Literature DB >> 25997522

On how much biodiversity is covered in Europe by national protected areas and by the Natura 2000 network: insights from terrestrial vertebrates.

L Maiorano1, G Amori2, A Montemaggiori1, C Rondinini1, L Santini1, S Saura3, L Boitani1.   

Abstract

The European Union has made extensive biodiversity conservation efforts with the Habitats and Birds Directives and with the establishment of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas, one of the largest networks of conservation areas worldwide. We performed a gap analysis of the entire Natura 2000 system plus national protected areas and all terrestrial vertebrates (freshwater fish excluded). We also evaluated the level of connectivity of both systems, providing therefore a first estimate of the functionality of the Natura 2000 system as an effective network of protected areas. Together national protected areas and the Natura 2000 network covered more than one-third of the European Union. National protected areas did not offer protection to 13 total gap species (i.e., species not covered by any protected area) or to almost 300 partial gap species (i.e., species whose representation target is not met). Together the Natura 2000 network and national protected areas left 1 total gap species and 121 partial gap species unprotected. The terrestrial vertebrates listed in the Habitats and Birds Directives were relatively well covered (especially birds), and overall connectivity was improved considerably by Natura 2000 sites that act as stepping stones between national protected areas. Overall, we found that the Natura 2000 network represents at continental level an important network of protected areas that acts as a good complement to existing national protected areas. However, a number of problems remain that are mainly linked to the criteria used to list the species in the Habitats and Birds Directives. The European Commission initiated in 2014 a process aimed at assessing the importance of the Birds and Habitats Directives for biodiversity conservation. Our results contribute to this assessment and suggest the system is largely effective for terrestrial vertebrates but would benefit from further updating of the species lists and field management.
© 2015 Society for Conservation Biology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Birds Directive; Directiva de Aves; Directiva de Hábitat; European Union; Habitats Directive; Unión Europea; análisis de falta de datos; conectividad; connectivity; gap analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25997522     DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12535

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  14 in total

1.  Identifying potential distributions of 10 invasive alien trees: implications for conservation management of protected areas.

Authors:  Ji-Zhong Wan; Zhi-Xiang Zhang; Chun-Jing Wang
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2018-11-21       Impact factor: 2.513

2.  Anthropogenic impacts in protected areas: assessing the efficiency of conservation efforts using Mediterranean ant communities.

Authors:  Elena Angulo; Raphaël Boulay; Francisca Ruano; Alberto Tinaut; Xim Cerdá
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2016-12-14       Impact factor: 2.984

3.  Deficiencies in Natura 2000 for protecting recovering large carnivores: A spotlight on the wolf Canis lupus in Poland.

Authors:  Tom A Diserens; Tomasz Borowik; Sabina Nowak; Maciej Szewczyk; Natalia Niedźwiecka; Robert W Mysłajek
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  A Composite Network Approach for Assessing Multi-Species Connectivity: An Application to Road Defragmentation Prioritisation.

Authors:  Luca Santini; Santiago Saura; Carlo Rondinini
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Protected areas in the world's ecoregions: How well connected are they?

Authors:  Santiago Saura; Lucy Bastin; Luca Battistella; Andrea Mandrici; Grégoire Dubois
Journal:  Ecol Indic       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 4.958

6.  Protected area connectivity: Shortfalls in global targets and country-level priorities.

Authors:  Santiago Saura; Bastian Bertzky; Lucy Bastin; Luca Battistella; Andrea Mandrici; Grégoire Dubois
Journal:  Biol Conserv       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 5.990

7.  Conservation priorities for terrestrial mammals in Dobrogea Region, Romania.

Authors:  Iulia V Miu; Gabriel B Chisamera; Viorel D Popescu; Ruben Iosif; Andreea Nita; Steluta Manolache; Viorel D Gavril; Ioana Cobzaru; Laurentiu Rozylowicz
Journal:  Zookeys       Date:  2018-10-23       Impact factor: 1.546

8.  Low ecological representation in the protected area network of China.

Authors:  Haigen Xu; Mingchang Cao; Zhi Wang; Yi Wu; Yun Cao; Jun Wu; Zhifang Le; Peng Cui; Hui Ding; Wanggu Xu; Hua Peng; Jianping Jiang; Yuhu Wu; Xuelong Jiang; Zhiyun Zhang; Dingqi Rao; Jianqiang Li; Fumin Lei; Nianhe Xia; Lianxian Han; Wei Cao; Jiayu Wu; Xin Xia; Yimin Li
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 2.912

Review 9.  The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management.

Authors:  Péter Batáry; Lynn V Dicks; David Kleijn; William J Sutherland
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2015-05-21       Impact factor: 7.563

10.  Uniqueness of Protected Areas for Conservation Strategies in the European Union.

Authors:  Samuel Hoffmann; Carl Beierkuhnlein; Richard Field; Antonello Provenzale; Alessandro Chiarucci
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-04-24       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.