Conceptual guidelines for the implementation of the ecosystem approach in biodiversity monitoring

Abstract

The theoretical concept of the ecosystem approach (EA) aims at assessing ecosystem function based on integrative assessments of multiple levels of biological organization. Since the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992, the EA has been increasingly integrated into environmental policy and legislation, but to date, its practical implementation remains vague with a lack of universal guidelines and concrete recommendations for its use across ecosystem boundaries. On the basis of a review of scientific literature, worldwide environmental legislation and existing monitoring approaches, we identified the most important factors which hamper the feasibility of the EA. We propose a generally applicable methodology for implementing the EA in ecological and environmental monitoring across different ecosystems and habitat types. Successful application of the EA largely depends on adequately standardized and synchronized sampling designs for all abiotic and biotic components, appropriate depth of taxonomic identification, and sufficient spatial and temporal replication. The proposed step‐by‐step guidelines for using the EA are valid across ecosystem types, geographic regions, and for a variety of data types, making them promising tools for ecological monitoring.

Comparison of nine different methods to assess fish communities in lentic flood‐plain habitats

“…Each method was carried out within transects of 30 m bank length, covering the bank habitats as well as the open water up to the middle of the backwater (Figs and ). The transect length of 30 m was chosen since it has already been successfully applied in manifold scientific electrofishing surveys of stream and backwater fish communities (Grossman et al ., ; Grossman & De Sostoa, ; Pander & Geist, , ; Mueller et al ., ; Pander et al ., , ; Mueller & Geist, ) and according to CEN (), multi‐mesh gillnets are supposed to be 30 m in length; all other methods can easily be adapted to the 30 m scale.…”

Habitat recovery and restoration in aquatic ecosystems: current progress and future challenges

“…Socio‐economic factors are often reduced to the cost and acceptance by stakeholder groups, but also comprise additional criteria such as feasibility, desired target states and chances of success. In any case, the chosen scale of restoration both at the level of biological organization (from restoration of single life stages in single species, to restoration of biological communities and entire ecosystems) as well as the geographical extent of the restoration, strongly affect all of these factors (Mueller and Geist, ).…”

“…Since different groups of organisms (e.g. periphyton, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and fishes) can strongly differ in their responses to both disturbance and restoration, an assessment of effects must consider taxonomic as well as spatial representativeness (Mueller et al, , , ; Mueller and Geist, ). As demonstrated in fishes, changing habitat preferences along different life stages can strongly determine the success of habitat restoration (Pander et al, ).…”

“…While some of the concepts and approaches of restoring freshwater habitats (e.g. re‐oligotrophication and acidification mitigation) are well established and backed up by evidence from many examples, the restoration of structural habitat diversity, which is a key target in stream and river restoration, is much more complicated (Kondolf and Micheli, ; Bernhardt et al, ; Palmer et al, ) with a smaller number of well‐designed studies applying rigorous before–after control‐impact (BACI) monitoring with, where possible, spatial replication (Beyond BACI approaches, Underwood, ) and sufficient taxonomic representation (Mueller and Geist, ). There is also an obvious underrepresentation of negative results that are just as valuable for other projects to learn from as positive findings (Geist, ).…”

Monitoring, Restoration, and Source Water Protection: Canadian Community-Based Environmental Organizations’ Efforts towards Improving Aquatic Ecosystem Health

“…Restoration activities should be strategically targeted to prioritize the preservation of high-quality habitat, reconnection of habitat, and restoring processes that maintain and create habitat [45,53,56,58]. The recent review by Geist and Hawkins (2016) [57] on habitat recovery and restoration as well as Mueller and Geist (2016) [63] and Mueller et al (2013) [64] in terms of which monitoring efforts are necessary are useful additional sources to turn to; but the core message we want to convey here is that determining restoration success often does not necessarily require a deep taxonomic resolution for most stakeholders. Rather, consideration of a diversity of indicators may be an appropriate approach depending on CBWM (or governmental) capacity and resources.…”