Defining Benchmarks for Restoration of Green Infrastructure: A Case Study Combining the Historical Range of Variability of Habitat and Species’ Requirements

Abstract

Animal husbandry in Europe that sustained once wide-spread semi-natural grasslands has been replaced by maximum sustained yield agriculture and forestry. This transformation coincides with declining populations of species dependent on semi-natural grasslands. A key task is therefore to define benchmarks for landscape restoration in terms of well-planned functional habitat networks, i.e., green infrastructure. Using a representative example of the European landscape gradient between agricultural and forest landscapes in southern Sweden as a case study, we analyzed the historic range of variability of the total area, quality, and size of grassland patches, and compared this to the requirements of focal grassland species. Spatial data covering the past two centuries indicated a 75-80% loss of total grassland area. Three factors affected the functionality of grasslands as green infrastructure. First, during the period 1927-1976, the loss of all grassland areas with high nature values was 41-59%. Second, as a measure of alteration, the number of semi-natural grassland types declined from 5 to 1. Third, to address habitat fragmentation, an analysis of changes in grassland patch size showed that patches sufficiently large to support local populations of complete focal grasslands species assemblages declined by 89-100%. The cumulative effect of loss, alteration, and fragmentation over the past two centuries indicates that the functionality of semi-natural grasslands has declined by at least 98%. However, this estimate does not consider land use changes before 1800, reduced connectivity, and altered biotic and abiotic processes in both semi-natural grasslands and the surrounding matrix. We stress the need to define the historic range of variability as a benchmark in relation to species' requirements to maintain semi-natural grasslands as green infrastructure. Finally, integrated land management and governance that support multi-functionality of grasslands is needed.

LTSER platforms as a place-based transdisciplinary research infrastructure: learning landscape approach through evaluation

“…Note that Norway and Israel are not EU Members At the network level a critically important dimension of a LTSER research infrastructure is that it covers wide gradients in all dimensions of landscape. First, this involves capturing the full gradient of ecosystem states, for example from forests intensively managed for wood and biomass to remnants of nearnatural forest landscapes as benchmarks with ecological integrity for landscape restoration, or grasslands of different kinds (e.g., Manton and Angelstam 2018). Second, the network needs to cover a wide range of social systems, such as from bottom-up democratic governance to top-down authoritarian (e.g., Elbakidze et al 2010).…”

“…To scale up research and development in support of sustained delivery of ecosystem services is a challenging task (Angelstam et al 2017a). This type of scaling up in landscapes as social-ecological systems (Matthews and Selman 2006) require identification of the acceptable level of modification of the biophysical environment (e.g., Manton and Angelstam 2018), place-based coordination of human management of land and water resources, as well as engaging and incentivizing stakeholders and actors to act sustainably (e.g., Dawson et al 2017). The general term landscape approach captures this complex web of interactions (Axelsson et al 2011;Sayer et al 2013Sayer et al , 2015Sabogal et al 2015).…”

Defining Priority Land Covers that Secure the Livelihoods of Urban and Rural People in Ethiopia: a Case Study Based on Citizens’ Preferences

“…The development of a systems perspective on local development issues in rural Ethiopia that integrates a bottom-up approach, and the spatial planning of land covers with different functions is a potentially powerful tool in understanding the implications of management and governance options, strategies, and tools. This requires both evidence-based knowledge about ecological benchmarks [97] and the development of collaborative learning opportunities for stakeholders at multiple levels of governance [5,98].…”

Impacts of Changing Forest Management Areas on Forest Landscapes and Habitat Patterns in Northeastern China

“…The results from our study suggest that forest managers need to be aware of the management of the understory, control human disturbance and give protection priority to the potential areas of suitable deer habitat, to better conserve the wildlife habitat in the forest landscape of state-owned forest areas. Furthermore, we should consider the area of disturbance and influence range of human activities before forest management measures are implemented, and minimize the transfer, fragmentation or loss of high-quality habitat [40]. In this study, roe deer avoided the forest management areas.…”