Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 19, Issue 12, pp 3413–3429 | Cite as

Biotope prioritisation in the Central Apennines (Italy): species rarity and cross-taxon congruence

Original Paper

Abstract

The conservation status of invertebrates is usually lesser known than that of vertebrates, and strategies to identify biotopes to preserve invertebrate diversity are typically based on a single surrogate taxon, or even on the use of vertebrates as surrogates. Aim of this research is to illustrate a method for biotope prioritisation that can be easily adapted to different animal groups and geographical contexts. A two-step protocol for biotope prioritisation is proposed on the basis of a multidimensional characterisation of species vulnerability. Firstly, species vulnerability is estimated from rarity measures which include geographical range, abundance and biotope specialisation. Then, these values of vulnerability are used to rank biotopes. The method was applied here to the tenebrionid beetles, the butterflies, the birds and the mammals of the Central Apennines, a montane area of high conservation concern for South Europe. This study provides evidence for the importance of including insects in conservation decisions, because vertebrates are poor surrogates for insects. Conservation efforts in the reserves included in the study area are mostly focused on vertebrates, for which woodlands are considered particularly important. However high altitude open biotopes are crucial for both tenebrionids and butterflies, and preservation of such kind of biotopes would be beneficial also for vertebrates. The approach applied here demonstrates that (1) vertebrates are poor surrogates for insects, and (2) measures of species rarity, typically used in vertebrate conservation, can be obtained also for insects, for which a veritable amount of data are hidden in specialised literature and museum collections.

Keywords

Birds Butterflies Coleoptera Tenebrionidae Conservation planning Mammals Rarity measures 

Supplementary material

10531_2010_9903_MOESM1_ESM.xls (98 kb)
Supporting Information Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article: Appendix S1 Rarity and distribution across biotopes for the tenebrionid beetles, butterflies, birds and mammals of the Central Apennines. (XLS 97 kb)

References

  1. Ales RF, Martin A, Ortega F, Ales EE (1992) Recent changes in landscape structure and function in a Mediterranean region of SW Spain (1950–1984). Landscape Ecol 7:3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apollonio M, Mattioli L, Scandura M, Mauri L, Gazzola A, Avanzinelli E (2004) Wolves in the Casentinesi Forests: insights for wolf conservation in Italy from a protected area with a rich wild prey community. Biol Conserv 120:249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aradis A (2003) Gli uccelli Pianificazione e reti ecologiche. In: Filpa A, Romano B (eds) Planeco-planning in ecological network. Gangemi Editore, Roma, pp 76–87Google Scholar
  4. Arita HT, Robinson JG, Redford KH (1990) Rarity in Neotropical forest mammals and its ecological correlates. Conserv Biol 4:181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baccetti N, Dall’Antonia P, Magagnali P, Melega L, Serra L, Soldatini C, Zenatello M (2002) Risultati dei censimenti degli uccelli acquatici svernanti in Italia: distribuzione stima e trend delle popolazioni nel 1991–2000. Biologia della Conservazione e Fauna 111:1–240Google Scholar
  6. Balletto E, Casale A (1991) Mediterranean insect conservation. In: Collins NM, Thomas JA (eds) The conservation of insects and their habitats. Academic Press, London, pp 121–142Google Scholar
  7. Balletto E, Bonelli S, Cassulo L (2005) Insecta Lepidoptera Papilionoidea (Rhopalocera). Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona (Scienze della Vita) 16:259–264Google Scholar
  8. Bergerot B, Lasne E, Vigneron T, Laffaille P (2008) Prioritization of fish assemblages with a view to conservation and restoration on a large scale European basin, the Loire (France). Biodiv Conserv 17:2247–2262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blair RB (1999) Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient: surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity? Ecol Appl 9:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blondel J, Aronson J (1999) Biology and wildlife of the Mediterranean region. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Ciucci P, Boitani L (2008) The Apennine brown bear: A critical review of its status and conservation problems. Ursus 19:130–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark JA, May RM (2002) Taxonomic bias in conservation research. Science 297:191–192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cook JA, MacDonald SO (2001) Should endemism be a focus of conservation efforts along the North Pacific coast of North America? Biol Conserv 97:207–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Corbet GB, Ovenden D (1985) Guida dei Mammiferi d’Europa. Franco Muzio and C, Editore, PadovaGoogle Scholar
  15. D’Alessandro C, Sala G, Zilli A (2008) Le farfalle diurne del Parco Nazionale d’Abruzzo Lazio e Molise (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea Papilionoidea). Bollettino dell’Associazione Romana di Entomologia 63:91–154Google Scholar
  16. Dapporto L, Dennis RLH (2008) Island size is not the only consideration. Raking priorities for the conservation of butterflies on Italian offshore islands. J Insect Conserv 12:237–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Debussche M, Lepart J, Dervieux A (1999) Mediterranean landscape changes: evidence from old postcards. Global Ecol Biogeogr 8:3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dennis RLH (2010) A resource-based habitat view for conservation. Butterflies in the British landscape. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  19. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H (2003) Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102:417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Di Marzio P, Riggio L (2003) Priority habitat types in Italy. In: Blasi C (ed) Ecological information in Italy. Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio and Società Botanica Italiana, Rome, pp 47–50Google Scholar
  21. Dobson FS, Yu J (1993) Rarity in Neotropical forest mammals revised. Conserv Biol 7:586–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Erhardt A (1985) Diurnal Lepidoptera: sensitive indicators of cultivated and abandoned grassland. J Appl Ecol 22:849–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Farina A (1991) Recent changes of the mosaic patterns in a montane landscape (North Italy) and consequences on vertebrate fauna. Option Méditerranéennes 15:121–134Google Scholar
  24. Farina A, Johnson AR, Turner SJ, Belgrano A (2003) ‘Full’ world versus ‘empty’ world paradigm at the time of globalization. Ecol Econ 45:11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fattorini S (2006) A new method to identify important conservation areas applied to the butterflies of the Aegean Islands (Greece). Anim Conserv 9:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fattorini S (2008a) A multidimensional characterization of rarity applied to the Aegean tenebrionid beetles (Coleoptera Tenebrionidae). J Insect Conserv 12:251–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fattorini S (2008b) Foreword. In: Fattorini S (ed) Insect ecology and conservation. Research Signpost, Kerala, pp i–viGoogle Scholar
  28. Fattorini S (2009) Assessing priority areas by imperilled species: insights from the European butterflies. Anim Conserv 12:313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fattorini S (2010) Use of insect rarity for biotope prioritisation: the tenebrionid beetles of the Central Apennines (Italy). J Insect Conserv 14:367–378Google Scholar
  30. Ferrer J (2009) Evaluatión crítica del libro “Revisión del género Phylan” y notas sobre las genitalia de Pedinini (Coleoptera Tenebrionidae). Boletín de la Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa 45:453–469Google Scholar
  31. Filippi E, Luiselli L (2000) Status of the Italian snake fauna and assessment of conservation threats. Biol Conserv 93:219–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Flather CH, Sieg CH (2007) Species rarity: definition causes and classification. In: Raphael MG, Molina R (eds) Conservation of rare or little-known species. Island Press, Washington, pp 40–66Google Scholar
  33. Fleishman E, Thomson JR, MacNally R, Murphy DD, Fay JP (2005) Using indicator species to predict species richness of multiple taxonomic groups. Conserv Biol 19:1125–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Garcia-Ruiz JM, Lasanta T, Ruiz-Flano P, Ortigosa L, White S, Gonzàles C, Martì C (1996) Land-use changes and sustainable development in mountain areas: a case study in the Spanish Pyrenees. Landscape Ecol 11:267–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grill A, Cleary DFR (2003) Diversity patterns in butterfly communities of the Greek nature reserve Dadia. Biol Conserv 114:427–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Groppali R, Fanfani A, Pavan M (1983) Aspetti della copertura forestale, della flora e della fauna nel paesaggio naturalistico dell’Italia meridionale e insulare. Collana verde 65. Ministero dell’Agricoltura e delle Foreste, RomeGoogle Scholar
  37. Hartley S, Kunin W (2003) Scale dependency of rarity extinction risk and conservation priority. Conserv Biol 17:1559–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heino J, Mykrä H (2008) Among-taxon congruence and species richness-environment relationships in stream insects: implications for conservation planning. In: Fattorini S (ed) Insect ecology and conservation. Research Signpost, Kerala, pp 29–46Google Scholar
  39. Higgins LG, Riley ND (1983) A field guide to the butterflies of Britain and Europe. Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Isaac NJB, Purvis A (2004) The species problem and testing macroevolutionary hypotheses. Divers Distrib 10:275–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. IUCN (1994) IUCN red list categories prepared by the IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  42. IUCN (2001) IUCN red list categories and criteria: Version 31 IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerlandand Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  43. IUCN (2003) Guidelines for application of IUCN red list criteria at regional levels: Version 3.0. IUCN Species Survival Commission, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  44. Kati V, Dufrêne M, Legakis A, Grill A, Lebrun P (2003) Conservation management for Orthoptera in the Dadia reserve, Greece. Biol Conserv 115:33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kati V, Devillers P, Dufrêne M, Legakis A, Vokou D, Lebrun P (2004) Testing the value of six taxonomic groups as biodiversity indicators at a local scale. Conserv Biol 18:667–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kattan G (1992) Rarity and vulnerability: the birds of the Cordillera Central of Colombia. Conserv Biol 6:64–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Koomen P, van Helsdingen PJ (1996) Listing of biotopes in Europe according to their significance for invertebrates. Nature and Environment no 77. Council of Europe Publishing, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  48. Larsen FW, Bladt J, Rahbek C (2007) Improving the performance of indicator groups for the identification of important areas for species conservation. Conserv Biol 21:731–740CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Lawler JJ, White D, Sifneos JC, Master LL (2003) Rare species and the use of indicator groups for conservation planning. Conserv Biol 17:875–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lyons KG, Brigham CA, Traut BH, Schwartz MW (2005) Rare species and ecosystem functioning. Conserv Biol 19:1019–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Manne LL, Pimm SL (2001) Beyond eight forms of rarity: which species are threatened and which will be next? Anim Conserv 4:221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McCreadie JW, Adler PH (2008) Spatial distribution of rare species in lotic habitats. Insect Conserv Divers 1:127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mills M, Schwartz MW (2005) Rare plants at the extremes of distribution: broadly and narrowly distributed rare species. Biol Conserv 14:1401–1420Google Scholar
  55. Ministry of the Environment and Protection of the Territory and Sea (2009) Portale Cartografico Nazionale. Available at http://wwwpcnminambienteit/PCN/ (last accessed 2 April 2009)
  56. Moran MD (2003) Arguments for rejecting the sequential Bonferroni in ecological studies. Oikos 100:403–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Moritz C, Richardson KS, Ferrier S, Monteith GB, Stanisic J, Williams SE, Whiffin T (2001) Biogeographical concordance and efficiency of taxon indicators for establishing conservation priority in a tropical rainforest biota. Proc R Soc Lond, Ser B: Biol Sci 268:1875–1881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Myers AA, De Grave S (2000) Endemism: origins and implications. Vie et Milieu 50:195–204Google Scholar
  59. New TR (1997) Are Lepidoptera an effective ‘umbrella group’ for biodiversity conservation? J Insect Conserv 1:5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. New TR (2008) Insect species conservation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ottaviani D, Panzacchi M, Jona Lasinio G, Genovesi P, Boitani L (2009) Modelling semi-aquatic vertebrates’ distribution at the drainage basin scale: the case of the otter Lutra lutra in Italy. Ecol Model 220:111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ottino P (2003) I mammiferi Pianificazione e reti ecologiche. In: Filpa A, Romano B (eds) Planeco-planning in ecological network. Gangemi Editore, Roma, pp 68–75Google Scholar
  63. Peterson R, Mountfort G, Hollom PAD (1988) Guida degli Uccelli d’Europa. Franco Muzio and C, Editore, PadovaGoogle Scholar
  64. Pharo EJ, Beattie AJ, Binns D (1999) Vascular plant diversity as surrogate for bryophite and lichen diversity. Conserv Biol 13:282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pignatti S, Menegoni P, Giacanelli V (2001) Liste rosse e blu della flora italiana. ANPA, RomaGoogle Scholar
  66. Piovesan G, Presutti Saba E, Biondi F, Alessandrini A, Di Filippo A, Schirone B (2009) Population ecology of yew (Taxus baccata L.) in the Central Apennines: spatial patterns and their relevance for conservation strategies. Plant Ecol 205:23–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Posillico M, Meriggi A, Pagnin E, Lovari S, Russo L (2004) A habitat model for brown bear conservation and land use planning in the central Apennines. Biol Conserv 118:141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Primack RB (2006) Essentials of conservation biology, 4th edn. Sinauer Associates Inc Publishers, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  69. Prola C, Provera P, Racheli T, Sbordoni V (1978) I Macrolepidotteri dell’Appennino Centrale, parte I Diurna Bombyces e Sphinges. Fragmenta Entomologica 14:1–217Google Scholar
  70. Rabinowitz DS (1981) Seven forms of rarity. In: Synge H (ed) The biological aspects of rare plant conservation. Wiley, Chichester, pp 205–217Google Scholar
  71. Rabinowitz D, Cairns S, Dillon T (1986) Seven forms of rarity and their frequency in the flora of the British Isles. In: Soulé ME (ed) Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, pp 182–204Google Scholar
  72. Ryder OA (1986) Species conservation and systematics: the dilemma of subspecies. Trends Ecol Evol 1:9–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Samways MJ (1994) Insect conservation biology. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  74. Samways MJ (2005) Insect diversity conservation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Santoul F, Figuerola J, Mastrorillo S, Cereghino R (2005) Patterns of rare fish and aquatic insects in a southwestern French river catchment in relation to simple physical variables. Ecography 28:307–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Scozzafava S, De Sanctis A (2006) Exploring the effects of land abandonment on habitat suitability for three passerine species in a highland area of Central Italy. Landscape Urban Plan 75:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Smiraglia C (2002) Le forme delle montagne italiane. In: Caveri L, Da Polenza A, Salvatori F, Smiraglia C (eds) Montagne d’Italia. Istituto Geografico De Agostani, Novara, pp 26–42Google Scholar
  78. Stanisci A, Pelino G, Blasi C (2005) Vascular plant diversity and climatic change in the alpine belt of the central Apennines (Italy). Biodiv Conserv 14:1301–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tellini-Florenzano G (2004) Birds as indicators of recent environmental changes in the Apennines (Foreste Casentinesi National Park, Central Italy). Italian J Zool 71:317–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. van Swaay CAM, Warren MS (1999) Red data book of European butterflies (Rhopalocera). Nature and Environment No 99. Council of Europe Publishing, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  81. Vessby K, Soderstrom B, Glimskar A, Svensson B (2002) Species-richness correlations of six different taxa in Swedish seminatural grasslands. Conserv Biol 16:430–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Vos W, Stortelder A (1992) Vanishing Tuscan land-scapes. Landscape ecology of a Submediterranean-Montane area (Solano Basin, Tuscany, Italy). Pudoc, WageningenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Water Ecology Team, Department of Biotechnology and BiosciencesUniversity of Milano BicoccaMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations