In this report, we present the analysis of the different available biodiversity data streams at the EU and national level, both baseline biodiversity data and monitoring data. We assess how these biodiversity data inform and trigger policy action and identify the related challenges the different European countries and relevant EU agencies face and the solutions to overcome them. To do this, we consulted with more than 350 expert stakeholders from policy, research and practice. The assessment identified a fragmented biodiversity data landscape that cannot currently easily answer all relevant policy questions. Quantity and quality of biodiversity baseline datasets differ for the different countries, ranging from non-existent biodiversity monitoring due to capacity issues, to regular monitoring of ecosystem processes and state. By engaging stakeholders and experts in both member states and non-member states and from several EU bodies, we identified key challenges and ways to address these with targeted solutions towards building a joint European Biodiversity Monitoring Network. Solutions include focussing on cooperation and coordination, enhanced data standardisation and sharing, as well as the use of models and new technologies. These solutions can however only be realised with dedicated funding and capacity building, in coordination with all stakeholders in partnership.
In this report, we present the analysis of the different available biodiversity data streams at the EU and national level, both baseline biodiversity data and monitoring data. We assess how these biodiversity data inform and trigger policy action and identify the related challenges the different European countries and relevant EU agencies face and the solutions to overcome them. To do this, we consulted with more than 350 expert stakeholders from policy, research and practice. The assessment identified a fragmented biodiversity data landscape that cannot currently easily answer all relevant policy questions. Quantity and quality of biodiversity baseline datasets differ for the different countries, ranging from non-existent biodiversity monitoring due to capacity issues, to regular monitoring of ecosystem processes and state. By engaging stakeholders and experts in both member states and non-member states and from several EU bodies, we identified key challenges and ways to address these with targeted solutions towards building a joint European Biodiversity Monitoring Network. Solutions include focussing on cooperation and coordination, enhanced data standardisation and sharing, as well as the use of models and new technologies. These solutions can however only be realised with dedicated funding and capacity building, in coordination with all stakeholders in partnership.
Aim The former continental‐scale studies modelled coarse‐grained plant species‐richness patterns (gamma diversity). Here we aim to refine this information for European forests by (a) modelling the number of vascular plant species that co‐occur in local communities (alpha diversity) within spatial units of 400 m2; and (b) assessing the factors likely determining the observed spatial patterns in alpha diversity. Location Europe roughly within 12°W–30°E and 35–60°N. Taxon Vascular plants. Methods The numbers of co‐occurring vascular plant species were counted in 73,134 georeferenced vegetation plots. Each plot was classified by an expert system into deciduous broadleaf, coniferous or sclerophyllous forest. Random Forest models were used to map and explain spatial patterns in alpha diversity for each forest type separately using 19 environmental, land‐use and historical variables. Results Our models explained from 51.0% to 70.9% of the variation in forest alpha diversity. The modelled alpha‐diversity pattern was dominated by a marked gradient from species‐poor north‐western to species‐rich south‐eastern Europe. The most prominent richness hotspots were identified in the Calcareous Alps and adjacent north‐western Dinarides, the Carpathian foothills in Romania and the Western Carpathians in Slovakia. Energy‐related factors, bedrock types and terrain ruggedness were identified as the main variables underlying the observed richness patterns. Alpha diversity increases especially with temperature seasonality in deciduous broadleaf forests, on limestone bedrock in coniferous forests and in areas with low annual actual evapotranspiration in sclerophyllous forests. Main conclusions We provide the first predictive maps and analyses of environmental factors driving the alpha diversity of vascular plants across European forests. Such information is important for the general understanding of European biodiversity. This study also demonstrates a high potential of vegetation‐plot databases as sources for robust estimation of the number of vascular plant species that co‐occur at fine spatial grains across large areas. ; M.V., J.D., I.K., M.Ř. and M.C. were supported by the Czech Science Foundation (Centre of Excellence Pladias; project no. 14–36079G). I.B. and J.A.C. were supported by the Basque Government (IT936‐16). B.J.‐A. was supported by the Marie Curie Clarín‐COFUND program of the Principate of Asturias and the European Union (ACB17‐26). J.‐C.S. considers this work a contribution to his VILLUM Investigator project "Biodiversity Dynamics in a Changing World" funded by VILLUM FONDEN (grant 16549) and his Danish Council for Independent Research | Natural Sciences TREECHANGE project (grant 6108‐00078B).
