Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 1377–1390 | Cite as

A gap analysis comparing the effectiveness of Natura 2000 and national protected area networks in representing European amphibians and reptiles

  • Pedro AbellánEmail author
  • David Sánchez-Fernández
Original Paper

Abstract

Protected area networks represent one of the mainstays of worldwide conservation policies and play a key role in the protection of biodiversity. While numerous studies have evaluated the extent to which reserves fulfil their role of protecting biodiversity (so called ‘gap analysis’) in Europe at national and subnational scales, their performance across the whole of Europe has seldom been assessed. Here we assess the effectiveness of nationally designated protected areas and the pan-European Natura 2000 network in representing and maintaining over time European amphibian and reptile biodiversity using a comprehensive and newly available species occurrence dataset. Overall, our results show that often national protected areas and Natura 2000 sites perform poorly in representing amphibians and reptiles, but highlight differences in the effectiveness of both protected area networks when the goal is to promote the persistence of the species. While nationally designated areas did not usually cover more species than a random selection of areas for both vertebrate groups across different conservation targets, Natura 2000 network usually covered significantly more species than random when the goal was to include multiple representations of each species. In any case, these covered species were mostly widespread taxa, while narrow-range species remained under-represented. Additionally, our findings provide important evidence of the need to assess sensitivity of reserve effectiveness assessments to data and decision-rules, as the effectiveness of both reserve networks varied greatly across the different thresholds used for assigning reserves to grid cells and the criteria used to consider species as covered.

Keywords

Conservation areas Europe Reserves Persistence Systematic conservation planning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank two anonymous referees for their constructive comments. D. S.-F. was supported by a postdoctoral Grant (Juan de la Cierva program) from Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness.

Supplementary material

10531_2015_862_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1463 kb)

References

  1. Araújo MB (2004) Matching species with reserves—uncertainties from using data at different resolutions. Biol Conserv 118:533–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Araújo MB, Lobo JM, Moreno JC (2007) The effectiveness of Iberian protected areas in conserving terrestrial biodiversity. Biol Conserv 21:1423–1432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Araújo MB, Alagador D, Cabeza M, Nogués-Bravo D, Thuiller W (2011) Climate change threatens European conservation areas. Ecol Lett 14:484–492PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Böhm M, Collen B, Baillie JEM, Bowles P et al (2013) The conservation status of the world’s reptiles. Biol Conserv 157:372–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BWPi (2006) Birds of the Western Palearctic interactive. BirdGuides, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Cabeza M, Moilanen A (2001) Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evol 16:242–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cabeza M, Araújo MB, Wilson RJ et al (2004) Combining probabilities of occurrence with spatial reserve design. J Appl Ecol 41:252–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ceballos G (2007) Conservation priorities for mammals in megadiverse Mexico: the efficiency of reserve networks. Ecol Appl 17:569–578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chape S, Harrison J, Spalding M, Lysenko I (2005) Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philos Trans R Soc B 360:443–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cox N, Chanson J, Stuart S (2006) The status and distribution of reptiles and amphibians of the Mediterranean Basin. IUCN, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. D’Amen M, Bombi P, Campanaro A, Zapponi L, Bologna MA, Mason F (2013) Protected areas and insect conservation: questioning the effectiveness of Natura 2000 network for saproxylic beetles in Italy. Anim Conserv 16:370–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dimitrakopoulos PG, Memtsas D, Troumbis AY (2004) Questioning the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 special areas of conservation strategy: the case of Crete. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 13:199–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European Commission (2009) Natura 2000—Europe’s nature for youGoogle Scholar
  14. European Commission (2014) Natura 2000 Barometer—update 2013. Natura 2000 nature and biodiversity newsletter 35:8–9Google Scholar
  15. European Environment Agency (2012) Protected areas in Europe: an overview. EEA Report 5/2012, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  16. Evans D (2012) Building the European Union’s Natura 2000 network. Nat Conserv 1:11–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gaston KJ, Jackson SF, Nagy A, Cantú-Salazar L, Johnson M (2008) Protected areas in Europe. Ann NY Acad Sci 1134:97–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gruber B, Evans D, Henle K, Bauch B, Schmeller D, Dziock F, Henry PY, Lengyel S, Margules C, Dormann C (2012) “Mind the gap!”—how well does Natura 2000 cover species of European interest? Nat Conserv 3:45–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hopkinson P, Evans J, Gregory RD (2000) National-scale conservation assessments at an appropriate resolution. Divers Distrib 6:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Iojă CI, Pătroescu M, Rozylowicz L, Popescu VD, Vergheleţ M, Zotta MI, Felciuc M (2010) The efficacy of Romania’s protected areas network in conserving biodiversity. Biol Conserv 143:2468–2476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. IUCN (International World Conservation Union) (2012) The IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2012.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org
  22. Jalas J, Suominen J (1964–2010) Atlas florae Europaeae. Committee for Mapping the Flora of Europe and Societas Biologica Fennica Vanamo, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  23. Jantke K, Schleupner C, Schneider UA (2011) Gap analysis of European wetland species: priority regions for expanding the Natura 2000 network. Biodivers Conserv 20:581–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jenkins CN, Joppa L (2009) Expansion of the global terrestrial protected area system. Biol Conserv 142:2166–2174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kujala H, Araújo MB, Thuiller W, Cabeza M (2011) Misleading results from conventional gap analysis–messages from the warming north. Biol Conserv 144:2450–2458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maiorano L, Falcucci A, Boitani L (2006) Gap analysis of terrestrial vertebrates in Italy: priorities for conservation planning in a human dominated landscape. Biol Conserv 133:455–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maiorano L, Falcucci A, Gaston EO, Boitani L (2007) Contribution of the Natura 2000 network to biodiversity conservation in Italy. Conserv Biol 21:1433–1444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martínez I, Carreño F, Escudero A, Rubio A (2006) Are threatened lichen species well-protected in Spain? Effectiveness of a protected areas network. Biol Conserv 133:500–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mitchell-Jones AJ, Amori G, Bogdanowicz W, Krystufek B, Reijnders PJH, Spitzenberger F et al (1999) Atlas of European mammals. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Papageorgiou K, Vogiatzakis IN (2006) Nature protection in Greece: an appraisal of the factors shaping integrative conservation and policy effectiveness. Environ Sci Policy 9:476–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. R Development Core Team (2010) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Development Core Team, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  33. Rodrigues ASL, Gaston KJ, Gregory RD (2000) Using presence–absence data to establish reserve selection procedures that are robust to temporal species turnover. Proc R Soc B 267:897–902PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rodrigues ASL, Andelman SJ, Bakarr MI, Boitani L, Brooks TM, Cowling RM, Fishpool LDC, da Fonseca GAB, Gaston KJ, Hoffmann M, Long JS, Marquet PA, Pilgrim JD, Pressey RL, Schipper J, Sechrest W, Stuart SN, Underhill LG, Waller RW, Watts MEJ, Yan X (2004) Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428:640–643PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sánchez-Fernández D, Bilton DT, Abellán P, Ribera I, Velasco J, Millán A (2008) Are the endemic water beetles of the Iberian Peninsula and the Balearic Islands effectively protected? Biol Conserv 141:1612–1627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sánchez-Fernández D, Abellán P, Picazo F, Millán A, Ribera I, Lobo JM (2013) Do protected areas represent species’ optimal climatic conditions. A test using Iberian water beetles. Divers Distrib 19:1407–1417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scott JM, Davis FW, Mcghie RG, Wright RG, Groves C, Estes J (2001) Nature reserves: do they capture the full range of America’s biological diversity? Ecol Appl 11:999–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sillero N, Campos J, Bonardi A, Corti C, Creemers R, Crochet PA, Isailovi JC, Denoël M, Ficetola JF, Gonçalves J, Kuzmin S, Lymberakis P, Pous P, Rodríguez A, Sindaco R, Speybroeck J, Toxopeus B, Vieites DR, Vences M (2014) Updated distribution and biogeography of amphibians and reptiles of Europe. Amphib-Reptil 35:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Soutullo A (2010) Extent of the global network of terrestrial protected areas. Conserv Biol 24:362–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sundseth K, Creed P (2008) Natura 2000: protecting Europe’s biodiversity. European Commission, Directorate General for the Environment, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  41. Verovnik R, Govedič M, Šalamun A (2010) Is the Natura 2000 network sufficient for conservation of butterfly diversity? A case study in Slovenia. J Insect Conserv 15:345–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vimal R, Rodrigues AS, Mathevet R, Thompson JD (2011) The sensitivity of gap analysis to conservation targets. Biodivers Conserv 20:531–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wake DB, Vredenburg VT (2008) Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:11466–11473PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology, Queens CollegeCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Evolutionary BiologyCSIC-Universitat Pompeu FabraBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations