The wilder the better in biodiversityconservation? Comparison of threebiodiversity prioritization approachesin Peneda-Gerê...
Need for prioritizing        (Butchart 2010)                      Biodiversity loss 3rd European Congress of Conservation ...
Proactive vs Reactive approaches                      Proactive          Reactive                      High-            Bi...
Scope and study area  Species, wilderness and ecosystem services (ES) implications of         different prioritization app...
Prioritizing parametersHotspots                                                                                   Compleme...
Assessment Overall species coverage (144 birds+20 amphibians+13  reptiles) Coverage of mega-fauna (wolves+wild goats+bir...
Prioritization maps                ρ=0.79                                     ρ=-0.19Hotspots       p<2.2e-16            C...
Species coverage                                         Birds+Amphibians+Reptiles                                        ...
Species coverage - mega-fauna                                                              Wolves+Wild goats+Birds of prey...
Wilderness coverage                                                            Wilderness score                           ...
ES – Landslide protectionAreas important for landslide protection (slope>30°)  Hotspots                                  C...
ES-Water spring protectionAreas important water spring protection  Hotspots                                  Complementari...
ES-Soil infiltrationAreas important for soil infiltration  Hotspots                                   Complementarity    W...
Discussion Species richness and irreplaceability show high positive correlation which  contrasts with the results found a...
Thank you!                    Questions?               silvia.ceausu@mespom.eu Acknowledgments: MoBiA project (PTDC/AAC- A...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

The wilder the better in biodiversity conservation? Comparison of three biodiversity prioritization approaches in Peneda-Gerês National Park, Portugal

704 views

Published on

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.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
704
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
82
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • We calledmegafauna the biggest taxa found on the territory of PNPG and for which we had data.
  • The wilder the better in biodiversity conservation? Comparison of three biodiversity prioritization approaches in Peneda-Gerês National Park, Portugal

    1. 1. The wilder the better in biodiversityconservation? Comparison of threebiodiversity prioritization approachesin 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. 2. Need for prioritizing (Butchart 2010) Biodiversity loss 3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology 1/9/2012 Glasgow 2012
    3. 3. Proactive vs Reactive approaches Proactive Reactive High- Biodiversity biodiversity hotspotsIrreplaceability 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. 4. Scope and study area Species, wilderness and ecosystem services (ES) implications of different prioritization approaches at local scalePeneda-Gerês National Park (PNPG) -~67000 ha~9000 inhabitantsHigh rate of farmland abandonment N MelgaÁo 3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology de Valdevez Arcos LEGENDA 1/9/2012 Glasgow 2012
    5. 5. Prioritizing parametersHotspots 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 PortugalWilderness 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. 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. 7. Prioritization maps ρ=0.79 ρ=-0.19Hotspots 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. 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. 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 area3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology 1/9/2012 Glasgow 2012
    10. 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 area3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology 1/9/2012 Glasgow 2012
    11. 11. ES – Landslide protectionAreas 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. 12. ES-Water spring protectionAreas 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. 13. ES-Soil infiltrationAreas 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. 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. 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 TecnologiaBrooks, 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.LRodrigues. “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: Indicatorsof 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. “ConservationPlanning 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 OptimalSmall-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.” BiologicalConservation 114, no. 3 (2003): 357–370. 3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology 1/9/2012 Glasgow 2012

    ×