A bottom–up approach for the conservation status assessment of structure and functions of habitat types

  • Ioannis Tsiripidis
  • Fotios Xystrakis
  • Athanasios Kallimanis
  • Maria Panitsa
  • Panayotis Dimopoulos
Vegetation Science and Habitats Directive
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

Monitoring of habitat types conservation status is an essential task in the frame of the European policy for biodiversity conservation. The parameters to be assessed for the purposes of habitat types’ conservation status assessment are described in several European documents, but the methodology for their determination has not yet been standardized or optimized. This study presents methods for the assessment of the actual status and the future prospects of structure and functions of habitat types. Specifically, it presents a bottom–up approach for the assessment of these two parameters at different spatial scales. In the proposed method, conservation status assessment is based on a classification of habitat types to subtypes, with the latter representing the basic monitoring entities. The conservation status is assessed by recording: (i) the presence/absence of specific indicators of structure and functions per habitat type, and (ii) the presence/absence, abundance, and vitality of the typical species of the habitat subtypes. The typical species are determined objectively using algorithms and fidelity coefficient values. The conservation status and future prospects of structure and functions (including the typical species) are estimated quantitatively with the help of numerical methods and algorithms, but their assignment to conservation status classes is based on thresholds defined by experts. Assessments are made at the local scale, but can be upscaled to coarser ones (up to the national level). The proposed methods have been applied in Greece and were effective both in terms of results obtained and costs needed.

Keywords

Biodiversity Greece Habitats Directive Indicator species Monitoring Vegetation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Τhe authors would like to acknowledge the financial support received by the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change for the research project: Surveillance and Conservation Status Assessment of habitat types of Community Importance (2013–2015), and to thank Milan Chytrý and an anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Supplementary material

12210_2018_691_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 22 kb)
12210_2018_691_MOESM2_ESM.docx (721 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 721 kb)
12210_2018_691_MOESM3_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 15 kb)
12210_2018_691_MOESM4_ESM.docx (29 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 28 kb)
12210_2018_691_MOESM5_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (DOCX 15 kb)

References

  1. Archaux F (2009) Could we obtain better estimates of plot species richness from multiple-observer plant censuses? J Veg Sci 20:603–611.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2009.01079.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bendali F, Nellas N (2016) Conservation status assessment method for habitat types at Site of European Community Interest scale. Int J Innov Appl Stud 17:548–555Google Scholar
  3. Bergstedt J, Westerberg L, Milberg P (2009) In the eye of the beholder: bias and stochastic variation in cover estimates. Plant Ecol 204:271–283.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-009-9590-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borcard D, Gillet F, Legendre P (2011) Numerical ecology with R. Springer Science & Business Media, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braun-Blanquet J (1964) Pflanzensoziologie-Grundzüge der Vegetationskunde, 3rd edn. Springer Verlang, WienCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchanan GM, Butchart SHM, Dutson G, Pilgrim JD, Steininger MK, Bishop KD, Mayaux P (2008) Using remote sensing to inform conservation status assessment: estimates of recent deforestation rates on New Britain and the impacts upon endemic birds. Biol Conserv 141:56–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.08.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cantarello E, Newton AC (2008) Identifying cost-effective indicators to assess the conservation status of forested habitats in Natura 2000 sites. Forest Ecol Manag 256:815–826.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.05.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carignan V, Villard M-A (2002) Selecting indicator species to monitor ecological integrity: a review. Environ Monit Assess 78:45–61.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1016136723584 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carli E, D’Alessandro E, Di Marzio P, Giancola C, Paura B, Salerno G, Blasi C (2016) Monitoring Natura 2000 habitats: habitat 92A0 in central Italy as an example. Biogeographia J Integr Biogeogr 31:7–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chrysopolitou V, Apostolakis A, Kotzageorgis G, Defingou M, Gioutlakis M, Hatziiordanou L, Hadjicharalambous H (2015) Deliverable Β7. Methodology on data compilation for evaluating the habitat and species status, from cell level to Natura network and national level—final edition. YPEKA, Athens, Joint venture of Enveco S.A, Omikron Ltd., Karolidis Theodoros, Fyselias Spyridon, Consultant EKΒY, AthensGoogle Scholar
  11. Chytrý M, Tichý L, Holt J, Botta-Dukát Z (2002) Determination of diagnostic species with statistical fidelity measures. J Veg Sci 13:79–90.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2002.tb02025.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Culmsee H, Schmidt M, Schmiedel I, Schacherer A, Meyer P, Leuschner C (2014) Predicting the distribution of forest habitat types using indicator species to facilitate systematic conservation planning. Ecol Indic 37:131–144.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.10.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis M, Naumann S, McFarland K, Graf A, Evans D (2014) Literature review, the ecological effectiveness of the Natura 2000 Network. ETC/BD Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  14. de Bello F, Lavorel S, Gerhold P, Reier Ü, Pärtel M (2010) A biodiversity monitoring framework for practical conservation of grasslands and shrublands. Biol Conserv 143:9–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.04.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Del Vecchio S, Slaviero A, Fantinato E, Buffa G (2016) The use of plant community attributes to detect habitat quality in coastal environments. AoB Plants 8:plw040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dierschke H (1994) Pflanzensoziologie: Grundlagen und Methoden. Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  17. European Commission (2006) Assessment, Monitoring and Reporting Under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive: Explanatory Notes and GuidelinesGoogle Scholar
  18. European Commission (2011) NATURA 2000 Standard Data Form Explanatory NotesGoogle Scholar
  19. European Environmental Agency (2015) Results from reporting under the nature directives 2007–2012Google Scholar
  20. Evans D, Arvela M (2011) Assessment and reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive—explanatory notes & guidelines for the period 2007–2012—final Draft. European Topic Centre on Biological DiversityGoogle Scholar
  21. Halada L, Evans D, Romão C, Petersen J-E (2011) Which habitats of European importance depend on agricultural practices? Biodivers Conserv 20:2365–2378.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-9989-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Henry P-Y et al (2008) Integrating ongoing biodiversity monitoring: potential benefits and methods. Biodivers Conserv 17:3357–3382.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9417-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hill D, Fasham M, Tucker G, Shewry M, Shaw P (eds) (2005) Handbook of biodiversity—survey, evaluation and monitoring. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Hutto RL (1998) Using landbirds as an indicator species group. In: Marzluff JM, Sallabanks R (eds) Avian conservation: research and management. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 75–92Google Scholar
  25. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2013) The UK Approach to Assessing Conservation Status for the 2013 EU Habitats Directive Article 17 Reporting. PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  26. Kallimanis AS, Panitsa M, Dimopoulos P (2017) Quality of non-expert citizen science data collected for habitat type conservation status assessment in Natura 2000 protected areas. Sci Rep 7:8873.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09316-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koleff P, Gaston KJ, Lennon JJ (2003) Measuring beta diversity for presence–absence data. J Anim Ecol 72:367–382.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2003.00710.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kontula T, Raunio A (2009) New method and criteria for national assessments of threatened habitat types. Biodivers Conserv 18:3861.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9684-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kovač M, Kutnar L, Hladnik D (2016) Assessing biodiversity and conservation status of the Natura 2000 forest habitat types: tools for designated forestlands stewardship. For Ecol Manag 359:256–267.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.10.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lengyel S et al (2008a) Habitat monitoring in Europe: a description of current practices. Biodivers Conserv 17:3327–3339.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9395-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lengyel S et al (2008b) A review and a framework for the integration of biodiversity monitoring at the habitat level. Biodivers Conserv 17:3341–3356.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9359-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lennon JJ, Koleff P, GreenwooD JJD, Gaston KJ (2001) The geographical structure of British bird distributions: diversity, spatial turnover and scale. J Anim Ecol 70:966–979.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0021-8790.2001.00563.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leuschner C, Ellenberg H (2017a) Ecology of Central European forests. Springer International Publishing, SwitzerlandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leuschner C, Ellenberg H (2017b) Ecology of Central European non-forest vegetation: coastal to alpine, natural to man-made habitats. Springer International Publishing, BaselCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Louette G et al (2011) Bridging the gap between the Natura 2000 regional conservation status and local conservation objectives. J Nat Conserv 19:224–235.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2011.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maciejewski L (2010) Méthodologie d’élaboration des listes d’ “espèces typiques” pour des habitats forestiers d’intérêt communautaire en vue de l’évaluation de leur état de conservation. Rapport SPN 12:57–58Google Scholar
  37. Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35012251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nagendra H, Lucas R, Honrado JP, Jongman RHG, Tarantino C, Adamo M, Mairota P (2013) Remote sensing for conservation monitoring: assessing protected areas, habitat extent, habitat condition, species diversity, and threats. Ecol Indic 33:45–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.09.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rondinini C, Chiozza F (2010) Quantitative methods for defining percentage area targets for habitat types in conservation planning. Biol Conserv 143:1646–1653.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.03.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schmeller DS (2008) European species and habitat monitoring: where are we now? Biodivers Conserv 17:3321–3326.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9514-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Siddig AAH, Ellison AM, Ochs A, Villar-Leeman C, Lau MK (2016) How do ecologists select and use indicator species to monitor ecological change? Insights from 14 years of publication in Ecological Indicators. Ecol Indic 60:223–230.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smeets E, Weterings R (1999) Environmental indicators: typology and overview. European Environment Agency Copenhagen, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  43. Søgaard B et al (2007) Criteria for favourable conservation status in Denmark. Natural habitat types and species covered by the EEC Habitats Directive and birds covered by the EEC Birds Directive. National Environmental Research Institute—University of AarhusGoogle Scholar
  44. Spanhove T, Vanden Borre J, Delalieux S, Haest B, Paelinckx D (2012) Can remote sensing estimate fine-scale quality indicators of natural habitats? Ecol Indic 18:403–412.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.01.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tsiripidis I, Bergmeier E, Fotiadis G, Dimopoulos P (2009) A new algorithm for the determination of differential taxa. J Veg Sci 20:233–240.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2009.05273.x/full CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vanden Borre J, Paelinckx D, Mücher CA, Kooistra L, Haest B, De Blust G, Schmidt AM (2011) Integrating remote sensing in Natura 2000 habitat monitoring: prospects on the way forward. J Nat Conserv 19:116–125.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2010.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ward JH (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc 58:236–244.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1963.10500845 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yoccoz NG, Nichols JD, Boulinier T (2001) Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time. Trends Ecol Evol 16:446–453.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02205-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Botany, School of BiologyAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessaloníkiGreece
  2. 2.Forest Research InstituteHellenic Agricultural Organization “Demeter”VassilikaGreece
  3. 3.Department of Ecology, School of BiologyAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessaloníkiGreece
  4. 4.Faculty of Biology, Division of Plant BiologyUniversity of PatrasPatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations