Suchergebnisse

Knowledge of species geographic distribution is of a critical value in conservation biology as it reflects the distribution of its realized ecological niche - the habitat preferences and requirements for survival. In this study we modelled the distribution of Eurasian Pygmy Owl in Latvia to set conservation priorities and evaluate the effectiveness of existing specially protected area (SPA) network for this species. We used MaxEnt to analyse the countrywide species distribution over a set of 34 ecologically meaningful factors describing different landscape and habitat classes, forest types, ages, dominant tree species as well as time since forestry disturbances etc. Analysis was conducted at 25 ha cell resolution using within-cell statistics as well as various landscape statistics of 490 ha and 1960 ha surroundings. The resulting habitat suitability map was used as input for zonation to set conservation priorities and to evaluate the importance of existing SPA network. The most important negative contributing factor in the model was the amount of agricultural lands while forests of at least five-meter height and the total area of old-growth conifer and mixed forests in 490 ha surroundings were positive. Spruce was the preferred tree species, and the age of the oldest forest patch within the analysis cell was a better predictor than the average forest age. Time since the last forestry disturbance was an important contributing factor as well. Our findings of landscape features in 490 ha and up to 1960 ha surroundings are consistent with previous knowledge of species breeding territory size1 and highlight the importance of 80-490 ha protection zone for territory. According to zonation analysis, priority 2% of the land territory hold 10% of the assumed population, 10% of the land hold 38% of the assumed population and 25% of the land hold 70% of the assumed population. A third of the assumed population is located in just 8% of the land territory, and by protection of this, the species extinction risk is estimated at 24%. From these most important sites, 23% may be considered as protected (9% by full forestry restrictions and 14% by partial, but possibly effective restrictions), 15% are protected with mostly seasonal forestry restrictions and 62% have no legal protection. In total, specially protected areas currently hold 17% of the assumed species population. We prove Eurasian Pygmy Owl to be an old growth forest specialist and conclude, that the specific conservation sites (micro-reserves) for this species should be established at larger areas than the current national legislation allows, and that Natura 2000 site network alone is not sufficient for protection of this species. 1. Strom, H. & Sonerud, G. A. Home range and habitat selection in the Pygmy Owl Glaucidium passerinum. Ornis Fennica 78, 145–158 (2001). ; peerReviewed

A large proportion of European biodiversity today depends on habitat provided by low-intensity farming practices, yet this resource is declining as European agriculture intensifies. Within the European Union, particularly the central and eastern new member states have retained relatively large areas of species-rich farmland, but despite increased investment in nature conservation here in recent years, farmland biodiversity trends appear to be worsening. Although the high biodiversity value of Central and Eastern European farmland has long been reported, the amount of research in the international literature focused on farmland biodiversity in this region remains comparatively tiny, and measures within the EU Common Agricultural Policy are relatively poorly adapted to support it. In this opinion study, we argue that, 10 years after the accession of the first eastern EU new member states, the continued under-representation of the low-intensity farmland in Central and Eastern Europe in the international literature and EU policy is impeding the development of sound, evidence-based conservation interventions. The biodiversity benefits for Europe of existing low-intensity farmland, particularly in the central and eastern states, should be harnessed before they are lost. Instead of waiting for species-rich farmland to further decline, targeted research and monitoring to create locally appropriate conservation strategies for these habitats is needed now.

A large proportion of European biodiversity today depends on habitat provided by low-intensity farming practices, yet this resource is declining as European agriculture intensifies. Within the European Union, particularly the central and eastern new member states have retained relatively large areas of species-rich farmland, but despite increased investment in nature conservation here in recent years, farmland biodiversity trends appear to be worsening. Although the high biodiversity value of Central and Eastern European farmland has long been reported, the amount of research in the international literature focused on farmland biodiversity in this region remains comparatively tiny, and measures within the EU Common Agricultural Policy are relatively poorly adapted to support it. In this opinion study, we argue that, 10 years after the accession of the first eastern EU new member states, the continued under-representation of the low-intensity farmland in Central and Eastern Europe in the international literature and EU policy is impeding the development of sound, evidence-based conservation interventions. The biodiversity benefits for Europe of existing low-intensity farmland, particularly in the central and eastern states, should be harnessed before they are lost. Instead of waiting for species-rich farmland to further decline, targeted research and monitoring to create locally appropriate conservation strategies for these habitats is needed now.

A large proportion of European biodiversity today depends on habitat provided by low-intensity farming practices, yet this resource is declining as European agriculture intensifies. Within the European Union, particularly the central and eastern new member states have retained relatively large areas of species-rich farmland, but despite increased investment in nature conservation here in recent years, farmland biodiversity trends appear to be worsening. Although the high biodiversity value of Central and Eastern European farmland has long been reported, the amount of research in the international literature focused on farmland biodiversity in this region remains comparatively tiny, and measures within the EU Common Agricultural Policy are relatively poorly adapted to support it. In this opinion study, we argue that, 10years after the accession of the first eastern EU new member states, the continued under-representation of the low-intensity farmland in Central and Eastern Europe in the international literature and EU policy is impeding the development of sound, evidence-based conservation interventions. The biodiversity benefits for Europe of existing low-intensity farmland, particularly in the central and eastern states, should be harnessed before they are lost. Instead of waiting for species-rich farmland to further decline, targeted research and monitoring to create locally appropriate conservation strategies for these habitats is needed now. ; Peer reviewed

A large proportion of European biodiversity today depends on habitat provided by low-intensity farming practices, yet this resource is declining as European agriculture intensifies. Within the European Union, particularly the central and eastern new member states have retained relatively large areas of species-rich farmland, but despite increased investment in nature conservation here in recent years, farmland biodiversity trends appear to be worsening. Although the high biodiversity value of Central and Eastern European farmland has long been reported, the amount of research in the international literature focused on farmland biodiversity in this region remains comparatively tiny, and measures within the EU Common Agricultural Policy are relatively poorly adapted to support it. In this opinion study, we argue that, 10 years after the accession of the first eastern EU new member states, the continued under-representation of the low-intensity farmland in Central and Eastern Europe in the international literature and EU policy is impeding the development of sound, evidence-based conservation interventions. The biodiversity benefits for Europe of existing low-intensity farmland, particularly in the central and eastern states, should be harnessed before they are lost. Instead of waiting for species-rich farmland to further decline, targeted research and monitoring to create locally appropriate conservation strategies for these habitats is needed now. ; peerReviewed