Population viability analysis:

an example of theory, tools and

planning from the NetherlandsTheo van der Sluis / Paul Opdam – ALTERRA

ECONNECT WorkshopGrenoble, 5th November 2009

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

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

National Ecological Network NEN 1990: A work map

- Existing natural areas (core areas)

- Additonal natural areas (expansion areas)

- Indicative connections

Planning the Dutch Ecological network

1990 2000 2006> 2012>

Area target Biodiversitytarget

Climate changeas add. stress

+Robustcorridors

adaptation

Implementation as cyclic process at 2 levels

National target: goal biodiversityEvaluation of results

National design

Detailed design and implementation byprovinces

Regional spatial development

Monitoring

Central g

overnm

entPro

vincialgovernem

ent

3 Lessons learned

1990 2000 2006> 2012>

Area target Biodiversitytarget

Climate changeas add. stress

+Robustcorridors

adaptation

1st:

Evalu6ation

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!

Translate metapopulation knowledge into spatial

parameters for long6term persistence

Carrying capacity Connectivity

Persistance

Quality network as habitat

Network area

Habitat density

Landscape matrix (resistance)

Opdam, Verboom & Pouwels 2003

Is this network large enough for long term persistence of species ‘x’?

Define population networks by dispersal distance

Define population networks by dispersal distance

1250

500750

10001250

150012

34

56

7

0

0.15

0.3

0.45

colonisation chance

distance to nearest occupied pond

coverage water vegetation

Van der Sluis et al. 1999

Minimum area persistent population network (ha)

0500

10001500200025003000350040004500

Greatcrested

newt

Viper Stonechat Bittern

key patchnw+kpnw-kp

Verboom et al. 2001Landscape ecology

Target species

Required area

Expected area

% target species for which key6patch is realised

Model: LARCH (Alterra)

Applied in evaluationprogress realisation NEN

Eliminating Barriers: Noordwest Brabant Province

Analysis AlterraLARCH model

Comprehensive nationalstudy Ministry of Roads & Infrastructure

1990199019901990 2000200020002000 2006>2006>2006>2006> 2012>2012>2012>2012>

Area target Biodiversitytarget Climate change

+Robustcorridors

adaptation

2nd :

Planning & design

3 Lessons learned

Lesson 2: planning and design

� The ecological variability of species needs to besimplified to define targets in planning and design of ecosystem networks

� Spatial6ecological species groups, ‘traits’ or ‘guilds’, can be linked to ambition levels

Allows for negotiations!

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)

How to use this knowledge in the planning process?

Opdam et al., Ecology and Society 2008

Spatial conditions Target, ambition level

More area needed for sustainable conditionsLarger spatial scales

Ecological traits approach(Opdam et al Ecology & Society 2008)

Ecological traits: choose ambition level

ecoprofile 1 ecoprofile 2

ecoprofile 3 ecoprofile 4

For each Ecosystem type

Dispersal distance

Are

a r

equi

rem

ent

Which species require cohesive networks most?

Large arearequirements

Large networkarea required

Habitat specialists, poor dispersers

Small networkarea is enough

Dispersal goodDispersal poor

Network analysis with LARCH model Red copper in Middle Europe

Van Swaay in: van der Sluis et al, 2004

Which species require networks most?

Which species require networks most?

Groot-Bruinderink in: Van der Sluis et al, 2004

Network analysis with GRIDWALK model Lynx in Europe

Network cohesion

Number / type of species with sustainable populations

Ambition level

Threshold value

Ecological traits: choose ambition level

Network cohesion

Number / type of species with sustainable populations

Ambition level

Threshold value

choose ambition level Ecological traits:

2001 –Robust corridors: start of second planning cycle

Implementation of robust corridors

� Extra ambition NEN (national level)

� More budget for the Provinces

� Negotiations central government6Provinces aboutaims 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

Example - robust corridor marshes

(from Handbook)

Example: robust corridors, design with ecological traits

Shrubs with some aquatic habitat

(Handbook Robust Corridors, 2001)

Thinking about corridors….

http://www2.alterra.wur.nl/webdocs/internet/corporate/prodpubl/boekjesbrochures/ecnc_compleet.pdf

Van der Sluis et al, 2004

Example: Ecological Network Cheshire County, UK

(Van Rooij et al, 2003, van der Sluis et al. 2003)

1990199019901990 2000200020002000 2006>2006>2006>2006> 2012>2012>2012>2012>

Area target Biodiversitytarget Climate change

+Robustcorridors

adaptation

3rd: Green6blue

veiningaroundNEN

3 Lessons learned

Climate change

Results:

� Shifting climate zone

� More weather extremes

Prediction of shifting climate zones

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

Indicator group IA(n=20)

Indicator group IB(n=20)

Indicator group IC(n=20)

Cold preferring

Thermophilous sp.

Neutral

Climate change

The assumptions for critical thresholds for spatial

cohesion do not hold anymore

Climate change

Carrying capacity Connectivity

Persistence

Quality network as habitat

Network area

Habitat density

Landscape matrix (resistance)

Carrying capacity Connectivity

Persistence at higher scale level

Weatherfluctuationschange

Accessibility of habitat in newregions

Climate change

The assumptions for critical thresholds for

spatial cohesion do not hold anymore

To acquire more land for nature is (politically) not feasible

� Our proposal: develop “climate buffer”:

� Strengthen the green6blue veining (Trame Vert et Bleue) of the multifunctional landscape nearby the NEN

� Transboundary corridors!

Challenge: how to adapt NEN to climate change?

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

Case study the Hoeksche Waard

(Steingröver et al submitted)

� Surface area: 26.550 ha

� 60% arable land

� Identity

� Dikes: 335 km

� Creeks: 172 km

The green6blue 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

Cost6benefit analysis

25,746,5Balance

50,8102,4Benefits

25,664,8Costs

Investment inpublic space only

Optimal situationbiological control

NEN + green6blue veining: more biodiversity

Bullfinch (Pyrhullapyrhulla) in NEN

small elements

0.8

0.035

0.4

0.030

0.0

0.0250.0200.0150.010

1.0

0.005

0.2

0.000

0.6

large elements

0.8

17.5

0.4

15.0

0.0

12.510.07.55.0

1.0

2.5

0.2

0.0

0.6

Greater stitchwort (Stellaria holostea) in green6blue veigning

More often in green2blue veining near NEN

More in NEN surrounded by green2

blue veining

Predicted presence

Without NEN

Near NEN

Without veining

Near veigning

Grashof et al 2009, Landscape ecology special issue

National policies

Water directive

Habitat Directive,

Natura 2000

Habitat Directive, article 10/

CAP

Patch qualityPatch quality

Network areaNetwork area

Network densityNetwork density

Matrix permeabilityMatrix permeability

Opdam, Steingröver, Van Rooij 2006

Current policy supports different strategies

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

� Green6blue veining for networks as multifunctional strategy, in addition to robust corridors

� Species approach may be slightly outdated, but stillimportant in communication with stakeholders (umbrellaspecies, flagship species)

Thinking about corridors….

Thinking about corridors…. Appenines

Experiences gained in

LIFE6Econet projects

� Emilia6Romagna

� Persiceto

� Abruzzo� Study brown bear

� Umbria

Thank you!

Theo.vanderSluis@wur.nl