The Swedish Landscape Monitoring Programme Stickprovsvis Landskaps- övervakning (SLÖ) Anders Glimskär Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

SLÖ’s large-scale design Randomly placed sample units (~ 5-700) Five-year intervals All terrestrial biotopes Stratification towards the agricultural landscape Co-ordination with the Swedish National Forest Survey

Information analysis (interviews) The agricultural landscape Grazing and mowing Eutrophication Small biotopes, ponds Landscape composition Cultural remnants Urban areas Parks and naturally vegetated areas Old deciduous trees Small biotopes, ponds Recreation, accessibility Wetlands and shores Drainage Natural or disturbed water regime Grazing and mowing Exploitation and ground disturbance Chemical impact (eutrophication) Forests Tree cutting and other disturbances Landscape composition Forest stand properties Substrates, dead wood Forest continuity Mountain areas Reindeer grazing Climatic change Ground disturbance (vehicles, tourism)

Three types of sample units 5 x 5 km units Simplified aerial photo interpretation Focus on areal elements Landscape structure 1 x 1 km units Detailed aerial photo interpretation Areal, linear and point elements Quality and detailed structure Permanent plots and line intersect sampling Special objects (wetlands, semi-natural grasslands) Detailed aerial photo interpretation Quality and detailed structure Focus on specific disturbances Permanent plots

Colour-IR photo interpretation Areal elements (polygons) Grasslands Forests Wetlands, etc. Linear elements Road verges Water courses Fences, etc. Point elements Solitary trees Pools Buildings, etc.

Layout of field plots 1 x 1 km units Line intersect sampling 100 m 2 sample plots 4 x 0.25 m 2 vegetation plots

Field variables (preliminary) Vegetation structure (% cover) Vascular plants (lists of spp.) Canopy cover, vertical structure Status of old deciduous trees Quality of cultural remnants Water quality and substrate Dead wood, amount and quality Traps for flying insects (pollinators) Epiphytic lichens Traces from woodpeckers and wood- living insects Veg.100mEdges,LinearPoint plots shoreselem. x ? x(ind)(p,w) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xx xx x x

Types of analyses Abundance and extent of elements Area, length Number, density % cover Quality, management and disturbances % bare soil, litter, etc. Signs of grazing, dung, fences Decomposition stage of dead wood Species frequencies and composition Species number, dominance Indicator species Surroundings Exposure, microclimate Distance, fragmentation Buffer zones Landscape structure Connectivity Variation, mosaic structure Species-specific demands (feeding, nesting, over-wintering)

Co-ordination of SLÖ with other programmes The Swedish National Forest Survey Randomly placed plots Bird Monitoring Randomly placed plots Natura 2000 Biotope-specific programmes Meadows and pastures – butterflies, fungi, birds ”Key biotopes” in forest – epiphytes, dead wood Wetlands – hydrology, land-use, bryophytes Freshwater biotopes – hydrology, fauna, vegetation, substrate

Integrating field inventories and remote sensing – examples Independent estimates of quantities of landscape elements Additional, detailed estimates of quality and structure Effects of surrounding land use and biotopes on species composition, indicator species and quality (e.g., of water) Additional data of the ”similarity” of areal, linear or point elements (e.g., as corridors or stepping stones) Incorporation of gradients and borders in the landscape analysis Additional data on ”hidden” elements, e.g., under a dense forest canopy

Example 1: Border zones to water Surrounding land-use: influences the inflow of nutrients or sediment Buffer zones: reduces external impact, depending on width, slope and vegetation cover Shore characteristics: variation in form or substrate indicating ”naturalness” and potential biodiversity Water quality: buffering capacity, nutrient richness and sedimentation as indicators of sensitivity and disturbance level Organisms: indicators of changing conditions and conservation value (water fauna, vegetation)

Example 2: Dispersal corridors Size and extent: width and connectivity, as seen from aerial photographs Quality: similarity to the ”habitat islands” and homogeneity, may require detailed field descriptions Sensitivity to disturbances: depends on the surroundings (climatic effects, buffering), within-object factors (management) and organisms (predation) Organisms: mobility, habitat specificity and sensitivity

Example 3: Old, solitary trees Immediate surroundings: shading of the trunk or dust from gravel roads influences the biological values and tree survival Landscape context: distance to closest tree, long-term sustainability dependent on continuous regeneration of old trees at a landscape scale Cultural context: location in relation to historical land use and villages. Structural traits of the tree: signs of pollarding, bark structure, cavities Shape and age: may indicate growth conditions at earlier stages Organisms: indicator organisms (epiphytes, wood-living insects)

Conclusions A close integration of field and landscape data in monitoring gives: * higher quality and more reliable results * links between patterns and processes * a broader scope and wider applicability * higher relevance to actual problems * feed-back for the evaluation of indices