Conservation priority of Italian Alpine habitats: a floristic approach based on potential distribution of vascular plant species

Abstract

In the European Union, the Directive 92/43/EEC defines a number of species and habitats of community interest that are worthy to be preserved because in danger to disappear or because they are representative of the different European bio-geographical regions. In the light of the limited economic resources generally allocated to conservation efforts, there is the necessity to prioritise conservation actions in order to avoid deterioration of protected areas. To this aim, in the present study the most representative habitats of the Italian Alps are compared on the basis of vascular plant biodiversity and a conservation priority index is proposed for each habitat taking into account the potential distribution of 252 threatened vascular plant species. Rocky slopes, screes and alpine grasslands resulted to have the greatest percentage of endemic plant species so reflecting the general distributional pattern of endemic plant species at high altitudes in Eurasian mountains. The relationship between the conservation priority index and the corresponding habitat extent within the Natura 2000 network suggests that peatlands, arid grasslands, wet meadows and freshwater habitats deserve a higher priority in conservation actions. Although vascular plant biodiversity is not necessarily a surrogate of overall biodiversity of Alpine habitats, the results here reported can be used as an initial reference framework for prioritising conservation actions, so as to accomplish the provisions of Article 6 of Habitats Directive.

Indicators of species richness at the local scale in an alpine region: a comparative approach between plant and invertebrate taxa

“…For example, the selection of areas for conservation purposes over large geographical areas would then be set on a broader basis as compared to the commonly practised mapping which is predominantly focussed on plants and/or vertebrates (e.g. Thompson and Brown 1992;Kremen et al 1993;DN 1998;Rohr et al 2007;Bragazza 2009). However, we found only limited evidence for an ideal, efficient biodiversity indicator taxon that could be applied without restrictions at different alpine elevations.…”

“…Sauberer et al 2004). In alpine areas a better understanding of the relationships within alpine species richness of various taxa could help to guide conservation plans, as well as the selection and design of representative reserves for alpine species (Howard et al 1998;Bragazza 2009). Furthermore, the consequences of present changes in alpine habitats, like the abandonment or intensification due to changes in land use or due to the effects of climate change, have to be monitored for biodiversity (MacDonald et al 2000;Löffler et al 2004).…”

Scale dependence of plant species richness in a network of protected areas

“…Vanden Borre et al 2011) or for threatened species only (e.g. Bragazza 2009;Vellak et al 2009). However, the diversity patterns based on threatened species can be partially misleading with respect to patterns of total diversity (e.g.…”

Habitat conservation prioritization: A floristic approach applied to a Mediterranean wetland network

“…Lastly, a conservation priority list of alliances was compiled by proposing a synthetic index following floristic criteria, similar to the one of Bragazza (2009), who established an index for assessing priority ranking in Alpine habitats. For our study, this was adapted to plant communities at the alliance level.…”

“…This syntaxonomic rank has been used a number of times to indicate the ecological context for threatened species and habitats (Papastergiadou et al 1997;Rodwell et al 2002;Stanova 2003;Peterman & Ssymank 2007). The criteria we take into account here, are flora based and similar to those used in other studies aiming at assessing habitat conservation priority (see Bragazza 2009). These criteria are: (i) the distribution and abundance of vascular plant species of conservation interest (both at regional and national levels) and their greater or lesser fidelity to a plant community, considered a key driver in determining alliance value; (ii) multivariate analyses, as suitable methods to evaluate if and how the alliances are distinct from a floristic point of view; and (iii) a quantitative synthetic floristic index of conservation priority, based on the concept that "… ecosystem risk is a function of the risks of its component species …" (Rodríguez et al 2011).…”