Current protected sites do not allow the representation of endangered invertebrates: the Spanish case

Abstract

1. Using a recently created database representing the joint effort of around 100 invertebrate taxonomists, this study uses the information on 52 arthropoda and 27 mollusca species that are endangered and critically endangered to examine to what extent invertebrate species are represented in existing Spanish protected areas.2. As distribution information is available at a 100 km 2 resolution, we consider different area thresholds to judge cells as being protected.3. Approximately 19% of the area represented by the grid cells with observed occurrences rates as extant protected reserves, and 36% is included within the Natura 2000 network.4. If having 50% of the cell area as a Natura 2000 reserve is considered as sufficient to have effective protection, almost 68% of species and 32% of probable populations (contiguous cell groups) would be represented.5. However, 77% of species and 94% of probable populations are not represented in the current protected reserves if we establish that at least 95% of each cell area should belong to a reserve to provide effective protection.6. Thus, existing conservation strategies, which are based primarily on the protection of certain areas and vertebrate species, may be insufficient to ensure the conservation of invertebrate species.

Using local autocorrelation analysis to identify conservation areas: an example considering threatened invertebrate species in Spain

“…Our results confirm that current Spanish protected areas and even the Nature 2000 network do not adequately represent threatened terrestrial invertebrates (Verdú et al 2011, Hernández-Manrique et al 2012. Although most of these species inhabit in hot spot cells, which present a comparative significantly lower proportion of anthropised area and a higher percentage of protected area, only 35 % of these cells have more than 2 % of their area currently protected, and more than half of these hot spot cells would have \15% of their area protected.…”

Factors affecting wetland ground beetle (Carabidae) assemblages: how important are habitats, conservation designations and management?

“…Undesignated sites are also important since red‐data‐book species richness is maximal on these sites and this may be related to the need for disturbed habitats such as basking areas, particularly for C. clatratus . A comprehensive analysis of red‐data‐book species in Spain showed that most species’ ranges occurred outside designated areas (Hernámdez‐Manrique et al ., ) and so, in general, there may be a need to either alter the management within designated areas or integrate areas outside the conservation network by improving upon current agri‐environmental schemes via the inclusion of considerations of invertebrate ecology. A ‘mesofilter’ approach within‐sites by the conservation of ‘critical ecosystem elements’ (Hunter, ), such as areas of disturbance that may act as basking areas or improved feeding areas for predatory species and adopting a general ‘synthetic management approach’ at the landscape scale (Samways, ) by applying consistent management regimes within sites, but contrasting regimes among sites, would aid this task.…”

Planning for the future: identifying conservation priority areas for Iberian birds under climate change

“…Despite the large extent of the Iberian conservation area networks, many species are still not covered by these areas. This is especially true for non-charismatic species groups like lichens or invertebrates which are usually underrepresented (e.g., Martínez et al 2006;Araújo et al 2007;Hernández-Manrique et al 2012).…”