Conservation priorities for terrestrial mammals in Dobrogea Region, Romania

Miu, Iulia V.; Gabriel, B Chisamera; Popescu, Viorel D.; Iosif, Ruben; Niţă, Andreea; Manolache, Steluta; Gavril, Viorel Dumitru; Cobzaru, Ioana; Rozyłowicz, Laurenţiu

doi:10.3897/zookeys.792.25314

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our prioritization is constrained by the limited availability of occurrence data for most of the Annex II Habitats Directive species. With few exceptions, such as reptiles, amphibians, mammals in the Dobrogea region, large carnivores (Bîrsan et al, 2017;Cogǎlniceanu et al, 2013a;Cogǎlniceanu et al, 2013b;Cristescu et al, 2019;Miu et al, 2018) species distribution data are available as extent of occurrence, rather than specific locations or modeled species distributions (EIONET, 2020). Also, other sources extensively used in prioritization research, such as GBIF (e.g., Guo et al, 2020), include low numbers of occurrence data for Romania.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During the first two designation stages, the process was highly biased towards overlapping existing national protected areas (Iojă et al, 2010;Manolache et al, 2017), and thus, even if the CBD 17% target is met, the effectiveness of Natura 2000 in representing habitats and species is questionable. For example, Iojă et al (2010) confirmed that overlapping existing national protected areas resulted in a suboptimal representation of plants and invertebrates; Miu et al (2018) highlighted underrepresentation of agricultural landscape in Dobrogea, while Mânzu et al (2013) and Popescu et al (2013) concluded that the Natura 2000 network would not protect plants, reptiles, or amphibians if species ranges shift under climate change scenarios.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Identification of areas of very high biodiversity value to achieve the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 key commitments

Miu

Rozyłowicz

Popescu

et al. 2020

PeerJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The European Union strives to increase protected areas of the EU terrestrial surface to 30% by year 2030, of which one third should be strictly protected. Designation of the Natura 2000 network, the backbone of nature protection in the EU, was mostly an expert-opinion process with little systematic conservation planning. The designation of the Natura 2000 network in Romania followed the same non-systematic approach, resulting in a suboptimal representation of invertebrates and plants. To help identify areas with very high biodiversity without repeating past planning missteps, we present a reproducible example of spatial prioritization using Romania’s current terrestrial Natura 2000 network and coarse-scale terrestrial species occurrence. Methods We used 371 terrestrial Natura 2000 Sites of Community Importance (Natura 2000 SCI), designated to protect 164 terrestrial species listed under Annex II of Habitats Directive in Romania in our spatial prioritization analyses (marine Natura 2000 sites and species were excluded). Species occurrences in terrestrial Natura 2000 sites were aggregated at a Universal Traverse Mercator spatial resolution of 1 km2. To identify priority terrestrial Natura 2000 sites for species conservation, and to explore if the Romanian Natura 2000 network sufficiently represents species included in Annex II of Habitats Directive, we used Zonation v4, a decision support software tool for spatial conservation planning. We carried out the analyses nationwide (all Natura 2000 sites) as well as separately for each biogeographic region (i.e., Alpine, Continental, Pannonian, Steppic and Black Sea). Results The results of spatial prioritization of terrestrial Natura 2000 vary greatly by planning scenario. The performance of national-level planning of top priorities is minimal. On average, when 33% of the landscape of Natura 2000 sites is protected, only 20% of the distribution of species listed in Annex II of Habitats Directive are protected. As a consequence, the representation of species by priority terrestrial Natura 2000 sites is lessened when compared to the initial set of species. When planning by taxonomic group, the top-priority areas include only 10% of invertebrate distribution in Natura 2000. When selecting top-priority areas by biogeographical region, there are significantly fewer gap species than in the national level and by taxa scenarios; thusly, the scenario outperforms the national-level prioritization. The designation of strictly protected areas as required by the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 should be followed by setting clear objectives, including a good representation of species and habitats at the biogeographical region level.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Identification of areas of very high biodiversity value to achieve the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 key commitments

Miu

Rozyłowicz

Popescu

et al. 2020

PeerJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our prioritization is constrained by the limited availability of occurrence data for most of the Annex II Habitats Directive species. With few exceptions, such as reptiles, amphibians, mammals in the Dobrogea region, large carnivores (Bîrsan et al 2017; Cogalniceanu et al 2013a; Cogalniceanu et al 2013b; Cristescu et al 2019; Miu et al 2018) species distribution data are available as extent of occurrence, rather than specific locations or modeled species distributions (EIONET 2020). Also, other sources extensively used in prioritization research, such as GBIF (e.g., Guo et al 2020), include low numbers of occurrence data for Romania.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of areas of very high biodiversity value to achieve the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 key commitments

Miu

Rozyłowicz

Popescu

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

European Union seeks to increase the protected areas by 2030 to 30% of the EU terrestrial surface, of which at least 10% of areas high biodiversity value should be strictly protected. Designation of Natura 2000 network, the backbone of nature protection in the EU, was mostly an expert-opinion process with little systematic conservation planning. The designation of the Natura 2000 network in Romania followed the same non-systematic approach, resulting in a suboptimal representation of invertebrates and plants. To help identify areas with very high biodiversity without repeating past planning mistakes, we present a reproducible example of spatial prioritization using Romania's current terrestrial Natura 2000 network and coarse-scale terrestrial species occurrence. The planning exercise uses 371 terrestrial Natura 2000 Sites of Community Importance (Natura 2000 SCI), designated to protect 164 terrestrial species listed under Annex II of Habitats Directive in Romania. Species occurrences in terrestrial Natura 2000 and Natura 2000 sites were aggregated at a Universal Traverse Mercator spatial resolution of 1 km2. To identify priority terrestrial Natura 2000 sites for species conservation, and to explore if the Romanian Natura 2000 network sufficiently represents species included in Annex II of Habitats Directive, we used Zonation v4, a decision support software tool for spatial conservation planning. We carried out the analyses nationwide (all Natura 2000 sites) and separately for each biogeographic region (i.e., Alpine, Continental, Pannonian, Steppic and Black Sea). The performance of national-level planning of top priorities is low. On average, when considering 10% of the landscape of Natura 2000 sites as protected, 20% of the distribution of species listed in Annex II of Habitats Directive are protected. As a consequence, the representation of species by priority terrestrial Natura 2000 sites is reduced when compared to the initial set of species. When planning by taxonomic group, the top-priority areas include only 10% of invertebrate distribution in Natura 2000. When selecting top-priority areas by biogeographical region, there are significantly fewer gap species than in the national level and by taxa scenarios; thus, the scenario outperforms the national-level prioritization. The designation of strictly protected areas as required by the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 should be followed by setting clear targets for the representation of species and habitats at the biogeographical region level.

show abstract

“…Most sites with top-priority grid cells occur in the Continental region (56 sites) and the Alpine region (38 sites), followed by the Our prioritization is constrained by the limited availability of occurrence data for most of the Annex II Habitats Directive species. With few exceptions, such as reptiles, amphibians, mammals in the Dobrogea region, large carnivores (Bîrsan et al 2017;Cogǎlniceanu et al 2013a;Cogǎlniceanu et al 2013b;Cristescu et al 2019;Miu et al 2018) species distribution data are available as extent of occurrence, rather than specific locations or modeled species distributions (EIONET 2020). Also, other sources extensively used in prioritization research, such as GBIF (e.g., Guo et al 2020), include low numbers of occurrence data for Romania.…”

Section: Manuscript To Be Reviewedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review #1 of "Identification of areas of very high biodiversity value to achieve the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 key commitments (v0.1)"

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The European Union strives to increase protected areas of the EU terrestrial surface to 30% by year 2030, of which one third should be strictly protected. Designation of the Natura 2000 network, the backbone of nature protection in the EU, was mostly an expert-opinion process with little systematic conservation planning. The designation of the Natura 2000 network in Romania followed the same nonsystematic approach, resulting in a suboptimal representation of invertebrates and plants. To help identify areas with very high biodiversity without repeating past planning missteps, we present a reproducible example of spatial prioritization using Romania's current terrestrial Natura 2000 network and coarse-scale terrestrial species occurrence. Methods We used 371 terrestrial Natura 2000 Sites of Community Importance (Natura 2000 SCI), designated to protect 164 terrestrial species listed under Annex II of Habitats Directive in Romania in our spatial prioritization analyses (marine Natura 2000 sites and species were excluded). Species occurrences in terrestrial Natura 2000 sites were aggregated at a Universal Traverse Mercator spatial resolution of 1 km 2. To identify priority terrestrial Natura 2000 sites for species conservation, and to explore if the Romanian Natura 2000 network sufficiently represents species included in Annex II of Habitats Directive, we used Zonation v4, a decision support software tool for spatial conservation planning. We carried out the analyses nationwide (all Natura 2000 sites) as well as separately for each biogeographic region (i.e., Alpine, Continental, Pannonian, Steppic and Black Sea). Results The results of spatial prioritization of terrestrial Natura 2000 vary greatly by planning scenario. The performance of national-level planning of top priorities is minimal. On average, when 33% of the landscape of Natura 2000 sites is protected, only 20% of the distribution of species listed in Annex II of Habitats Directive are protected. As a consequence, the representation of species by priority terrestrial Natura 2000 sites is lessened when compared to the initial set of species. When planning by taxonomic group, the top-priority areas include only 10% of invertebrate distribution in Natura 2000. When selecting top-priority areas by biogeographical region, there are significantly fewer gap species than in the national

show abstract

Conservation priorities for terrestrial mammals in Dobrogea Region, Romania

Cited by 9 publications

References 42 publications

Identification of areas of very high biodiversity value to achieve the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 key commitments

Identification of areas of very high biodiversity value to achieve the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 key commitments

Identification of areas of very high biodiversity value to achieve the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 key commitments

Peer Review #1 of "Identification of areas of very high biodiversity value to achieve the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 key commitments (v0.1)"

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About