Nicola Arndt und Matthias Pohl - Neobiota
Nicola Arndt und Matthias Pohl - Neobiota Nicola Arndt und Matthias Pohl - Neobiota
Figure 1: The ecoregions are categorized within 14 biomes and eight biogeographic realms to facilitate representation analyses. 74 Figure 2: The map of terrestrial ecoregions of the world recognizes 825 distinct units.
While the delineation of appropriate ecoregions was relatively simple in some regions, other areas required an examination of the influence of historic events on present day distributions. The Philip- pines archipelago is an example of a region where Pleistocene sea level changes and resulting appearance and disappearance of land bridges had important implications for the resulting pattern of animal distributions among the islands (HEANEY 1986, 1991). Large-scale ecological and physical dynamics and processes have been emphasized, including major variations in climate, fire disturbance regimes, and large vertebrate migrations (RICKETTS et al. 1999). Consequently, delineation of ecoregions differed between tropical regions and boreal or polar habitats where species assemblages are relatively homogeneous across large regions. Ecoregions are intended to distinguish distinct biotas, yet distribution data for whole biotas are incom- plete and no single biogeographic framework is optimal for all taxa. Thus, ecoregions represent a compromise map for the distribution of many different taxa. Ecoregions are also represented on maps as having abrupt boundaries, however, in reality most ecoregions are separated by ecotones and mo- saic habitats. Finally, most ecoregions contain subsidiary habitats that may differ from their nominal biome, such as small edaphic savannas found within the widespread lowland forest of the Amazonian ecoregion. More detailed biogeographic analyses will always be required to ensure recognition and protection of less dominant habitat types and special elements that occur within the larger ecoregions. 3 Delineating the European ecoregional boundaries The western Palearctic ecoregions (except northern Africa) were developed in concert with the DMEER (2000) project, using the Map of the Natural Vegetation of Europe (BOHN et al. 2000) as a basis. A variety of systems were reviewed prior to the delineation of European ecoregions. KÜCHLER’s (1954) Natural Vegetation map was used as a guide to aggregate BOHN et al.’s (2000) mapping units into larger biogeographic divisions, generally at the level of KÜCHLER’s main formations. However, these groupings were modified by other biogeographic criteria, including discrete montane or island areas that were assumed to support concentrations of endemic species. The European Environmental Agency (EEA) and the European Topic Centre on Nature Conservation (ETC/NC) were working on a similar Digital Map of European Ecological Regions (DMEER) at the same time. The DMEER effort is intended to become a widespread and widely accepted reporting and assessment framework for biodiversity and nature patterns such as fauna, flora, habitats and landscapes. The DMEER effort is a combination of the Map of Natural Vegetation of Europe (BOHN et al. 2000) developed by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN, Germany) and a cluster analysis of European-wide climatological data known as the European Land Classification (BUNCE 1985, BUNCE et al. 1996) developed by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (ITE, UK). The EEA, ETC/NC and WWF share a common goal of developing compatible systems of ecological and biogeographic regions for Europe. Similar systems will facilitate conservation planning, monitoring of biodiversity, and communication. This shared philosophy made necessary a series of compromises from both initiatives, negotiated through several exchanges, primarily a joint EEA workshop with WWF hosted at ETC/NC in Paris in August 1999 and an additional meeting at the FAO-FRA 2000 conference at the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge. Through these efforts, the WWF ecoregion map now closely matches the DMEER ecological regions map, with the WWF map resolving a few areas in greater detail. 75
- Seite 26 und 27: Organisational aspects The presenta
- Seite 29 und 30: Application and Analysis of the Map
- Seite 31 und 32: Information System (GIS). The stren
- Seite 33 und 34: Over this distance matrix several m
- Seite 35 und 36: Figure 8 (Left): The Highlands beca
- Seite 37 und 38: - boundaries between ecological reg
- Seite 39 und 40: Anwendung und Auswertung der Karte
- Seite 41 und 42: SCHMIDT 2000, 2001). Die in diesem
- Seite 43 und 44: Diese „landschaftsökologische Ve
- Seite 45 und 46: Tabelle 2 entsprechende Qualitätsa
- Seite 47 und 48: Abb. 2: Analogie Kugelbeispiel / Ra
- Seite 49 und 50: 0 200 400 600 0 500 1000 1500 2000
- Seite 51 und 52: Abb. 5: Karte der landschaftsökolo
- Seite 53 und 54: Die Analyse der geostatistischen Re
- Seite 55 und 56: DINTER, W. (1999): Naturräumliche
- Seite 57 und 58: Application and Analysis of the Map
- Seite 59 und 60: 2 FAO Requirements Many environment
- Seite 61 und 62: In practical terms, delineation of
- Seite 63 und 64: 3.3 FAO Global Ecological Zone clas
- Seite 65 und 66: Table 2: LUT for Europe, showing th
- Seite 67 und 68: forests (F), 7 subgroups (F1- F7) h
- Seite 69 und 70: Figure 2: Map of Global Ecological
- Seite 71: Annex Table 4: Source maps used for
- Seite 74 und 75: DMEER-Projekt (Digitale Karte der
- Seite 78 und 79: An example of the relationship betw
- Seite 80 und 81: DASMANN, R.F. (1973): A system for
- Seite 82 und 83: THACKWAY, R. & CRESSWELL, I.D. (eds
- Seite 84 und 85: 1 Background 1.1 Increasing interes
- Seite 86 und 87: While regional and national activit
- Seite 88 und 89: forest systems are supposed to reac
- Seite 90 und 91: According to SCHLÜTER (1991), hete
- Seite 92 und 93: derived from an analysis of soils a
- Seite 94 und 95: Map 1: Landscape Character Areas of
- Seite 96 und 97: in terms of successions and replace
- Seite 98 und 99: Map 5: Landscape map of Europe by M
- Seite 100 und 101: Russia. Information on rural land u
- Seite 102 und 103: 100 Map 7: European Landscape Typol
- Seite 104 und 105: G.3.1/37 F.1.1/7 & F 1 2/15 F.1.1/8
- Seite 106 und 107: Map 10: Comparison of the vegetatio
- Seite 108 und 109: 106 Map 11: Landscape Typology and
- Seite 110 und 111: � Natural vegetation data will al
- Seite 112 und 113: LUC (1999): Glasgow and the Clyde V
- Seite 115 und 116: Application and Analysis of the Map
- Seite 117 und 118: characterized by zonal vegetation i
- Seite 119 und 120: Table 1: FAO Global Ecological Zoni
- Seite 121 und 122: The name of each type includes the
- Seite 123: References LAVRENKO E.M. (1964): Al
While the delineation of appropriate ecoregions was relatively simple in some regions, other areas<br />
required an examination of the influence of historic events on present day distributions. The Philip-<br />
pines archipelago is an example of a region where Pleistocene sea level changes and resulting<br />
appearance and disappearance of land bridges had important implications for the resulting pattern of<br />
animal distributions among the islands (HEANEY 1986, 1991).<br />
Large-scale ecological and physical dynamics and processes have been emphasized, including major<br />
variations in climate, fire disturbance regimes, and large vertebrate migrations (RICKETTS et al. 1999).<br />
Consequently, delineation of ecoregions differed between tropical regions and boreal or polar habitats<br />
where species assemblages are relatively homogeneous across large regions.<br />
Ecoregions are intended to distinguish distinct biotas, yet distribution data for whole biotas are incom-<br />
plete and no single biogeographic framework is optimal for all taxa. Thus, ecoregions represent a<br />
compromise map for the distribution of many different taxa. Ecoregions are also represented on maps<br />
as having abrupt bo<strong>und</strong>aries, however, in reality most ecoregions are separated by ecotones and mo-<br />
saic habitats. Finally, most ecoregions contain subsidiary habitats that may differ from their nominal<br />
biome, such as small edaphic savannas fo<strong>und</strong> within the widespread lowland forest of the Amazonian<br />
ecoregion. More detailed biogeographic analyses will always be required to ensure recognition and<br />
protection of less dominant habitat types and special elements that occur within the larger ecoregions.<br />
3 Delineating the European ecoregional bo<strong>und</strong>aries<br />
The western Palearctic ecoregions (except northern Africa) were developed in concert with the<br />
DMEER (2000) project, using the Map of the Natural Vegetation of Europe (BOHN et al. 2000) as a<br />
basis. A variety of systems were reviewed prior to the delineation of European ecoregions. KÜCHLER’s<br />
(1954) Natural Vegetation map was used as a guide to aggregate BOHN et al.’s (2000) mapping units<br />
into larger biogeographic divisions, generally at the level of KÜCHLER’s main formations. However,<br />
these groupings were modified by other biogeographic criteria, including discrete montane or island<br />
areas that were assumed to support concentrations of endemic species.<br />
The European Environmental Agency (EEA) and the European Topic Centre on Nature Conservation<br />
(ETC/NC) were working on a similar Digital Map of European Ecological Regions (DMEER) at the<br />
same time. The DMEER effort is intended to become a widespread and widely accepted reporting and<br />
assessment framework for biodiversity and nature patterns such as fauna, flora, habitats and<br />
landscapes. The DMEER effort is a combination of the Map of Natural Vegetation of Europe (BOHN<br />
et al. 2000) developed by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN, Germany) and a cluster<br />
analysis of European-wide climatological data known as the European Land Classification (BUNCE<br />
1985, BUNCE et al. 1996) developed by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (ITE, UK).<br />
The EEA, ETC/NC and WWF share a common goal of developing compatible systems of ecological<br />
and biogeographic regions for Europe. Similar systems will facilitate conservation planning,<br />
monitoring of biodiversity, and communication. This shared philosophy made necessary a series of<br />
compromises from both initiatives, negotiated through several exchanges, primarily a joint EEA<br />
workshop with WWF hosted at ETC/NC in Paris in August 1999 and an additional meeting at the<br />
FAO-FRA 2000 conference at the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge. Through<br />
these efforts, the WWF ecoregion map now closely matches the DMEER ecological regions map, with<br />
the WWF map resolving a few areas in greater detail.<br />
75