Nicola Arndt und Matthias Pohl - Neobiota

– boundaries between ecological regions along real environmental gradients are seldom as sharp as
implied on DMEER;
– the predicted ecological distribution may not reflect actual habitat quality.
Nevertheless these results are shown to express what ecological regions are possible to distinguish
with the developed methodology at the European scale. Amendments to the methodology are foreseen,
which will allow to improve the delineation of Central European low mountain regions, of steppe
areas in southeastern Europe, and of specific areas in Finland and in Scotland, to name only a few.
Political boundaries seldom coincide with biogeographic boundaries. Thus, management strategies for
long-term maintenance of biodiversity may be better focused on the characteristic biota of a region
(NOSS 1983).
The development of a European classification of biogeographic/ecological regions is an attempt to
organise the implementation of European politics in a new way that looks beyond the confines of
administrative regions.
In view of the value of biological support services to our society and the social and economic costs of
endangered species recovery and avoiding the creation of endangered species by maintaining
biodiversity in natural landscapes, DMEER will serve both the conservation and development of
communities.
Ecological regions should serve as feed-back instruments for policy makers, provide useful
mechanisms to stimulate politicians to think beyond administrative borders and facilitate and improve
the assessment of Europe’s biodiversity, thus increasing the efficiency of politics and management
implementation.
In a digital format, DMEER makes possible various types of analyses and evaluation by overlaying
varied data. In this respect it forms an important information, assessment and planning basis for
solving nature and environmental protection problems at a European level (PAINHO et al. 1996).
References
AUSTIN, M.P. (1991): Vegetation collection and analysis. – In: MARGUELES, C.R. & AUSTIN, M.P.
[Ed.] (1999): Nature Conservation: cost effective biological surveys and data analysis. – Australia
CSIRO: 37-41.
BOHN, U. (1995): International project for the construction of a map of the Natural Vegetation of
Europe at a scale of 1 : 2.5 million – its concept, problems of harmonization and application for
nature protection. – In: GÉHU, J.-M. [Red.]: Large area vegetation surveys, Bailleul 1994. – Colloq.
Phytosoc. 23 [1994]: 23-45.
BOHN, U.; NEUHÄUSL, R., unter Mitarbeit von GOLLUB, G.; HETTWER, C.; NEUHÄUSLOVÁ, Z.;
SCHLÜTER, H. & WEBER, H. (2000/2003): Karte der natürlichen Vegetation Europas/Map of the
Natural Vegetation of Europe. Maßstab/Scale 1:2.500.000. Teil 1/Part 1:
Erläuterungstext/Explanatory Text, 655 S./p.; Teil 2/Part 2: Legende/Legend, 153 S./p.; Teil 3/Part
3: Karten/Maps (9 Blätter/Sheets, Legendenblatt/Legend Sheet, Übersichtskarte 1:10 Mio./General
Map 1:10 million). – Münster (Landwirtschaftsverlag).
BUNCE, R.G.H. (1995): A European land classification. – Merlewood (Institute of Terrestrial
Ecology).
DAVIS, F.W. (1995): Mapping and monitoring terrestrial biodiversity using geographic information
systems. Biodiversity and Terrestrial Ecosystems. – Academia Sinica Monograph Series 14:
461-471.
35