Silvia Ceausu's presentation during the Wilderness at the edge of survival in Europe symposium during the 3rd European Conference on Conservation Biology in Glasgow on August 2012. Silvia's conclusions included the following: wilderness insures protection of higher altitude areas and the ecosystem services produced here.
Landscape protection and nature conservationZoltan Kun
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Semelhante a The wilder the better in biodiversity conservation? Comparison of three biodiversity prioritization approaches in Peneda-Gerês National Park, Portugal
Semelhante a The wilder the better in biodiversity conservation? Comparison of three biodiversity prioritization approaches in Peneda-Gerês National Park, Portugal (20)
social pharmacy d-pharm 1st year by Pragati K. Mahajan
The wilder the better in biodiversity conservation? Comparison of three biodiversity prioritization approaches in Peneda-Gerês National Park, Portugal
1. The wilder the better in biodiversity
conservation? Comparison of three
biodiversity prioritization approaches
in Peneda-Gerês National Park,
Portugal
Silvia Ceaușu
Inês Gomes
Henrique Miguel Pereira
Centro de Biologia Ambiental, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa
3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
1/9/2012
Glasgow 2012
2. Need for prioritizing
(Butchart 2010)
Biodiversity loss
3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
1/9/2012
Glasgow 2012
3. Proactive vs Reactive approaches
Proactive Reactive
High- Biodiversity
biodiversity hotspots
Irreplaceability
wilderness
areas
Last of the Crisis
Approaches prioritizing high vulnerability
wild ecoregions
Vulnerability
Approaches prioritizing low vulnerability
(after Brooks et al. 2006)
3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
1/9/2012
Glasgow 2012
4. Scope and study area
Species, wilderness and ecosystem services (ES) implications of
different prioritization approaches at local scale
Peneda-Gerês National Park (PNPG) -
~67000 ha
~9000 inhabitants
High rate of farmland abandonment
N
MelgaÁo
3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology de Valdevez
Arcos LEGENDA
1/9/2012
Glasgow 2012
5. Prioritizing parameters
Hotspots Complementarity - Marxan
Planning units = 233 grid cells
(2kmx2km)
Conservation features = 177 species
Species richness
Rarity = 1/no of grid cells
Vulnerability score – Red Book of
the Vertebrates of Portugal
Wilderness N
Human settlements: 1
Power grid: ¼
Dams: ¼
Roads: 1
Trails: ¼
3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
1/9/2012
LEGENDA
Glasgow 2012 Aglomerados Urbanos
6. Assessment
Overall species coverage (144 birds+20 amphibians+13
reptiles)
Coverage of mega-fauna (wolves+wild goats+birds of
prey)
Wilderness coverage
Ecosystem services (ES)
3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
1/9/2012
Glasgow 2012
7. Prioritization maps
ρ=0.79 ρ=-0.19
Hotspots p<2.2e-16 Complementarity p<0.005
Wilderness
ρ=-0.13
p<0.05
3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
1/9/2012
Glasgow 2012
8. Species coverage
Birds+Amphibians+Reptiles
Total number of species
150
Number of species
100
50
Proactive - Wilderness
Reactive - Hotspots
Reactive - Complementarity
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage of area
Complementarity – 27%
Hotspots – 44%
Wilderness – 72%
3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
1/9/2012
Glasgow 2012
9. Species coverage - mega-fauna
Wolves+Wild goats+Birds of prey
Coverage of important areas for megafauna
1.0
Percentage of area important for megafauna
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Proactive - Wilderness
Reactive - Hotspots
0.0
Reactive - Complementarity
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Percentage of area
3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
1/9/2012
Glasgow 2012
10. Wilderness coverage
Wilderness score
Total wilderness score
1.0
0.8
Wilderness score percentage
0.6
0.4
0.2
Proactive - Wilderness
Reactive - Hotspots
0.0
Reactive - Complementarity
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Percentage of area
3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
1/9/2012
Glasgow 2012
11. ES – Landslide protection
Areas important for landslide protection (slope>30°)
Hotspots Complementarity Wilderness
26.52% 33.34% 38.72%
3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
1/9/2012
Glasgow 2012
12. ES-Water spring protection
Areas important water spring protection
Hotspots Complementarity Wilderness
37.7% 33.63% 51.34%
3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
1/9/2012
Glasgow 2012
13. ES-Soil infiltration
Areas important for soil infiltration
Hotspots Complementarity Wilderness
64.35% 50.31% 39.95%
3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
1/9/2012
Glasgow 2012
14. Discussion
Species richness and irreplaceability show high positive correlation which
contrasts with the results found at regional level (Rey Benayas and de la
Montana 2003, Diniz-Filho et al., 2006)
Complementarity has highest overall species coverage performance
(Kati et al. 2004).
Wilderness covers better the important areas for megafauna (Navarro
and Pereira, 2012)
Wilderness insures protection of higher altitude areas and the ES
produced here.
Consequences of conservation at the level of ecosystem services (Chan
et al. 2006).
In the wilderness approach we have a direct relation between
management actions and the indicator of what we want to protect
3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
1/9/2012
Glasgow 2012
15. Thank you!
Questions?
silvia.ceausu@mespom.eu
Acknowledgments:
MoBiA project (PTDC/AAC-
AMB/114522/2009)
AbaFoBio project (PTDC/AMB/73901/2006)
Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia
Brooks, T. M, R. A Mittermeier, G. A.B da Fonseca, J. Gerlach, M. Hoffmann, J. F. Lamoreux, C. G Mittermeier, J. D Pilgrim, and A. S.L
Rodrigues. “Global Biodiversity Conservation Priorities.” Science 313, no. 5783 (2006): 58.
Butchart, S. H.M, M. Walpole, B. Collen, A. Van Strien, J. P.W Scharlemann, R. E.A Almond, J. E.M Baillie, et al. “Global Biodiversity: Indicators
of Recent Declines.” Science 328, no. 5982 (2010): 1164.
Chan, K. M.A, M. R Shaw, D. R Cameron, E. C Underwood, and G. C Daily. “Conservation Planning for Ecosystem Services.” PLoS Biology 4,
no. 11 (2006): e379.
Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., L. M. Bini, M. P. Pinto, T. F. L. V. Chan, K. M.A, M. R Shaw, D. R Cameron, E. C Underwood, and G. C Daily. “Conservation
Planning for Ecosystem Services.” PLoS Biology 4, no. 11 (2006): e379.
B. Rangel, P. Carvalho, and R. P. Bastos. “Anuran Species Richness, Complementarity and Conservation Conflicts in Brazilian Cerrado.”
Acta Oecologica 29, no. 1 (2006): 9–15.
Kati, V., P. Devillers, M. Dufrene, A. Legakis, D. Vokou, and P. Lebrun. “Hotspots, Complementarity or Representativeness? Designing Optimal
Small-scale Reserves for Biodiversity Conservation.” Biological Conservation 120, no. 4 (2004): 471–480.
Navarro, Laetitia, and Henrique Pereira. “Rewilding Abandoned Landscapes in Europe.” Ecosystems 15, no. 6 (2012): 900–912.
Rey Benayas, J. M, and E. de la Montana. “Identifying Areas of High-value Vertebrate Diversity for Strengthening Conservation.” Biological
Conservation 114, no. 3 (2003): 357–370.
3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
1/9/2012
Glasgow 2012
Notas do Editor
We calledmegafauna the biggest taxa found on the territory of PNPG and for which we had data.