Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying priority sites for the conservation of freshwater fish biodiversity in a Mediterranean basin with a high degree of threatened endemics

  • Primary research paper
  • Published:
Hydrobiologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Guadiana River basin’s freshwater fish species richness, endemicity and threatened status (92% of native species are threatened) highlight the need for a large-scale study to identify priority areas for their conservation. One of the most common problems in conservation planning is the assessment of a site’s relative value for the conservation of regional biodiversity. Here we used a two-tiered approach, which integrates an assessment of biodiversity loss and the evaluation of conservation value through site-specific measures. These measures based on the reference condition approach introduce the ability to make objective comparisons throughout the Guadiana River basin, thus avoiding a priori target areas. We identified a set of biodiversity priority areas of special conservation significance—which contain rare taxa as well as intact fish communities—because of their outstanding contribution to the basin’s biodiversity. The inclusion of complete sub-basins in these priority areas might guarantee an optimal solution in terms of spatial aggregation and connectivity. However, the high spatial fragmentation to which the Guadiana River basin is submitted due to river regulation highlights the necessity of a systematic approach to evaluate the capability of the identified priority areas to maintain the Guadiana’s freshwater fish biodiversity.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abell, R., 2002. Conservation biology for the biodiversity crisis: a freshwater follow-up. Conservation Biology 16: 1435–1437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allan, J. D. & A. S. Flecker, 1993. Biodiversity conservation in running waters. Identifying the major factors that threaten destruction of riverine species and ecosystems. BioScience 43: 32–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angermeier, P. L., 2000. The natural imperative for biological conservation. Conservation Biology 14: 373–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clavero, M., F. Blanco-Garrido & J. Prenda, 2004. Fish Fauna in Iberian Mediterranean basins: biodiversity, introduced species and damming impacts. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14: 575–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collares-Pereira, M. J. & I. G. Cowx, 2004. The role of catchment scale environmental management in freshwater fish conservation. Fisheries Management and Ecology 11: 303–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowling, R. M., R. L. Pressey, M. Rouget & A. T. Lombard, 2003. A conservation plan for a global biodiversity hotspot—the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Biological Conservation 112: 191–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwall, W. R. T. & J.-C. Vié, 2005. Identifying important sites for conservation of freshwater biodiversity: extending the species-based approach. Fisheries Management and Ecology 12: 287–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doadrio, I., 1988. Delimitation of areas in the Iberian Peninsula on the basis of freshwater fishes. Booner Zoolische Beiträge 39: 113–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doadrio, I. (ed.), 2002. Atlas y Libro rojo de los peces continentales de España. Dirección General de Conservación de la Naturaleza, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Segunda Ed.

  • Eken, G., L. Bennun, T. M. Brooks, W. Darwall, L. D. C. Fishpool, M. Foster, D. Knox, P. Langhammer, P. Matiku, E. Radford, P. Salaman, W. Sechrest, M. L. Smith, S. Spector & A. Tordoff, 2004. Key biodiversity areas as site conservation targets. BioScience 54: 1110–1118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elith, J., C. H. Graham, R. P. Anderson, M. Didík, S. Ferrier, A. Guisan, R. J. Hijmans, F. Huettmann, R. J. Leathwick, J. Li, L. G. Lohmann, B. A. Loiselle, G. Manion, C. Moritz, M. Nakamura, Y. Nakazawa, J. Mc. C. Overton, A. T. Peterson, S. J. Phillips, K. Richardson, R. Scachetti-Pereira, R. E. Schapire, J. Soberón, S. Williams, M. S. Wisz & N. E. Zimmermann, 2006. Novel methods improve predictions of species distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29: 129–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fielding, A. H. & J. F. Bell, 1997. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environmental Conservation 24: 38–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filipe, A. F., T. A. Marques, S. Seabra, P. Tiago, F. Ribeiro, L. Moreira Da Costa, I. G. Cowx & M. J. Collares-Pereira, 2004. Selection of priority areas for fish conservation in Guadiana River Basin, Iberian Peninsula. Conservation Biology 18: 189–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasith, A. & V. H. Resh, 1999. Streams in Mediterranean climate regions: abiotic influences and biotic responses to predictable seasonal events. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: 51–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, D. W. Jr. & S. Lemeshow, 1989. Applied Logistic Regression. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jolliffe, T., 1986. Principal Component Analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York.

  • Kennard, M. J., B. D. Harch, B. J. Pusey & A. H. Arthington, 2006. Accurately defining the reference condition for summary biotic metrics: a comparison of four approaches. Hydrobiologia 572: 151–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, R. L., 1999. Private lands: the neglected geography. Conservation Biology 13: 223–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, A. T., R. J. Smith, R. M. Cowling, P. G. Desmet, D. P. Faith, S. Ferrier, C. M. Gelderblom, H. Grantham, A. T. Lombard, K. Maze, J. L. Nel, J. D. Parrish, G. Q. K. Pence, H. P. Possingham, B. Reyers, M. Ruoget, D. Roux & K. A. Wilson, 2007. Improving the key biodiversity areas approach for effective conservation planning. Bioscience 57: 256–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koster, W. M. & D. A. Crook, 2008. Diurnal and nocturnal movements of river blackfish (Gadopsis marmoratus) in a south-eastern Australian upland stream. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 17: 146–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindermayer, D. B., C. R. Margules & D. B. Botkin, 2000. Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conservation Biology 4: 941–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linke, S. & R. H. Norris, 2003. Biodiversity: bridging the gap between condition and conservation. Hydrobiologia 500: 203–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linke, S., R. H. Norris, D. P. Faith & D. Stockwell, 2005. ANNA: a new prediction method for bioassessment programs. Freshwater Biology 50: 147–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linke, S., R. L. Pressey, R. C. Bailey & R. H. Norris, 2007. Management options for river conservation planning: condition and conservation re-visited. Freshwater Biology 52: 918–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magalhães, M. F., D. C. Batalha & M. J. Collares-Pereira, 2002. Gradients in stream fish assemblages across a Mediterranean landscape: contributions of environmental factors and spatial structure. Freshwater Biology 47: 1015–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malmqvist, B. & S. R. Rundle, 2002. Threats to the running water ecosystems of the world. Environmental Conservation 29: 134–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manel, S., H. C. Williams & S. J. Ormerod, 2001. Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence. Journal of Applied Ecology 38: 921–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margules, C. R. & R. L. Pressey, 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405: 243–253.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Margules, C. R., R. L. Pressey & P. H. Williams, 2002. Representing biodiversity: data and procedures for identifying priority areas for conservation. Journal of Bioscience 27: 309–326.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, W. J. & J. T. Styron, 1982. Tolerance of headwaters vs mainstream fishes for abrupt physicochemical changes. American Midland Naturalist 105: 149–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meffe, G. K., 2002. Connecting science to management and policy in freshwater fish conservation. In Collares-Pereira, M. J., I. G. Cowx & M. M. Coelho (eds), Conservation of Freshwater Fishes: Options for the Future. Fishing New Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK: 186–197.

  • Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, 2005. Análisis de las características de las demarcaciones. Caracterización de los tipos de ríos y lagos, June 2005.

  • Mugodo, J., M. Kennard, P. Liston, S. Nichols, S. Linke, R. Norris & M. Lintermans, 2006. Local stream habitat variables predicted from catchment scale characteristics are useful for predicting fish distribution. Hydrobiologia 572: 59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munne, A., N. Prat, C. Sola, N. Bonada & M. Rieradevall, 2003. A simple field method for assessing the ecological quality of riparian habitat in rivers and streams: QBR index. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 13: 147–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ninyerola, M., X. Pons & J. M. Roure, 2005. Atlas Climático Digital de la Península Ibérica. Metodología y aplicaciones en bioclimatología y geobotánica. Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra. ISBN 932860-8-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberdorff, T., D. Pont, B. Hugueny & D. Chessel, 2001. A probabilistic model characterizing fish assemblages of French rivers: a framework for environmental assessment. Freshwater Biology 46: 399–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pont, D., B. Hugueny, N. Roset, & C. Rogers, 2004. Analysing Reference Conditions and Assessing degraded Conditions. WP6-WP7, in Development, Evaluation & Implementation of a Standardised Fish-Based Assessment Method for the Ecological Status of European Rivers—A Contribution to the Water Framework Directive (FAME). Available at http://fame.boku.ac.at.

  • Possingham, H. P., I. R. Ball & S. Andelman, 2000. Mathematical methods for identifying representative reserve networks. In Ferson, S. & M. Burgman (eds), Quantitative Methods for Conservation Biology. Springer-Verlag, New York: 291–305.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Prenda, J., M. Clavero, F. Blanco-Garrido, A. Menor & V. Hermoso, 2006. Threats to the conservation to of biotic integrity in Iberian fluvial ecosystems. Linmnetica 25: 377–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressey, R. L., 1994. Ad hoc reservations: forward or barckward steps in developing representative reserve systems? Conservation Biology 8: 662–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Revenga, C. & G. Mock, 2000. Freshwater biodiversity in crisis. Earth Trends World Resources Institute: 1–4. (http://earthtrends.wri.org).

  • Reynoldson, T. B., R. H. Norris, V. H. Resh, K. E. Day & D. M. Rosenberg, 1997. The reference condition: a comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16: 833–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Root, K. V., H. R. Akçacaya & L. Ginzburg, 2003. A multispecies approach to ecological evaluation and Conservation. Conservation Biology 17: 196–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. T., W. J. Matthews & A. A. Echelle, 1985. Persistence of stream fish assemblages—effects of environmental change. American Naturalist 126: 24–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, D. L., J. J. Meeuwing & C. J. Vincent, 2002. Freshwater protected areas: strategies for conservation. Conservation Biology 16: 30–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser, I. J., 1995. Critical landscape attributes that influence fish population dynamics in headwater streams. Hydrobiologia 303: 71–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. C. & R. H. Norris, 2000. Biological assessment of river quality: development of AUSRIVAS models and outputs. In Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters; RIVPACS and Other Techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, Cumbria, UK: 125–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. G. & W. R. T. Darwall (eds), 2006. The Status and Distribution of Freshwater Fish Endemic to the Mediterranean Basin. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: v+34 pp.

  • Swets, J. A., 1988. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240: 1285–1293.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Van Sickle, J., C. P. Hawkins, D. P. Larsen & A. T. Herlihy, 2005. A null model for the expected macroinvertebrate assemblage in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24: 178–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell & C. E. Cushing, 1980. River continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Sciences 37: 130–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J. F., 1995. Development and use of a system for predicting the macroinvertebrate fauna in flowing waters. Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 181–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was financed by the Confederación Hidrográfica del Guadiana through the project “Diseño y Explotación de la Red de Control Biológico de la Cuenca del Río Guadiana”. The authors especially thank Angel Nieva for the help he gave with bureaucracy. We also thank Gemma Urrea, David Saez, Ana García, Mariel Viñals, Enric Aparicio, Eli Fernández, Pau Torrents, Xavier Juliá and the rest of URS staff for their hard work in the countryside and all those good moments they gave us. Virgilio Hermoso holds a pre-doctoral fellowship financed by the Spanish Ministry of Education (AP-2004-1414). Simon Linke’s postdoctoral fellowship is funded by the eWater CRC.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Biología Ambiental y Salud Pública, Universidad de Huelva, Avda. Andalucía s/n, 21071, Huelva, Spain

    V. Hermoso & J. Prenda

  2. The Ecology Centre, School of Integrative Biology, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia

    S. Linke

Authors
  1. V. Hermoso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Linke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Prenda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. Hermoso.

Additional information

Handling editor: R. H. Norris

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hermoso, V., Linke, S. & Prenda, J. Identifying priority sites for the conservation of freshwater fish biodiversity in a Mediterranean basin with a high degree of threatened endemics. Hydrobiologia 623, 127–140 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-008-9653-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-008-9653-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation