Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 1585–1597 | Cite as

Towards the use of ecological heterogeneity to design reserve networks: a case study from Dadia National Park, Greece

  • Vassiliki KatiEmail author
  • Kostas Poirazidis
  • Marc Dufrêne
  • John M. Halley
  • Giorgos Korakis
  • Stefan Schindler
  • Panayotis Dimopoulos
Original Paper

Abstract

In this paper, we present a novel approach for using ecological heterogeneity in reserve design. We measured five ecological heterogeneity indices (EHI) and we used a database of six biological groups (woody plants, orchids, orthopterans, aquatic and terrestrial herpetofauna and passerine birds) across 30 sites in a Mediterranean reserve (Greece). We found that all the five EHI were significantly related to the overall species richness and to the species richness of woody plants and birds. Two indices, measuring vertical vegetation complexity (1/D) and horizontal heterogeneity of landcover types (SIDI) in terms of Simpson’s index, predicted well overall species richness and had significantly higher values inside the complementary reserve networks designed after five of the six biological groups. We compared five methods of forming reserve networks. The method of ecological heterogeneity (selecting those sites with the greatest 1/D and then SIDI) was less efficient (non-significantly) than the species-based methods (scoring and complementary networks) but significantly more efficient than the random method (randomly selected network). We also found that the method of complementary ecological heterogeneity (selecting those sites where each EHI had its maximum value) was not that efficient, as it did not differ significantly from the random method. These results underline the potential of the ecological heterogeneity method as an alternative tool in reserve design.

Keywords

Biodiversity surrogates Complementarity Ecological heterogeneity Ecological networks Indicator Landscape metrics Mediterranean Reserve design Vegetation complexity Vertical structure 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research of K.P. was financed by the Greek project “PYTHAGORAS II: KE 1329-1”. We are grateful to L. Borda de Agua, J. Prendergast, K. Van Houtan and two anonymous referees for helpful comments that greatly improved the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10531_2010_9788_MOESM1_ESM.doc (458 kb)
(DOC 458 kb)

References

  1. Araujo MB, Humphries CJ, Densham PJ, Lampinen R, Hagemeijer WJM, Mitchell-Jones AJ, Gasc JP (2001) Would environmental diversity be a good surrogate for species diversity? Ecography 24:103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arponen A, Heikkinen RK, Thomas CD, Moilanen A (2005) The value of biodiversity in reserve selection: representation, species weighting, and benefit functions. Conserv Biol 19:2009–2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arponen A, Kondelin H, Moilanen A (2007) Area-based refinement for selection of reserve sites with the benefit-function approach. Conserv Biol 21:527–533CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Atauri JA, De Lucio JV (2001) The role of landscape structure in species richness distribution of birds, amphibians, reptiles and lepidopterans in Mediterranean landscapes. Landscape Ecol 16:147–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balmford A, Bruner A, Cooper P, Costanza R, Farber S, Green RE, Jenkins M, Jefferiss P, Jessamy V, Madden J, Munro K, Myers N, Naeem S, Paavola J, Rayment M, Rosendo S, Roughgarden J, Trumper K, Turner RK (2002) Ecology: economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297:950–953CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Blondel J, Aronson J (1999) Biology and wildlife of the Mediterranean region. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Bohning-Gaese K (1997) Determinants of avian species richness at different spatial scales. J Biogeogr 24:49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brennan S, Schnell GD (2005) Relationship between bird abundances and landscape characteristics: the influence of scale. Environ Monit Assess 105:209–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Brokaw N, Lent R (1999) Vertical structure. In: Hunter M (ed) Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  10. Cabeza M, Moilanen A (2001) Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evol 16:242–248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cabeza M, Arponen A, van Teeffelen A (2008) Top predators: hot or not? A call for systematic assessment of biodiversity surrogates. J Appl Ecol 45:976–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caprio E, Ellena I, Rolando A (2009) Assessing habitat/landscape predictors of bird diversity in managed deciduous forests: a seasonal and guild-based approach. Biodivers Conserv 18:1287–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caro T, Engilis A Jr, Fitzherbert E, Gardner T (2004) Preliminary assessment of the flagship species concept at a small scale. Anim Conserv 7:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cowling RM, Pressey RL, Rouget M, Lombard AT (2003) Conservation planning in the Cape Floristic Region. Biol Conserv 112:191–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crossman ND, Perry LM, Bryan BA, Ostendorf B (2007) CREDOS: a conservation reserve evaluation and design optimisation system. Environ Modell Softw 22:449–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cushman SA (2006) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus. Biol Cons 128:231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dafis S, Papastergiadou E, Lazaridou T, Tsiafouli M (2001) Technical guide for identification, description and mapping of habitat types of Greece. Greek Wetland and Biotope Centre (EKBY), ThessalonikiGoogle Scholar
  18. European Commission (2003) Interpretation manual of European Union Habitats (EUR25) nature and biodiversity. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  19. Faith DP, Walker PA (1996) Environmental diversity: on the best-possible use of surrogate data for assessing the relative biodiversity of sets of areas. Biod Conserv 5:399–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Farina A (1997) Landscape structure and breeding bird distribution in a sub-Mediterranean agro-ecosystem. Landscape Ecol 12:365–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fartmann T, Behrens M, Loritz H (2008) Orthopteran communities in the conifer-broadleaved woodland zone of the Russian Far East. Eur J Entomol 105:673–680Google Scholar
  22. Franklin AB, Noon BR, George TL (2002) What is habitat fragmentation? Stud in Av Biol 25:20–29Google Scholar
  23. Grand J, Cushman SA (2003) A multi-scale analysis of species-environment relationships: breeding birds in a pitch pine-scrub oak (Pinus rigida-Quercus iilicifolia) community. Biol Conserv 112:307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grand J, Cummings M, Rebelo TG, Ricketts TH, Neel MC (2007) Biased data reduce efficiency and effectiveness of conservation reserve networks. Ecol Lett 10:364–374CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hess GR, Bartel RA, Leidner AK, Rosenfeld KM, Rubino MJ, Snider SB, Ricketts TH (2006) Effectiveness of biodiversity indicators varies with extent, grain, and region. Biol Conserv 132:448–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Honnay O, Hermy M, Coppin P (1999) Effects of area, age and diversity of forest patches in Belgium on plant species richness, and implications for conservation and reforestation. Biol Conserv 87:73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Howard PC, Viskanic P, Davenport TRB, Kigenyi FW, Baltzer M, Dickinson CJ, Lwanga JS, Matthews RA, Balmford A (1998) Complementarity and the use of indicator groups for reserve selection in Uganda. Nature 394:275–472Google Scholar
  28. Huston MA (1994) Biological diversity, the coexistence of species in changing landscapes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Ioannidis Y, Chiras G, Kardakari N (2008) Comparison of reptile communities in three types of thermophilous Mediterranean forest in southern Greece. J Nat Hist 42:421–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kadmon R, Allouche O (2007) Integrating the effects of area, isolation, and habitat heterogeneity on species diversity: a unification of island biogeography and niche theory. Am Nat 170:443–454CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kallimanis AS, Halley JM, Vokou D, Sgardelis SP (2008) The scale of analysis determines the spatial pattern of woody species diversity in the Mediterranean environment. Plant Ecol 196:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kati V, Sekercioglu CH (2006) Diversity, ecological structure, and conservation of the landbird community of Dadia reserve, Greece. Divers Distrib 12:620–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kati V, Lebrun Ph, Devillers P, Papaioannou H (2000) Les orchidées de la réserve de Dadia (Grece), leurs habitats et leur conservation. Les Naturalistes Belges 81:269–282Google Scholar
  34. Kati V, Devillers P, Dufrêne M, Legakis A, Vokou D, Lebrun Ph (2004a) Hotspots, complementarity or representativeness? Designing optimal small-scale reserves for biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 120:475–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kati V, Devillers P, Dufrêne M, Legakis A, Vokou D, Lebrun Ph (2004b) Testing the value of six taxonomic groups as biodiversity indicators at a local scale. Conserv Biol 18:667–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kati V, Dufrêne M, Legakis A, Grill A, Lebrun Ph (2004c) Conservation management for the Orthoptera in the Dadia reserve, Greece. Biol Cons 115:33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kati V, Foufopoulos J, Ioannidis Y, Papaioannou H, Poirazidis K, Lebrun Ph (2007) Diversity, ecological structure and conservation of herpetofauna in a Mediterranean area (Dadia National Park, Greece). Amphibia-Reptilia 28:517–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kati V, Dimopoulos P, Papaioannou H, Poirazidis K (2009) Ecological management of a Mediterranean mountainous reserve (Pindos National Park, Greece) using the bird community as an indicator. J Nat Conserv 17:47–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Korakis G, Gerasimidis A, Poirazidis K, Kati V (2006) Floristic records from Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli National Park, NE Greece. Flora Mediterranea 16:11–32Google Scholar
  40. Küchler AW (1988) A physiognomic and structural analysis of vegetation. In: Küchler AW, Zonneveld IS (eds) Vegetation mapping, handbook of vegetation science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  41. Lee TM, Jetz W (2008) Future battlegrounds for conservation under global change. P R Soc B-Biol Sci 275:1261–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lindenmayer D, Franklin J (2002) Conserving forest biodiversity: a comprehensive multiscaled approach. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  43. Lombard A (1995) The problem with multi-species conservation: do hotspots, ideal reserves and existing reserves coincide? S Afr J Zool 30:145–163Google Scholar
  44. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  45. MacGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  46. Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Meir E, Andelman S, Possingham HP (2004) Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world? Ecol Lett 7:615–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moilanen A (2007) Landscape Zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies. Biol Conserv 134:571–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Montigny MK, MacLean DA (2005) Using heterogeneity and representation of ecosite criteria to select forest reserves in an intensively managed industrial forest. Biol Conserv 125:237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moser D, Zechmeister HG, Plutzar C, Sauberer N, Wrbka T, Grabherr G (2002) Landscape patch shape complexity as an effective measure for plant species richness in rural landscapes. Landscape Ecol 17:657–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mucina L, Schaminée JHJ, Rodwell JS (2000) Common data standards for recording relevés in field survey for vegetation classification. J Veg Sci 11:769–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Naidoo R, Balmford A, Ferraro PJ, Polasky S, Ricketts TH, Rouget M (2006) Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Tree 21:681–687PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Nicholson E, Westphal MI, Frank K, Rochester ΑW, Pressey LR, Lindenmayer BD, Possingham PH (2006) A new method for conservation planning for the persistence of multiple species. Ecol Lett 9:1049–1060CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Pressey RL, Possingham HP, Day JR (1997) Effectiveness of alternative heuristic algorithms for identifying minimum requirements for conservation reserves. Biol Conserv 80:207–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pressey RL, Cabeza M, Watts ME, Cowling RM, Wilson KA (2007) Conservation planning in a changing world. Trends Ecol Evol 22:583–592CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. SAS Institute Inc (1985) Statistical analysis Software user’s guide: statistics Ver. 5. Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  57. Schindler S, Poirazidis K, Wrbka T (2008) Towards a core set of landscape metrics for biodiversity assessments: a case study from Dadia National Park, Greece. Ecol Indic 8:502–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V, Tielborger K, Wichmann MC, Schwager M, Jeltsch F (2004) Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J Biogeogr 31:79–92Google Scholar
  59. Torras O, Gil-Tena A, Saura S (2008) How does forest landscape structure explain tree species richness in a Mediterranean context? Biodivers Conserv 17:1227–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tsiftsis S, Tsiripidis I, Karagiannakidou V, Alifragis D (2008) Niche analysis and conservation of the orchids of East Macedonia (NE Greece). Acta Oecol 33:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van der Maarel E (2005) Vegetation ecology—an overview. In: Van der Maarel E (ed) Vegetation ecology. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  62. Wessels KJ, Freitag S, van Jaarsveld AS (1999) The use of land facets as biodiversity surrogates during reserve selection at local scale. Biol Conserv 89:21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Williams P, Faith D, Manne L, Sechrest W, Preston C (2006) Complementarity analysis: mapping the performance of surrogates for biodiversity. Biol Conserv 128:253–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yamaura Y, Kawahara T, Iida S, Ozaki K (2008) Relative importance of the area and shape of patches to the diversity of multiple taxa. Conserv Biol 22:1513–1522CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vassiliki Kati
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kostas Poirazidis
    • 2
  • Marc Dufrêne
    • 3
  • John M. Halley
    • 4
  • Giorgos Korakis
    • 5
  • Stefan Schindler
    • 6
  • Panayotis Dimopoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental and Natural Resources ManagementUniversity of IoanninaAgrinioGreece
  2. 2.World Wide Fund Greece, Dadia ProjectSoufliGreece
  3. 3.Centre de Recherche de la Nature, des Forêts et du Bois, Ministère de la Région WallonneGemblouxBelgium
  4. 4.Department of Biological Applications and TechnologiesUniversity of IoanninaIoanninaGreece
  5. 5.Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural ResourcesDemocritus University of ThraceOrestiadaGreece
  6. 6.Department of Conservation Biology, Vegetation and Landscape EcologyUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations