The wilder the better in biodiversity conservation? Comparison of three biodiversity prioritization approaches in Peneda-Gerês National Park, Portugal
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
1 j'aime•672 vues
Silvia Ceausu's presentation during the Wilderness at the edge of survival in Europe symposium during the 3rd European Conference on Conservation Biology in Glasgow on August 2012. Silvia's conclusions included the following: wilderness insures protection of higher altitude areas and the ecosystem services produced here.
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à The wilder the better in biodiversity conservation? Comparison of three biodiversity prioritization approaches in Peneda-Gerês National Park, Portugal
Similaire à The wilder the better in biodiversity conservation? Comparison of three biodiversity prioritization approaches in Peneda-Gerês National Park, Portugal (20)
Plus de Zoltan Kun
Plus de Zoltan Kun (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
The wilder the better in biodiversity conservation? Comparison of three biodiversity prioritization approaches in Peneda-Gerês National Park, Portugal
- 1. The wilder the better in biodiversity conservation? Comparison of three biodiversity prioritization approaches in Peneda-Gerês National Park, Portugal Silvia Ceaușu Inês Gomes Henrique Miguel Pereira Centro de Biologia Ambiental, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa 3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology 1/9/2012 Glasgow 2012
- 2. Need for prioritizing (Butchart 2010) Biodiversity loss 3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology 1/9/2012 Glasgow 2012
- 3. Proactive vs Reactive approaches Proactive Reactive High- Biodiversity biodiversity hotspots Irreplaceability wilderness areas Last of the Crisis Approaches prioritizing high vulnerability wild ecoregions Vulnerability Approaches prioritizing low vulnerability (after Brooks et al. 2006) 3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology 1/9/2012 Glasgow 2012
- 4. Scope and study area Species, wilderness and ecosystem services (ES) implications of different prioritization approaches at local scale Peneda-Gerês National Park (PNPG) - ~67000 ha ~9000 inhabitants High rate of farmland abandonment N MelgaÁo 3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology de Valdevez Arcos LEGENDA 1/9/2012 Glasgow 2012
- 5. Prioritizing parameters Hotspots Complementarity - Marxan Planning units = 233 grid cells (2kmx2km) Conservation features = 177 species Species richness Rarity = 1/no of grid cells Vulnerability score – Red Book of the Vertebrates of Portugal Wilderness N Human settlements: 1 Power grid: ¼ Dams: ¼ Roads: 1 Trails: ¼ 3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology 1/9/2012 LEGENDA Glasgow 2012 Aglomerados Urbanos
- 6. Assessment Overall species coverage (144 birds+20 amphibians+13 reptiles) Coverage of mega-fauna (wolves+wild goats+birds of prey) Wilderness coverage Ecosystem services (ES) 3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology 1/9/2012 Glasgow 2012
- 7. Prioritization maps ρ=0.79 ρ=-0.19 Hotspots p<2.2e-16 Complementarity p<0.005 Wilderness ρ=-0.13 p<0.05 3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology 1/9/2012 Glasgow 2012
- 8. Species coverage Birds+Amphibians+Reptiles Total number of species 150 Number of species 100 50 Proactive - Wilderness Reactive - Hotspots Reactive - Complementarity 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage of area Complementarity – 27% Hotspots – 44% Wilderness – 72% 3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology 1/9/2012 Glasgow 2012
- 9. Species coverage - mega-fauna Wolves+Wild goats+Birds of prey Coverage of important areas for megafauna 1.0 Percentage of area important for megafauna 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 Proactive - Wilderness Reactive - Hotspots 0.0 Reactive - Complementarity 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Percentage of area 3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology 1/9/2012 Glasgow 2012
- 10. Wilderness coverage Wilderness score Total wilderness score 1.0 0.8 Wilderness score percentage 0.6 0.4 0.2 Proactive - Wilderness Reactive - Hotspots 0.0 Reactive - Complementarity 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Percentage of area 3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology 1/9/2012 Glasgow 2012
- 11. ES – Landslide protection Areas important for landslide protection (slope>30°) Hotspots Complementarity Wilderness 26.52% 33.34% 38.72% 3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology 1/9/2012 Glasgow 2012
- 12. ES-Water spring protection Areas important water spring protection Hotspots Complementarity Wilderness 37.7% 33.63% 51.34% 3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology 1/9/2012 Glasgow 2012
- 13. ES-Soil infiltration Areas important for soil infiltration Hotspots Complementarity Wilderness 64.35% 50.31% 39.95% 3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology 1/9/2012 Glasgow 2012
- 14. Discussion Species richness and irreplaceability show high positive correlation which contrasts with the results found at regional level (Rey Benayas and de la Montana 2003, Diniz-Filho et al., 2006) Complementarity has highest overall species coverage performance (Kati et al. 2004). Wilderness covers better the important areas for megafauna (Navarro and Pereira, 2012) Wilderness insures protection of higher altitude areas and the ES produced here. Consequences of conservation at the level of ecosystem services (Chan et al. 2006). In the wilderness approach we have a direct relation between management actions and the indicator of what we want to protect 3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology 1/9/2012 Glasgow 2012
- 15. Thank you! Questions? silvia.ceausu@mespom.eu Acknowledgments: MoBiA project (PTDC/AAC- AMB/114522/2009) AbaFoBio project (PTDC/AMB/73901/2006) Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia Brooks, T. M, R. A Mittermeier, G. A.B da Fonseca, J. Gerlach, M. Hoffmann, J. F. Lamoreux, C. G Mittermeier, J. D Pilgrim, and A. S.L Rodrigues. “Global Biodiversity Conservation Priorities.” Science 313, no. 5783 (2006): 58. Butchart, S. H.M, M. Walpole, B. Collen, A. Van Strien, J. P.W Scharlemann, R. E.A Almond, J. E.M Baillie, et al. “Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines.” Science 328, no. 5982 (2010): 1164. Chan, K. M.A, M. R Shaw, D. R Cameron, E. C Underwood, and G. C Daily. “Conservation Planning for Ecosystem Services.” PLoS Biology 4, no. 11 (2006): e379. Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., L. M. Bini, M. P. Pinto, T. F. L. V. Chan, K. M.A, M. R Shaw, D. R Cameron, E. C Underwood, and G. C Daily. “Conservation Planning for Ecosystem Services.” PLoS Biology 4, no. 11 (2006): e379. B. Rangel, P. Carvalho, and R. P. Bastos. “Anuran Species Richness, Complementarity and Conservation Conflicts in Brazilian Cerrado.” Acta Oecologica 29, no. 1 (2006): 9–15. Kati, V., P. Devillers, M. Dufrene, A. Legakis, D. Vokou, and P. Lebrun. “Hotspots, Complementarity or Representativeness? Designing Optimal Small-scale Reserves for Biodiversity Conservation.” Biological Conservation 120, no. 4 (2004): 471–480. Navarro, Laetitia, and Henrique Pereira. “Rewilding Abandoned Landscapes in Europe.” Ecosystems 15, no. 6 (2012): 900–912. Rey Benayas, J. M, and E. de la Montana. “Identifying Areas of High-value Vertebrate Diversity for Strengthening Conservation.” Biological Conservation 114, no. 3 (2003): 357–370. 3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology 1/9/2012 Glasgow 2012
Notes de l'éditeur
- We calledmegafauna the biggest taxa found on the territory of PNPG and for which we had data.