Landscape Ecology

, Volume 28, Issue 8, pp 1517–1528 | Cite as

Conservation planning in a fire-prone Mediterranean region: threats and opportunities for bird species

  • Sara Vallecillo
  • Virgilio Hermoso
  • Hugh P. Possingham
  • Lluís Brotons
Research Article


In response to the processes threatening biodiversity such as habitat loss, effective selection of priority conservation areas is required. However, reserve selection methods usually ignore the drivers of future habitat changes, thus compromising the effectiveness of conservation. In this work, we formulated an approach to explicitly quantify the impact of fire on conservation areas, considering such disturbance as a driver of land-cover changes. The estimated fire impact was integrated as a constraint in the reserve selection process to tackle the likely threats or opportunities that fire disturbance might cause to the targeted species depending on their habitat requirements. In this way, we selected conservation areas in a fire-prone Mediterranean region for two bird assemblages: forest and open-habitat species. Differences in conservation areas selected before and after integrating the impact of fire in the reserve selection process were assessed. Integration of fire impact for forest species moved preferences towards areas that were less prone to burn. However, a larger area was required to achieve the same conservation goals. Conversely, integration of fire impacts for open-habitat species shifted preferences towards conservation areas in locations where the persistence of their required habitat is more likely (i.e. shrublands). In other words, we prioritized the conservation of not only the current distribution of open-habitat birds, but also the disturbance process (i.e. fire) that favours their preferred habitat and distributions in the long term. Finally, this work emphasizes the need to consider the opposing potential impacts of wildfires on species for an effective conservation planning.


Wildfires Land-cover changes Priority areas Fire impact Bird assemblage Marxan Spatial planning 



We thank all volunteers that participated in the CBBA. This work has received financial support from the Spanish Government Grants CGL2008-05506-C02-01/BOS, Consolider-Montes CSD2008-00040, the Catalan Government Grant SGR2009-531, the EU-FP7-SCALES project and CGL2011-29539/BOS BIONOVEL project. Thanks to D. Guixé for their help with the species classification. SV benefited from a BE grant and FI fellowship with the support from the CUR of the DIUE from the GC and the European Social Fund.

Supplementary material

10980_2013_9904_MOESM1_ESM.docx (33 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 33 kb)


  1. Araujo MB, Williams PH, Turner A (2002) A sequential approach to minimise threats within selected conservation areas. Biodivers Conserv 11:1011–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ardron JA, Possingham HP, Klein CJ (eds) (2008) Marxan good practices handbook. Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Association, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball IR, Possingham HP, Watts M (2009) Marxan and relatives: software for spatial conservation prioritisation. In: Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham HP (eds) Spatial conservation prioritisation: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 185–195Google Scholar
  4. Brotons L, Herrando S, Martin JL (2004) Bird assemblages in forest fragments within Mediterranean mosaics created by wild fires. Landsc Ecol 19:663–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brotons L, Pons P, Herrando S (2005) Colonization of dynamic Mediterranean landscapes: where do birds come from after fire? J Biogeogr 32:789–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brotons L, Herrando S, Pla M (2007) Updating bird species distribution at large spatial scales: applications of habitat modelling to data from long-term monitoring programs. Divers Distrib 13:276–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cabeza M, Moilanen A (2001) Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evol 16:242–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol 4(11):e379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cowling RM, Pressey RL, Lombard AT, Desmet PG, Ellis AG (1999) From representation to persistence: requirements for a sustainable system of conservation areas in the species-rich Mediterranean-climate desert of southern Africa. Divers Distrib 5:51–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Devictor V, Julliard R, Jiguet F (2008) Distribution of specialist and generalist species along spatial gradients of habitat disturbance and fragmentation. Oikos 117:507–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diaz-Delgado R, Lloret F, Pons X (2004) Spatial patterns of fire occurrence in Catalonia, NE, Spain. Landsc Ecol 19:731–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drechsler M, Lourival R, Possingham HP (2009) Conservation planning for successional landscapes. Ecol Model 220:438–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Estrada J, Pedrocchi V, Brotons L, Herrando S (2004) Atles dels ocells nidificants de Catalunya (1999–2002). Lynx Edicions, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuller RJ, Gregory RD, Gibbons DW, Marchant JH, Wilson JD, Carter N (1995) Population declines and range contractions among lowland farmland birds in Britain. Conserv Biol 9:1425–1441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Game ET, Watts ME, Wooldridge S, Possingham HP (2008) Planning for persistence in marine reserves: a question of catastrophic importance. Ecol Appl 18:670–680PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaston KJ, Pressey RL, Margules CR (2002) Persistence and vulnerability: retaining biodiversity in the landscape and in protected areas. J Biosci 27:361–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gil-Tena A, Saura S, Brotons L (2007) Effects of forest composition and structure on bird species richness in a Mediterranean context: implications for forest ecosystem management. For Ecol Manag 242:470–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gil-Tena A, Brotons L, Saura S (2009) Mediterranean forest dynamics and forest bird distribution changes in the late 20th century. Glob Chang Biol 15:474–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamer KC, Hill JK (2000) Scale-dependent effects of habitat disturbance on species richness in tropical forests. Conserv Biol 14(5):1435–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hermoso V, Januchowski S, Linke S, Possingham HP (2011) Reference vs. present-day condition: early planning decisions influence the achievement of conservation objectives. Aquat Conserv 21:500–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herrando S, Brotons L, Llacuna S (2003) Does fire increase the spatial heterogeneity of bird communities in Mediterranean landscapes? Ibis 145:307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 394:472–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2003) Guidelines for application of IUCN red list criteria at regional levels: Version 3.0. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland and Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  24. Kinnaird MF, O’brien TG (1998) Ecological effects of wildfire on lowland rainforest in Sumatra. Conserv Biol 12:954–956Google Scholar
  25. Kirkpatrick JB (1983) An iterative method for establishing priorities for the selection of nature reserves: an example from Tasmania. Biol Conserv 25:127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lawler JJ, White D, Master LL (2003) Integrating representation and vulnerability: two approaches for prioritizing areas for conservation. Ecol Appl 13:1762–1772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lloret F, Calvo E, Pons X, Diaz-Delgado R (2002) Wildfires and landscape patterns in the Eastern Iberian Peninsula. Landsc Ecol 17:745–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Margules CR, Pressey RL, Williams PH (2002) Representing biodiversity: data and procedures for identifying priority areas for conservation. J Biosci 27:309–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller J, Franklin JF, Aspinall R (2007) Incorporating spatial dependence in predictive vegetation models. Ecol Model 202:225–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham HP (eds) (2009) Spatial conservation prioritisation: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Moreira F, Russo D (2007) Modelling the impact of agricultural abandonment and wildfires on vertebrate diversity in Mediterranean Europe. Landsc Ecol 22:1461–1476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moreira F, Ferreira PG, Rego FC, Bunting S (2001) Landscape changes and breeding bird assemblages in northwester Portugal: the role of fire. Landsc Ecol 16:175–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pausas JG, Llovet J, Rodrigo A, Vallejo R (2008) Are wildfires a disaster in the Mediterranean basin? A review. Int J Wildland Fire 17:713–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pearce JL, Kirk DA, Lane CP, Mahr MH, Walmsley J, Casey D, Muir JE, Hannon S, Hansen A, Jones K (2008) Prioritizing avian conservation areas for the Yellowstone to Yukon Region of North America. Biol Conserv 141:908–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Possingham H, Ball I, Andelman S (2000) Mathematical methods for identifying representative reserve networks. In: Ferson S, Burgman M (eds) Quantitative methods for conservation biology. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 291–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pressey RL, Nicholls AO (1989) Efficiency in conservation planning: scoring versus iterative approaches. Biol Conserv 50:199–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pressey RL, Cabeza M, Watts ME, Cowling RM, Wilson KA (2007) Conservation planning in a changing world. Trends Ecol Evol 22:583–592PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rayfield B, James PMA, Fall A, Fortin MJ (2008) Comparing static versus dynamic protected areas in the Quebec boreal forest. Biol Conserv 141:438–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rodrigo A, Retana J, Pico FX (2004) Direct regeneration is not the only response of Mediterranean forests to large fires. Ecology 85:716–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rundel PW, Montenegro G, Jaksic FM (1998) Landscape disturbance and biodiversity in Mediterranean-type ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Santos KC, Pino J, Roda F, Guirado M, Ribas J (2008) Beyond the reserves: the role of non-protected rural areas for avifauna conservation in the area of Barcelona (NE of Spain). Landsc Urban Plan 84:140–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tucker GM, Heath MF, Tomialocjc L, Grimmett RFA (1994) Birds in Europe: their conservation status. Birdlife International, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Vallecillo S, Brotons L, Herrando S (2008) Assessing the response of open-habitat bird species to landscape changes in Mediterranean mosaics. Biodivers Conserv 17:103–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vallecillo S, Brotons L, Thuiller W (2009) Dangers of predicting bird species distributions in response to land-cover changes. Ecol Appl 19:538–549PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Viñas O, Baulies X (1995) 1:250,000 Land-use map of Catalonia (32,000 km2) using multitemporal Landsat-TM data. Int J Remote Sens 16:129–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilcove DS, Chen LY (1998) Management costs for endangered species. Conserv Biol 12:1405–1407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E (1998) Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zozaya E, Brotons L, Vallecillo S (2011) Bird community responses to vegetation heterogeneity in non-direct regeneration of Mediterranean forests after fire. Ardea 99:73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara Vallecillo
    • 1
  • Virgilio Hermoso
    • 4
  • Hugh P. Possingham
    • 3
  • Lluís Brotons
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Biodiversity and Landscape Ecology LabForest Sciences Centre of CataloniaSolsonaSpain
  2. 2.Catalan Ornithological Institute, Natural Science MuseumBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, School of Biological SciencesUniversity of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia
  4. 4.Australian Rivers InstituteGriffith UniversityNathanAustralia

Personalised recommendations