Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying areas of high importance for orchid conservation in east Macedonia (NE Greece)

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The establishment of a network of reserves is of fundamental importance to the loss of biodiversity. Seven different area selection methods for the establishment of a reserve network were applied in the present study: (a) 5% cut-off value of the grid cells with the highest species richness or conservation value, (b) complementarity analysis using as criteria species richness or conservation value or rarest species richness, and (c) mixed complementarity analysis using as criteria species richness or conservation value. These methods were applied in the orchid taxa of east Macedonia. The conservation values of taxa were estimated on the basis of regional rarity, broad-scale rarity, and species specialization. The spatial overlap between the resulting networks and the Natura 2000 network of the study area was assessed. Furthermore, the efficiency of the latter network to protect the orchid taxa of the study area was examined. Our results suggest that: (a) a multiscale estimation of rarity is necessary for the unbiased estimation of species conservation values; (b) species specialization adds valuable ecological information to the assessment of taxa conservation values; (c) complementarity and mixed complementarity analyses on species richness or conservation value safeguard all the taxa of the region; (d) complementarity analysis on the basis of the richness of the rarest species safeguards all the rarest taxa, but not the total number of the remaining taxa; (e) the 5% cut-off value on species richness or conservation value fails to protect all the taxa of the region, including a large number of the rarest taxa; and (f) the Natura 2000 network, despite its large coverage in the study area, fails to safeguard all the taxa, including some of the rarest.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anon (2007) Interpretation manual of European Union habitats, EUR 27. European Commission, DG Environment, Nature and Biodiversity

  • Arponen A, Heikkinen R, Thomas C, Moilanen A (2005) The value of biodiversity in reserve selection: representation, species weighting, and benefit functions. Conserv Biol 19(6):2009–2014. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00218.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey SA, Haines-Young RH, Watkins C (2002) Species presence in fragmented landscapes: modelling of species requirements at the national level. Biol Conserv 108:307–316. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00119-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonn A, Gaston K (2005) Capturing biodiversity: selecting priority areas for conservation using different criteria. Biodivers Conserv 14:1083–1100. doi:10.1007/s10531-004-8410-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camm DJ, Polasky S, Solow A, Csuti B (1996) A note on optimal algorithms for reserve site selection. Biol Conserv 78:353–355. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(95)00132-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chase MW, Cameron KM, Barrett RL, Freudebstein JV (2003) DNA data and Orchidaceae systematics: a new phylogenetic classification. In: Dixon KW, Kell SP, Barrett RL, Cribb PJ (eds) Orchid conservation. Natural History Publications, Kota Kinabalu, pp 69–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Cribb PJ, Kell SP, Dixon KW, Barrett RL (2003) Orchid conservation: a global perspective. In: Dixon KW, Kell SP, Barrett RL, Cribb PJ (eds) Orchid conservation. Natural History Publications, Kota Kinabalu, pp 1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Currie DJ (1991) Energy and large-scale patterns of animal and plant-species richness. Am Nat 137:27–49. doi:10.1086/285144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dafis S, Papastergiadou E, Georghiou K, Babalonas D, Georgiadis T, Papageorgiou M, Lazaridou T, Tsiaoussi V (1996) Directive 92/43. EEC The Greek “Habitat” project Natura 2000: an overview. The Goulandris Natural History Museum, Greek Biotope-Wetland Centre, Thessaloniki

    Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann M (2003) Species indicator values as an important tool in applied plant ecology—a review. Basic Appl Ecol 4:493–506. doi:10.1078/1439-1791-00185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann M, Lawesson JE (1999) Shifts in ecological behaviour of herbaceous forest species along a transect from northern Central to North Europe. Folia Geobot 34:127–141. doi:10.1007/BF02803080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrakopoulos P, Memtsas D, Troumbis A (2004) Questioning the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 special areas of conservation strategy: the case of Crete. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 13:199–207. doi:10.1111/j.1466-822X.2004.00086.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolédec S, Chessel D, Gimaret-Carpentier C (2000) Niche separation in community analysis: a new method. Ecology 81(10):2914–2927

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellenberg H, Weber HE, Düll R, Wirth V, Werner W, Paulissen D (1992) Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa, 2nd edn. Script Geobot 18:1–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ (1994) Rarity. Chapman & Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ, Pressey RL, Margules CR (2002) Persistence and vulnerability: retaining biodiversity in the landscape and in protected areas. J Biosci 27:361–384. doi:10.1007/BF02704966

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hágsater E, Dumont V (eds) (1996) Orchids: status, survey and conservation action plan. IUCN, Gland

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley S, Kunin W (2003) Scale dependency of rarity, extinction risk, and conservation priority. Conserv Biol 17(6):1559–1570. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00015.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He F, Gaston KJ (2000) Occupancy–abundance relationships and sampling scales. Ecography 23:503–511. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0587.2000.230412.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heywood VH, Iriondo JM (2003) Plant conservation: old problems, new perspectives. Biol Conserv 113:321–335. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00121-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill D, Fasham M, Tucker G, Shewry M, Shaw P (eds) (2006) Handbook of biodiversity methods: survey, evaluation and monitoring. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kati V, Devillers P, Dufrêne M, Legakis A, Vokou D, Lebrun P (2004) Hotspots, complementarity or representativeness? Designing optimal small-scale reserves for biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 120:471–480. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2004.03.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knollová I, Chytrý M (2004) Oak-hornbeam of the Czech Republic: geographical and ecological approaches to vegetation classification. Preslia 76:291–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull T, Kindlmann P, Hutchings M, Primack B (2006) Conservation biology of orchids: introduction to the special issue. Biol Conserv 129:1–3. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.11.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lienert J (2004) Habitat fragmentation effects on fitness of plant populations—a review. J Nat Conserv 12:53–72. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2003.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margules CR, Usher MB (1981) Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: a review. Biol Conserv 21:79–109. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(81)90073-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253. doi:10.1038/35012251

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Margules CR, Sarkar S (2007) Systematic conservation planning. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthies D, Brauer I, Maibom W, Tscharntke T (2004) Population size and the risk of local extinction: empirical evidence from rare plants. Oikos 105:481–488. doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12800.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Memtsas PD (2003) Multiobjective programming methods in reserve selection problem. Eur J Oper Res 150:640–652. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00519-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858. doi:10.1038/35002501

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pärtel M, Kalamees R, Reier Ü, Tuvi E, Roosaluste E, Vellak A, Zobel M (2005) Grouping and prioritization of vascular plant species for conservation: combining natural rarity and management need. Biol Conserv 123:271–278. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2004.11.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson RG, Dawson TP, Liu C (2004) Modelling species distributions in Britain: a hierarchical integration of climate and land-cover data. Ecography 27:285–298. doi:10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03740.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pillon Y, Chase M (2006) Taxonomic exaggeration and its effects on orchid conservation. Conserv Biol 21(1):263–265. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00573.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast JR, Quinn RM, Lawton JH, Eversham BC, Gibbon DW (1993) Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies. Nature 365:335–337. doi:10.1038/365335a0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey RL (1999) Systematic conservation planning for the real world. Parks 9:1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabinowitz D (1981) Seven forms of rarity. In: Synge H (ed) The biological aspects of rare plant conservation. Wiley, Chichester, pp 205–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Rey Benayas JM, de la Montana E (2003) Identifying areas of high-value vertebrate diversity for strengthening conservation. Biol Conserv 114:357–370. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00064-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sapir Y, Shmida A, Fragman O (2003) Constructing red numbers for setting conservation priorities of endangered plant species: Israeli flora as a test case. J Nat Conserv 11:91–107. doi:10.1078/1617-1381-00041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuiteman A, de Vogel E (2003) Taxonomy for conservation. In: Dixon KW, Kell SP, Barrett RL, Cribb PJ (eds) Orchid conservation. Natural History Publications, Kota Kinabalu, pp 55–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Selvi F (1997) Rare plants on mount Aiata, Italy: vulnerability to extinction on an ecological “Island”. Biol Conserv 81:257–266. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(96)00155-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sólymos P, Fehér Z (2005) Conservation prioritization based on distribution of land snails in Hungary. Conserv Biol 19(4):1084–1094. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00193.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statsoft Inc (2001) STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 6. www.statsoft.com

  • Tilman D (1999) The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: a search for general principles. Ecology 80:1455–1474

    Google Scholar 

  • Traba J, Garcia de la Morena EL, Morales MB, Suarez F (2007) Determining high value areas for steppe birds in Spain: hospots, complementarity and the efficiency of protected areas. Biodivers Conserv 16(12):3255–3275. doi:10.1007/s10531-006-9138-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsiftsis S, Karagiannakidou V, Tsiripidis I (2007) The orchid flora of east Macedonia (NE Greece). J Eur Orch 39(3/4):489–526

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsiftsis S, Tsiripidis I, Karagiannakidou V, Alifragis D (2008) Niche analysis and conservation of the orchids of east Macedonia (NE Greece). Acta Oecol 33:27–35. doi:10.1016/j.actao.2007.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsiripidis I, Bergmeier E, Dimopoulos P (2007) Geographical and ecological differentiation in Greek Fagus forest vegetation. J Veg Sci 18:743–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Jaarsveld AS, Freitag S, Chown SL, Muller C, Koch S, Hull H, Bellamy C, Kruger M, Endrody-Younga S, Mansell MW, Scholtz CH (1998) Biodiversity assessment and conservation strategies. Science 279:2106–2108. doi:10.1126/science.279.5359.2106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vane-Wright RI, Humphries CI, Williams PH (1991) What to protect? Systematics and the agony of choise. Biol Conserv 55:235–254. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(91)90030-D

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams P, Gibbons D, Margules C, Rebelo A, Humphries C, Pressey R (1996) A comparison of richness hotspots, rarity hotspots, and complementary areas for conserving diversity of British birds. Conserv Biol 10(1):155–174. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10010155.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams PH, Margules CR, Hilbert DW (2002) Data requirements and data sources for biodiversity priority area selection. J Biosci 27:327–338. doi:10.1007/BF02704963

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zaganiaris DN (1940) Herbarium macedonicum. Tertium et quartum mille. Sci Ann Fac Phys Math. Aristotle Univ Thessaloniki 6:38–141

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Mr. Pastircak M. and Mr. Niklfeld H. for providing information about the distribution of Slovakian and Austrian orchids, respectively, and an anonymous reviewer for his valuable comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Botany, School of Biology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Spyros Tsiftsis, Ioannis Tsiripidis & Vasiliki Karagiannakidou

Authors
  1. Spyros Tsiftsis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ioannis Tsiripidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vasiliki Karagiannakidou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ioannis Tsiripidis.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 5.

Table 5 Attributes’ scores and species’ conservation values
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tsiftsis, S., Tsiripidis, I. & Karagiannakidou, V. Identifying areas of high importance for orchid conservation in east Macedonia (NE Greece). Biodivers Conserv 18, 1765–1780 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9557-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9557-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation