National Red List of Ecosystems/Biotopes (RLE) work in Finland Lasse Kurvinen Parks & Wildlife Finland Petra Pohjola

Transcription

1 National Red List of Ecosystems/Biotopes (RLE) work in Finland Lasse Kurvinen Parks & Wildlife Finland Petra Pohjola

2 Background Finland is currently working on the national Red List of Biotopes, or ecosystems in IUCN language The last red list is from 2008 and covered only 12 Baltic underwater biotopes and also flads and gloes Now about 50 marine biotopes will be under evaluation Aside from the Baltic underwater biotopes, the biotopes are divided in to coastal, freshwater, mire, forest, bedrock, cultural and fell biotopes. All together there are over 400 biotopes that are being evaluated. Work is coordinated by the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)

3 Baltic team The Baltic Sea group consisting of experts from e.g. Parks & Wildlife Finland, Finnish Environment Institute, The Geological Survey of Finland, Universities and consultants Also invited experts for specific biotopes and consultation when needed Meetings more or less once month A lot of work also between meetings Access database interface developed by SYKE to store and manage evaluations

4 Planned time table Biotope descriptions Preparation of data Most of the evaluations finsihed All evaluations finished Justifications for evaluations Documenting of results Baltic team quite well on schedule! Results and summaries by biotope groups Finishing of manuscrpit, editing, online version.. End seminar and publication by the end of the year

5 IUCN methodology The methods used for the evaluation follows IUCNs Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) approach (Bland et al 2016). The assessment is based on five criteria The time frames used for criteria A, C & D are past 50 and 100y (1750), the coming 50y and a moving window of 50y around the present The threat category will be the one that is the most severe

6 Biotopes under evaluation HUB-classification has been used as basis, but some national modifications have been made Biotopes have been assessed mainly without using separate substrates Also some biotope complexes will be assessed and habitats that have been modified from HUB or weren t in the classification as such Examples HUB: Habitats dominated by: Fucus, Aquatic mosses, Potamogeton/Stuckenia, Zannichella/Ruppia, Myriophyllum, Charales on sand/gravel, Charales on mud, Najas marina, Zostera marina, Ranunculus, Eleocharis, unattached Fucus, unattached Aegagropila linnaei, unattchad Ceratophyllum demersum, Mytilidae, Hydroids, Macoma balthica, Mya arenaria, Seasonal ice Biotope complex: Coastal Lagoons (Flads and gloes), Estuaries, Reefs and sandbanks Examples habitats: Red algae communities, Nymphaeid communities, habitats dominated by Hippuris species

7 Data used Main dataset used is the HUB-classified VELMU video and dive data from around points There is also distribution modelling going on concerning many of these biotopes Work is also being done to classify the infauna samples collected during the years. This will be done during the summer, to be able to include the data for the current work VELMU species data has also been used, when HUB class has been missing Concerning biotope complexes there has been done and is being done improvements on many N2000 habitats, such as estuaries, reefs, sandbanks and coastal lagoons Benthic monitoring data WFD data depth distribution data of Fucus etc. Classified waterbodies Historical sources when possible

8 Example A criteria Historical distribution data often lacking The declining distribution of biotopes has been approximated by making distribution models using current environmental parameters and comparing the results with models using e.g. Secchi-depth values from 100 years ago Fucus example decline of 60% in 100y -> VU Sometimes need to rely solely on expert opinion Also speculations for possible future changes with changes in salinity etc. No calcuations often made

9 Example B criteria EOO Minimum convex polygon AOO Number of 10x10km cells

10 Example C (abiotic) For criteria C&D one needs to state a collapse value for the variable used, in order to calculate the relative severity of the decline Relative severity (%) = (Observed or predicted decline / Maximum decline) 100 where Observed or predicted decline = Initial value Present or future value and Maximum decline = Initial value Collapse value For watermosses we used changes in photic depth We used the current data for the occurence and looked at the min photic depth We got a collapse value of 3.5, which we assumed would be needed to keep the mosses safe from ice scraping We then calculated historical photic depth from secchi values We werer then able to calculate the relative severity for the biotope ESSI KESKINEN

11 Example D (biotic) The number of species in the Chara dominated habitats has been declining Base on expert knowledge, we assumed the mean amount of different Chara species in the biotope now, in the 1960s and in a collapsed state It was estimated that in the 1960s there had been around 4 species on average per location, now 2 and when collapsed 0-1 With these values we were able to calculate the relative severity HELMI MENTULA

12 Challenges As we only assess biotopes dominated by species which are not introduced, we can not assess e.g. polychete bottoms as the dominatiing species are alien species Even thought the knowledge of current distributions has increaed in the past years, evaluations can still be difficult to make -> need of expert knowledge

13