continuously decreasing area of natural forest tree plantations are implemented as
restoration tool.
However, the results of many restoration measures are questionable with respect
to the goal of species conservation, e.g. insect hotels or bird boxes in gardens and
parks.
Conservationists normally reject the development of underground exploitation of
resources and mining projects, holes in the landscape for extracting sand, clay or
rock, or artificial buildings like walls, bridges and so on that have not been there
before. Once established in the landscape, conservationists later often call for nature
protection because meanwhile rare amphibians, birds, insects, lichens or reptiles
have occupied exactly these places. The heterogeneity of urban districts is one of the
reasons why the biodiversity of cities is often richer than in the rural surrounding
(Barthel et al. 2005).
Biodiversity in general is promoted and stabilized by environmental heterogeneity in space and ecological continuity in time. Thus, a new anthropogenic habitat in
the landscape may represent both higher heterogeneity in space and lower continuity
over time. In this case, it might be difficult to calculate the overall effect for the
nature (Legendre and Fortin 1989; Yang et al. 2015; Hobohm and Müller-Bendict
2018).
However, under which circumstances and in which regions would it be possible
to establish new habitats with a presumable benefit for the biodiversity and
populations of endangered species?
Industrial agriculture with maximum yield or asphalted urban districts often do
not contain any natural structures. Why should these areas not been used for
experiments with the goal to offer a habitat for rare and threatened species where
they never have been before or where they regionally went extinct?
Why shouldn’t a single hectare of coastal arable land be covered for two or three
years with shingle and shell fragments for ground breeding birds? Clearly, this
hectare should be monitored. In the worst case, no bird will occupy this artificial
habitat. Afterwards this place might be ploughed and used for producing crops again.
Why not dig a hole in the ground somewhere in a monoculture of planted trees?
Why not cover flat roofs in the cities with hay from species-rich grassland? Why
can’t spaces under the roof or in cellars be used as space for insects, birds or bats?
Why not think about the establishment of artificial buildings placed on the sea
floor to stop further illegal fishing with trawl nets?
There are many ideas like this. Some have already been successfully tested
(cf. e.g. Forbes and Kendle 2013). However, such measures should only be
established if any damage for the already existing landscapes and habitats can be
precluded.
Environmental Indicators and Biodiversity Conservation Strategies
171
restoration tool.
However, the results of many restoration measures are questionable with respect
to the goal of species conservation, e.g. insect hotels or bird boxes in gardens and
parks.
Conservationists normally reject the development of underground exploitation of
resources and mining projects, holes in the landscape for extracting sand, clay or
rock, or artificial buildings like walls, bridges and so on that have not been there
before. Once established in the landscape, conservationists later often call for nature
protection because meanwhile rare amphibians, birds, insects, lichens or reptiles
have occupied exactly these places. The heterogeneity of urban districts is one of the
reasons why the biodiversity of cities is often richer than in the rural surrounding
(Barthel et al. 2005).
Biodiversity in general is promoted and stabilized by environmental heterogeneity in space and ecological continuity in time. Thus, a new anthropogenic habitat in
the landscape may represent both higher heterogeneity in space and lower continuity
over time. In this case, it might be difficult to calculate the overall effect for the
nature (Legendre and Fortin 1989; Yang et al. 2015; Hobohm and Müller-Bendict
2018).
However, under which circumstances and in which regions would it be possible
to establish new habitats with a presumable benefit for the biodiversity and
populations of endangered species?
Industrial agriculture with maximum yield or asphalted urban districts often do
not contain any natural structures. Why should these areas not been used for
experiments with the goal to offer a habitat for rare and threatened species where
they never have been before or where they regionally went extinct?
Why shouldn’t a single hectare of coastal arable land be covered for two or three
years with shingle and shell fragments for ground breeding birds? Clearly, this
hectare should be monitored. In the worst case, no bird will occupy this artificial
habitat. Afterwards this place might be ploughed and used for producing crops again.
Why not dig a hole in the ground somewhere in a monoculture of planted trees?
Why not cover flat roofs in the cities with hay from species-rich grassland? Why
can’t spaces under the roof or in cellars be used as space for insects, birds or bats?
Why not think about the establishment of artificial buildings placed on the sea
floor to stop further illegal fishing with trawl nets?
There are many ideas like this. Some have already been successfully tested
(cf. e.g. Forbes and Kendle 2013). However, such measures should only be
established if any damage for the already existing landscapes and habitats can be
precluded.
Environmental Indicators and Biodiversity Conservation Strategies
171