Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 929–943

Habitat type richness associations with environmental variables: a case study in the Greek Natura 2000 aquatic ecosystems

  • Evangelia G. Drakou
  • Athanasios S. Kallimanis
  • Antonios D. Mazaris
  • Evangelia Apostolopoulou
  • John D. Pantis
Original Paper


We investigated the potential associations of habitat type richness patterns with a series of environmental variables in 61 protected aquatic ecosystems of the Greek Natura 2000 network. Habitat type classification followed the Natura 2000 classification scheme. Habitat type richness was measured as the number of different habitat types in an area. To overcome a potential area effect in quantifying habitat type richness, we applied the “moving window” technique. The environmental variables were selected to account for some of the major threats to biodiversity, such as fragmentation, habitat loss and climate change. We run GLMs to associate habitat type richness with different combinations of climatic, spatial and topographic variables. Habitat type richness seemed to significantly associate with climatic variables, more than spatial or topographic ones. In particular, for the climatic ones, the importance of precipitation surpassed that of temperature and especially the precipitation of the wettest and driest month had a limiting contribution to richness unlike average climate estimators. Moreover, the landscape’s latitude and longitude and fragmentation were significantly associated to richness. Our findings are in accordance to those observed in recent literature at lower (i.e. species) levels of ecological organization, fact showing that large-scale phenomena (such as climate change) can also be observed at the habitat type level, at least in our case. Thus, following the context of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), that habitat types and not solely species of community interest should be protected and restored, this study serves as a first step towards investigating habitat type richness patterns.


Area effect Climate change GLMs Habitats directive Moving window Natura 2000 



European ecological community


European commission


Generalized linear model


Akaike’s information criterion


Difference in AIC values


Intergovernmental panel on climate change


Standard deviation


Coefficient of variation


  1. Abrahams C (2008) Climate change and lakeshore conservation: a model and review of management techniques. Hydrobiologia 613:33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apostolopoulou E, Pantis JD (2009) Conceptual gaps in the national strategy for the implementation of the European Natura 2000 conservation policy in Greece. Biol Conserv 142:221–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashcroft MB, Chisholm LA, French KO (2009) Climate change at the landscape scale: predicting fine-grained spatial heterogeneity in warming and potential refugia for vegetation. Glob Change Biol 15:656–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett TL, Farina A, Barrett GW (2009) Aesthetic landscapes: an emergent component in sustaining societies. Landscape Ecol 24:1029–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beale CM, Lennon JJ, Gimona A (2008) Opening the climate envelope reveals no macroscale associations with climate in European birds. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:14908–14912PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chiarucci A, Bacaro G, Rocchini D (2008) Quantifying plant species diversity in a Natura 2000 network: old ideas and new proposals. Biol Conserv 141:2608–2618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Commission of European Communities (DG XI-B2) (1994) Natura 2000 network standard data form. Office for Publications of the European Communities, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  8. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (COM) (2010) Options for an EU vision and target for biodiversity beyond 2010. Office for Publications of the European Communities, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. Cumming GS, Cumming DHM, Redman CL (2006) Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: causes, consequences and solutions. Ecol Soc 11:14–33Google Scholar
  10. Dafis S, Papastergiadou E, Georgiou K et al. (1997) Directive 92/43/EEC. The Greek “Habitat” Project Natura 2000: An Overview. Commission of the European Communities DG XCI, The Goulandris Natural History Museum-Greek biotope/Wetland Centre, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  11. Dawson TP, Berry PM, Kampa E (2003) Climate change impacts on freshwater wetland habitats. J Nat Conserv 11:25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Debinski DM, Holt RD (2000) A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conserv Biol 14:342–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Díaz S, Cabido M (1997) Plant functional types and ecosystem function in relation to global change. J Veg Sci 8:463–474Google Scholar
  14. Dimopoulos P, Bergmeier E, Theodoropoulos K et al (2005) Monitoring guide for habitat types and plant species in the Natura 2000 sites of Greece with management institutions. University of Ioannina and Hellenic Ministry for the Environment. Physical Planning and Public Works, Agrinio, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  15. Dimopoulos P, Bergmeier E, Fischer P (2006) Natura 2000 habitat types of Greece evaluated in the light of distribution, threat and responsibility. Biol Environ 106b:175–187Google Scholar
  16. Easterling DR, Meehl GA, Parmesan C et al (2000) Climate extremes: observations, modelling, and impacts. Science 289:2068–2074PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. European Commission (EC) (2000) Managing Natura 2000 sites. The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC. European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  18. Felton A, Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB et al (2009) Climate change, conservation and management: an assessment of the peer-reviewed scientific journal literature. Biodiv Conserv 18:2243–2253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Folke G (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environ Chang 16:253–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graziano R, Gilberto P, Alessandro F (2009) A rapid and cost-effective tool for managing habitats of the European Natura 2000 network: a case study in the Italian Alps. Biodiv Conserv 18:1375–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall LS, Krausman PR, Morrison ML (1997) The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildlife Soc B 25:173–182Google Scholar
  22. Hawkins BA (2001) Ecology’s oldest pattern? Trends Ecol Evol 16:470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Higgins JV, Ricketts TH, Parrish JD et al (2004) Beyond Noah: saving species is not enough. Conserv Biol 18:1672–1673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL et al (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 25:1965–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hobbs RJ, McIntyre S (2005) Categorizing Australian landscapes as an aid to assessing the generality of landscape management guidelines. Global Ecol Biogeogr 14:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hortal J, Triantis KA, Meiri S et al (2009) Island species richness increases with habitat diversity. Am Nat 174:E205–E217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Houghton J T, Ding Y, Griggs D J et al. (2001) Climate Change 2001: The scientific basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Published for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  28. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Working group II contribution to the intergovernmental panel on climate change fourth assessment report. IPCC Secretariat, Geneva, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  29. Jin C (2008) Biodiversity dynamics of freshwater wetland ecosystems affected by secondary salinisation and seasonal hydrology variation: a model-based study. Hydrobiologia 598:257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kallimanis AS, Mazaris AD, Tzanopoulos J et al (2008) How does habitat diversity affect the species—area relationship? Global Ecol Biogeogr 17:532–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lawton JH, Bignell DE, Bolton B et al (1998) Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest. Nature 391:72–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lengyel S, Déri E, Varga Z et al (2008) Habitat monitoring in Europe: a description of current practices. Biodiv Conserv 17:3327–3339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lennon JJ, Koleff P, Greenwood JJD et al (2001) The geographical structure of British bird distributions: diversity, spatial turnover and scale. J Anim Ecol 70:966–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Margules CR, Pressey RL, Williams PH (2002) Representing biodiversity: data and procedures for identifying priority areas for conservation. J Bioscience 27:309–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McGarigal K, Marks B J (1995) FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-351. US Forest Service Pacific North-west Research station, Oregon, Portland, USAGoogle Scholar
  37. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC et al (2002) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Computer software programme. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USAGoogle Scholar
  38. Mehtälä J, Vuorisalo T (2007) Conservation policy and the EU Habitats Directive: favorable conservation status as a measure of conservation success. European Environ 17:363–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  40. Muratet A, Porcher E, Abadie J-C et al (2009) Use of extensive habitat inventories in biodiversity studies. Biodivers Conserv 18:3115–3125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Naeem S, Thompson LJ, Lawler SP et al (1994) Declining biodiversity can alter the performance of ecosystems. Nature 368:734–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nogués-Bravo D, Araújo MB (2006) Species richness, area and climate correlates. Global Ecol Biogeogr 15:452–460Google Scholar
  43. Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol 4:355–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Papastergiadou E, Dafis S, Dimopoulos P et al (1997) Syntaxonomic typology of Greek habitats. Folia Geobot Phytotx 32:335–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pearman PB, Penskar MR, Schools EH et al (2006) Identifying potential indicators of conservation value using natural heritage occurrence data. Ecol Appl 16:186–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pressey RL, Johnson IR, Wilson PD (1994) Shades of irreplaceability: towards a measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goal. Biodivers Conserv 3:242–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pyšek P, Kucera T, Jarosík V (2002) Plant species richness of nature reserves: the interplay of area, climate and habitat in a central European landscape. Global Ecol Biogeogr 11:279–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Redžić S (2007) Syntaxonomic diversity as an indicator of ecological diversity—case study Vranica Mts in the Central Bosnia. Biologia, Bratislava 62:173–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reger B, Sheridan P, Simmering D et al (2009) Potential effects of direct transfer payments on farmland habitat diversity in a marginal European landscape. Environ Manage 43:1026–1038PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reich PB, Oleksyn J (2004) Global patterns of plant leaf N and P in relation to temperature and latitude. Proc Natl Acad Sci 101:11001–11006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sakamoto Y, Ishiguro M, Kitagawa G (1986) Akaike information criterion statistics. KTK Scientific Publishers, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  52. Sarkar S, Pressey RL, Faith DP et al (2006) Biodiversity conservation planning tools: present status and challenges for the future. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:123–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schmeller DS, Henry P-Y, Julliard R et al (2008) Advantages of volunteer-based biodiversity monitoring in Europe. Conserv Biol 23:307–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Semlitsch RD, Bodie RJ (2003) Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conserv Biol 17:1219–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Solon J (1995) Anthropogenic disturbance and vegetation diversity in agricultural landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan 31:171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. SPSS (2008) Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. SPSS base 15.0 for Windows. SPSS Inc, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  57. Trenberth KE (2007) Observations of climate change: The 2007 IPCC Assessment. A Testimony. Before Committee on Science and Technology United State House of Representatives. Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, USAGoogle Scholar
  58. Triantis KA, Mylonas M, Lika K et al (2003) A model for the species–area–habitat relationship. J Biogeogr 30:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Triantis KA, Vardinoyannis K, Tsolaki EP et al (2006) Re-approaching the small island effect. J Biogeogr 33:914–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (eds) (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice. Pattern and process. Springer, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  61. Verhoeven JTA, Soons MB, Janssen R et al (2008) An operational landscape unit approach for identifying key landscape connections in wetland restoration. J Appl Ecol 45:1496–1503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Whittaker RH, Levin SA, Root RB (1973) Niche, habitat, and ecotope. Am Nat 107:321–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evangelia G. Drakou
    • 1
  • Athanasios S. Kallimanis
    • 2
  • Antonios D. Mazaris
    • 1
  • Evangelia Apostolopoulou
    • 1
  • John D. Pantis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology, School of BiologyAristotle UniversityThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Department of Environmental and Natural Resource ManagementUniversity of IoanninaAgrinioGreece

Personalised recommendations