The German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation has commissioned a project to develop - inter alia – a concept for defining biogeographical regions to fulfil the recommendation of taking into account the receiving environment relevant for the risk assessment of GMO as foreseen in the EU-directive 2001/18 or the Cartagena Protocol. Though it is work in progress I like to share some of the preliminary results.
...
Starting with a list of selection criteria followed by a survey of data availability, the project analysed existing biogeographical classification concepts for Europe. Any suitable regionalisation concept should appropriately reflect the specific characteristics of the faunal and floral communities of the different receiving environments of a GMP. Therefore, such a classification should be done by an ecoregion approach, meaning that different ecoregions support different organism communities that may play a different role in supporting relevant ecosystem services.
The occurrence and distribution of plant species and plant communities is well known for many parts of Europe (e.g. Ellenberg et al. 1992; Beck et al. 2005). In addition, the potential natural vegetation (PNV), i.e., the vegetation (climax stage) which would occur if there is no anthropogenic influence, has been widely mapped already (Hornsmann et al. 2008). Also much detailed information about their distribution is available for many vertebrate species such as birds (e.g., the EUNIS biodiversity database:
http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/index.jsp), but for many invertebrates and in particular soil organisms such information does not exist.
The distribution of single species and the composition of organism communities are determined by local biotic and abiotic conditions. For example, the correlation between soil parameters like pH or texture and the occurrence of specific organism group compositions, which has been hypothesized for a long time (Volz 1962; Ghilarov 1965), was successfully used in recent classification concepts developed in The Netherlands (BISQ) and Germany (BBSK) (Römbke & Breure 2005). While the responsible factors vary, the same relationship has also often been found for other terrestrial invertebrates (e.g. carabid beetles: climate and vegetation (Thiele 1977).
Based on this knowledge, it is proposed to use the information about site conditions including climatic, botanical and soil parameters), which determine the composition of communities, for the classification and mapping of the distribution of terrestrial organisms. Due to their species richness, ecological relevance and – especially – their role as non-target organisms, invertebrates will be the main focus of biogeographical classification concepts to be used in the ERA of GMPs.
Realising the very different ecological requirements between and within large organism groups like plants, vertebrates and invertebrates it is likely that it will not be possible to define one classification concept for Europe which is equally relevant for all of them. However, the aim has to be to find a compromise which is as much representative as possible for all organism groups.
With the European biogeographical regions (ETC/BD 2006) there is an existing regionalisation concept applicable for epigeic organisms. For endogeic non-target organisms there is currently no suitable regionalisation concept available. For this reason it is recommended, that for the time being the cases to be separated for the ERA of a given GM crop in Europe will be identified using the European biogeographical regions..
Since the regionalisation concept is to be used in the context of the ERA of GMPs, it should be tailored for the very area in Europe where GMPs are likely to be grown. Hence, the distribution of agricultural areas in Europe should be considered. The identified 11 European biogeographical regions correspond to the different potential receiving environments for any given GMP in Europe. The overlap between these generic receiving environments and the prospective areas of cultivation for a novel GMP form the different cases, each of which should undergo a specific ERA process.
(Römpke et al. 2008)
Literature cited
Beck, L., Römbke, J., Breure, A.M., Mulder, C. (2005): Considerations for the use of ecological classification and assessment concepts in soil protection. Ecotox. Environ. Safety 62: 189-200.
Breure, A.M., Mulder, C., Römbke, J., Ruf, A. (2005): Ecological classification and assessment concepts in soil protection. Ecotox. Environ. Safety 62: 211-229.
Ellenberg, H., Weber, H.E., Düll, R., Wirth, V., Werner, W., Paulissen, D. (1992): Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa (2nd ed.). Scripta Geobotanica 18: 1-248.
ETC/BD (European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity) (2006): The indicative Map of European Biogeographical Regions: Methodology and development. Paris, France.
Ghilarov, M. (1965): Zoologische Methoden der Bodendiagnostik. Nauka, Moskow.
Hornsmann, I., Schmidt, G., Schmidt, G., Schröder, W. (2008): Berechnung einer land-schaftsökologischen Raumgliederung Europas. UWSF – Z. Umweltchem. Ökotox. 20: 25-35.
Römbke, J., Breure, A.M. (eds) (2005): Ecological soil quality - Classification and assessment. Ecotox. Environ. Safety 62: 185-308.
Thiele, H-U. (1977): Carabid beetles in their environment. A study on habitat selection by adaptations in physiology and behaviour. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
Volz, H. (1962): Beiträge zu einer pedozoologischen Standortslehre. Pedobiologia 1: 242 290.
