**An Agenda for Austrian Biodiversity Research at the Long-Term Ecosystem Research Network (LTER)**

Stefan Schindler1,5, Thomas Dirnböck2, Franz Essl2, Richard Zink3, Stefan Dullinger1,4, Thomas Wrbka1 and Michael Mirtl2 *1Dptm. of Conservation Biology, Vegetation & Landscape Ecology, University of Vienna 2Environment Agency Austria 3Research Institute of Wildlife Ecology 4Vienna Institute for Nature Conservation & Analyses 5Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto 1,2,3,4Austria 5Portugal* 

#### **1. Introduction**

Natural ecosystems provide a wealth of services that are useful, or even critical to humans (Daily, 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA], 2003). Biodiversity, while being of intrinsic value per se, is meant to be a system property crucial to the provision of many of these services (Kremen, 2005; Luck et al., 2003). However, the link between diversity, ecosystem function and ecosystem services is still poorly understood (Hooper et al., 2005). Given the many threats to the future of biodiversity (Ehrlich & Pringle 2008), our limited knowledge of how human uses depend on and influence biodiversity is particularly alarming. Developing an agenda that links biodiversity research to socio-ecology in general, and to the study of ecosystem service provision and resource management in particular is hence an urgent issue.

In this book chapter, we present a research framework for Austrian biodiversity research under the umbrella of the Long-term Ecosystem Research (LTER) network (Mirtl, 2010; Mirtl et al., 2010). We elaborate research recommendations for the topics natural resources, resource use, energy production, climate change and pollutants, structural abiotic and biotic change, and the development of new methodological approaches. We further discuss institutional requirements for achieving a successful, efficient and competitive biodiversity research in Austria. We address the products of such research and their users as well as interlinks with the other thematic areas of LTER, namely process-oriented ecosystem research and socio-ecological research.

An Agenda for Austrian Biodiversity Research at

population growth; human health)

**3.1 Resources and resource use** 

of biodiversity;

dynamics, functions, and services;

account ecosystem services;

integrity and functionality of habitats and ecosystems ensuring the long-term provision of ecosystem services adapting to global change (including climate change)

the Long-Term Ecosystem Research Network (LTER) 149

Countryside" (EPBRS, 2007a), "Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services" (EPBRS 2007b) and "Freshwater Biodiversity" (EPBRS, 2008), being of particular relevance for the most important Austrian ecosystems. Consideration was also given to the very recently adopted EPBRS recommendations regarding ecosystem services (EPBRS, 2011) and to the "EPBRS Biodiversity Research Strategy 2010-2020" (EPBRS, 2010), which calls for a strong focus on research areas that generate the knowledge necessary to fulfil the following political goals: ensuring the long-term survival of species, their genetic diversity, and the ecological

contributing to meeting other Grand Challenges (water, food, energy supply;

The result of this survey led to three subject areas: resources and resource use, energy

This category includes the study of one or more species, of habitats and of ecosystem processes across guilds and trophic levels. LTER allows for a close alignment of biodiversity research and traditional ecosystem research, which primarily focuses on energy and material flows. Hence, the focus here is on the interaction between organisms and ecosystem processes. LTSER platforms can be used to extrapolate the gained knowledge from LTER based research to the regional, geopolitical scale. Studies about the utilization and conservation of biodiversity as well as the consequences of changes in utilization and their conservation impact are of particular importance. LTER Austria is an optimal frame to provide answers to research questions such as: To what extent do Austria's nature reserves meet a given set of goals (e.g. halting the loss of species, protecting endangered populations as well as endemic, demanding, rare or migratory species, etc.)? What are the consequences of the various (EU-guided) forms of agricultural land use on the conservation of biodiversity (Wrbka et al., 2008)? To what extent do individual forms of land management, such as

Several topics that were given priority by the Austrian biodiversity research and conservation community were related to resources and resource use. These prioritized topics mainly dealt with the species themselves (taxonomy, distribution and abundance of species, population ecology, protection of species in situ), but also studies on the impact of organic farming and more investigation related to wetlands are required (Platform for Biodiversity Research in Austria, 2008). Of the research recommendations made by EPBRS, those relating to mountain and freshwater biodiversity (cf. EPBRS, 2006, 2008) are most

a better understanding of the impact of human activities on the long-term sustainability

a better understanding of the role of genetic and species diversity for ecosystem

 the coupling of research and long-term monitoring to assess the status, patterns and drivers of European mountain biodiversity at various scales of space and time; The definition of favourable states for mountain habitats and populations, as well as the identification of reference states for mountain ecosystems evaluating and taking into

production, climate change and pollutants, and structural abiotic and biotic change.

hunting, fishing, forestry and farming, affect endangered populations?

relevant for biodiversity research at LTER Austria. Of particular interest is:

## **2. Long-Term Ecosystem Research (LTER)**

The European Long-term Ecosystem Research (LTER-Europe) is a network linking 400 research sites, 100 institutions and thousands of research projects in 21 national networks, conducting research into the broad range of European terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems from arctic to Mediterranean areas and covering all major longitudinal and altitudinal gradients (Mirtl, 2010). LTER is currently going through a major restructuring (cf. www.ilternet.edu). This involves the design of infrastructure and the development of approaches focused on coupled socio-ecological systems that emerge through continuous interaction of human societies with ecosystems (Haberl et al., 2006, Singh et al., in press). Sponsored by the European Union, the European LTER infrastructure has been designed and implemented based on existing sites (Mirtl, 2010). One component of LTER-Europe, the Long-term Socio-ecological Research (LTSER) aims at the integration of natural science biodiversity research with socio-economic research (www.lter-europe.net). Referring to this umbrella, the LTER research strategy in Austria was formulated and published as the LTER-Austria White Paper (Mirtl et al., 2010). The White Paper covers basic ecosystem research, biodiversity research and conservation biology and LTSER. In Europe, LTSER will be carried out on so called LTSER Platforms which represent geo-political regions where the interaction of nature and human society can be studied. LTSER mainly investigates ecological and societal pressures on ecosystems, their driving forces, the social and economic consequences of changes in ecosystems including the development, monitoring and evaluation of biodiversity management and policies.

## **3. Priority research themes**

Biodiversity research in the context of LTER is conducted over long periods of time, considers the full range of relevant scales, and/or relies on the LTER in situ infrastructure (Dirnböck et al., in press). The biodiversity research priorities presented here are based on several strategic documents targeting the Austrian and the European level. We used only strategic documents which had been compiled by a wide range of scientists and stakeholders to guarantee the integration of the breadth of the national research communities' priorities. The Austrian perspective is provided by documents compiled at the national level, such as the Declaration "Hardegger Erklärung", which was elaborated at the kick-off meeting of the Austrian Platform for Biodiversity Research (Plattform Biodiversität Forschung Austria – BDFA) and signed by 172 Austrians active in the field of biodiversity. We also considered a survey on the prioritization of issues in Austrian biodiversity research, which was conducted by the BDFA (Platform for Biodiversity Research in Austria, 2008), and was based on a British shortlist of the 100 most politically relevant ecological questions (Sutherland et al., 2006). In addition, the members of the conservation platform at the Federal Environment Agency – mainly including representatives of administrative bodies, NGOs, and businesses – were questioned. We focussed on research that is of outmost importance taking the Austrian biophysical conditions and land use patterns into account, i.e. high importance of mountains, forests, freshwater and agricultural ecosystems. As the Austrian biodiversity research priorities are strongly linked to the European research agenda, we included the European perspective which is provided by several strategic documents elaborated by the European Platform for Biodiversity Strategies (EPBRS); this especially applies to "Mountain Biodiversity" (EPBRS, 2006), "Biodiversity in the Wider

The European Long-term Ecosystem Research (LTER-Europe) is a network linking 400 research sites, 100 institutions and thousands of research projects in 21 national networks, conducting research into the broad range of European terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems from arctic to Mediterranean areas and covering all major longitudinal and altitudinal gradients (Mirtl, 2010). LTER is currently going through a major restructuring (cf. www.ilternet.edu). This involves the design of infrastructure and the development of approaches focused on coupled socio-ecological systems that emerge through continuous interaction of human societies with ecosystems (Haberl et al., 2006, Singh et al., in press). Sponsored by the European Union, the European LTER infrastructure has been designed and implemented based on existing sites (Mirtl, 2010). One component of LTER-Europe, the Long-term Socio-ecological Research (LTSER) aims at the integration of natural science biodiversity research with socio-economic research (www.lter-europe.net). Referring to this umbrella, the LTER research strategy in Austria was formulated and published as the LTER-Austria White Paper (Mirtl et al., 2010). The White Paper covers basic ecosystem research, biodiversity research and conservation biology and LTSER. In Europe, LTSER will be carried out on so called LTSER Platforms which represent geo-political regions where the interaction of nature and human society can be studied. LTSER mainly investigates ecological and societal pressures on ecosystems, their driving forces, the social and economic consequences of changes in ecosystems including the development, monitoring

Biodiversity research in the context of LTER is conducted over long periods of time, considers the full range of relevant scales, and/or relies on the LTER in situ infrastructure (Dirnböck et al., in press). The biodiversity research priorities presented here are based on several strategic documents targeting the Austrian and the European level. We used only strategic documents which had been compiled by a wide range of scientists and stakeholders to guarantee the integration of the breadth of the national research communities' priorities. The Austrian perspective is provided by documents compiled at the national level, such as the Declaration "Hardegger Erklärung", which was elaborated at the kick-off meeting of the Austrian Platform for Biodiversity Research (Plattform Biodiversität Forschung Austria – BDFA) and signed by 172 Austrians active in the field of biodiversity. We also considered a survey on the prioritization of issues in Austrian biodiversity research, which was conducted by the BDFA (Platform for Biodiversity Research in Austria, 2008), and was based on a British shortlist of the 100 most politically relevant ecological questions (Sutherland et al., 2006). In addition, the members of the conservation platform at the Federal Environment Agency – mainly including representatives of administrative bodies, NGOs, and businesses – were questioned. We focussed on research that is of outmost importance taking the Austrian biophysical conditions and land use patterns into account, i.e. high importance of mountains, forests, freshwater and agricultural ecosystems. As the Austrian biodiversity research priorities are strongly linked to the European research agenda, we included the European perspective which is provided by several strategic documents elaborated by the European Platform for Biodiversity Strategies (EPBRS); this especially applies to "Mountain Biodiversity" (EPBRS, 2006), "Biodiversity in the Wider

**2. Long-Term Ecosystem Research (LTER)** 

and evaluation of biodiversity management and policies.

**3. Priority research themes** 

Countryside" (EPBRS, 2007a), "Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services" (EPBRS 2007b) and "Freshwater Biodiversity" (EPBRS, 2008), being of particular relevance for the most important Austrian ecosystems. Consideration was also given to the very recently adopted EPBRS recommendations regarding ecosystem services (EPBRS, 2011) and to the "EPBRS Biodiversity Research Strategy 2010-2020" (EPBRS, 2010), which calls for a strong focus on research areas that generate the knowledge necessary to fulfil the following political goals:


The result of this survey led to three subject areas: resources and resource use, energy production, climate change and pollutants, and structural abiotic and biotic change.

### **3.1 Resources and resource use**

This category includes the study of one or more species, of habitats and of ecosystem processes across guilds and trophic levels. LTER allows for a close alignment of biodiversity research and traditional ecosystem research, which primarily focuses on energy and material flows. Hence, the focus here is on the interaction between organisms and ecosystem processes. LTSER platforms can be used to extrapolate the gained knowledge from LTER based research to the regional, geopolitical scale. Studies about the utilization and conservation of biodiversity as well as the consequences of changes in utilization and their conservation impact are of particular importance. LTER Austria is an optimal frame to provide answers to research questions such as: To what extent do Austria's nature reserves meet a given set of goals (e.g. halting the loss of species, protecting endangered populations as well as endemic, demanding, rare or migratory species, etc.)? What are the consequences of the various (EU-guided) forms of agricultural land use on the conservation of biodiversity (Wrbka et al., 2008)? To what extent do individual forms of land management, such as hunting, fishing, forestry and farming, affect endangered populations?

Several topics that were given priority by the Austrian biodiversity research and conservation community were related to resources and resource use. These prioritized topics mainly dealt with the species themselves (taxonomy, distribution and abundance of species, population ecology, protection of species in situ), but also studies on the impact of organic farming and more investigation related to wetlands are required (Platform for Biodiversity Research in Austria, 2008). Of the research recommendations made by EPBRS, those relating to mountain and freshwater biodiversity (cf. EPBRS, 2006, 2008) are most relevant for biodiversity research at LTER Austria. Of particular interest is:


An Agenda for Austrian Biodiversity Research at

their national implementation) on biodiversity;

indirect effects of climate changes (e.g. biofuel production);

across different scales;

impacts for biodiversity; and

**4. Approaches and methods** 

drivers of global change?

sustainably use biological diversity?

**4.1 Ecosystem functions and services** 

wellbeing?

the Long-Term Ecosystem Research Network (LTER) 151

the importance of landscape structures, patterns and gradients for biodiversity, applied

effects of demographic, social, and economic trends as well as EU policies (including

improving Agri-Environmental Schemes so that they deliver more measurable positive

Within the framework of the "Hardegger Erklärung zur österreichischen Biodiversitätsforschung" 2008 (Platform for Biodiversity Research in Austria, 2008), the

 How do methods for evaluating the function of biodiversity in ecosystems need to be improved to capture its importance in supporting ecosystem services crucial for human

 How do biodiversity indicators and monitoring systems need to be improved to identify and prospectively assess the interaction between biological diversity and the

What are the most effective strategies and methods to assess, conserve, restore and

The concept of ecosystem functions and services (Boyd & Banzhaf, 2007; Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; De Groot et al., 2002) has been increasingly employed during recent years, since it facilitates an approach to evaluating the importance of intact ecosystems for humans. In the "Millennium Ecosystem Assessment" (MEA, 2003) and "The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity" (TEEB, 2009), the importance of biodiversity and the corresponding ecosystem services was analysed and evaluated. 23 ecosystem functions were

following three research questions were prioritised (compare also EPBRS, 2010):

 the role of refugia in maintaining the long-term adaptive and evolutionary capacities. Thus, studies related to cultural landscapes, landscape fragmentation and ecological corridors are required. Core research areas should include the effects of agriculture policies and changes in land use (e.g. land abandonment and subsequent afforestation of traditional cultural landscapes) on the species richness and composition of ecological communities (cf. Wrbka et al., 2008), the soil, and the vegetation structure. A special focus should also be given to the easily overlooked long-term effects of changing land use practices on biodiversity ("extinction debt", "invasion debt", cf. Essl et al., 2011; Kuussaari et al., 2009) which represent both a hidden threat and an opportunity for timely countermeasures. The use of genetically modified organisms and associated risks for the ecosystem will also be an essential focus of future research (e.g. Pascher & Gollmann, 1999; Pascher et al., 2011). Transdisciplinary approaches that include stakeholders (farmers, foresters, hunters, people seeking recreation etc.) are indispensable for the restoration of the ecological integrity of cultural landscapes, traditional landscape patterns, and the ecosystem services associated therewith. While LTSER platforms provide ideal infrastructure for regional case studies, particularly in the context of transdisciplinary research (Singh et al., in press), LTER sites may serve as a pool for long-term monitoring data and sites for experimental approaches.


#### **3.2 Energy production, climate change and pollutants**

The interactions between organisms, biotic communities, and the main driving forces of global change are of central interest here. The related knowledge is still very scarce and more targeted research is necessary to guide effective conservation measures. The following topics were given priority by the Austrian biodiversity researchers: climate change, climate policy, biofuels and hydropower (Platform for Biodiversity Research in Austria, 2008). Studies on ecosystem functioning are the core of LTER. Ideally, experimental and observational studies should be nested in the long-term monitoring schemes, which document changes of biodiversity and the environment over longer timeframes. This is especially true when it comes to climate change, climate policy and climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, which are currently implemented in numerous sectors such as agriculture, forestry, energy production and tourism. In view of the potentially severe effects of climate change in high mountain ecosystems (Engler et al., 2011), research in high-alpine territory is especially important (Dirnböck et al., 2011; Gottfried et al., 2011; Pauli et al., 2007). Studies on the impacts of climate change and its interaction with human land use on mountain biodiversity should constitute a core field in European research (EPBRS, 2006). The effects of fossil fuel emissions and agriculture on biodiversity (e.g. CO2 effects, excess of reactive nitrogen, toxic substances, etc.) as well as the role of biodiversity for the functioning of ecosystems (e.g. carbon sequestration) are other highly relevant research topics.

#### **3.3 Structural abiotic and biotic change**

Structural changes of ecosystems have been massively accelerated by industrialization, land use change, habitat loss and fragmentation, and increased human mobility. The latter factor is the main driver of the invasive spread of non-native species (Pyšek et al., 2010).

The progressive loss of traditional landscape structures drives a massive crisis of farmland biodiversity that will probably not be completely realized until several decades into the future (Kuussaari et al., 2009). This opens a window of opportunity for rapid rethinking and the development of sustainable forms of utilization. Higher altitudes in the Alps still harbour many natural habitats. In the lowlands, natural and semi-natural habitats, which are important for biodiversity conservation (e.g. meadows, pastures, old-growth deciduous forests, and riverine areas) occur currently mainly as fragmented remnants of often an unfavourable status. The following topics related to the "wider countryside" (EPBRS, 2007a) and "freshwater biodiversity" (EPBRS, 2008) were recommended as research themes by EPBRS and should be included within the framework of LTER Austria:

the definition of criteria, indicators, methods and processes for efficient conservation

increased assessment of status and distribution of little-studied, ecologically important,

 further development of tools to effectively conserve and sustainably use freshwater ecosystems, taking into account their specific characteristics, such as spatial and

 a better understanding of the functioning and role of soil biodiversity and subterranean freshwater biodiversity, especially as they relate to ecosystem services and their

The interactions between organisms, biotic communities, and the main driving forces of global change are of central interest here. The related knowledge is still very scarce and more targeted research is necessary to guide effective conservation measures. The following topics were given priority by the Austrian biodiversity researchers: climate change, climate policy, biofuels and hydropower (Platform for Biodiversity Research in Austria, 2008). Studies on ecosystem functioning are the core of LTER. Ideally, experimental and observational studies should be nested in the long-term monitoring schemes, which document changes of biodiversity and the environment over longer timeframes. This is especially true when it comes to climate change, climate policy and climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, which are currently implemented in numerous sectors such as agriculture, forestry, energy production and tourism. In view of the potentially severe effects of climate change in high mountain ecosystems (Engler et al., 2011), research in high-alpine territory is especially important (Dirnböck et al., 2011; Gottfried et al., 2011; Pauli et al., 2007). Studies on the impacts of climate change and its interaction with human land use on mountain biodiversity should constitute a core field in European research (EPBRS, 2006). The effects of fossil fuel emissions and agriculture on biodiversity (e.g. CO2 effects, excess of reactive nitrogen, toxic substances, etc.) as well as the role of biodiversity for the functioning of ecosystems (e.g. carbon sequestration) are other highly relevant

Structural changes of ecosystems have been massively accelerated by industrialization, land use change, habitat loss and fragmentation, and increased human mobility. The latter factor

The progressive loss of traditional landscape structures drives a massive crisis of farmland biodiversity that will probably not be completely realized until several decades into the future (Kuussaari et al., 2009). This opens a window of opportunity for rapid rethinking and the development of sustainable forms of utilization. Higher altitudes in the Alps still harbour many natural habitats. In the lowlands, natural and semi-natural habitats, which are important for biodiversity conservation (e.g. meadows, pastures, old-growth deciduous forests, and riverine areas) occur currently mainly as fragmented remnants of often an unfavourable status. The following topics related to the "wider countryside" (EPBRS, 2007a) and "freshwater biodiversity" (EPBRS, 2008) were recommended as research themes by

is the main driver of the invasive spread of non-native species (Pyšek et al., 2010).

EPBRS and should be included within the framework of LTER Austria:

and sustainable management of mountain biodiversity;

or endangered freshwater taxa, habitats, and ecosystems;

temporal dynamics and connectivity; and

**3.2 Energy production, climate change and pollutants** 

indicators.

research topics.

**3.3 Structural abiotic and biotic change** 


Thus, studies related to cultural landscapes, landscape fragmentation and ecological corridors are required. Core research areas should include the effects of agriculture policies and changes in land use (e.g. land abandonment and subsequent afforestation of traditional cultural landscapes) on the species richness and composition of ecological communities (cf. Wrbka et al., 2008), the soil, and the vegetation structure. A special focus should also be given to the easily overlooked long-term effects of changing land use practices on biodiversity ("extinction debt", "invasion debt", cf. Essl et al., 2011; Kuussaari et al., 2009) which represent both a hidden threat and an opportunity for timely countermeasures. The use of genetically modified organisms and associated risks for the ecosystem will also be an essential focus of future research (e.g. Pascher & Gollmann, 1999; Pascher et al., 2011).

Transdisciplinary approaches that include stakeholders (farmers, foresters, hunters, people seeking recreation etc.) are indispensable for the restoration of the ecological integrity of cultural landscapes, traditional landscape patterns, and the ecosystem services associated therewith. While LTSER platforms provide ideal infrastructure for regional case studies, particularly in the context of transdisciplinary research (Singh et al., in press), LTER sites may serve as a pool for long-term monitoring data and sites for experimental approaches.

## **4. Approaches and methods**

Within the framework of the "Hardegger Erklärung zur österreichischen Biodiversitätsforschung" 2008 (Platform for Biodiversity Research in Austria, 2008), the following three research questions were prioritised (compare also EPBRS, 2010):


#### **4.1 Ecosystem functions and services**

The concept of ecosystem functions and services (Boyd & Banzhaf, 2007; Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; De Groot et al., 2002) has been increasingly employed during recent years, since it facilitates an approach to evaluating the importance of intact ecosystems for humans. In the "Millennium Ecosystem Assessment" (MEA, 2003) and "The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity" (TEEB, 2009), the importance of biodiversity and the corresponding ecosystem services was analysed and evaluated. 23 ecosystem functions were

An Agenda for Austrian Biodiversity Research at

another important research topic (Sachs et al., 2009).

2007; Schindler et al., 2010).

**4.3 Approaches for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity** 

To conserve rare natural goods in the long term, research today increasingly has to address not only autecological problems but also synecological aspects on population and metapopulation levels. In this context, the methodological question of choosing the "right" spatial and temporal scale is of crucial importance for the design of new concepts of evidence based conservation and sustainability (Dirnböck et al. in press). The larger the areas designated for research, the more feasible it is to conduct studies on the level of the (meta¬)population (e.g. gene flow). At larger spatial scales, it is normally not feasible to gather field data across the whole investigation area, and ecological modelling is used instead (Elith et al., 2006; Guisan & Thuiller, 2005). Long time series of in-situ data are necessary to increase the precision of models that aim for instance at detecting changes of the composition of communities and population trends. The importance of indicators and modeling is also increasing, as a growing number of research questions is met with ever decreasing budgets, making it more important than ever to use funds economically. Ecological modeling, however, is not only a means of reducing cost, but is actually a field of research in itself. Further methods that, until recently, were still in their infancy regarding their application in biodiversity research (e.g. genetics, remote sensing) are now valuable options, opening up new fields of research (Avise, 2008; Gillespie et al., 2008; Grill et al.,

The human use of ecosystems is omnipresent. The socioeconomic component of LTER, namely LTSER, and relevant biodiversity research has gained tremendously in importance over the last two decades (Mirtl et al., 2010; Singh et al., 2010). LTSER platforms provide an optimal infrastructure to meet this new requirement, enabling research that links biophysical processes to governance and communication, consider patterns and processes across several spatial and temporal scales, combines data from in-situ measurements with statistical data, cadastral surveys, and soft knowledge from the humanities (Haberl et al.,

the Long-Term Ecosystem Research Network (LTER) 153

2008). Frequently, environmental indicators are related to habitat and species diversity, land use and land cover, and invasive species. Biodiversity indication is a difficult task and the development of standardized methods to harmonize and supplement indicators for biodiversity as well as for its driving forces and the causes of endangerment is a European biodiversity research focus (EPBRS, 2007a). Well established indicators, such as the IUCN Red List Index, can undermine their own indicator performance as conservation actions become targeted towards Red List species (Newton, 2011). To ensure that naturally speciespoor habitats (e.g. mires or acidic beech forests) are adequately represented, the contribution of such areas to overall biodiversity must be considered. Current indicators of species diversity have to be expanded towards genetic diversity and ecosystem diversity (Walpole et al., 2009), and multi-taxa approaches must be applied more frequently in conservation practise (Edenius & Mikuszinski, 2006; Poirazidis et al., 2010). Increasing the taxonomic, geographic and temporal area of biodiversity indicators has to be a paramount goal of biodiversity research. Due to long time series, simultaneous in-situ data of environmental and human pressures and its effects and integrative approaches, LTER Austria provides an outstanding opportunity for testing and improving indicators for biodiversity, sustainability, and climate change. In particular the LTSER platforms provide the possibility to relate such indicators to socioeconomics and ecosystem services, which constitutes

determined, based on an even larger set of ecosystem goods and services (De Groot et al., 2002, see also Hermann et al., 2011 for a recent review). The contribution of biodiversity to ecosystem services and the influence of drivers and pressures on conservation and use of ecosystems are research aspects of particular importance (Kremen, 2005; EPBRS, 2007b, 2011). In the frame of a recent meeting under the Hungarian EU presidency that took place 27-29 of April 2011, the EPBRS (2011) adopted research recommendations regarding ecosystem services with the following ones being specifically relevant in the context of Austrian biodiversity research in the frame of LTER and LTSER:


#### **4.2 Indicators**

Indicators simplify, quantify, and communicate information on ecosystem processes that are too complex to be measured directly (Hammond et al., 1995). Biodiversity and sustainability in their entirety require very complex methods of measurement, which is why indicators are usually applied (Walpole et al., 2009). The indicators that are most relevant in terms of environmental policy are those that are easy to survey, efficient, cost-effective, sensitive to processes of change and robust against other influences (e.g. EEA, 2007; Gregory et al., 2009; Kati et al., 2010; Pauli et al., 2007; Renetzeder et al., 2010; Schindler et al., 2008; Tasser et al.,

determined, based on an even larger set of ecosystem goods and services (De Groot et al., 2002, see also Hermann et al., 2011 for a recent review). The contribution of biodiversity to ecosystem services and the influence of drivers and pressures on conservation and use of ecosystems are research aspects of particular importance (Kremen, 2005; EPBRS, 2007b, 2011). In the frame of a recent meeting under the Hungarian EU presidency that took place 27-29 of April 2011, the EPBRS (2011) adopted research recommendations regarding ecosystem services with the following ones being specifically relevant in the context of

 Develop standardized methods and criteria for the measurements, mapping and monitoring of biodiversity and ecosystem services at various temporal and spatial

 Understand the ecological, economic and social aspects of the multiplicity of ecosystem services, identify trade-offs and synergies occurring between services, and develop

 Identify and characterize linear and non-linear social and ecological dynamics (including tipping points) and their interactions, to foster ecosystem service resilience; Improve existing and develop innovative management techniques to reduce or eliminate drivers of dangerous change in ecosystem services or disservices such as biological invasions, chemical pollution including pharmaceuticals, and eutrophication; Assess the impacts on ecosystem services of novel or emerging pressures, such as alternative energy production, abrupt changes in management regimes in an oilconstrained world, and pollution by light and noise, nano-particles and micro-

 Better understand the disruption of ecosystem services, at various scales in time and space, caused by natural and anthropogenic drivers operating through phenomena such as mismatch in processes related to phenology, trophic interactions, and

 Take into account uncertainty, complexity, and all relevant knowledge including local and traditional knowledge, in developing tools and methods to support the integration of ecosystem services into management and decision making in public and private

Take into account the potential for changes in values under future scenarios, and the

Understand and evaluate ecosystem services provided by poorly known ecosystems

Identify the main threats to soil biodiversity (including to specific functional groups)

Indicators simplify, quantify, and communicate information on ecosystem processes that are too complex to be measured directly (Hammond et al., 1995). Biodiversity and sustainability in their entirety require very complex methods of measurement, which is why indicators are usually applied (Walpole et al., 2009). The indicators that are most relevant in terms of environmental policy are those that are easy to survey, efficient, cost-effective, sensitive to processes of change and robust against other influences (e.g. EEA, 2007; Gregory et al., 2009; Kati et al., 2010; Pauli et al., 2007; Renetzeder et al., 2010; Schindler et al., 2008; Tasser et al.,

variability of values in various spatial, temporal and cultural contexts;

such as glaciers, groundwater, and aquatic microbial communities;

and quantify their impacts on ecosystem processes and services;

Austrian biodiversity research in the frame of LTER and LTSER:

management mechanisms and innovative uses;

scales;

plastics;

migration;

sectors;

**4.2 Indicators** 

2008). Frequently, environmental indicators are related to habitat and species diversity, land use and land cover, and invasive species. Biodiversity indication is a difficult task and the development of standardized methods to harmonize and supplement indicators for biodiversity as well as for its driving forces and the causes of endangerment is a European biodiversity research focus (EPBRS, 2007a). Well established indicators, such as the IUCN Red List Index, can undermine their own indicator performance as conservation actions become targeted towards Red List species (Newton, 2011). To ensure that naturally speciespoor habitats (e.g. mires or acidic beech forests) are adequately represented, the contribution of such areas to overall biodiversity must be considered. Current indicators of species diversity have to be expanded towards genetic diversity and ecosystem diversity (Walpole et al., 2009), and multi-taxa approaches must be applied more frequently in conservation practise (Edenius & Mikuszinski, 2006; Poirazidis et al., 2010). Increasing the taxonomic, geographic and temporal area of biodiversity indicators has to be a paramount goal of biodiversity research. Due to long time series, simultaneous in-situ data of environmental and human pressures and its effects and integrative approaches, LTER Austria provides an outstanding opportunity for testing and improving indicators for biodiversity, sustainability, and climate change. In particular the LTSER platforms provide the possibility to relate such indicators to socioeconomics and ecosystem services, which constitutes another important research topic (Sachs et al., 2009).

#### **4.3 Approaches for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity**

To conserve rare natural goods in the long term, research today increasingly has to address not only autecological problems but also synecological aspects on population and metapopulation levels. In this context, the methodological question of choosing the "right" spatial and temporal scale is of crucial importance for the design of new concepts of evidence based conservation and sustainability (Dirnböck et al. in press). The larger the areas designated for research, the more feasible it is to conduct studies on the level of the (meta¬)population (e.g. gene flow). At larger spatial scales, it is normally not feasible to gather field data across the whole investigation area, and ecological modelling is used instead (Elith et al., 2006; Guisan & Thuiller, 2005). Long time series of in-situ data are necessary to increase the precision of models that aim for instance at detecting changes of the composition of communities and population trends. The importance of indicators and modeling is also increasing, as a growing number of research questions is met with ever decreasing budgets, making it more important than ever to use funds economically. Ecological modeling, however, is not only a means of reducing cost, but is actually a field of research in itself. Further methods that, until recently, were still in their infancy regarding their application in biodiversity research (e.g. genetics, remote sensing) are now valuable options, opening up new fields of research (Avise, 2008; Gillespie et al., 2008; Grill et al., 2007; Schindler et al., 2010).

The human use of ecosystems is omnipresent. The socioeconomic component of LTER, namely LTSER, and relevant biodiversity research has gained tremendously in importance over the last two decades (Mirtl et al., 2010; Singh et al., 2010). LTSER platforms provide an optimal infrastructure to meet this new requirement, enabling research that links biophysical processes to governance and communication, consider patterns and processes across several spatial and temporal scales, combines data from in-situ measurements with statistical data, cadastral surveys, and soft knowledge from the humanities (Haberl et al.,

An Agenda for Austrian Biodiversity Research at

consortium).

positive results?".

**6. Products and users** 

are thus direct beneficiaries.

the Long-Term Ecosystem Research Network (LTER) 155

Research in Austria, 2008). A central data collection hub that is easily accessible for LTERresearchers, the "Data Center for Biodiversity and Conservation Research", is to function as an infrastructural institution in support of research activities and as such is seen as a vital prerequisite for improving the quality of research. Another key factor is ensuring the longterm support of existing institutions contributing to biodiversity and conservation research (e.g. nature reserves, museums and collections) as well as access to the data stored at these facilities. A consensual approach to the establishment of future research foci also seems to be of particular importance. This is where the concept of LTER comes into play, without which it would be almost impossible for selected LTER sites to bring together manageable amounts of data in a competent way, i.e. linked and made accessible to individual research groups. The transnational LTER network offers the advantage of access to international data collections related to sites, where a wide range of potential drivers of biodiversity are measured simultaneously. As a first step, it provides meta-information on the existence of data sets and their holders and supports Austrian research teams to present their data and studies to the international research community – a fact that is highly relevant with respect to acquiring European funding. From a present-day perspective, mapping the research foci seems to be imperative and would give funding bodies a better overview of the entire research landscape. Identifying teams worthy of funding could thus be carried out in a

In this context the ESFRI project LifeWatch is of high relevance (www.lifewatch.eu). It links "resources" (elements producing biodiversity related data like LTER Sites or collections) with the scientific users of such resources by supporing data mining, access and workflows related to complex analyses. LTER-Europe represents one of the major in-situ components of LifeWatch. Communities as well as national organisations engaged in LTER-Europe and LifeWatch are highly overlapping in about 50% of all LifeWatch countries, securing efficient lobbying and maximum use of synergies. In Austria a national LifeWatch strategy has been adopted (Mirtl et al., 2011), integrating LTER-Austria, the BDFA and the Austrian Biodiversity Documentation (museums and collections organized as national GBIF

The driving forces of global change force public officials and conservation bodies to deal with complex questions, such as "Where do conservation measures make sense from an ecological or economic standpoint?" or "On which spatial scale are they likely to provide

The more precisely it is possible to assess future developments, the easier it is to successfully counteract undesirable developments. Reflecting the wide spectrum of expertise involved, the range of results from biodiversity and conservation research is immensely varied. Their products should be made available to the research community, but should also serve policy makers and society as a basis for future planning and decision-making. Precisely because of the many interfaces between them and the various land use sectors, agriculture, forestry and recreational industries, the transdisciplinary results of biodiversity and conservation research provide practical approaches to the sustainable exploitation of traditionally-used resources. Decision-makers and in many cases the custodians of essential goods (e.g. water)

balanced way across all sectors, to the benefit of current research foci.

2006). The inclusion of society into the existing research infrastructure facilitates transdisciplinary approaches. These approaches, which include the participation and mutual learning of stakeholders, are crucial when the research focus lies on the indirect drivers of biodiversity loss (Balian et al., 2011; EPBRS, 2010, 2011), or when the gap between science (e.g. conservation planning and research based conservation recommendations) and action (e.g. implementation of conservation actions) should be bridged (Reyes et al., 2010; Schindler et al., 2011). Stakeholder involvement can also be of advantage when defining conservation priorities. For this purpose, transnational conservation initiatives such as the European Habitat and Birds Directives as well as biodiversity-related Multilateral Environmental Agreements have to be innovatively applied (Mauerhofer 2010, 2011) along with local or national assessments (e.g. national red lists, assessment of global conservation responsibilities).

## **5. Requirements**

#### **5.1 Structural requirements**

Concerted research efforts are absolutely crucial for developing scientifically substantiated approaches to solving current problems related to biodiversity and ecosystems. Therefore, a research program founded upon a general consensus of the Austrian research community and approved at an international level is of great importance. To further strengthen research efforts, an even more efficient network of existing research facilities, initiatives, nature reserves and conservation programs is needed. A closer connection to European and international ecosystem research (e.g. LTER-Europe) is desirable; education in schools and universities must be encouraged and research institutions such as museums or universities need increased long-term financing. Cooperation and communication between science and the interested public needs to be specifically promoted.

### **5.2 Institutional requirements**

Implementing the above-mentioned structural requirements implies institutional changes. Within the framework of the EPBRS biodiversity research strategy 2010-2020, five fields are presented for developing the research environment that is needed (EPBRS, 2010):


From the Austrian research community`s point of view, highest priority should be given to a better access to biodiversity-relevant information and databases (e.g. geodata, biodiversity data, environmental data); the long-term nature and continuity of networks and projects; integration/networking with international biodiversity research and other international initiatives; as well as improved access to research funding (Platform for Biodiversity

2006). The inclusion of society into the existing research infrastructure facilitates transdisciplinary approaches. These approaches, which include the participation and mutual learning of stakeholders, are crucial when the research focus lies on the indirect drivers of biodiversity loss (Balian et al., 2011; EPBRS, 2010, 2011), or when the gap between science (e.g. conservation planning and research based conservation recommendations) and action (e.g. implementation of conservation actions) should be bridged (Reyes et al., 2010; Schindler et al., 2011). Stakeholder involvement can also be of advantage when defining conservation priorities. For this purpose, transnational conservation initiatives such as the European Habitat and Birds Directives as well as biodiversity-related Multilateral Environmental Agreements have to be innovatively applied (Mauerhofer 2010, 2011) along with local or national assessments (e.g. national red lists, assessment of global conservation

Concerted research efforts are absolutely crucial for developing scientifically substantiated approaches to solving current problems related to biodiversity and ecosystems. Therefore, a research program founded upon a general consensus of the Austrian research community and approved at an international level is of great importance. To further strengthen research efforts, an even more efficient network of existing research facilities, initiatives, nature reserves and conservation programs is needed. A closer connection to European and international ecosystem research (e.g. LTER-Europe) is desirable; education in schools and universities must be encouraged and research institutions such as museums or universities need increased long-term financing. Cooperation and communication between science and

Implementing the above-mentioned structural requirements implies institutional changes. Within the framework of the EPBRS biodiversity research strategy 2010-2020, five fields are

 continuous identification, revision and "horizon scanning" (i.e. wide, interdisciplinary early recognition of future developments; cf. Sutherland et al., 2010, 2011) of research

support of European and international platforms (e.g. GEO Bon, ILTER, GBIF,

creation of links between research and politics (e.g. via the Intergovernmental Science-

regular evaluation of European biodiversity research with particular reference to its

From the Austrian research community`s point of view, highest priority should be given to a better access to biodiversity-relevant information and databases (e.g. geodata, biodiversity data, environmental data); the long-term nature and continuity of networks and projects; integration/networking with international biodiversity research and other international initiatives; as well as improved access to research funding (Platform for Biodiversity

presented for developing the research environment that is needed (EPBRS, 2010):

Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services – IPBES); and

increasing capacity through general and advanced education;

practicability and the applicability of research findings.

responsibilities).

**5. Requirements** 

**5.1 Structural requirements** 

**5.2 Institutional requirements** 

Biodiversity-Knowledge);

foci;

the interested public needs to be specifically promoted.

Research in Austria, 2008). A central data collection hub that is easily accessible for LTERresearchers, the "Data Center for Biodiversity and Conservation Research", is to function as an infrastructural institution in support of research activities and as such is seen as a vital prerequisite for improving the quality of research. Another key factor is ensuring the longterm support of existing institutions contributing to biodiversity and conservation research (e.g. nature reserves, museums and collections) as well as access to the data stored at these facilities. A consensual approach to the establishment of future research foci also seems to be of particular importance. This is where the concept of LTER comes into play, without which it would be almost impossible for selected LTER sites to bring together manageable amounts of data in a competent way, i.e. linked and made accessible to individual research groups.

The transnational LTER network offers the advantage of access to international data collections related to sites, where a wide range of potential drivers of biodiversity are measured simultaneously. As a first step, it provides meta-information on the existence of data sets and their holders and supports Austrian research teams to present their data and studies to the international research community – a fact that is highly relevant with respect to acquiring European funding. From a present-day perspective, mapping the research foci seems to be imperative and would give funding bodies a better overview of the entire research landscape. Identifying teams worthy of funding could thus be carried out in a balanced way across all sectors, to the benefit of current research foci.

In this context the ESFRI project LifeWatch is of high relevance (www.lifewatch.eu). It links "resources" (elements producing biodiversity related data like LTER Sites or collections) with the scientific users of such resources by supporing data mining, access and workflows related to complex analyses. LTER-Europe represents one of the major in-situ components of LifeWatch. Communities as well as national organisations engaged in LTER-Europe and LifeWatch are highly overlapping in about 50% of all LifeWatch countries, securing efficient lobbying and maximum use of synergies. In Austria a national LifeWatch strategy has been adopted (Mirtl et al., 2011), integrating LTER-Austria, the BDFA and the Austrian Biodiversity Documentation (museums and collections organized as national GBIF consortium).

## **6. Products and users**

The driving forces of global change force public officials and conservation bodies to deal with complex questions, such as "Where do conservation measures make sense from an ecological or economic standpoint?" or "On which spatial scale are they likely to provide positive results?".

The more precisely it is possible to assess future developments, the easier it is to successfully counteract undesirable developments. Reflecting the wide spectrum of expertise involved, the range of results from biodiversity and conservation research is immensely varied. Their products should be made available to the research community, but should also serve policy makers and society as a basis for future planning and decision-making. Precisely because of the many interfaces between them and the various land use sectors, agriculture, forestry and recreational industries, the transdisciplinary results of biodiversity and conservation research provide practical approaches to the sustainable exploitation of traditionally-used resources. Decision-makers and in many cases the custodians of essential goods (e.g. water) are thus direct beneficiaries.

An Agenda for Austrian Biodiversity Research at

11579-11586, ISSN 1091-6490

(April, 2006), pp. 129-151, ISSN 1600-0587

Slovenia, 14.05.2011, Available from

(February 2011), pp. 990-996, ISSN 1365-2486

Vol.21, Suppl.7, (February 2006), pp. 62-72, ISSN 1400-4089

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical\_report\_2007\_11

Copenhagen, Denmark, 14.05.2011, Available from

the Long-Term Ecosystem Research Network (LTER) 157

Dirnböck, T.; Essl, F. & Rabitsch, W. (2011). Disproportional extinction risk of high-altitude

Edenius, L. & Mikusinski, G. (2006). Utility of habitat suitability models as biodiversity

EEA (2007). European Environment Agency Report No. 11. Halting the loss of biodiversity

Ehrlich, P.R. & Pringle, R.M. (2008). Where does biodiverstiy go from here? A grim business-

Elith, J.; Graham, C.H.; Anderson, R.P.; Dudík, M.; Ferrier, S.; Guisan, A.; Hijmans, R.J.;

Engler, R.; Randin, C.; Thuiller, W.; Dullinger, S.; Zimmermann, N.E.; Araújo, M.B.;

EPBRS (2006). EPBRS Recommendations on Europe's Mountain Biodiversity: Research,

EPBRS (2007a). Biodiversity in the wider countryside. Recommendations of the meeting of

Presidency of the EU. EPBRS, Leipzig, Germany, 14.05.2011, Available from http://www.epbrs.org/PDF/EPBRS-DE2007-Wider%20countryside%20final.pdf EPBRS (2007b). Biodiversity and ecosystem services: the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Presidency of the EU. EPBRS, Leipzig, Germany, 14.05.2011, Available from http://www.epbrs.org/PDF/EPBRS-DE2007-Mill%20Ecosystem%20final.pdf EPBRS (2008). Water for Life: Research priorities for sustaining freshwater biodiversity.

*Biology*, Vol.17, No.7 (July, 2011), pp. 2330-2341, ISSN 1365-2486

EU. EPBRS, Vienna, Austria, 14.05.2011, Available from http://www.epbrs.org/PDF/AT-2006-MountainBiodiversity-Final.pdf

endemic species under climate change. *Global Change Biology,* Vol.17, No.2

assessment tools in forest management. *Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research,*

by 2010: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe.

as-usual forecast and a hopeful portfolio of partial solutions. *Proceeedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA,* Vol.105, Supplement 1 (August 2008), pp.

Huettmann, F.; Leathwick, J.R.; Lehmann, A.; Li, J.; Lohmann, L.G.; Loiselle, B.A.; Manion, G.; Moritz, C.; Nakamura, M.; Nakazawa, Y.; Overton, J.McC.; Peterson, A.T.; Phillips, S.J.; Richardson, K.S.; Scachetti-Pereira, R.; Schapire, R.E.; Soberón, J.; Williams, S.; Wisz, M.S. & Zimmermann, N.E. (2006). Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data. *Ecography,* Vol.29, No.2

Pearman, P.B.; Le Lay, G., Piédallu, C.; Albert, C.H.; Choler, P.; Coldea, G.; de Lamo, X.; Dirnböck, T.; Gégout, J.-C.; Gómez-García, D.; Grytnes, J.-A.; Heegaard, E.; Høistad, F.; Nogués-Bravo, D.; Normand, S.; Puşcas, M.; Sebastià, M.-T.; Stanisci, A.; Theurillat, J.-P.; Trivedi, M.; Vittoz, P. & Guisan, A. (2011). 21st century climate change threatens mountain flora unequally across Europe. *Global Change* 

Monitoring, Management. Recommendations of the meeting of the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy held under Austrian Presidency of the

the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy held under German

framework in a European perspective. Recommendations of the meeting of the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy held under German

Recommendations of the meeting of the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy held under Slovenian Presidency of the EU. EPBRS, Brdo,

## **7. Conclusion**

The global loss of natural habitats, biodiversity and ecosystem services represent one of the biggest challenges facing mankind. Emerging issues that could have substantial impacts on the conservation of biological diversity may become reality in the near future (Sutherland et al., 2010, 2011). By combining research and long-term monitoring and creating the necessary infrastructure for this, LTER Austria – in cooperation with LTER networks in other countries – can provide science based answers to the problems arising at an ever increasing rate due to global change.

## **8. Acknowledgment**

We are grateful to the other Austrian researchers, who collaborated in the compilation of the LTER Austria White paper (Mirtl et al., 2010) and to Volker Mauerhofer for his helpful comments on this manuscript. This contribution was partly funded by LTER Austria as well as by the project "Bioserve" of the Austrian Academy of Science.

## **9. References**


The global loss of natural habitats, biodiversity and ecosystem services represent one of the biggest challenges facing mankind. Emerging issues that could have substantial impacts on the conservation of biological diversity may become reality in the near future (Sutherland et al., 2010, 2011). By combining research and long-term monitoring and creating the necessary infrastructure for this, LTER Austria – in cooperation with LTER networks in other countries – can provide science based answers to the problems arising at an ever increasing rate due

We are grateful to the other Austrian researchers, who collaborated in the compilation of the LTER Austria White paper (Mirtl et al., 2010) and to Volker Mauerhofer for his helpful comments on this manuscript. This contribution was partly funded by LTER Austria as well

Avise, J.C. (2008). Three ambitious (and rather unorthodox) assignments for the field of

Balian, E.V.; Berhault, A.; Rode, J.; Schindler, S. & Sharman, M. (2011). Report of the Positive

http://www.positivevisionsforbiodiversity.org/pg/file/read/2952/report-of-the-

Boyd, J. & Banzhaf, S. (2007). What Are Ecosystem Services? The Need for Standardized

Costanza, R.; d'Arge, R.; de Groot, R.S.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.;

Daily, G. (1997). *Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems*, Island Press,

De Groot, R.S.; Wilson, M.A. & Boumans, R.M.J. (2002). A typology for the classification,

Dirnböck, T.; Bezák, P.; Dullinger, S.; Haberl, H.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Mirtl, M.; Peterseil, J.;

Chertow, M. Mirtl & M. Schmid (Eds.) Springer, ISBN 978-94-007-1176-1

*Economics,* Vol.41, No.3, (June 2002), pp. 393-408, ISSN 0921-8009

biodiversity genetics. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,* Vol. 105, Supplement 1, (August, 2008), pp. 11564-11570, ISSN

Visions for Biodiversity Summit: the 2010 European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS) meeting under the Belgian Presidency of the European

Environmental Accounting Units. *Ecological Economics,* Vol.63, No.2-3, (August

Naeem, S.; O'Neill, R.; Paruelo, J.; Raskins, R.; Sutton, B. & van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital, *Nature,* Vol.387,

description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. *Ecological* 

Redpath, S.; Singh, S.; Travis, J. & Wijdeven, S.M.J. (in press). Critical scales for integrated biodiversity research, In: *Long term socio-ecological research: Studies in society-nature interactions across spatial and temporal scales.* S.J. Singh, H. Haberl, M.

as by the project "Bioserve" of the Austrian Academy of Science.

Union. EPBRS, Brussels. 14.05.2011. Available from:

No.6630, (May 1997), pp. 253-260, ISSN 0028-0836

ISBN 978-155-9634-76-2, Washington, DC

positive-visions-for-biodiversity-summit

2007), pp. 616-626, ISSN 0921-8009

**7. Conclusion** 

to global change.

**9. References** 

00278424

**8. Acknowledgment** 


http://www.epbrs.org/PDF/AT-2006-MountainBiodiversity-Final.pdf


An Agenda for Austrian Biodiversity Research at

0169-5347

austria.at

http://www.lter-austria.at

pp. 1139-1158, ISSN 0960-3115

263X.2011.00167.x

5347

(February 2005), pp. 3-35, ISSN 0012-9615.

ISBN 1-55963-402- 2, Washington, DC

No.6, (June 2010), pp. 1585-1597, ISSN 0960-3115

the Long-Term Ecosystem Research Network (LTER) 159

Kati, V.; Poirazidis, K.; Dufrêne, M.; Halley, J.M.; Korakis, G.; Schindler, S. & Dimopoulos, P.

Kremen, C. (2005). Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? *Ecology Letters,* Vol.8, No.5 (May, 2005), pp. 468-479, ISSN 1461-0248 Kuussaari, M.; Bommarco, R.; Heikkinen, R.K.; Helm, I.; Krauss, J.; Lindborg, R.; Öckinger,

Luck, G.W.; Daily, G.C. & Ehrlich, P.R. (2003). Population diversity and ecosystem services.

MEA (2003). *Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment,* Island Press,

Mauerhofer, V. (2010). Missing links: how individuals can contribute to reserve policy

Mirtl, M. (2010). Introducing the next generation of ecosystem research in Europe: LTER-

Mirtl, M.; Götzl, M.; Malicky, M.; Rainer, H.; Schleidt, K.; Schindler, S. & Schentz, H. (2011).

Newton, A.C. (2011). Implications of Goodhart's Law for monitoring global biodiversity

Pascher, K. & Gollmann, G. (1999). Ecological risk assessment of transgenic plant releases:

Pascher, K.; Moser, D.; Dullinger, S.; Sachslehner, L.; Gros, P.; Sauberer, N.; Traxler, A.;

Conservation, Vol.19, No.3, (March, 2010), pp. 601–618, ISSN 0960-3115 Mauerhofer, V. (2011). A bottom-up 'Convention-Check' to improve top-down global

886, ISSN 0264-8377, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.03.004

functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. *Ecological Monographs,* Vol.75, No.1

(2010). Toward the use of ecological heterogeneity to design reserve networks: a case study from Dadia National Park, Greece. *Biodiversity and Conservation,* Vol.19,

E.; Pärtel, M.; Pino, J.; Rodà, F.; Stefanescu, C.; Teder, T.; Zobel, M. & Steffan-Dewenter, I. (2009). Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. *Trends in Ecology and Evolution,* Vol.24, No.10 (August, 2009), pp. 564-571, ISSN

*Trends in Ecology and Evolution,* Vol.18, No.7 (July, 2003), pp. 331-336, ISSN 0169-

enforcement on the example of the European Union. Biodiversity and

protected area governance. *Land Use Policy*, Vol. 28, No.4 (October, 2011), pp. 877-

Europe's multi-functional and multi-scale approach, In: *Long-term ecological research: between theory and application.* F. Müller, C. Baessler, H. Schubert & S. Klotz (Eds.) Springer, pp. 75-93, ISBN: 978-90-481-8781-2, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Mirtl, M.; Bahn, M.; Battin, T.; Borsdorf, A.; Englisch, M.; Gaube, V.; Grabherr, G.; Gratzer,

G.; Kreiner, D.; Haberl, H.; Richter, A.; Schindler, S.; Tappeiner, U.; Winiwarter, V. & Zink, R. (2010). *LTER-Austria White Paper. "Next Generation LTER" in Austria.*  LTER Austria-Austrian Long-Term Ecosystem research Network, ISBN 978-3- 901347-94-8, Vienna, Austria. 14.05.2011, Available from http://www.lter-

Österreichisches ESFRI Roadmap Projekt "LIFEWATCH". Erstes Konzept als Basis zur Zeichnung des LifeWatch MoI. Vienna, Austria, 07.07.2011, Available from

loss. *Conservation Letters Vol. 4, in press.* ISSN 1755-263X, doi: 10.1111/j.1755-

an Austrian perspective. *Biodiversity and Conservation,* Vol.8, No.8, (August 1999),

Grabherr, G. & Frank, T. (2011). Setup, efforts and practical experiences of a

http://www.epbrs.org/PDF/EPBRS-SI2008-Freshwater\_Final\_.pdf

EPBRS (2010). European Biodiversity Research Strategy 2010-2020. Version 1. EPBRS, Palma de Mallorca, Spain, 14.05.2011, Available from

http://www.epbrs.org/PDF/EPBRS\_StrategyBDResearch\_May2010.pdf


EPBRS (2010). European Biodiversity Research Strategy 2010-2020. Version 1. EPBRS, Palma

EPBRS (2011). Recommendations of the meeting of the European Platform for Biodiversity

ecosystem services. EPBRS, Budapest, Hungary, 14.05.2011, Available from http://share.bebif.be/data/EPBRS/EPBRS-HU2011-EcosystemServices\_Final.pdf Essl, F.; Dullinger, S.; Rabitsch, W.; Hulme, P.E.; Hülber, K.; Jarošík, V.; Kleinbauer, I.;

Gillespie, T.W.; Foody, G.M.; Rocchini, D.; Giorgi, A.P. & Saatchi, S. (2008). Measuring and

Gottfried, M.; Hantel, M.; Maurer, C.; Toechterle, R.; Pauli, H. & Grabherr, G. (2011).

Gregory, R.D.; Willis S.G.; Jiguet F.; Voříšek P.; Klvaňová A.; van Strien, A.; Huntley, B.;

Grill, A.; Raijmann, L.E.L.; van Ginkel, W; Gkioka, E. & Menken, S.B.J. (2007). Genetic

Guisan, A. & Thuiller, W. (2005). Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple

Haberl, H.; Winiwarter, V.; Andersson, K.; Ayres, R.U.; Boone, C.G.; Castillio, A.; Cunfer, G.;

research. Ecology and Society, Vol.11, No.2, Article 13, ISSN 1708-3087 Hammond, A.; Adriaane, A.; Rodenburg, E.; Bryant, D. & Woodward, R. (1995).

Herrmann, A.; Schleifer, S. & Wrbka T. (2011). The Concept of Ecosystem Services

Hooper, D.U.; Chapin, F.S.III; Ewel, J.J.; Hector, A.; Inchausti, P.; Lavorel, S.; Lawton, J.H.;

Resources Institute, ISBN 1-56973-026-1, Washington, DC.

Vol.5, No.1, (March 2011), pp. 1-37, ISSN 1863-7329

*Research Letters,* Vol.6, No.1 (March 2011), 014013, ISSN 1748-9326

Research Strategy held under the Hungarian Presidency of the EU concerning

Krausmann, F.; Kühn, I.; Nentwig, W.; Vilà, M.; Genovesi, P.; Gherardi, F.; Desprez-Loustau, M.-L.; Roques, A. & Pyšek, P. (2011). Socio-economic legacy yields an invasion debt. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA,*

modeling biodiversity from space. *Progress in Physical Geography,* Vol.32, No.2

Coincidence of the alpine-nival ecotone with the summer snowline. *Environmental* 

Collingham, Y.C.; Couvet, D. & Green, R.E. (2009). An indicator of the impact of climatic change on European bird populations. *PLoS-ONE,* Vol.4, No.3, (March

differentiation and natural hybridization between the Sardinian endemic Maniola nurag and the European Maniola jurtina. *Journal of Evolutionary Biology,* Vol.20,

habitat models. *Ecology Letters* Vol.8, No.9 (June, 2005), pp.993-1009, ISSN 1461-

Fischer-Kowalski, M.; Freudenburg, W.R.; Furman, E.; Kaufmann, R.; Krausmann, F.; Langthaler, E.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Mirtl, M.; Redman, C.A.; Reenberg, A.; Wardell, A.D.; Warr, B. & Zechmeister, H. (2006). From LTER to LTSER: Conceptualizing the socio-economic dimension of long-term socio-ecological

*Environmental Indicators: a Systematic Approach to Measuring and Reporting on Environmental Policy Performance in the Context of Sustainable Development.* World

Regarding Landscape Research: A Review. Living Reviews in Landscape Research

Lodge, D.M.; Loreau, M.; Naeem, S.; Schmid, B.; Setälä, H.; Symstad, A.J.; Vandermeer, J. & Wardle, D.A. (2005). Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem

http://www.epbrs.org/PDF/EPBRS-SI2008-Freshwater\_Final\_.pdf

Vol.108, No. 1 (January 2011), pp.203-207, ISSN 1091-6490

(April, 2008), pp. 203-221, ISSN 0309-1333

No.4 (May, 2007), pp. 1255-1270, ISSN 1420-9101

2009), e4678, ISSN 1932-6203

0248

http://www.epbrs.org/PDF/EPBRS\_StrategyBDResearch\_May2010.pdf

de Mallorca, Spain, 14.05.2011, Available from

functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. *Ecological Monographs,* Vol.75, No.1 (February 2005), pp. 3-35, ISSN 0012-9615.


An Agenda for Austrian Biodiversity Research at

Netherlands.

5347.

14.05.2011, Available from

&language=en-US

*scales.* Springer, ISBN 978-94-007-1176-1

the Long-Term Ecosystem Research Network (LTER) 161

Springer, pp. 174-184, ISBN 978-90-481-3051-1, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Schindler, S.; Poirazidis, K. & Wrbka, T. (2008). Towards a core set of landscape metrics for

Singh, S.J.; Haberl, H.; Gaube, V.; Grünbühel, C.M.; Lisievici, P.; Lutz, J.; Matthews, R.; Mirtl,

Sutherland, W.J.; Armstrong-Brown, S.; Armsworth, P.R.; Brereton, T.; Brickland, J.;

Sutherland, W.J.; Bardsley, S.; Bennun, L.; Clout, M.; Coté, I.M.; Depledge, M.H.; Dicks, L.V.;

Sutherland, W.J.; Clout, M.; Côté, I.M.; Daszak, P.; Depledge, M.H.; Fellman, L.; Fleishman,

Tasser, E.; Sternbach, E. & Tappeiner, U. (2008). Biodiversity indicators for sustainability

http://www.teebweb.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=I4Y2nqqIiCg%3d&tabid=1019

*Evolution,* Vol.25, No.1, (January 2010), pp. 1-7, ISSN 0169-5347

Dobson, A.P.; Felmann, L.; Fleishman, E.; Gibbons, D.W.; Impex, A.J.; Lawton, J.H.; Lockorish, F.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Lovejoj, T.E.; Mac Nally, R.; Madgwick, J.; Peck, L.S.; Pretty, J.; Prior, S.V.; Redford, K.H.; Scharlemann, J.P.W.; Spalding, M. & Watkinson, A.R. (2011). Horizon scanning of global conservation issues for 2011. *Trends in Ecology & Evolution,* Vol.26, No.1, (January 2011), pp. 10-16, ISSN 0169-

E.; Garthwaite, R.; Gibbons, D.W.; De Lurio, J.; Impey, A.J.; Lickorish, F.; Lindenmayer, D.; Madgwick, J.; Margerison, C.; Maynard, T.; Peck, L.S.; Pretty, J.; Prior, S.; Redford, K.H.; Scharlemann, J.P.W.; Spalding, M. & Watkinson, A.R. (2010). A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2010. *Trends in Ecology &* 

monitoring at municipality level: an example of implementation in an alpine region. *Ecological Indicators,* Vol.8, No.3, (May 2008), pp. 204-223, ISSN 1470-160X TEEB (November 2009). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and

International Policy Makers – Summary: Responding to the Value of Nature 2009.

Vol.43, No.4, (August 2006), pp. 617-627, ISSN 1365-2664

*Indicators,* Vol.8, No.5, (September 2008), pp. 502-514, ISSN 1470-160X Singh, S.J.; Haberl, H.; Chertow, M.; Mirtl, M. & Schmid, M. (Eds.) (in press). *Long term socio-*

management in a Mediterranean forest landscape, In: *Landscape modelling: geographical space, transformation and future scenarios.* J. Andel; I. Bicik; P. Dostal; Z. Lipsky & S.G. Shahneshin (Eds.), Urban and Landscape Perspectives Series, Vol. 8.,

biodiversity assessments: a case study from Dadia National Park, Greece. *Ecological* 

*ecological research: Studies in society-nature interactions across spatial and temporal* 

M.; Vadineanu, A. & Wildenberg, M. (2010). Conceptualising Long-Term Socioecological Research (LTSER): Integrating the Social Dimension, In: *Long-term ecological research: between theory and application.* F. Müller, C. Baessler, H. Schubert & S. Klotz (Eds.) Springer, pp. 377-398, ISBN 978-90-481-8781-2, Dordrecht, The

Campell, C.D.; Chamerlain, D.E.; Cooke, A.I.; Dulvy, N.K.; Dusic, N.R.; Fitton, M.; Freckleton, R.P.; Godfray, H.C.J.; Grout, N.; Harvey, H.J.; Hedley, C.; Hopkins, J.J.; Kift, N.B.; Kirby, J.; Kunin, W.E.; MacDonald, D.W.; Marker, B.; Naura, M.; Neale, A.R.; Oliver, T.; Osborn, D.; Pullin, A.S.; Shardlow, E.A.; Showler, D.A.; Smith, P.L.; Smithers, R.J.; Solandt, J.-L.; Spencer, J.; Spray, C.J.; Thomas, C.D.; Thompson, J.; Webb, S.E.; Yalden, D.W. & Watkinson, A.R. (2006). The identification of 100 ecological questions of high policy relevance in the UK. *Journal of Applied Ecology,*

monitoring program for genetically modified plants - An Austrian case study for oilseed rape and maize. *Environmental Sciences Europe*, Vol.13 (March, 2011), pp. 1- 12, ISSN 2190-4715


 http://131.130.59.133/biodiv\_forschung/Texte/Bericht\_Bioplattform\_200805\_com plete.pdf


Pauli, H.; Gottfried, M.; Reiter, K.; Klettner, C. & Grabherr, G. (2007). Signals of range

Platform for Biodiversity Research in Austria (2008). Plattform Biodiversität Forschung

http://131.130.59.133/biodiv\_forschung/Texte/Bericht\_Bioplattform\_200805\_com

Poirazidis, K.; Schindler, S.; Kati, V.; Martinis, A.; Kalivas, D.; Kasimiadis, D.; Wrbka, T. &

Pyšek, P.; Jarosik, V.; Hulme, P.; Kühn, I.; Wild, J.; Arianoutsou, M.; Bacher, S.; Chiron, F.;

Renetzeder, C.; Schindler, S.; Peterseil, J.; Prinz, M.A.; Mücher, S. & Wrbka, T. (2010). Can

*Ecological Indicators,* Vol.10, No.1 (January, 2010), pp. 39-48, ISSN 1470-160X Reyers, B.; Roux, D.J.; Cowling, R.M.; Ginsburg, A.E.; Nel, J.L. & Farrel, P.O. (2010).

Sachs J.D.; Baillie J.E.; Sutherland W.J.; Armsworth, P.R.; Ash, N.; Beddington, J.; Blackburn,

Schindler, S.; Curado, N.; Nikolov, S.; Kret, E.; Cárcamo, B.; Poirazidis, K.; Catsadorakis, G.;

Schindler, S.; Poirazidis, K.; Papageorgiou, A.C.; Kalivas, D.; von Wehrden, H. & Kati, V.

(Eds.), Springer, pp. 380-399, ISBN 978-3-642-12753-3, New York.

No.27, (June, 2010), pp. 12157-12162, ISSN 1091-6490

Vol.24, No.4 (August, 2010) pp. 957-965, ISSN 1523-1739

Vol.13, No.1, (January 2007), pp. 147-156, ISSN 1365-2486

12, ISSN 2190-4715

14.05.2011, Available from

1502-1503, ISSN 0036-8075

1617-1381, 10.1016/j.jnc.2011.01.001

plete.pdf

monitoring program for genetically modified plants - An Austrian case study for oilseed rape and maize. *Environmental Sciences Europe*, Vol.13 (March, 2011), pp. 1-

expansions and contractions of vascular plants in the high Alps: observations 1994- 2004 at the GLORIA\* master site Schrankogel, Tyrol, Austria. *Global Change Biology,*

Austria (BDFA): Tätigkeitsbericht Mai 2008 für das Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung (BWF). University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria,

Papageorgiou, A.C. (2010). Conservation of biodiversity in managed forests: developing an adaptive decision support system, In: *Landscape ecology and forest management: challenges and solutions in a changing globe. C.* Li; R. Lafortezza & J. Chen

Didziulis, V.; Essl, F.; Genovesi, P.; Gherardi, F.; Hejda, M.; Kark, S.; Lambdon, P.W.; Desprez-Loustau, A.-M.; Nentwig, W.; Pergl, J.; Poboljsaj, K.; Rabitsch, W.; Roques, A.; Roy, D.; Shirley, S.; Solarz, W.; Vilá, M. & Winter, M. (2010). Disentangling the role of environmental and human pressures on biological invasions across Europe. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,* Vol.107,

we measure ecological sustainability? Landscape pattern as indicator for naturalness and land use intensity at regional, national and European level.

Conservation Planning as a Transdisciplinary Process. Conservation Biology,

T.M.; Collen, B.; Gardiner, B.; Gaston, K.J.; Godfray, H.C.J.; Green, R.E.; Harvey, P.H.; House, B.; Knapp, S.; Kümpel, N.F.; Macdonald, D.W.; Mace, G.M.; Mallet, J.; Matthews, A.; May, R.M.; Petchey, O.; Purvis, A.; Roe, D.; Safi, K.; Turner, K.; Walpole, M.; Watson, R. & Jones, K.E. (2009). Biodiversity Conservation and the Millennium Development Goals. *Science,* Vol.325, No.5947, (September 2009), pp.

Wrbka, T. & Kati, V. (2011). From research to implementation: nature conservation in the Eastern Rhodopes mountains (Greece and Bulgaria), European Green Belt. *Journal for Nature Conservation,* Vol.19, No.4 (September, 2011), pp. 193-201, ISSN

(2010). Landscape approaches and GIS as a prerequisite for biodiversity

management in a Mediterranean forest landscape, In: *Landscape modelling: geographical space, transformation and future scenarios.* J. Andel; I. Bicik; P. Dostal; Z. Lipsky & S.G. Shahneshin (Eds.), Urban and Landscape Perspectives Series, Vol. 8., Springer, pp. 174-184, ISBN 978-90-481-3051-1, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.


 http://www.teebweb.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=I4Y2nqqIiCg%3d&tabid=1019 &language=en-US

**9** 

**Conservation of Chinese Plant** 

*1BioC-GReB, Botanic Institute of Barcelona (CSIC-ICUB),* 

*State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences,* 

*Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang, Jiangxi* 

Jordi López-Pujol1, Hua-Feng Wang2 and Zhi-Yong Zhang3

China is one of the richest countries in plant diversity, ranking third in the world (after Brazil and Colombia) in number of species, and one of the world's 17 'mega-diversity' countries (Mittermeier et al., 1997). The estimated number of vascular plant species may approach 33,000, with 30,000 angiosperms, 250 gymnosperms, and 2,600 pteridophytes (up to 12%, 27% and 20% of world's total, respectively). Furthermore, approximately 2,200 bryophytes can be found in China (López-Pujol et al., 2006; Table 1). There are more than 3,000 genera and *ca*. 350 families of vascular plants (Li et al., 2003; MacKinnon & Wang, 2008). Nevertheless, these figures refer to mainland China and do not include either Taiwan or Hong Kong. Taiwan alone harbors more than 4,000 vascular plants (over 3,300 angiosperms, about 30 gymnosperms, and about 600 pteridophytes; Hsieh, 2002). With an area of only about 1,100 km2, Hong Kong still retains a very rich plant diversity, with more

China encompasses enormous diversity in geographical, climatological and topographical features, in addition to a complex and ancient geological history (with most of its lands formed as early as the end of the Mesozoic era; Wang, 1985). The country spans five major climatic zones (cold-temperate, temperate, warm-temperate, subtropical, and tropical), and is home to the highest mountain range on Earth (the Himalayas) and perhaps the most rugged one (the Hengduan Mountains), vast plateaux such as the Tibetan (*Qinghai-Xizang*) Plateau, deserts (e.g. Taklamakan), deep depressions (e.g. Turpan Depression), large flat areas (e.g. Sichuan Basin and North China Plains), and some of Asia's largest rivers, including the Mekong (*Lancang*), Brahmaputra (*Yarlung Zangbo*), Yangtze (*Changjiang*), and Yellow (*Huanghe*) rivers. All of these features contribute to the enormous diversity of ecosystems,

**1. Introduction** 

**1.1 The significance of plant diversity in China** 

than 2,100 higher plants (Wu, 2002).

**Diversity: An Overview** 

*2Beijing Urban Ecosystem Research Station,* 

*Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 3Laboratory of Subtropical Biodiversity,* 

*Barcelona, Catalonia* 

*1Spain 2,3China* 

