(e-DNA) is progressively being used to detect the presence of IAS, for example, Procambarus fallax f. virginalis, Pseudorasbora parva, Vespa velutina (Takahashi et al., 2018), while many sequenced genomes are already available in gene banks (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/), including for Lithobates catesbeianus and Heracleum mantegazzianum.
A great potential for early detection of IAS and provision of massive data is offered by the contribution of volunteer citizens through Citizen Science, nowadays a consolidated activity, which favours citizens’ awareness and active engagement in IAS management. A repository of Citizen Science projects in Europe which target alien species is available in EASIN (https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/easin/CitizenScience/Projects). Following this line, JRC has developed a smartphone application called ‘Invasive Alien Species Europe’ allowing citizens to report species of Union concern across Europe, where species list, identification factsheets, and guidelines are kept up-to-date (http://digitalearthlab.jrc.ec.europa.eu/app/invasive-alien-species-europe). Data gathered via the App, after validation, are uploaded and available through EASIN geodatabase.
The monitoring frameworks presented in this chapter do not represent the only sources of information on biodiversity currently available, but those for which regular updating is either in place or planned.
The Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE, https://biodiversity.europa.eu/info) provides information at the European level in relation to the Biodiversity targets for the European Union, and as regards data it collects and makes available data sources, statistics and maps related to land, water, soil, air, marine, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, tourism, energy, land use and transport. Most of these data are made available under projects or programmes that do not foresee a regular update.
A structured approach to farmland monitoring is a main outcome of the BioBio Project22. The authors Geijzendorffer et al. (2015) and Herzog et al. (2012), starting from the assumption that no single all-inclusive index for biodiversity can be devised23, proposed a framework composed by 15 indicators that describe genetic, species and habitat diversity in farmland. The indicators set is a result of thorough scientific screening and testing in 12 case-study regions with various farm types and farming systems across Europe, as well as regular stakeholder consultation (Herzog et al., 2012).
Such framework can be used as a reference versus the EU-wide monitoring efforts to check what data gaps are and what should still be improved. Table 4 briefly summarizes BioBio indicators, with the exclusion of farm management indicators.
Table 4 BioBio indicators (source: Herzog et al., 2012)
| Genetic diversity | Species diversity | Habitat diversity |
| Number and amount of different breeds | Vascular plants | Habitat richness |
| Cultivar diversity | Wild bees and bumblebees | Habitat diversity |
| Origin of crops | Spiders | Patch size |
| Earthworms | Linear habitats | |
| Crop richness | ||
| Shrub habitats | ||
| Tree habitats | ||
| Semi-natural habitats |
Species diversity is the category in which efforts at the EU level are more advanced and going in the right direction. Plants, pollinators and soil organisms are covered by monitoring efforts either already in place or under development. To these, birds and butterflies must be added, and the progress on the European bat indicator is worth mentioning (EEA, 2013b; Battersby, 2010). Compared to other taxa, though, it must be noted that soil biodiversity is still the less known.
Indicators of habitat diversity can be partially derived from the EMBAL monitoring system (e.g. habitat richness, habitat diversity, patch size). Moreover, the Copernicus Land Monitoring Service, part of the European Union’s Earth Observation Programme24, is providing geographical information on land cover and its changes, land use and vegetation state which can be used to derive indicators on habitat diversity and structural habitat characteristics, such as the presence of landscape elements (tree rows, hedges and groups of trees). The LUCAS module on landscape features in 2022 will collect in-situ information on smaller landscape elements in agricultural areas to complement information from Copernicus. Data (small woody features and hedgerows, grass fringes, ditches, small ponds, stone walls and terraces) will be collected on 93.000 points with the purpose to provide quantitative information at EU and Member State level. The potential of the new Sentinel imagery applied to habitat monitoring has still to be fully exploited. It is important to note that the mentioned approaches have their limitations in terms of resolution or density of sampling points, and provide results that are mostly applicable at country level or macro-regions (e.g. LUCAS grasslands, LUCAS soil, EMBAL), and satellite images are constrained by the resolution of the images (both geometric and spectral).
Despite the efforts, the first column in Fig. 2 remains substantially empty. Though projects aiming at the conservation of genetic material do exist, at global (e.g. Svalbard Global Seed Vault, https:// www.seedvault.no/), national (RIBES, the Italian network of seed banks,
http://www.reteribes.it/) and local (https://www.communityseedbanks.org/the-csb-map/) levels, an overview at EU level of the number, amount and geographical distribution of traditional breeds, cultivars, landraces, wild crop relatives, traditional and ancient varieties is not yet available. The FAO reports that ‘although crop wild relatives represent about 13 percent of the world’s gene bank holdings, about 70 percent of such species are still missing’ (FAO, 2018). To a great degree, the quantification of that part of biodiversity that is directly embedded into agriculture and constitutes its core, as well as an insurance for agricultural ecosystems to remain resilient and adaptive, still has to happen.
What analysed so far concerns initiatives in place or planned. Before reaching some conclusions, it is worth looking into the near future and understand which substantial improvements in biodiversity monitoring can be expected from the operational use of new technologies.
