LTEREurope

1
LTER-Europe

• cross-site meta-analysis

2
Strengths of LTER according to our believes

• Long time data sequences
• Large spatial / gradient coverage
• Comprehensive information / data from the same
  place

3
Urgent need to base on real potential

• to prove availability of long-term data at level
  of LTER sites, and national networks
• to prove ability of cross site and cross network
  co-operation
• to deliver tangible results of cooperation
• to address key ecological issues at European
  scale
• to produce sounding science

4
Work done up to now

• Identification of areas key for LTER EU research
• Formulation of research topics related to the
  focal areas
• Creating a common list of parameters addressing
  all topics
• Formulation of one research topic
• Conducting an interview (of national and site
  co-ordinators) to define availability of data and
  willingness to participate in cross-network
  initiative
• Drafting research hypothesis

5
Topics defined as crucial and well supported with
data in LTER sites

• - Patterns of phenology, distribution and
  population density of important and sensitive
  species across Europe as an effect of climate
  change.
• - Effects of change in ecosystem input on
  community structure (relative abundance and
  species composition) and ecosystem function
  across Europe
• initially either N load, P load, the NP ratio
  or water availability
• - Changes in ecosystem functions as a result of
  land use change (with focus on LTSER sites)
• - Change of delivery of ecosystem goods (e.g.
  timber, fish) and services (e.g. recreation)
  across Europe due to all above factors.

1st LTER EU Meeting, Hungary, 2007
6
Common topic merging all information
Effects of change in ecosystem input on community
structure
7
Input change and Community ReOrganization (ICRO)
Hypothesis
Ecosystems predictably respond to changes of an
essential input (energy, materials and organisms)
in terms of community reorganization. The
reorganization follows the predictable sequence
of three states with increasing rate of input.
8
The reference - Rivet HypothesisEhlrich
Ehlrich (1981)
BD threshold
redundancy, absorbing capacity
Number of species
collapse of ecosystem structure and functions
Input to ecosystem, e.g. Nitrogen, water, climate
change, land use (change in time or space)
9
STARTING POINT
INITIAL COMMUNITY STRUCTURE
10
STEP 1
CHANGE IN INDIVIDUAL SPP OCCURENCE
Increase in ecosystem input
INITIAL
11
STEP 2
CHANGE IN SPECIES ABUNDANCE
12
STEP 3
SPP LOSS AND COLONISATION
Increase in ecosystem input
INITIAL
13
Links between ICRO RH BD management support
at LTER sites
BD threshold IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES
MANAGEMENT TARGET indicator based
LEVEL 1 SPECIES OCCURENCE
Identification of signals of community
reorganization, being result of ecosystem input,
may help in ecosystem assessment and defining of
management target
LEVEL 2 SPECIES ABUNDANCE
LEVEL 3 EXTINCTION / INVASION
Number of species
EFFORD / EFFICIENCY
Input to ecosystem / REORGANIZATION
14
Preliminary results
15
The advantages of exercising this meta-analysis

• The meta-analysis will test a scientific
  hypothesis.
• The hypothesis is very specific in that it can be
  tested and rejected.
• But it is general enough to be able to test
  different ecosystem inputs (climate change,
  nitrogen load, land use change, water
  availability), different taxonomic groups
  (plants, algae, insects, birds) and different
  ecosystems (rivers, forests, bogs, deserts,
  lakes).

16
The advantages of exercising this meta-analysis

• It will use many LTER sites across Europe and
  although in each site the analysis will be done
  separately, since we will be using the same
  methods of analysis we can create a meta-analysis
  that will provide clear results regarding the
  hypothesis.
• The meta-analysis will test
• the cooperation between networks,
• availability of data for such analysis (and joint
  works of scientists and other people from
  different sites across Europe).
• It will test our ability to overcome the many
  obstacles waiting for us.

17
Calculation of species incidence at site level
and abundance
STEP 4
6, 28.7
3, 4.3
Abundance
Incident
18
Questionnaire results

• 9 countries answered Lithuania, Latvia, Poland,
  Slovania, Spain, Italy, Israel, Czech republic,
  UK
• 47 sites. Not all the sites in Europe but a good
  sample.
• Most sites have data for at least 3 -10 years.
  Some even more.
• Most sites have at least 5 10 plots in each
  site.
• All sites have data on the abundance of some
  taxonomic groups and some independent parameters.
  
• This allows to compare changes along time of the
  community species composition.

19
Results of parameter questionnaire - Terrestrial
sites
20
Results of parameter questionnaire - Terrestrial
sites1
21
Results of parameter questionnaire - Terrestrial
sites2
22
Results of parameter questionnaire - Aquatic sites
23
Results of parameter questionnaire - Ecosystem
input
24
Summary of parameters

• Most common parameters are temperature (all
  countries have either water or air temperature),
  precipitation, nitrogen and phosphate load
• On the other hand phenology and primary
  productivity are not that common

25
Summary of parameters 2

• In almost all the sites there are enough data to
  analyse a certain taxonomic group for a few
  years.
• Some groups are common to most sites (plants,
  fish, birds insects).
• Even if the analysis is done on different
  taxonomic groups almost all sites can be
  analysed. Almost all sites have at least 5
  plots.
• The analysis on the community structure can be
  done with some ecosystem input like temperature,
  precipitation and nitrogen load.
• The issue of land use should be examined again.

26
The next stage

• A post-doc that will collect data Find soon
• For group 1 (Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Slovania,
  Spain, Italy, Israel, Czech republic, UK)
  Provide data for analysis April 08
• For group 2 (Austria, France, Germany, Finland,
  Romania, Slovakia, . Ukraine?, Switzarland?)
  provide information February 08
• Soft analysis, presentation to all networks
  September 08
• Write paper Dec 08

27
The end
28
Required resources

• One person post doc for data collation and
  trend analysis (you cannot take a phd for a work
  that may finish in 1.5 years) 25,000 Euro for a
  year (so 37,500 Euro for 18 months).
• In addition to that the post doc will have to
  travel a lot. Assuming at least one visit for
  each country, at least, 5,000 Euros.
• A laptop will be needed so it should be around
  4,000 Euros
• In total it is around 50,000 Euros for 18 months.
  
• This is a full time job, but it is possible that
  my university will be able to provide some of the
  scholarship (maybe even a half), so it brings it
  down to 28,000 Euro.

29
Links between ICRO RH BD management support
at LTER sites
BD threshold IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES
MANAGEMENT TARGET indicator based
LEVEL 1 SPECIES OCCURENCE
Identification of signals of community
reorganization, being result of ecosystem input,
may help in ecosystem assessment and defining of
management target
LEVEL 2 SPECIES ABUNDANCE
LEVEL 3 EXTINCTION / INVASION
Number of species
EFFORD / EFFICIENCY
Input to ecosystem / REORGANIZATION
30
Preparing matrix for abiotic datato be conducted
at each participating site
STEP 3

• Putting together information on selected abiotic
  factor / factors driving local biodiversity

31
The summarized list of alternative dependent and
independent parameters addressing all the 4
topics
Task Group on LTER EU Research Agenda
32
Possible links to AlterNet
LTER Field site Integration

• Prove of existing in-site data bases
• Defining list of parameters common to all sites
  as input to work on criteria for sites
• Testing usefulness of information collected in
  meta-data base (I6)
• Building information on research scope across
  European sites and networks
• Improvement of co-operation between sites and
  networks

33
Possible links to AlterNet
Integration of Interfaces Communication
Institutional Integration
Interdisciplinary research
Creating communication channels, analysis of
information flow, constrains and challenges
First attempt to build consensus for data
accessibility and sharing, identification of
concerns to addressing them in formal documents
or solving in-site
Development and testing of methods for analysing
diversified data, elaboration of common
protocols, providing background for
socio-ecological research addressing ecosystem
services
34
Focal areas according to FP6 NoEx AlterNet
review of LTER sites and national networks

• Climate change
• Nitrogen load
• Land use
• Ecosystem service

35
Background assumptions for defining parameters
and topics common to LTER sites across Europe

• focus on knowledge and data already existing in
  network, and preparation of a proposal for future
  protocol
• max 4 research topics to be tackled (better 2)
• parameters and topics are to be streamlined
  towards one hypothesis tested across network
• site data chosen according to the most relevant
  parameters for the site and measures used
• tool -gt soft synthesis combining final results
  of repeated in-site analyses and discussing of
  the general trends (no top analysis of delivered
  raw data)

1st LTER EU Meeting, Hungary, 2007
36
List of parameters for interviewing site
coordinators and check availability of data

• species density
• abundance
• biomass
• phenology

• temperature
• - annual mean
• - annual min
• - annual max
• - day degrees
• - duration of snow, ice
• annual precipitation
• land use (in of total site area)
• nitrogen phosphate load
• water availability (discharge, moisture)

• requested additional information
• No of taxonomic groups studied
• taxonomic resolution
• data time span
• number of plots / repetitions analysed

Task Group on LTER EU Research Agenda
37
General assumptions for next step
cross-site analysis
1. comparison of different systems aquatic,
tundra, arid, etc. 2. examination of interactions
between biotic and abiotic factors defined as key
for a site, e.g. effects of phosphate increase
on algae, or nitrogen on plants, or increase of
temperature on species dynamics, 3. the final
comparison of trends along input state axes,
independently of which factor was chosen as
driver and how species response was measured,
e.g. influence of disturbance on species
biomass, density etc.
38
Drafted hypothesis to be tested
Input change and Community ReOrganization (ICRO)
Hypothesis
39
Site based analysis of species composition
STEP 1
PLOT 1
PLOT 2
PLOT 3
PLOT 4
PLOT 5
PLOT 6
LTER SITE devided to plots or habitats
PLOT 7
Sp 1
Sp 2
Sp 3
Sp 4
40
Preparing matrix for biotic data to be conducted
by each participating site
STEP 2

• Putting together site data on species, families
  (density, biomass or abundance) per plot
  (sampling)
• for each sampling (in case of repeating ones,
  or each period separately)

41
Feeding graphs with data
STEP 5
Input at t1
1000
100
ABUNDANCE
10
0
2
3
4
8
INCIDENCE
42
Trend analysis of community change
STEP 6
Input at t2
1000
100
ABUNDANCE
10
0
2
3
4
8
INCIDENCE
43
END OF IN-SITE DATA ANALYSIS PHASE
44
Information synthesis for the hypothesis testing
Input change and Community ReOrganization (ICRO)
Hypothesis
45
Three - step community re-organization

• Change in species occurrence
• Change in species abundance
• Collonization and extinction

46
Assemblage re-organisation
47
???????? ??????
mound
pit
Slope b
Year
Drought years
48
Products
Paper / report analysing process of
communication, data collection and analysis, and
preparing synthesis Paper / report summarising
the cross network analysis against adopted
hypothesis
49
Elli Groner Kinga Krauze Moshe Shachak Jan
Dick Jacque Boudry Saulius Svazas Viesturs
Melecis
50
Europe LTER
51
Categorized ILTER Sites
52
Results of parameter questionnaire - Terrestrial
sites
53
Results of parameter questionnaire - Terrestrial
sites