Vegetation coverage change in the EU: patterns inside and outside Natura 2000 protected areas

Kallimanis, Athanasios S.; Touloumis, Konstantinos; Tzanopoulos, Joseph; Mazaris, Antonios D.; Apostolopoulou, Elia; Stefanidou, S; Scott, Anna; Potts, Simon G.; Pantis, John D.

doi:10.1007/s10531-014-0837-9

Cited by 47 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(34 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our data support the conclusions of Kallimanis et al. () that the network has a measurable impact on land conversion and on decreasing habitat loss.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Use of long‐term data to evaluate loss and endangerment status of Natura 2000 habitats and effects of protected areas

Biró

Bölöni

Molnár

2018

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habitat loss is a key driver of biodiversity loss. However, hardly any long-term time series analyses of habitat loss are available above the local scale for finer-level habitat categories. We analysed, from a long-term perspective, the habitat specificity of habitat-area loss, the change in trends in habitat loss since 1989 (dissolution of the communist state), and the impact of protected areas on habitat loss in Hungary. We studied 20 seminatural habitat types in 5000 randomly selected localities over 7 periods from 1783 to 2013 based on historical maps, archival and recent aerial photos and satellite imagery, botanical descriptions, and field data. We developed a method for estimating habitat types based on information transfer between historical sources (i.e., information from a source was used to interpret or enrich information from another source). Trends in habitat loss over time were habitat specific. We identified 7 types of habitat loss over time regarding functional form: linear, exponential, linear and exponential, delayed, minimum, maximum, and disappearance. Most habitats had continuous loss from period to period. After 1986 the average annual rates of habitat loss increased, but the trend reversed after 2002. Nature conservation measures significantly affected habitat loss; net loss was halted, albeit only inside protected areas. When calculating the degree of endangerment based on short-term data (52 years), we classified only 1 habitat as critically endangered, but based on long-term data (230 years), this increased to 7 (including habitat that no longer existed). Hungary will probably reach the global Convention on Biological Diversity Target 5 but will probably not achieve the EU Biodiversity Strategy target of halting habitat loss by 2020. Long-term trend data were highly useful when we examined recent habitat-loss data in a wider context. Our method could be applied effectively in other countries to augment shorter-term data sets on trends in habitat area.

show abstract

“…Our data support the conclusions of Kallimanis et al. () that the network has a measurable impact on land conversion and on decreasing habitat loss.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…; Ferraro & Pressey ; Kallimanis et al. ), although more evidence is needed on the effect such areas have on habitat loss in various regions (Watson et al. ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of long‐term data to evaluate loss and endangerment status of Natura 2000 habitats and effects of protected areas

Biró

Bölöni

Molnár

2018

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the Canary Islands, for example, PAs fall under the local legal framework elaborated by the regional government (Martín-Esquivel, 1995), as well as under national and European Union (EU) jurisdiction (Vera-Galván et al, 2010), including the Natura 2000 network of protected areas. The European Natura 2000 network of protected areas has substantially contributed to increasing natural areas in the EU within the last decade (Kallimanis et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An island view of endemic rarity—Environmental drivers and consequences for nature conservation

Irl

Schweiger

Medina

et al. 2017

Diversity and Distributions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: Rarity-an important measure for conservation biogeography-can vary over many orders of magnitude. However, it is unclear which regional-scale abiotic conditions drive processes affecting rarity of endemic species on islands. To support conservation efforts, we (1) assess the main abiotic drivers of endemic rarity, (2) determine how well existing protected areas (PAs) coincide with hotspots of endemic rarity and (3) introduce and evaluate a new hypervolume-based rarity estimator. Location: La Palma (Canary Islands). Methods:We recorded all present endemic vascular plant species in 1,212 plots covering the entire island. We calculated endemic rarity (corrected range-rarity richness for endemics) using a rarity estimation approach based on kernel density estimations (hypervolume approach). We performed a sensitivity analysis based on multiple linear regressions and relative importance estimations of environmental drivers to estimate the performance of the hypervolume-based rarity estimation compared to standard methods (occurrence frequency, convex hulls, alpha hulls).Results: Climate variables (mean annual temperature, climatic rarity, precipitation variability) best explained archipelago endemic (AE) and single-island endemic (SIE) rarity.Existing PAs covered the majority of AE and SIE rarity, especially national and natural parks as well as the Natura 2000 sites. In our study system, hypervolumes performed better than standard measures of range size.Main conclusion: Both AE and SIE rarity on La Palma show a clear spatial pattern, with hotspots of endemic rarity found at high elevations and in rare climates, presumably owing to geographical and climatic constraints and possibly anthropogenic pressure (e.g., land use, introduced herbivores, fire). Areas of high rarity estimates coincide with the distribution and extent of PAs on La Palma, especially since the recent addition of the Natura 2000 sites. The hypervolume approach is a promising tool to estimate species range sizes, and can be applied on all scales where point/plot data are available.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

“…Yet, there may be a gap between the spatial coverage of the PAs network and conservation efficiency (Adams, Setterfield, Kennard, & Ferdinands, ; Rodrigues et al, ). The selection of sites for inclusion in PA networks is often biased towards economically marginal landscapes (Gaston, Jackson, Nagy, Cantú‐Salazar, & Johnson, ; Pimm et al, ), with socio‐economic, aesthetic, and political criteria usually dominating the selection of candidate sites (Kallimanis et al, ; Prendergast, Quinn, & Lawton, ; Tsianou et al, ). Moreover, geographical and political factors might contribute additional challenges to the conservation capacity of PAs (Joppa & Pfaff, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gaps in the protection of European lakes

Tsavdaridou

Moustaka‐Gouni

Katsiapi

et al. 2019

Aquatic Conservation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protected areas represent the main tool for halting the continuing loss of biological diversity. The number and extent of protected areas is gradually increasing, but this expansion does not always ensure the efficient protection of key species, habitats, and ecosystem functioning. Today, the Natura 2000 network encompasses more than 27 000 sites, representing the cornerstone of conservation strategies throughout Europe. About one‐fifth of the terrestrial surface of the European Union (EU) is now covered by the Natura 2000 network; yet, knowledge remains limited about its efficiency to encompass inland water ecosystems sufficiently. This study aimed to determine the extent to which the Natura 2000 network covers 5132 European lakes that host fish species and freshwater lake habitat types of conservation interest. A key question investigated was whether the protection coverage of the water bodies reflects the coverage of the terrestrial areas surrounding the lakes. Geographical, socio‐economic, and political parameters were considered as potential descriptors of the observed patterns. The results demonstrated that although most of these sensitive ecosystems have high protection coverage at water body level, Natura 2000 largely ignores their surroundings. At the catchment level, lower conservation coverage was detected, raising concerns about whether the network offers sufficient protection to wetland species, habitats, and ecosystem functioning against numerous threats operating in the terrestrial areas surrounding water bodies. The results also identified different patterns of coverage in different EU Member States, which might reflect a lack of common practices regarding the implementation of key EU directives. This study highlighted the necessity of redefining conservation planning towards a systematic, integrated approach. The spatial properties of the landscape and the distribution of potential pressures should be considered at the catchment level of water bodies, as these pressures alter the functionality and services of inland water ecosystems.

show abstract

Vegetation coverage change in the EU: patterns inside and outside Natura 2000 protected areas

Abstract: EU conservation policy is

Cited by 47 publications

References 32 publications

Use of long‐term data to evaluate loss and endangerment status of Natura 2000 habitats and effects of protected areas

Use of long‐term data to evaluate loss and endangerment status of Natura 2000 habitats and effects of protected areas

An island view of endemic rarity—Environmental drivers and consequences for nature conservation

Gaps in the protection of European lakes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About