P a g e |1
Title:
Indicators to assess major pressures on wetland
ecosystems in Europe
Type of Document:
Final Report – task 18413_Ecosystem_pressure
Prepared by:
Wieger Wamelink, Rini Schuiling (Alterra, Wageningen UR)
Date:
23.07.2014
Project Manager:
Markus Erhard
Universidad de Malaga
ETCSIA
PTA - Technological Park of Andalusia
c/ Marie Curie, 22 (Edificio Habitec)
Campanillas
29590 - Malaga
Spain
Telephone: +34 952 02 05 48
Fax: +34 952 02 05 59
Contact: etc-sia@uma.es
1
P a g e |1
Document History
Version
Date
Author (s)
0
23-07-2014
Wieger Wamelink,
Schuiling
Remarks
Rini
1
CONTENTS
1
Introduction .................................................................................... 3
2
Goals............................................................................................... 3
3
Input datasets ................................................................................ 4
4
Fusion of wetlands ........................................................................ 5
5
Drivers and Pressure indicators ................................................... 5
5.1 Driver: Agricultural intensity ................................................................... 5
5.2 Driver: isolation ........................................................................................ 7
5.3 Driver: Pollution ........................................................................................ 8
5.4 Driver: climate change ........................................................................... 10
5.5 Driver: invasive species ......................................................................... 13
6
Literature ...................................................................................... 15
Document1
2/16
European Topic Centre Spatial Information and Analysis
1
INTRODUCTION
Wetlands are amongst the most prominent vegetation types in Europe, especially in the North of Europe. They
are often connected to beech and river systems, but also with other vegetation types. They can hold a large
number of sometimes rare species leading to a relative high biodiversity on sometimes small surface, especially
in continental Europe. Most of the wetlands are nutrient poor with partly low growth and thus low biomass
production. High productive wet forests are not included in this vegetation type, they are included in the forests.
In this analysis Wetlands are defined as the EUNIS class D, including:
D1 : Raised and blanket bogs.
D2 : Valley mires, poor fens and transition mires.
D3 : Aapa, palsa and polygon mires.
D4 : Base-rich fens and calcareous spring mires.
D5 : Sedge and reedbeds, normally without free-standing water.
D6 : Inland saline and brackish marshes and reedbeds.
The wetland sites are retrieved from the -
Eunis level 2 habitat map. The habitat map is used to create all
other maps, by combining it with the pressure maps in GIS.
Wetlands are less intensive exploited than other vegetation types, such as forests or grasslands. Major pressures
are land use change, nitrogen deposition, pesticides and harvest of e.g. reed.
2
GOALS
The assessment of pressures in wetlands ecosystems looks at the main datasets valid and selects the most
adequate to map the variety of combined factors pressuring ecosystems’ biodiversity, and most of these factors.
The task aims at defining a comprehensive methodology to match the source of wetland data focused on habitat
change pressures.
This report aims at outlining the approach and workflows to assess and map major pressures affecting PanEuropean wetland ecosystems in the context of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. The work builds on the
major drivers and pressures identified in ETC-SIA´s 2013 report Towards a Pan-European Ecosystem
Assessment Methodology (task 222_5_2)1 and the MAES 2nd technical report2.
For each driver of change, the development of indicators of the major pressures is assessed in terms of relevance
and availability of information and is then indicators is produced and mapped.
1The
methodology and datasets used for the elaboration of the Pan-European ecosystem map are available in
ETC-SIA (2013) final report of task 222_5_1 on Ecosystem mapping.
http://projects.eionet.europa.eu/eea-ecosystem-assessments/library/working-document-towards-ecosystemasssessment-methodology
2http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/2ndMAESWorkingPaper.pdf
More specifically, the work aims at defining a comprehensive methodology to define the input data used for the
development of indicators (or proxies) to assess each pressure on wetland ecosystems. Indicators are developed
for pressures under the 4 main drivers of change (climate change, exploitation, invasive species, and pollution
and nutrient enrichment).
The steps followed to define the indicators are:
• Check the availability and evaluate the coverage and suitability of data reported in 2013 report,
• Analyse their relevance to assess pressures,
• Select the input datasets, according to their relevance and importance in contributing to the pressures
assessment,
• Provide a workflow on assessing pressures on wetland ecosystems with selected input data.
Document1
3/16
3
INPUT DATASETS
Pressure table and Input datasets
Ecosystem
Wetland
Major drivers of ecosystem change
Habitat changes
Climate Change
Land take
Extreme events, drought, Blocking and extraction of the Introduction of predatory fishes
floods
water inflow
Over-exploitation of groundwater Introduction of non-predatory fish
resources
Overfishing
Fragmentation
Drainage for agriculture
Exploitation
Invasive species
Water extraction
Pollution and Nutrient
Enrichment
Eutrophication
Pesticides
Acid rain
Heavy metals
Critical levels of ozone
reed harvest
changes in rainfall
reed harvest also for biofuels, plant species as Hydrocotyle plastic
water purification
ranunculoides and Azolla filiculoides
Drivers
Use
Pressure
Indicator
Datasets available
Habitat change
pressure
Ecosystem size
and quality
Agricultural
pressure map
Combined with pesticides
map
pollution
pressure
pesticides
Surface –
delimitation of
ecosystem
Ecosystem health
Combined with pesticides
map
Invasive species
pressure
Species loss
pollution
pressure
Species loss
Agricultural
pressure map
Invasive species
map (Chytry)
EMEP nitrogen
deposition map
(Hettelingh et al.
2012)
Isolation
pressure
Extinction of
species
Climate change
Climate change
pressure
pressure
Document1
wetlands
Reference year (for the
assessment)
2010
connectivity
sensibility
impact
Espon (2013)
Espon (2013)
2013
4/16
Note
http://www.rivm.nl/media/d
ocumenten/cce/Publications/
SR2012/CCE_SR2012Ch1.pd
f
European Topic Centre Spatial Information and Analysis
4
FUSION OF WETLANDS
Many wetland areas are very small in surface, but sometimes many are very close to each other. For technical
reasons we first fused some of these small areas to one area before further processing. This makes the map
more robust in GIS and easier to handle. The pesticides/agricultural pressure map and the connectivity map could
not have been made without this prepossessing.
All wetland areas that lie within 10 km of each other were combined to form one area.
Eunis wetland
Combine within 10
Fused wetland
km
ecosystems map
ecosystems map
The fused wetland ecosystems map was used for the pesticides/agriculture pressure map and the connectivity
map.
5
DRIVERS AND PRESSURE INDICATORS
5.1 DRIVER: AGRICULTURAL INTENSITY
Single pressure: Pesticides/agricultural pressure
ESpressures
Agri-Grass
Map with intensity
M1 & M2 combine
of agricultural land
(database
use
Geoville)
Map with intensity
of agricultural land
use
Within 10 km of
wetland; average
value
Map with potential
influence of pesticides
The pressure of pesticides/agricultural pressure on wetlands is based on the agricultural land use in the
surrounding of the wetland. The resulting map gives the potential influence of pesticides and agricultural activities
in general. It is not only related with agriculture activities in the nearby area, but also based on the intensity of the
agricultural activities. The low till high pressure is directly taken from the agricultural intensity map. We assume
that the more intense the agriculture the more likely that pesticides will be used and also end up in the wetlands.
We choose an arbitrary 10 km as the influence sphere of the agricultural lands. This ignores natural stream flows
etc. It is more likely that downstream of a stream pesticides will be present and that the accumulate increasing the
pesticide pressure. This is also ignored by this approach, to keep it simple and practical.
Figure 1 gives the potential pressure of pesticides/agricultural pressure based on nearby agricultural land use. In
major parts of Iceland, Scotland and mountainous and remote parts of Scandinavia we expect low pressure, while
in low land parts of Scandinavia and the rest of Europe we expect higher pressures.
Document1
5/16
European Topic Centre Spatial Information and Analysis
Fig. 1. Potential pressure of pesticides/agricultural pressure on wetlands based on agricultural intensity land use
near wetlands (10 km proximity).
Document1
6/16
European Topic Centre Spatial Information and Analysis
5.2 DRIVER: ISOLATION
Pressure: connectivity
For the connectivity we used the wetland fusion map. Normally connectivity is estimated for individual species and
not for ecosystems (see e.g. Wamelink et al. 2013). Each species has its own traits making up the connectivity of
its available habitat and therefore its extinction risk. For now it is not possible to do so for all the species
depending on wetlands. Therefore, as a role of thumb, we looked if the closest by next wetland lies within 10 km.
If it was, we assume no problems with connectivity. Survival, isolation and extinction are also related to the
surface area and quality of the available habitat(s). We ignored that in this exercise. This leads to an
overestimation of the connectivity and survival rate of the populations of the habitat. Also the assumed 10 km is
rather optimistic; many species will not be able to deal with a dispersal distance of 10 km. However, for a first
indication this will be sufficient (fig. 2).
Fused wetland
Distance to next
ecosystems map
wetland
Connectivity map
>10 km?
Fig. 2. Connectivity for European wetlands.
Document1
7/16
European Topic Centre Spatial Information and Analysis
5.3 DRIVER: POLLUTION
Pressure: Nitrogen deposition
Nitrogen deposition is one of the major threats for wetlands. Excessive nitrogen input changes competitional
strength of plant species, resulting in species loss. Besides the nitrifying effect there is an acidifying component
as well.
The wetland ecosystems map was combined with EMEP nitrogen exceedance map. Disadvantage of the EMEP
map is that it gives exceedances per 50*50km scale, which is rather course for the often small wetlands.
Exceedances per wetland site or sub site are possible, but for that special model runs are necessary.
wetland ecosystems
map
Wetland nitrogen
exceedance map
EMEP nitrogen
exceedance map
Fig. 3 shows the nitrogen deposition exceedance for the wetlands. The highest exceedances can be found in
Ireland, UK, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. Low or no exceedances can be found in Northern Europe.
Document1
8/16
European Topic Centre Spatial Information and Analysis
Fig. 3. Nitrogen deposition exceedance for European wetlands.
Document1
9/16
European Topic Centre Spatial Information and Analysis
5.4 DRIVER: CLIMATE CHANGE
Single pressure: impact and sensibility
It is predicted that climate change will influence water availability and temperature. This will affect wetlands.
Effects will be different in different regions of Europe. According to the Espon study (2013) climate change is
expected to have the highest environmental impacts in the south and north of Europe. Wamelink et al. (2009)
showed what the effects could be on forest, especially on growth as a result for changes in available water.
In the Mediterranean the drier and hotter climate will increase the likelihood of forest fire occurrence as well as
soil erosion (Espon 2013, Stoate et al. 2009, Nunes et al., 2008). In northern Europe climatic conditions may
benefit, with mild temperatures and high precipitation, the wetlands and creating new habitat for wetlands.
Area’s with high risks of effects of climate change were mapped by ESPON (2013). These data are projected on
the area of the Wetland-ecosystem.
The Espon data are not available for all countries in the studied area. Moreover, effects are given per region and
not per vegetation type. Though climate change will be the same on a regional scale, the effect may be totally
different per vegetation type and therefore the impact and sensibility. E.g. the difference between a wetland and a
dune area with open sand. The latter may not or not much influenced by higher temperature and less rain, while
the effect on wetland may be huge. Reviewing the effect further and more ecosystems specific would be
advisable.
For now the Epson data on impact and sensibility are directly used for the wetlands. They are not fused to one
map, because of the difference of the effect on the wetlands.
climate change
(ESPON)
EUNIS
wetlands map
Map with hotspots of impacts
and sensibility for climate
change on wetlands
Both the impact and sensibility (Fig. 4 and 5) of climate change is highest in the North of Europe, the impact is
also high in the South of Europe. Surprisingly the effect in the North is negative on the wetlands, where a positive
effect is expected.
Document1
10/16
European Topic Centre Spatial Information and Analysis
Fig. 4. Climate impact on European wetlands.
Document1
11/16
European Topic Centre Spatial Information and Analysis
Fig. 5. Climate sensibility of European wetlands.
Document1
12/16
European Topic Centre Spatial Information and Analysis
5.5 DRIVER: INVASIVE SPECIES
Single pressure: invasive species
Invasive species disturb the naturality of wetlands and invasive species may become very dominant and supress
and outcompete natural occurring species. The estimation of the severity of this pressure is adapted from Chytry
et al. (2009). The percentage of invasive species per site is given.
Disadvantage of this method is that it is based on data from only three countries and for one only part of the
country (Catalonia, Czech Republic and Great Britain). Nordic countries are not represented at all, though they
share vegetation types with Northern UK. The percentage of invasive species is therefore the predicted
percentage and not the actual percentage based on field work. This may e.g. partly explain the low percentages
in the North of Europe. Also a disadvantage of this map is that info for Norway is missing, this despite the fact that
a major portion of the wetlands are situated in Norway.
Map of invasive
species
Select
Map with hotspots
of invasive species
The percentage of invasive is relative high in the South of Europe and relative low in the North of Europe, even
though the absolute number of species in the South of Europe is in general higher than in the North of Europe
(Fig. 6).
Fig. 6. The percentage of invasive species per wetland site, based on the inventories and calculations of Chytry et
al (2009).
Document1
13/16
European Topic Centre Spatial Information and Analysis
6 OUTLOOK
In most parts of Europe wetland-ecosystems are relatively scarce, only in Northern Europe, Scotland and Ireland
they cover large surfaces. However, they are very important for many species, including migrating birds.
Pressures on wetlands therefore threaten many species. In this document we give some of the most important
pressures, invasive species, pesticides/agricultural pressure, climate change, isolation (connectivity) and nitrogen
deposition. Because we wanted to work on a European scale this also brings limitations. The information on
climate change and nitrogen deposition is on a course scale available and not very vegetation type specific. This
may lead to misinterpretations on the local scale, however, in general the indication of the pressures will be
adequate. Improvement is possible by applying more specific data or model runs, but they are data and time
consuming. We made a first attempt identifying the connectivity of the wetlands, since isolation can be a potential
risk of (local) species extinction. We defined isolation as an area that is not linked to another wetland area within
10 km. This is an oversimplification of the isolation pressure. Each wetland species or a representative set of
species should be reviewed. This is possible by applying a connectivity model on a European scale, resulting in a
connectivity map for European wetlands.
There are more pressures on European wetlands than now included in this report. Amongst others these are
water extraction, pressures related to agriculture such as drainage land use change, harvest of products, water
purification, heavy metals and plastic. Water extraction for e.g. agriculture and drinking water can have serious
effects on ecosystem quality via desiccation. This pressure may be added by identifying all water intake places in
Europe, which probably is possible. However, water intake by farmers and the effect of that on wetlands is
probably impossible to include in such a map. The other two pressures related to agriculture, drainage and land
use change, are also difficult to include. But they are all related to agricultural activities and besides land use
change are almost always closely related to agricultural areas. They are associated to agriculture and could
therefore be assessed with one map giving the agriculture intensity as was done here already. However, the
method could be fine-tuned, e.g. make it also dependent of the crops that are cultivated.
For water purification artificial wetlands become more popular and they may be beneficial for the other wetlands.
However, if existing wetlands are used for water purification this will lead to e.g. eutrophication and a decrease of
wetland quality. How to identify these sites and include them as a pressure is unknown to us. Heavy metals are
known pressures for wetlands. Water quality of wetlands has to be monitored by the countries, so in principle this
information about the metals, but also water quality features is known. To include this as a pressure a European
database has to be built. This could include measurements about the amount of plastic in the water. Although at
the moment mainly an issue at sea, wetlands will also suffer. But measurements are still scarce, so first a
European monitoring program has to be set up.
Concluding, more pressures could be included and the used pressure maps could be improved, but we believe
that the most important pressures are already there and that the general result is robust enough.
Document1
14/16
European Topic Centre Spatial Information and Analysis
7 LITERATURE
Chytry, M., Pysek, P., Wild, J., Pino, J., Maskell, L.C. & Vila, M. (2009) European map of alien plant invasions
based on the quantitative assessment across habitats. Diversity and Distributions, 15: 98–107.
Espon (2013) ESPON Climate Climate Change and Territorial Effects on Regions and Local Economies Applied
Research 2013/1/4.
Hettelingh, J.P., Posch, M., Slootweg, J. & Le Gall, A.C.. 2012. Assessing Effects of the Revised Gothenburg
Protocol. CCE Status Report 2012.
http://www.rivm.nl/media/documenten/cce/Publications/SR2012/CCE_SR2012Ch1.pdf.
Nunes, J.P., Seixas, J., & Pacheco, N., 2008. Vulnerability of water resources, vegetation productivity and soil
erosion to climate change in Mediterranean watersheds. Hydrol. Process. 22: 3115-3134.
Stoate C., Boatman, N.D., Borralho, R., Rio Carvalho, C., Snoo, G. de & Eden, P. 2001 Ecological impacts of
arable intensification in Europe Journal of Environmental Management 63: 337–365.
Wamelink, G.W.W., Wieggers, R., Reinds, G.J., Kros, J., Mol-Dijkstra, J. P., M. van Oijen & Vries, W. de. 2009.
Modelling impacts of changes in carbon dioxide concentration, climate and nitrogen deposition on carbon
sequestration by European forest and forest soils. Forest Ecology and Management 258: 1794–1805.
Wamelink, G.W.W., Knegt, B. de, Pouwels, R., Schuiling, C., Wegman, R.M.A., Schmidt, A.M., Dobben, H.F. van
& Sanders M.E. 2013. Considerable environmental bottlenecks for the Habitats and Birds directives Species in
the Netherlands. Biological Conservation 165: 43-53.
Document1
15/16