: CORINE Land Cover data; Brus et al. 2011: Statistical mapping of tree species over Europe (EFI) Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
Relative absence of wilderness • ‚Scenery‘ • Form (structure, size) • Function
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
(after adaptive cycle by Gunderson and Holling 2002)
Functional definition of wilderness
Functional ecosystems
• structures, ecological functions and dynamics
• inherently resilient and adaptive
• development without abrupt change of system properties and/or geographical distribution
Functional, self-ordering, self-referential ecosystems without (‚modern‘) anthropogenic forcing
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
Human well- being
• In the context of
– Ecosystem services
– Ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change: goods and services related to building resilience and adaptive capacity into the managed landscape
– Green Infrastructure
Functional wild ecosystems‘
goods
e.g. temperature attenuation, clean water supply, inspiration
Functional wild ecosystems‘
services
e.g., regulating, cultural
Relevance of ´functional wilderness´
Where and how much?
Functional wild ecosystems
Processes and functions
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
Quantifying functional wilderness: mapping the (relative) absence of disturbances
• Internal disturbances
– Obvious physical changes
• Modification
• Fragmentation
• Destruction
– Subtle compositional changes – e.g., elimination of certain ecosystem elements
• External disturbances
– (Global) Environmental changes
Proxies indicating multiple
disturbances?
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
Landscape-scale proxy of absence of a series of disturbances (fragmentation, pollution, noise, hydrological changes etc.)
Quantifying functional wilderness: mapping the (relative) absence of disturbances
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
Quantifying functional wilderness: mapping the (relative) absence of disturbances
http://earthengine.google.org/#intro/Roadless10km
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
Traffic intensity (T): number of vehicles per hour (TV) multiplied by the road length (R) in a given cell Vicinity impact (V) in a given cell, was calculated as a value which takes into account the cumulative effect of all relevant roads as a function of their distance and traffic load Fragmentation grade (F) was estimated using the formula of Jaeger et al. (2000) for the degree of landscape division (DIVI)
• Spatial Road Disturbance Index (SPROADI)
Freudenberger et al. (in review) Prepared with Insensa-GIS (www.insensa.org)
Quantifying functional wilderness: mapping the (relative) absence of disturbances – the example of roads
Federal State of Brandenburg
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
• Spatial Road Disturbance Index (SPROADI)
Freudenberger et al. (in review) Prepared with Insensa-GIS (www.insensa.org)
Quantifying functional wilderness: mapping the (relative) absence of disturbances – the example of roads
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
Federal State of Brandenburg
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
• Spatial Road Disturbance Index (SPROADI) • Freudenberger et al. (in review); prepared with Insensa-GIS (www.insensa.org)
• Correlation with land use types and protection status
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
Freudenberger et al. (in press): A global map of the functionality of terrestrial ecosystems. Ecological Complexity.
Quantifying wilderness: mapping the (relative) presence of ‚functionality‘ using proxy indicators
Prepared with Insensa-GIS (www.insensa.org)
Global map of the ecosystem functionality index (EFI) in 1km resolution and WGS 1984 projection. High index values are colored green.
Tree Height Vegetation
Density
Species Richness
of Vascular
Plants
Slope Plant Functional
Richness Carbon Storage
Based on proxies:
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
a. Biological-ecological proxies • Plant species richness • Slope • Soil carbon • Vegetation density
b. Connectivity and conservation status
• Road Disturbance Index • Forest connectivity • Human footprint
c. Climate change exposure change • Relative temperature change • Relative precipitation change • Relative change of forest fires
• Brandenburg Ecosystem Functionality Index
Freudenberger et al. (2012 & in prep.)
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
Quantifying wilderness: combining proxies of (relative) presence and absence of ‚functionality‘ Freudenberger et al. (2012, in prep.) Prepared with Insensa-GIS (www.insensa.org)
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
a. Biological-ecological proxies b. Connectivity and conservation status c. Climate change impact d. FUNCTIONALITY INDEX
• Brandenburg Ecosystem Functionality Index
Freudenberger et al. (2012 & in prep.)
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
Quantifying wilderness: combining proxies of (relative) presence and absence of ‚functionality‘ Freudenberger et al. (2012, in prep.) Prepared with Insensa-GIS (www.insensa.org)
Road disturbance
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
Gap analysis: Relatively functional areas unprotected Freudenberger et al. (2012, in prep.) Prepared with Insensa-GIS (www.insensa.org)
• Brandenburg Ecosystem Functionality Index
Freudenberger et al. (2012 & in prep.)
Value
High Low
un
pro
tected
pro
tected
Federal State of Brandenburg
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
Quantifying wilderness: mapping the (relative) presence of ‚functionality‘ in forest ecosystems • forest inventory data
(tree species richness, share of native tree species, age heterogeneity, max. age, height)
Sauermann et al. (2012) Hoffmann et al. (in prep.) Prepared with Insensa-GIS (www.insensa.org)
Ibisch et al. - Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management – Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development
Conclusions • Functionality-based wilderness quantification
• Functionality functions ecosystem services
• Combination of both disturbance (footprint) and functionality indicators allows mapping of ‚relatively wild‘ and functional ecosystems
• Putting wilderness into context in Europe: ‚wilding‘ landscapes in terms of improving functionality and ecosystem services
• Conservation planning targeting functional ecosystems
