LandscapeLandscape fragmentationfragmentation duedue toto transportationtransportation infrastructureinfrastructure andand urbanurban developmentdevelopment

Dr.Dr. JochenJochen JaegerJaeger ETH Zurich, Switzerland, May 2004 [email protected] Landscape in the vicinity of Singen (Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) in 1969 20 years later: Motorway intersection „Singen“ in 1988

1969 Baden- Wurttemberg

(Jaeger et al. 2001) Black Forest How much has the degree of landscape fragmentation increased?

How can the consequences be assessed? StructureStructure ofof thisthis talktalk

„ MeasuringMeasuring landscapelandscape fragmentationfragmentation „ EffectiveEffective meshmesh sizesize „ TimeTime seriesseries „ UseUse asas environmentalenvironmental indicatorindicator „ EffectsEffects ofof roadsroads onon animalanimal populationspopulations „ RoadRoad--densitydensity thresholdthreshold „ SuitabilitySuitability ofof fencingfencing „ FutureFuture researchresearch HowHow toto measuremeasure thethe degreedegree ofof landscapelandscape fragmentationfragmentation

„ 99 suitabilitysuitability criteriacriteria „ SeriousSerious problemsproblems withwith existingexisting landscapelandscape indicesindices

„ NewNew measure:measure: effectiveeffective meshmesh sizesize,, mmeff „ BasedBased onon thethe probabilityprobability thatthat twotwo randomlyrandomly chosenchosen pointspoints cancan bebe connected:connected:

Jaeger (2000), Landscape Ecology

„ mmeff nownow availableavailable inin FFRAGSTATS (on(on thethe www)www) 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 Ortenaukreis 30.26 km2 Emmendingen 24.61 Spatial Freudenstadt 24.60 Spatial Breisgau-Hochschw. 18.65 Rastatt 17.26 Reutlingen 15.91 comparisonscomparisons Zollernalbkreis 15.48 Tübingen 14.80 Calw 14.16 Baden-Baden 13.05 Lörrach 12.17 Tuttlingen 11.61 Schwarzwald-Baar-Kreis 10.25 Heidenheim 10.22 mmeff inin thethe Alb-Donau-Kreis 8.98 Ostalbkreis 8.87 Waldshut 8.83 4444 ruralrural districtsdistricts Main-Tauber-Kreis 8.69 Rottweil 8.18 Neckar-Odenwald-Kreis 8.09 inin BadenBaden-- Göppingen 7.96 Freiburg i. B., St. 7.78 Böblingen 7.46 WWurttembergurttemberg Karlsruhe 7.25 Esslingen 7.24 Biberach 7.13 Sigmaringen 7.11 Heilbronn 6.89 Rhein-Neckar-Kreis 6.63 Rems-Murr-Kreis 6.21 Ravensburg 6.17 Schwäbisch Hall 5.51 Enzkreis 5.42 Hohenlohekreis 5.01 Konstanz 4.96 Heidelberg, Stadt 4.62 Ludwigsburg 4.29 Bodenseekreis 3.82 Heilbronn, Stadt 2.68 Pforzheim 2.55 Jaeger et al. (2001) Karlsruhe, Stadt 2.37 Ulm 2.31 Mannheim 1.74 Stuttgart 1.63 LandscapeLandscape change:change: TimeTime seriesseries

2 2 meff [km ] meff [km ] Baden-Wurttemberg

12.00 P

30 L 10.00 Hohenlohekreis U

8.00 K 20 RavensburgB 6.00 R Konstanz H 4.00 Bodenseekreis 10 Ludwigsburg 2.00 Ulm

0.00 Pforzheim 0 1930 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 1940 1950 1966 1977 Year 1989 Year 1998

„ Used as indicator (impact on biodiversity) in the Environmental Report of Baden-Wurttemberg (2003) Useful for measurements and assessments:

„ time series (environmental indicator) „ setting environmental standards „ management and regulation for the future

Results published in: Jaeger, J. 2002: Landschaftszerschneidung. Ulmer, Stuttgart.

(English translation in planning) mmeffeff currentlycurrently usedused inin

„ 55 statesstates ofof Germany:Germany: „ Baden-Wurttemberg, „ Hesse, „ Bavaria, „ Thuringia, „ Schleswig-Holstein. „ OngoingOngoing discussiondiscussion aboutabout usingusing itit inin allall statesstates ofof GermanyGermany asas oneone ofof 2424 corecore indicatorsindicators ofof sustainability.sustainability. „ EuropeanEuropean EnvironmentalEnvironmental AgencyAgency (EEA)(EEA) „ Switzerland:Switzerland: ProjectProject proposalproposal inin progressprogress Finland

Estonia

Sweden

Lithuania

Norway

Latvia

Albania

Greece

Romania Collaboration M acedonia with the Bosnia and Herzegowina European Italy Spain Environmental Yugoslavia Agency (EEA) United Kingdom Poland „ since Nov. 2003 Ireland Bulgaria „ 32 European France countries Slovakia

Switzerland

Portugal

Croatia

Austria

Slovenia

Hugary

Czech Republic

Germany

Luxembourg Jaeger et al., in prep. Netherlands

Denmark

2 Belgium meff [km ] 0.00 2500.00 5000.00 7500.00 10000.00 EffectsEffects ofof roadsroads andand railroadsrailroads

„ RoadRoad EcologyEcology:: anan BuchBuch FormanForman etet al.al. (2003)(2003) emergingemerging newnew andand scannenscannen hierhier relevantrelevant disciplinediscipline „ RoadRoad EcologyEcology isis ““thethe sleepingsleeping giantgiant ofof conservationconservation biologybiology““ (Forman(Forman 2002)2002)

2003 Roads and Traffic

Habitat Loss Traffic Mortality Road Avoidance

R.I.P.

Population Subdivision

Reduced Population Size

Reduced Population Persistence IncreasingIncreasing roadroad densitydensity……

. . .

……reducesreduces probabilityprobability ofof populationpopulation persistence:persistence: LinearlyLinearly oror withwith aa threshold?threshold? ? TheThe roadroad densitydensity thresholdthreshold

1

0.8

0.6

0.4 persistence

0.2 Probability of population

0 024681012 Number of roads

Artwork thanks to Cristina Boschi. Jaeger, J., Fahrig, L., Ewald, K., in prep. BehaviorBehavior atat thethe roadroad road avoidance = animals don’t try to cross traffic mortality = percent of animals killed on the road

100% proportion of animals avoiding the road 1- R R

1- K K road proportion of animals killed

proportion of succeeding animals SpatiallySpatially explicitexplicit individualindividual-- basedbased simulationsimulation modelmodel

road Persistence probability

Pers. prob. 0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2 effect of a fence

0.1 0 0 0.2 0 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.6 traffic mortality 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.7 road avoidance 0.8 1 0.9 1 Persistence probability

Pers. prob. 0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 0 0.2 0 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.6 traffic mortality 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 road avoidance 0.8 1 0.9 1 When do fences enhance population survival? Fence 1 0.9 Fence threshold line 0.8 0.7 road avoidance 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 fence reduces survival 0.2

0.1 fence enhances survival 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Jaeger and Fahrig (2004), traffic mortality Conservation Biology FutureFuture researchresearch questionsquestions

„ BundlingBundling ofof roadsroads „ RelativeRelative importanceimportance ofof roadroad configurationconfiguration andand roadroad lengthlength „ ResponseResponse timestimes toto newnew roadsroads „ LandscapeLandscape connectivityconnectivity „ EffectEffect ofof differentdifferent matrixmatrix typestypes „ TimeTime seriesseries ofof landscapelandscape fragmentationfragmentation inin SwitzerlandSwitzerland „ ComparisonComparison withwith metapopulationmetapopulation modelsmodels „ EmpiricalEmpirical datadata „ EffectsEffects ofof overpassesoverpasses andand underpassesunderpasses CollaborationCollaboration

„ L. Fahrig, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada „ A. Clevenger, Montana State Univ., USA „ A. Seiler, Univ. of Uppsala, Sweden „ S. Kleeschulte, EEA, Univ. Auton. de Barcelona, Spain „ K. Frank, UFZ Leipzig, Germany „ H.-G. Schwarz-von Raumer, Univ. of Stuttgart, Germany „ R. Serrouya, Kokanee Forest Consulting, BC, Canada „ S. Alexander, Univ. of Calgary, AB, Canada „ M. Percy, Banff National Park, BC, Canada „ S. Saura, Univ. de Lleida, Spain SummarySummary

„ MonitoringMonitoring landscapelandscape fragmentationfragmentation (as(as environmentalenvironmental indicator)indicator)

„ EffectsEffects ofof roads:roads: ThresholdsThresholds inin responseresponse toto roadroad densitydensity andand suitabilitysuitability ofof fencesfences

„ IndividualIndividual--basedbased populationpopulation modelsmodels