Environmental Management

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 105–118 | Cite as

Identifying Conservation and Restoration Priorities for Saproxylic and Old-Growth Forest Species: A Case Study in Switzerland

Article

Abstract

Saproxylic (dead-wood-associated) and old-growth species are among the most threatened species in European forest ecosystems, as they are susceptible to intensive forest management. Identifying areas with particular relevant features of biodiversity is of prime concern when developing species conservation and habitat restoration strategies and in optimizing resource investments. We present an approach to identify regional conservation and restoration priorities even if knowledge on species distribution is weak, such as for saproxylic and old-growth species in Switzerland. Habitat suitability maps were modeled for an expert-based selection of 55 focal species, using an ecological niche factor analyses (ENFA). All the maps were then overlaid, in order to identify potential species’ hotspots for different species groups of the 55 focal species (e.g., birds, fungi, red-listed species). We found that hotspots for various species groups did not correspond. Our results indicate that an approach based on “richness hotspots” may fail to conserve specific species groups. We hence recommend defining a biodiversity conservation strategy prior to implementing conservation/restoration efforts in specific regions. The conservation priority setting of the five biogeographical regions in Switzerland, however, did not differ when different hotspot definitions were applied. This observation emphasizes that the chosen method is robust. Since the ENFA needs only presence data, this species prediction method seems to be useful for any situation where the species distribution is poorly known and/or absence data are lacking. In order to identify priorities for either conservation or restoration efforts, we recommend a method based on presence data only, because absence data may reflect factors unrelated to species presence.

Keywords

Dead wood Ecological niche factor analysis Hotspots Old-growth forest species Saproxylic species Swiss forests 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Federal Office for the Environment. We especially thank Professor Rodolphe Schlaepfer for his supervision during the project. The authors acknowledge the support of the Swiss Centre of Cartography of the Fauna, the Swiss Ornithological Institute, and the Swiss Federal Statistical Office. We would also like to thank Markus Bolliger, Urs-Beat Brändli, Peter Brassel, Sylvie Barbalat, François Claude, Philippe Clerc, Goran Dusej, Yves Gonzeth, Vincent Gorgerat, Kurt Grossenbacher, Peter Hahn, Alexandre Hirzel, Nicolas Kueffer, Pascal Moeschler, Pierre Mollet, Abram Pointet, Jörg Rüetschi, Thomas Sattler, Christoph Scheidegger, Hans Schmid, Benedikt Schmidt, Beatrice Senn-Irlet, Silvia Stofer, Junior Tremblay, Ulrich Ulmer, Beat Wermelinger, and Niklaus Zimmermann. The manuscript was substantially improved by the refereeing of Jean-Jacques Sauvain.

References

  1. Allouche O, Steinitz O, Rotem D, Rosenfeld A, Kadmon R (2008) Incorporating distance constraints into species distribution models. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:599–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Araújo MB, Williams PH (2000) Selecting areas for species persistence using occurrence data. Biological Conservation 96:331–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ås S (1993) Are habitat islands islands? Woodliving beetles (Coleoptera) in deciduous forest fragments in boreal forest. Ecography 16:219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balmford A, Long A (1995) Across-country analyses of biodiversity congruence and current conservation effort in the tropics. Conservation Biology 9:1539–1547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Begon M, Harper JL, Townsend CR (1996) Ecology: individuals, populations and communities. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonn A, Rodrigues ASL, Gaston KJ (2002) Threatened and endemic species: are they good indicators of patterns of biodiversity on a national scale? Ecology Letters 5:733–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyce MS, Vernier PR, Nielsen SE, Schmiegelow FKA (2002) Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecological Modelling 157:281–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brassel P, Brändli UB (1999) Schweizerisches Landesforstinventar. Ergebnisse der Zweitaufnahme 1993–1995. Birmensdorf, Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft. Bern, Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft. Bern, Stuttgart, Wien, HauptGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooks TM, Stuart LP, Oyugi JO (1999) Time lag between deforestation and bird extinction in tropical forest fragments. Conservation Biology 13:1140–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buckley GP, Fraser S (1998) Locating new lowland woods. English Nature Research Report 283. English Nature, Peterborough, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Bütler R, Angelstam P, Schlaepfer R (2004) Quantitative snag targets for the three-toed woodpecker, Picoides tridactylus. Ecological Bulletins 51:219–232Google Scholar
  12. Bütler R, Lachat T, Schlaepfer R (2006) Saproxylische Arten in der Schweiz: ökologisches Potenzial und Hotspots. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen 157:208–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferraz G, Russell GJ, Stouffer PC, Bierregaard RO, Pimm SL, Lovejoy TE (2003) Rates of species loss from Amazonian forest fragments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 100:14069–14073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferrier S, Guisan A (2006) Spatial modelling of biodiversity at the community level. Journal of Applied Ecology 43:393–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997) A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Foundation for Environmental Conservation 21:38–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaston K (2000) Global patterns in biodiversity. Nature 405:220–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gjerde I, Saetersdal M, Rolstad J, Blom HH, Storaunet KO (2004) Fine-scale diversity and rarity hotspots in northern forests. Conservation Biology 18:1032–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grove SJ (2002) Saproxylic insects ecology and the sustainable management of forests. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 33:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guisan A, Theurillat JP (2000) Equilibrium modeling of alpine plant distribution and climate change: How far can we go? Phytocoenologia 30:353–384Google Scholar
  20. Guisan A, Zimmermann NE (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling 135:147–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harris GM, Jenkins CN, Pimm SL (2005) Refining biodiversity conservation priorities. Conservation Biology 19:1957–1968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hirzel AH, Hausser J, Chessel D, Perrin N (2002) Ecological-niche factor analysis: How to compute habitat-suitability maps without absence data? Ecology 83:227–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hirzel AH, Le Lay G, Helfer V, Randin C, Guisan A (2006) Evaluating the ability of habitat suitability models to predict species presences. Ecological Modelling 199:142–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hutchinson GE (1957) Concluding remarks. In: Harbour symposium on quantitative biology, pp 415–427Google Scholar
  25. Indermühle M, Kaufmann G, Steiger P (1998) Konzept Waldreservate Schweiz. Schlussbericht des Projektes Reservatspolitik der Eidgenössischen Forstdirektion. Unpublished reportGoogle Scholar
  26. Jaarsveld AS, Freitag S, Chown SL, Müller C, Koch S, Hull H, Bellamy C, Krüger M, Endrödy-Younga S, Mansell MW, Scholtz CH (1998) Biodiversity assessment and conservation strategies. Science 279:2106–2108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kirby K (1995) Rebuilding the English countryside: habitat fragmentation and wildlife corridors as issues in practical conservation. English Nature Science No. 10. English Nature, Peterborough, UKGoogle Scholar
  28. Köhler F (2000) Totholzkäfer in Naturwaldzellen des nördlichen Rheinlandes. Vergleichende Studien zur Totholzkäferfauna Deutschlands und deutschen Naturwaldforschung [Saproxylic beetles in nature forests of the northern Rhineland. Comparative studies on the saproxylic beetles of Germany and contributions to German nature forest research]. Schrr. LÖBF/LAfAO NRW (Recklinghausen) 18:1–351Google Scholar
  29. Komonen A, Penttilä R, Lindgren M, Hanski I (2000) Forest fragmentation truncates a food chain based on an old-growth forest bracket fungus. Oikos 90:119–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Korpel S (1995) Die Urwälder der Westkarpaten. Gustav Fischer Verlag, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  31. Lambeck RJ (1997) Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology 11:849–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lehmann A, Leathwick JRJ, McC Overton (2002) Assessing biodiversity from spatial predictions of species assemblages: a case study of New Zealand ferns. Ecological Modelling 157:261–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moore JL, Balmford A, Brooks T, Burgess N, Hansen LA, Rahbek C, Williams PH (2003) Performance of sub-Saharan vertebrates as indicator groups for identifying priority areas for conservation. Conservation Biology 17:207–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Myers N (1988) Threatened biotas: “hotspots” in tropical forests. Environmentalist 8:187–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Parker SP (1982) Synopsis and classification of living organisms. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Prendergast JR, Quinn RM, Lawton JH, Eversham BC, Gibbons DW (1993) Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies. Nature 365:335–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reid WV (1998) Biodiversity hotspots. TREE 13:275–280Google Scholar
  40. Reutter BA, Helfer V, Hirzel AH, Vogel P (2003) Modelling habitat suitability using museum collections: an example with three sympatric Apodemus species from the Alps. Journal of Biogeography 30:581–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roberts CM, McClean CJ, Veron JEN, Hawkins JP, Allen GR, McAllister DE, Mittermeier CG, Schueler FW, Spalding M, Wells F, Vynne C, Werner TB (2002) Marine biodiversity hotspots and conservation priorities for tropical reefs. Science 295:1280–1284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. SAEFL (1999) The Swiss forest—taking stock. Interpretation of the second national forest inventory in terms of forestry policy. Swiss Agency for the Environment Forests and Landscape, BernGoogle Scholar
  43. Sattler T, Bontadina F, Hirzel A, Arlettaz R (2007) Ecological niche modelling of two cryptic bat species calls for a reassessment of their conservation status. Journal of Applied Ecology 44:1188–1199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. SFSO (2001) The changing face of land use: land use statistics of Switzerland. Swiss Federal Statistical Office, NeuchâtelGoogle Scholar
  45. Soares C, Brito JC (2007) Environmental correlates for species richness among amphibians and reptiles in a climate transition area. Biodiversity and Conservation 16:1087–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. W. H. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Soulé ME, Sanjayan MA (1998) Conservation targets: Do they help? Science 279:2060–2061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tardif B, DesGranges JL (1998) Correspondence between bird and plant hotspots of the St Lawrence River and influence of scale on their location. Biological Conservation 84:53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tole L (2006) Choosing reserve sites probabilistically: a Colombian Amazon case study. Ecological Modelling 194:344–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape ResearchBirmensdorfSwitzerland
  2. 2.ENAC GECOS (Laboratory of Ecosystem Management)Swiss Federal Institute of Technology LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  3. 3.ENAC ECOS (Laboratory of Ecological Systems)Swiss Federal Institute of Technology LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  4. 4.Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape ResearchLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations