CHAPTER 12 Ecosystem Indicators for the Integrated Management of Landscape Health and Integrity F. Mu ¨ ller In the following chapter an attempt is described to represent the state of ecosystems and landscapes on a holistic, systems-oriented basis. The general guidelines for the derivation of the ecosystem indicators originate in thermodynamic ecosystem theory, in empirical ecosystem analysis, and in the concept of ecosystem health/integrity. The respective fundamental concepts are principles of self-organization, the ecological orientor approach, an integration of structural and functional items and the normative idea of ecological risk prevention. These principles are explained in a first part of the chapter which leads to a presentation of the indicator set, which aims at a depiction of the self-organizing capacity of ecological entities. In the second part, some applications of the indicator set are shown. They refer to the ecosystem scale (with a comparison of a forest ecosystem and an arable land ecosystem), to the landscape scale (characterizing different wetland ecosystem types in a northern German watershed) and to the development of sustainable landscape management regimes in northern Fennoskandia (consequences of different approaches for reindeer herding in an ecological, social and economic context). Copyright © 2005 by Taylor & Francis 12.1 INTRODUCTION Throughout the past few decades, ecosystem approaches seem to have grown out of puberty: For a rising number of ecologists the high complexity of ecological systems has not only become an accepted fact, but also an interesting object of investigation. In parallel, a successful reductionistic methodology has been accomplished steadily by holistic concepts which stress systems approaches and syntheses, and which elucidate the linkages between the multiple compartments of ecological and human-environmental systems within structural, functional, and organizational entities. For instance, in Germany five ecosystem research centers have been installed and supported within the past few decades (e.g., Fra ¨ nzle, 1998; Fritz, 1999; Gollan a nd Heindl, 1998; Hantschel et al., 1998; Widey, 1998; Wiggering, 2001) and additional research projects have been carried out in national parks (e.g., Kerner et al., 1991), biosphere reservations (e.g., Scho ¨ nthaler et al., 2001), and coastal districts (e.g., Dittmann et al., 1998; Kellermann et al., 1998). With these initiatives, the comprehension and the accep tance of ecosystem approaches has made a big step forward in Germany (for an overview see Scho ¨ nthaler et al., 2003). Also in environmental practice, ecosystemic attitudes are becoming more and more favorable: While in the past, environmental activities were restricted to specific ecological resorts, today — in the age of the sustainability principle — we can find resort-spanning environmental politics. Instead of a concentration on environmental sectors, ecosystems are becoming focal objects, and interdisciplinary cooperation is increasing continuously. The same is true of environmental practice (see Scho ¨ nthaler et al., 2003). The major problem of these modern approaches is to cope with the enormous complexity of environmental systems, which arises from the various elements, subsystems, and interrelations that ecosystems provide. Hence scientific approaches to reduce this complexity with a valid and theory-based methodology have become basic requirements for a highly qualitative development of systemic approaches in science, technology, and practice (see Mu ¨ ller and Li, in press). One concept to reduce the complexity of ecological and human-environmental syst ems is a representation of the most significant parameters of an observer-defined system by indicators, which are quantified variables that provide information on a certain phenomenon with a synoptic distinctness (Radermacher et al., 1998). Often, indicators are used if the indicandum — the focal object of the demanded information — is too complex to be measured directly or if its features are not accessible with the available methodologies. There are certain acknowl edged requirements for indicators. For instance, they should be easily measurable, they should be able to be aggregated, and they should depict the investigated relationships in an understandable man ner. The indicandum should be clearly and unambiguously represented by the indicators. These variables should comprise an optimal sensitivity, include normative loadings in a defined extent only, and they should pro vide a high utility for early warning purposes (Wiggering and Mu ¨ ller, 2004). As Table 12.1 Copyright © 2005 by Taylor & Francis shows, there are many further needs for the quality of indicator sets, which often can only barely be met if complex interrelations have to be represented. Concerning these requirements, the existing holistic indicator sets comprise different potentials, advances, and limitations. For example, with respect to indicator complexity, on the one hand we can find very complex indicator sets with a very high number of proposed variables (e.g., Scho ¨ nthaler et al., 2001; Statistisches Bundesamt et al., 2002), and on the other there are approaches that include a reduction up to one parameter, only (e.g., Mu ¨ ller, 1998; Jørgensen, 2000; Ulanowicz, 2000; Odum et al., 2000). Between these indicator systems there is a broad wingspan according to the necessary database, the demanded measuring efforts, the complexity of the aggregation methodology, and the comprehensibility of the results as well as the cognitive transparency for the users. Within this polarization, we have tried to find a representative holistic indicator set on the basis of the concepts, results, and the theoretical background of a research and development project entitled ‘‘Ecosystem Research in the Bornho ¨ ved Lakes District’’ (Fra ¨ nzle, 1998, 2000). Secondary investigations have been executed in the research and development project ‘‘Macro Indicators to Represent the State of the Environment for the National Environmental-Economic Accounting System of Germany’’ (Statistisches Bundesamt et al., 2002). The respective investigations led to a set of eight ecosystem variables, which are suitable for representing the focal element of the pressure-state respo nse and the drivers pressure state impact-response indicator approaches — the state of ecosystems on an integrative level. The indicators are proposed to be used as representatives for the capacity of self-organization in ecological systems which is the selected indicandum to depict the degree of integrity or health in ecological entities. This chapter tries to demonstrate the derivation and application of the aggregated ecosystem indicator set. The basic principles and the specific requirements for the indicator selection will first be described. These resulting conceptual forcing functions come from ecosystem analysis, ecosystem theory, and from the normative principles of ecosystem integrity. The respective framework for indicator selection will be clarified, and thereafter the indicators will be presented together with some information on the utilized methodologies Table 12.1 Some criteria and requirements for ecological indicators. The listed items should be realized to an optimum degree to produce an applicable indicator system according to Mu ¨ ller and Wiggering (2004) Political relevance High level of aggregation Political independence Target-based orientation Spatial comparability Usable measuring requirements Temporal comparability Usable requirements for quantification Sensitivity concerning the indicandum Unequivocal assignment of effects Capability of being verified Capability of being reproduced Validity Spatio-temporal representativeness Capability of being aggregated Methodological transparency Transparency for users Comprehensibility Copyright © 2005 by Taylor & Francis for their quantifications on different scales. On this basis, some case studies will be presented, beginning with a comparison of different ecosystems and continued by a de scription of applications on the landscape scale. The potentials of the indicator set for monitoring schemes will also be discussed, and finally an application in sustainable landscape management will be described. The chapter will end with a discussion and a prospect to future developments. 12.2 BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR THE INDICATOR DERIVATION Besides the requirements summarized in Table 12.1, three principle pillars have been considered as basic conceptual ‘‘points of departure’’ for indicator derivation. The first guideline, which guarantees a high applicability and a general correctness, origins in fundamental ideas from ecosystem theory: ecosystems are comprehended as self-organizing entities, and the degree of self-organizing processes and their effects have been chosen as an aggregated measure to represent the systems’ actual states. The basic theoretical principles of this approach stem from thermodynamic fundamentals of self-organization and from the orientor principle, which is also used by many other concepts published in this book. A second pillar is built up by the methodologies of eco system analysis: to depict ecological entities in a holistic manner, structure as well as function has to be taken into account, the latter representing the perfor mance of the ecosystems. Finally, for a utilization in environmen tal management, the basic approaches which emerge from these principles have to be reflected on a normative level. As the factual evaluation of the concrete indicator values is a societal (not an ecological) task, a useful indicator set has to be based on political concepts and targets. In this case, the preconditions for environmental decision-making are formulated by a specific definition of ecological integrity (Barkmann et al., 2001) which includes several items that are valid for the ecosystem health approach as well. 12.2.1 Ecosystem Theory — The Conceptual Background To reach an optimal applicability of scient ific methodology, theoretical considerations seem to be a good starting point, even if applicable indicators for practical purposes have to be developed. In ecosystem theory there are many different approaches (see Jørgensen, 1996; Mu ¨ ller, 1997) which can easily be condensed and aggregated within the theory of self-organization. This approach does not only provide a unifying concept of ecosystem dynamics, it also depicts a high agreement with basic ideas from the ecosystem health concept (see Table 12.2) that stresses the creativity of nature, which is nothing else than the potential for self-organization. Copyright © 2005 by Taylor & Francis In a generalized outline of the selected theoretical concept, the order of ecological systems emerges from spontaneous processes which operate without consciously regulating influences from the system’s environment. Actually these processes are constrained by human activities (see Mu ¨ ller et al., 1997a, 1997b; Mu ¨ ller and Nielsen, 2000) but although such constraints can reduce the degrees of freedom for ecosystem development, the self-organized processes cannot be set aside. The consequences of these processes have been condensed within the orientor approach (Bossel, 1998; Mu ¨ ller and Leupelt, 1998), a systems-based theory about ecosystem development, which is founded on the general ideas of nonequilibrium thermodynamics (Jørgensen, 1996, 2000; Schneider and Kay, 1994; Kay, 2000) and network development (Fath and Pattten, 1998) on the one hand and succession theory on the other (e.g., Odum, 1969; Dierssen, 2000). Self-organized systems are capable of creating structures and gradients if they receive a throughflow of exergy (usable energy, or the energy fraction of a system which can be transferred into mechanical work, see Jørgensen 2000). The typical exergy input path into ecosystems is solar radiation. This ‘‘high-quality’’ energy fraction is transformed within metabolic reactions (e.g., respiration, heat export), producing nonconver- tible energy fractions (entropy) which are exported into the environment of the system. As a result of these energy conversion processes, under certain circumstances (Ebeling, 1989) gradients (structures) are built up and maintained. There are two extreme thermodynamic principles that take these conditions into account and which postulate an optimizing behavior of open, biological systems. Jørgensen (2000) states that self-organized ecological systems tend to move away from thermodynamic equilibrium, that is build up ordered structures and store the imported exergy within biomass, detritus, and information (e.g., genetic information) which can be indicated by structural diversities. In addition, Schneider a nd Kay (1994) state that the degradation of the applied gradients is an emerging function of self-organized systems. As a consequence of these physical principles, throughout the undisturbed complexifying development of ecosystems — between Holling’s exploitation and conservation stage s (Holling, 1986; Gunderson and Holling, 2002) — there are certain characteristics which are increasing steadily and slowly. These features are developing towards an attractor state which is restricted by the specific site conditions and the prevailing ecological functions. As Table 12.2 Axioms of ecosystem health. The listed parameters reflect the basic system related fundamentals of the health approach, which are also valid for the concept of ecological integrity according to Costanza et al. (1993) Dynamism: Nature is a set of processes, more than a composition of structures Relatedness: Nature is a network of interactions Hierarchy: Nature is built up by complex hierarchies of spatio-temporal scales Creativity: Nature consists of self-organizing systems Different fragilities: Nature includes various sets of different resiliences Copyright © 2005 by Taylor & Francis the development seems to be regularly oriented towards that attractor basin, the respective state variables are called orientors (Bossel, 2000). Using these ecosystem features as indicators, the natural ness of an ecosystem’s development can be depicted. Figure 12.1 shows some of these orientors. In general it can be postulated that throughout an undisturbed development, the complexity of the ecosystems will increase asymptotically up to the state of maturity (Odum, 1969). Within this development, exergy storage will be rising on a materialistic level as well as on a structural basis: more and more gradients are built up. With this increasing structural diversity, the diversity of flows and the system’s ascendancy (Ulanowicz, 2000) will grow as well as certain network features (Fath and Patten, 2000), and therefore the energy necessary for the maintenance of the developing system will also increase. Therefore, exergy storage as well as exergy degradation are typical orientors, and their dynamics can be explained in a contemporary manner. These basic thermodynamic principles have many consequences on other ecosystem features. For instance, the food web will become more and more complex, heterogeneity, species richness, and connectedness will be rising, and many other attributes, as shown in Figure 12.1 will follow a similar long-term trajectory. This orientation is a theoretical principle which can rarely be found in reality due to the continuous effects of disturbances. Particularly in the case of high external inputs, the orientor values might decrease rapidly, proceeding into a retrogressive direction. In the following sequence, an adaptive or resilient system will find the optimization trajectory aga in, while a heavily disturbed ecosystem might not be able to improve the values of the orientors. Therefore the robustness of ecosystems can be indicated by the orientors as well. Consequently, their values are also suitable for representing the ecological risk correlated to external inputs or changes to the prevailing boundary conditions. However, we have to be aware of the fact that high orientor values do not guarantee a high stability or a high buffer capacity. Following Holling’s ideas on ecosystem resilience and development, at the mature stage complex ecosystems become ‘‘brittle,’’ their adaptivity decreases because of the high internal connectedness and the respective interdependencies. Thus, the dynamics of external variables can force the mature system to break down and start with another developmental sequence. An indication for ecosystem self-organization has been proposed in only a small number of case studies. Most of them refer to the concepts of ecosystem health (e.g., Rapport, 1989; Haskell et al., 1993; Rapport and Moll, 2000) or ecological integrity (e.g., Karr, 1981; Woodley et al., 1993). Besides multi- variate approaches (e.g., Schneider and Kay, 1994; Kay, 1993, 2000) and aggregated approaches (e.g., Costanza, 1993) some authors propose to use highly integrated variables like exergy (Jørgensen, 2000), emergy (Odum et al., 2000; Ulgiati et al., 2003) or ascendancy (Ulanowicz, 2000). These bright concepts are very original, they are discussed very actively, and they can cope with the concept of emergent properties. However, there are tremendous Copyright © 2005 by Taylor & Francis Figure 12.1 Ecological orientors from different theoretical origins. The listed ecosystem properties regularly show an optimizing behavior during the long-term develop- ment in undisturbed situations according to Mu ¨ ller and Jørgensen (2000). Copyright © 2005 by Taylor & Francis problems, data requirements and modeling demands when trying to apply them in practice. One example of multivariate orientor applications is shown in Figure 12.2. Two different German stream ecosystems are compared on the basis of emergent ecosystem properties which can take the function of orientors. The depicted values are based on intensive measurements in a Black Forest stream from Meyer (1992) and in a lowland stream ecosystem within the Bornho ¨ ved Lakes district in northern Germany (Po ¨ pperl, 1996). These data have been used to run the model software ECOPATH 3.0, which describes the food web structures, quantifying the standing stock, production and consumption of the elements and the whole system as well as the flow of matter between the ecosystem compartments (average annual rates per m 2 ). Additionally, the model can quantify a series of holistic ecosystem properties. The diagram elucidates that there are enormous differences between the investigated ecosystems. Especially, concerning the primary production based parameters (primary production, respiration, total system throughflow) the lowland stream provides typical values for a strongly eutrophicated ecosystem. On the other hand, the more complex structure (number of species), the relative diversity of flows and related parameters (cycling index, p/b coefficient) show Figure 12.2 Amoeba diagram depicting the relative indicator values for a mountain stream and a lowland stream on the basis of a trophic ECOPATH model which has been applied to data sets from Meyer (1992) and Po ¨ pperl (1996). The model has been calibrated and run by R. Po ¨ pperl and S. Opitz. The mountain stream values represent 100% in the graphics, and the comparison depicts the consequences of eutrophication for some orientor values of the northern German lowland stream. Copyright © 2005 by Taylor & Francis that the mountain stream represents a much higher degree of ecosystem integrity. 12.2.2 Ecosystem Analysis — The Empirical Background Besides the theoretical considerations, there are other good reasons to use an ecosystem approach for environmental assessments. In Table 12.3, some of these motivations are listed. Various case studies from forest dieback research, ecotoxicology, and eutrophication research have documented that indir ect effects, chron ic effects, and delocalized effects are much more significant than direct interactions (see Patten, 1992). Furthermore, many disturbances do not affect just one environmental sector, but the whole ensemble of ecological compartments via webs of interactions and consequences. Last but not least, the ecosystem approach makes it possible to include phenomena like self- organization, emergent properties and ecological complexity (Fra ¨ nzle, 2000). Therefore, the conceptual combination of structural and functional approaches into an organizational concept is a fine starting point to fulfill the empirical requirements for health or integrity indication (Costanza et al., 2000; Golley, 2000; Mu ¨ ller and Windhorst, 2000). The respective scientific approaches focus on ‘‘models of networks consisting of biotic and abiotic interactions in a certain area’’ (Jørge nsen and Mu ¨ ller, 2000; Mu ¨ ller and Breckling, 1997). Scho ¨ nthaler et al. (2003) have defined ecosystem research as a ‘‘media spanning research of element and energy cycli ng, of structures and dynamics, of control mechanisms and of criteria for ecosystem resilience with the aim to learn how to understand the steering and feedback processes in ecological entities.’’ Kaiser et al. (2002) have accomplished this description in the following way: ‘‘Ecosystem research analyses the interactions of biologi cal ecosystem components with each other, with their inanimate environment and with man. It delivers basic knowledge on Table 12.3 Some arguments stressing the methodological significance of ecosystem approaches in environmental management, as they can provide a better consideration of the following items Indirect effects (e.g., webs of reactions concerning forest dieback) Chronic effects (e.g., accumulation of toxic substances) Delocalized effects (e.g., forest effects of ammonia from slurry) Integration of ecological processes and relations into planning procedures Representation of ecological complexity Consideration of features of self-organization Aggregation of structure and function Integration of different ecological media (e.g., soil-vegetation-atmosphere) Integration of different environmental sectors (e.g., immission and erosion) Utilization of improved extents and resolutions in terms of time (multiple interacting temporal scales) in terms of space (multiple interacting spatial scales) in terms of content and disciplines (multiple scientific approaches) in terms of analytical depth (multiple levels-of-aggregation and reduction) Copyright © 2005 by Taylor & Francis structure, dynamics, element and energy flows, ecosystem stabili ty, and resilience.’’ Apart from structural aspects (e.g., items of abiotic and biotic heterogeneity and their dynamics), ecosystem research investigates the imports, exports, storages, and the internal flows of energy, water, and nutrients (e.g., carbon, nitrogen, potassium, calcium, sodium, magnesium) through the compartments of ecological entities (e.g., soil horizons, the unsaturated zone, the groundwater layer, plants on different structural levels and in different layers, but also with different internal functional subunits, animals with different positions in the food webs, or micro-organisms which can be found in different spatial compartments, and the atmospheric compartment) including the derivation of efficiency and cycling attributes (e.g., different ratios of biomass, respiration, production, water movement, cycling index). As there are various variables that can be taken into account to measure these items, and as they are linked within very complex webs of interactions, it is hard to select a small number of indicators which are capable of representing the whole variety of aspects describing the state of ecological systems. To proceed with this task, a combination has to be made which reflects the theoretical items, the empirical requirements and the normative targets of the indicator set. 12.2.3 Ecosystem Health and Ecological Integrity — The Normative Background As the aspired indicators have to be used as information sources in environmental decision-making, societal and normative arguments are also important prerequisites of their selection. The indicators have to refer to the leading concept of environmental management, which is actually the global political principle of sustainable development. It has been discussed in various papers and political statements (e.g., Hauff, 1987; WCED, 1987; Daily, 1997; Costanza, 2000), and in essence we are asked to utilize natural resources in a way that enables future generations to access these resources in at least similar mode as applied today. The main conceptual innovat ions of the sustainability principle are the interd isciplinary linkage of social and natural items and the large spatio-temporal scales which have to be taken into account. Thus some specific requirements arise from this principle (summarized in Table 12.4). An important outcome of the described self-organized processes in the ecosphere is the potential of man utilizing the outputs of ecosystems’ performances. Ecosystem structure and function provide certain environmental services, which are the benefits people obtain from ecosystem organization (being the basic requirements for human life) (see Costanza et al., 2000; Millennium Assessment Board, 2003). One potential classification of these services is based on the works of De Groot (1992): from his point of view the performance of ecosystems can be distinguished into the following classes: General provisions (carrier services). Ecosystem structures are providing space and suitable substrates for human activities. Copyright © 2005 by Taylor & Francis [...]... disturbances of the self-organizing capacity of ecological systems Thus the goal should be a support and preservation of those processes and structures that are essential prerequisites of the ecological ability for self-organization 12. 3 THE SELECTED INDICATOR SET The three basic pillars for the presented indicator selection result in a set of variables that are able to depict the state of ecosystems... analysis,’’ in Handbook of Ecosystem Theories and Management, Jørgensen, S.E and Muller, F., Eds ¨ CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2000, pp 345–360 ¨ Franzle, O ‘‘Okosystemforschung im Bereich der Bornhoveder Seenkette,’’ in ¨ ¨ Handbuch der o¨kosystemforschung, Franzle, O., Muller, F., and Schroder, W., ¨ ¨ ¨ Eds., Chapter V-4.3 ecomed-Verlag, Landsberg, 1998 Franzle, O ‘ Ecosystem research,’’ in Handbook of Ecosystem. .. Berlin, 2004, pp 121 129 ¨ Muller, F and W Windhorst ‘‘Ecosystems as functional entities,’’ in Handbook of ¨ Ecosystem Theories and Management, Jørgensen, S.E and Muller, F., Eds CRC ¨ Press, Boca Raton, 2000, pp 33–50 Odum, E.P The strategy of ecosystem development Science 104, 262–270, 1969 Odum, H.T., Brown, M.T and Ulgiati, S ‘‘Ecosystems as energetic systems,’’ in Handbook of Ecosystem Theories... What constitutes ecosystem health? Perspect Biol Med 33, 120 –132, 1989 Rapport, D.J and Moll, R ‘‘Applications of ecosystem theory and modelling to assess ecosystem health, ’’ in Handbook of Ecosystem Theories and Management, Jørgensen, S.E and Muller, F., Eds CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2000, pp ¨ 487–496 Reiche, E.W Wasmod Ein Modellsystem zur gebietsbezogenen Simulation von Wasser- und Stoffflussen Ecosys... operational definition of ecosystem health, ’’ in Ecosystem Health Costanza, R., Norton, B.G., and Haskell, B.D., Eds Island Press, Washington, 1993, pp 239–256 Costanza, R Societal goals and the valuation of ecosystem services Ecosystems 3, 4–10, 2000 Costanza, R., Cleveland, C., and Perrings, C ‘ Ecosystem and economic theories in ecological economics,’’ in Handbook of Ecosystem Theories and Management,... 547–560 Costanza, R., Norton, B.G., and Haskell, B.D Ecosystem Health Island Press, Washington, 1993 Daily, G.C Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Systems Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1997 De Groot, R.S Functions of Nature Wolters-Noorhoff, Dordrecht, 1992 Dierssen, K ‘‘Ecosystems as states of ecological successions,’’ in Handbook of Ecosystem Theories and Management, Jørgensen, S.E... correlated ecosystem comparison concerning the intrabiotic nutrients is sketched in Figure 12. 4 It shows that the higher values can be found in the forest ecosystem for both nitrogen and phosphorus compounds Figure 12. 4 Comparison of the intrabiotic nutrient contents of the investigated ecosystems Data from Kutsch et al (1998) Copyright © 2005 by Taylor & Francis Figure 12. 5 Comparison of the nutrient... Kaiser, M., Mages-Delle, T., and Oeschger, R Gesamtsynthese Okosystemforschung Wattenmeer UBA-Texte 45/02, Berlin, 2002 Karr, J.R Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities Fisheries 6, 21–27, 1981 Kay, J.J ‘‘On the nature of ecological integrity: some closing comments,’’ in Ecological Integrity and the Management of Ecosystems, Woodley, S., Kay, J., and Francis, G., Eds University of Waterloo... the site budgets of water This item could also be comprehended as an ecosystemic water-use efficiency because it is strongly correlated with the capacity of nutrient cycling, and because transpiration is a very important factor of the temperature regulation of ecosystems The metabolic efficiency (respiration/biomass) of the forest was much higher than the efficiency of the arable land ecosystem This... of his site The consequences of this economic orientation can be seen in all other variables, summarizing they show that the degree of self-organization of the forest — and with this the ecological integrity — is much higher than it is in the field In the case of new external disturbances this system bears a much higher risk of retrogressive changes than the forest which represents a higher state of . CHAPTER 12 Ecosystem Indicators for the Integrated Management of Landscape Health and Integrity F. Mu ¨ ller In the following chapter an attempt is described to represent the state of ecosystems. procedures Representation of ecological complexity Consideration of features of self-organization Aggregation of structure and function Integration of different ecological media (e.g., soil-vegetation-atmosphere) Integration. systems-oriented basis. The general guidelines for the derivation of the ecosystem indicators originate in thermodynamic ecosystem theory, in empirical ecosystem analysis, and in the concept of ecosystem