On how much biodiversity is covered in Europe by national protected areas and by the Natura 2000 network: insights from terrestrial vertebrates.

The European Union has made extensive biodiversity conservation efforts with the Habitats and Birds Directives and with the establishment of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas, one of the largest networks of conservation areas worldwide. We performed a gap analysis of the entire Natura 2000 system plus national protected areas and all terrestrial vertebrates (freshwater fish excluded). We also evaluated the level of connectivity of both systems, providing therefore a first estimate of the functionality of the Natura 2000 system as an effective network of protected areas. Together national protected areas and the Natura 2000 network covered more than one-third of the European Union. National protected areas did not offer protection to 13 total gap species (i.e., species not covered by any protected area) or to almost 300 partial gap species (i.e., species whose representation target is not met). Together the Natura 2000 network and national protected areas left 1 total gap species and 121 partial gap species unprotected. The terrestrial vertebrates listed in the Habitats and Birds Directives were relatively well covered (especially birds), and overall connectivity was improved considerably by Natura 2000 sites that act as stepping stones between national protected areas. Overall, we found that the Natura 2000 network represents at continental level an important network of protected areas that acts as a good complement to existing national protected areas. However, a number of problems remain that are mainly linked to the criteria used to list the species in the Habitats and Birds Directives. The European Commission initiated in 2014 a process aimed at assessing the importance of the Birds and Habitats Directives for biodiversity conservation. Our results contribute to this assessment and suggest the system is largely effective for terrestrial vertebrates but would benefit from further updating of the species lists and field management.

Cuánta Biodiversidad Europea es Tomada en Cuenta por las Áreas Protegidas Nacionales y cuánta por la Red Natura 2000: Percepciones de los Vertebrados Terrestres Resumen La Unión Europea ha hecho esfuerzos extensos de conservación de la biodiversidad con las Directivas de Hábitat y de Aves y con la creación de la red de áreas protegidas Natura 2000, una de las redes más grandes de áreas de conservación a nivel mundial. Realizamos un análisis de falta de datos en todo el sistema Natura 2000 más las áreas protegidas nacionales y todos los vertebrados terrestres (excluimos a los peces de agua dulce). También evaluamos el nivel de conectividad de ambos sistemas, proporcionando así un primer estimado de la funcionalidad del sistema Natura 2000 como una red efectiva de áreas protegidas. La red Natura 2000, junto con las áreas protegidas nacionales, cubrió más de un tercio de la Unión Europea. Las áreas protegidas nacionales no ofrecieron protección para un total de 13 especies del vacío (es decir, las especies que no abarcaron ninguna área protegida) o para casi 300 especies parciales del vacío (es decir, especies cuyo objetivo de representación no es alcanzado). La red Natura 2000, junto con las áreas protegidas nacionales, dejó un total de una especie del vacío y 121 especies parciales del vacío sin protección. Los vertebrados terrestres enlistados en las Directivas de Hábitat y de Aves fueron tomados en cuenta relativamente bien (especialmente las aves), y la conectividad general mejoró considerablemente por los sitios Natura 2000, los cuales funcionan como peldaño entre las áreas protegidas nacionales. En general, encontramos que la red Natura 2000 es, a nivel continental, una red importante de áreas protegidas que actúa como un buen complemento para las áreas protegidas nacionales existentes. Sin embargo, todavía permanece un número de problemas que están conectados principalmente con la lista de especies en las Directivas de Hábitat y de Aves. La Comisión Europea inició en 2014 un proceso enfocado a la importancia de estas directivas para la conservación de la biodiversidad. Nuestros resultados contribuyen a esta evaluación y sugieren que el sistema es generalmente efectivo para los vertebrados terrestres pero que se beneficiaría de una mayor actualización de las listas de especies y del manejo en el campo.

A retrospective evaluation of the global decline of carnivores and ungulates.

Assessing temporal changes in species extinction risk is necessary for measuring conservation success or failure and for directing conservation resources toward species or regions that would benefit most. Yet, there is no long-term picture of genuine change that allows one to associate species extinction risk trends with drivers of change or conservation actions. Through a review of 40 years of IUCN-related literature sources on species conservation status (e.g., action plans, red-data books), we assigned retrospective red-list categories to the world's carnivores and ungulates (2 groups with relatively long generation times) to examine how their extinction risk has changed since the 1970s. We then aggregated species' categories to calculate a global trend in their extinction risk over time. A decline in the conservation status of carnivores and ungulates was underway 40 years ago and has since accelerated. One quarter of all species (n = 498) moved one or more categories closer to extinction globally, while almost half of the species moved closer to extinction in Southeast Asia. The conservation status of some species improved (toward less threatened categories), but for each species that improved in status 8 deteriorated. The status of large-bodied species, particularly those above 100 kg (including many iconic taxa), deteriorated significantly more than small-bodied species (below 10 kg). The trends we found are likely related to geopolitical events (such as the collapse of Soviet Union), international regulations (such as CITES), shifting cultural values, and natural resource exploitation (e.g., in Southeast Asia). Retrospective assessments of global species extinction risk reduce the risk of a shifting baseline syndrome, which can affect decisions on the desirable conservation status of species. Such assessments can help conservationists identify which conservation policies and strategies are or are not helping safeguard biodiversity and thus can improve future strategies.

Conserving biodiversity in production landscapes.

Alternative land uses make different contributions to the conservation of biodiversity and have different implementation and management costs. Conservation planning analyses to date have generally assumed that land is either protected or unprotected, and that the unprotected portion does not contribute to conservation goals. We develop and apply a new planning approach that explicitly accounts for the contribution of a diverse range of land uses to achieving conservation goals. Using East Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo) as a case study, we prioritize investments in alternative conservation strategies and account for the relative contribution of land uses ranging from production forest to well-managed protected areas. We employ data on the distribution of mammals and assign species-specific conservation targets to achieve equitable protection by accounting for life history characteristics and home range sizes. The relative sensitivity of each species to forest degradation determines the contribution of each land use to achieving targets. We compare the cost effectiveness of our approach to a plan that considers only the contribution of protected areas to biodiversity conservation, and to a plan that assumes that the cost of conservation is represented by only the opportunity costs of conservation to the timber industry. Our preliminary results will require further development and substantial stakeholder engagement prior to implementation; nonetheless we reveal that, by accounting for the contribution of unprotected land, we can obtain more refined estimates of the costs of conservation. Using traditional planning approaches would overestimate the cost of achieving the conservation targets by an order of magnitude. Our approach reveals not only where to invest, but which strategies to invest in, in order to effectively and efficiently conserve biodiversity.

Noninvasive molecular tracking of colonizing wolf (Canis lupus) packs in the western Italian Alps.

We used noninvasive methods to obtain genetic and demographic data on the wolf packs (Canis lupus), which are now recolonizing the Alps, a century after their eradication. DNA samples, extracted from presumed wolf scats collected in the western Italian Alps (Piemonte), were genotyped to determine species and sex by sequencing parts of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control-region and ZFX/ZFY genes. Individual genotypes were identified by multilocus microsatellite analyses using a multiple tubes polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The performance of the laboratory protocols was affected by the age of samples. The quality of excremental DNA extracts was higher in samples freshly collected on snow in winter than in samples that were older or collected during summer. Preliminary mtDNA screening of all samples allowed species identification and was a good predictor of further PCR performances. Wolf, and not prey, DNA targets were preferentially amplified. Allelic dropout occurred more frequently than false alleles, but the probability of false homozygote determinations was always < 0.001. A panel of six to nine microsatellites would allow identification of individual wolf genotypes, also whether related, with a probability of identity of < 0.015. Genealogical relationships among individuals could be determined reliably if the number of candidate parents was 6-8, and most of them had been sampled and correctly genotyped. Genetic data indicate that colonizing Alpine wolves originate exclusively from the Italian source population and retain a high proportion of its genetic diversity. Spatial and temporal locations of individual genotypes, and kinship analyses, suggest that two distinct packs of closely related wolves, plus some unrelated individuals, ranged in the study areas. This is in agreement with field observations.