Presentation for the Alpine Convention in Grenoble

1. Population viability analysis:
an example of theory, tools and
planning from the Netherlands
Theo van der Sluis / Paul Opdam – ALTERRA
ECONNECT Workshop
Grenoble, 5th November 2009

2. Contents of the presentation
Introduction, ALTERRA
Start of the National Ecological Network of the Netherlands
Different phases, and how we approach it now
New challenges
Conclusions

3. Countdown 2010: stop decline biodiversity (IUCN)
In 2010 it will become obvious that this target won’t be reached
Europa develops the Natura2000 network
The first phase: designating protected areas, is almost finalised
The second phase (article 10 Habitats Directive) which
guarantees development of connections of the network, is in
most European countries still at an initial stage
Connections are most urgent in the view of climate change, in
particular in fragmented areas

5. National Ecological Network
NEN 1990:
A work map
- Existing natural areas
(core areas)
- Additonal natural areas
(expansion areas)
- Indicative connections

6. Planning the Dutch Ecological network
Area target Biodiversity Climate change
target as add. stress
+Robust adaptation
corridors
1990 2000 2006> 2012>

7. Implementation as cyclic process at 2 levels
Central government Provincial governement
National target: goal biodiversity
Evaluation of
results
National design
Monitoring Detailed design and
implementation by
provinces
Regional spatial development

8. 3 Lessons learned
Area target Biodiversity Climate change
target as add. stress
1st:
Evalu
ation
+Robust adaptation
corridors
1990 2000 2006> 2012>

9. 1st Lesson: ecological conditions instead of species
Because it is about land cover, change of spatial
structures
Spatial planners and decision makers can not handle
technical information about species, but they work
with areas, distances, landscape patterns, and
groundwater tables
Species are too dynamic and unpredictable to rely
upon
Species legitimate planning though!

10. Translate metapopulation knowledge into spatial
parameters for long term persistence
Quality network as Habitat density
habitat
Carrying capacity Connectivity
Persistance
Network area Landscape matrix
(resistance)
Opdam, Verboom & Pouwels 2003

11. Define population networks by dispersal distance
Is this network large enough for long
term persistence of species ‘x’?

12. Define population networks by dispersal distance
0.45
0.3
colonisation
0.15 chance
0
1
7 250
6 500
5 750
4
coverage water 3 1000
2 1250 distance to nearest occupied
vegetation 1 pond
1500
Van der Sluis et al. 1999

13. Minimum area persistent population network (ha)
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000 key patch
1500 nw+kp
1000 nw-kp
500
0
Great Viper Stonechat Bittern
crested
newt
Verboom et al. 2001
Landscape ecology

14. Applied in evaluation
progress realisation NEN
Target species
Required area
Expected area
Model: LARCH (Alterra)
% target species for which key patch is realised

15. Eliminating Barriers: Noordwest Brabant Province
Analysis Alterra
LARCH model
Comprehensive national
study Ministry of Roads &
Infrastructure

16. 3 Lessons learned
Area target Biodiversity
Climate change
target
2nd :
Planning
& design
+Robust adaptation
corridors
1990 2000 2006> 2012>

17. Lesson 2: planning and design
The ecological variability of species needs to be
simplified to define targets in planning and design of
ecosystem networks
Spatial ecological species groups, ‘traits’ or ‘guilds’,
can be linked to ambition levels
Allows for negotiations!

18. Ecological guilds, species groups
Stress similarities in spatial requirements of
species with regard to ecosystem networks:
Type of habitat
Required area for a sustainable population
Maximum dispersal distance
(Opdam et al. 2008, Ecol & Society)

19. How to use this knowledge in the planning process?
Spatial conditions Target, ambition level
Opdam et al., Ecology and Society 2008

20. M
Ecological traits approach
or (Opdam et al Ecology & Society 2008)
e
ar
ea
ne
ed
ed
fo
rs
us
ta
in
ab
le
co
n di
tio
ns
La
rg
er
sp
at
ia
ls
ca
le
s

21. Ecological traits: choose ambition level
Dispersal distance
Area requirement
ecoprofile 1 ecoprofile 2
ecoprofile 3 ecoprofile 4
For each Ecosystem type

22. Which species require cohesive networks most?
Dispersal poor Dispersal good
Small network Habitat specialists,
area is enough poor dispersers
Large network Large area
area required requirements

23. Which species require networks most?
Network analysis with LARCH model
Red copper in Middle Europe
Van Swaay in: van der Sluis et al, 2004

24. Which species require networks most?
Network analysis with GRIDWALK model
Lynx in Europe
Groot-Bruinderink in: Van der Sluis et al, 2004

25. Ecological traits: choose ambition level
Threshold value
Number / type of species with
sustainable populations
Ambition level
Network cohesion

26. choose ambition level Ecological traits:
Threshold value
Number / type of species with
sustainable populations
Ambition level
Network cohesion

27. 2001 –
Robust corridors:
start of second planning
cycle

28. Implementation of robust corridors
Extra ambition NEN (national level)
More budget for the Provinces
Negotiations central government Provinces about
aims and targets, ambition level
Link ambition level, aims – area requirement and
demand for spatial cohesion
‘Handbook Robust Corridors’ as tool for design
Planning guidelines developed

29. Example - robust corridor marshes
(from Handbook)

30. Example: robust corridors, design with ecological traits
Shrubs with some
aquatic habitat
(Handbook Robust Corridors, 2001)

31. Thinking about corridors….
http://www2.alterra.wur.nl/webdocs/internet/corporate/
prodpubl/boekjesbrochures/ecnc_compleet.pdf
Van der Sluis et al, 2004

32. Example: Ecological Network Cheshire County, UK
(Van Rooij et al, 2003, van der Sluis et al. 2003)

33. 3 Lessons learned
Area target Biodiversity
Climate change
target
3rd:
Green
blue
veining
around
NEN
+Robust adaptation
corridors
1990 2000 2006> 2012>

34. Climate change
Results:
Shifting climate zone
More weather extremes

35. Prediction of
shifting climate
zones

36. Climate change
180
160
140
Indicator group IA
Cold preferring
120 (n=20)
100 Indicator group IB
Thermophilous sp.
80 (n=20)
60 Indicator group IC
Neutral
(n=20)
40
20
0
90
92
94
96
98
00
02
04
06
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20

37. Climate change
The assumptions for critical thresholds for spatial
cohesion do not hold anymore
Quality network as Habitat density
habitat
Carrying capacity Connectivity
Persistence
Network area Landscape matrix
(resistance)

38. Climate change
The assumptions for critical thresholds for
spatial cohesion do not hold anymore
Weather Accessibility of
fluctuations habitat in new
change regions
Carrying capacity Connectivity
Persistence at
higher scale level

39. Challenge: how to adapt NEN to climate change?
To acquire more land for nature is (politically) not
feasible
Our proposal: develop “climate buffer”:
Strengthen the green blue veining (Trame Vert et
Bleue) of the multifunctional landscape nearby the
NEN
Transboundary corridors!

40. Challenge: how to adapt NEN to climate change?
(Van Rooij et al, 2009, van der Sluis et al. 2000)

41. Case study the Hoeksche Waard
(Steingröver et al submitted)
Surface area: 26.550 ha
60% arable land
Identity
Dikes: 335 km
Creeks: 172 km

42. The green blue network: carrier of landscape
identity and provider of biological control
Robust elements
creek banks
dikes
forest patches
main road verges
Fine elements
field margins
road verges
ditch banks

43. Cost benefit analysis
Optimal situation Investment in
biological control public space only
Costs 64,8 25,6
Benefits 102,4 50,8
Balance 46,5 25,7

44. NEN + green blue veining: more biodiversity
Greater stitchwort Bullfinch (Pyrhulla
(Stellaria holostea) in pyrhulla) in NEN
green blue veigning
1.0
1.0
Near NEN Near veigning
0.8
0.8
Predicted 0.6
0.6
presence
0.4
0.4
Without
0.2 0.2
veining
Without NEN
small elements
0.0 0.0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 large elements
More often in green More in NEN
blue veining near NEN surrounded by green
blue veining
Grashof et al 2009, Landscape ecology special issue

45. Current policy supports different strategies
Water
directive
Patch
Patch Network
Network
quality
quality density
density Habitat
Directive,
National article 10/
Habitat policies CAP
Directive,
Natura 2000 Network
Network Matrix
Matrix
area
area permeability
permeability
Opdam, Steingröver, Van Rooij 2006

46. Lessons learned
Ecological networks should be species based
Cyclical planning process required
For planning and design: ecological ‘guilds’ are a good proxy
for conserving biodiversity
Green blue veining for networks as multifunctional strategy, in
addition to robust corridors
Species approach may be slightly outdated, but still
important in communication with stakeholders (umbrella
species, flagship species)

47. Thinking about corridors….

48. Thinking about corridors…. Appenines
Experiences gained in
LIFE Econet projects
Emilia Romagna
Persiceto
Abruzzo
Study brown bear
Umbria

49. Thank you!
Theo.vanderSluis@wur.nl