From Glasgow to Sumava - SCB-ES activities in 2012

The Section had a very busy year in 2012. We organized the ECCB2012, co-organized the GSS2012, published and submitted resolutions on Sumava National Park (in addition to media-reported visits at the site)  and grassland conservation. The roadless initiative went global in collaboration with the Google. The blog thematic series on wood-pastures and European conservation hot issues were a real highlight of the year. European chapters were formed with more to follow.

For more details see the 2012 annual report, which is available online here.

Land abandonment and the decline of the Yellow-bellied toad in Liguria, northern Italy

Across Europe, centuries of interactions between low-intensity human activities, such as extensive small-scale farming, and the surrounding environment have created what we now call “cultural landscapes”, which provide important ecosystem services and often support a rich biodiversity. However, since the second half of the 20^th century several countries have witnessed large-scale social changes that have led to modifications in these landscape dynamics. There is growing evidence that this can also entail an impact to biodiversity, as the intermediate disturbance that can benefit species is lost or replaced by more disruptive activities (such as intensive vs. extensive farming: MacDonald 2000).

These same dynamics may be a leading factor in the disappearance of the yellow-bellied toad Bombina pachypus from peninsular Italy (Figure 1). The species has declined in the last thirty years and is now listed as Endangered by the IUCN. However, the causes of this decline are still unclear: in Liguria, northern Italy, habitat loss is believed to be the main driver, with recent systematic monitoring for the amphibian fungal disease chytridiomycosis failing to detect signs of this devastating pathogen (Canessa et al, in press).

Figure 1. The Apennine Yellow-bellied toad Bombina pachypus (photo: A. Arillo)   

In a recent study, we monitored sites across the region that were known to host the species until 2005: these were a combination of artificial sites (stone washtubs) and natural sites (small mountain creeks). We found that only five years later, in 2010, more than 50% of the populations had disappeared. When we searched for common traits among the sites where local extinctions had occurred, we found they had high densities of predators (dragonflies and newts), low insulation and dense vegetation. These in turn were linked to disturbance, with more frequent flooding and desiccation cycles beneficial in removing vegetation and predators and favouring tadpole survival.

In natural sites, flooding and desiccation are natural processes, and where they continue the species still occurs in relatively large numbers. On the other hand, in artificial sites disturbance is provided by traditional management (cleaning and dredging) (Figure 2): after land parcels or traditional practices are abandoned, sites degrade rapidly and become unsuitable. Significantly, in our study all artificial sites that had been abandoned by farmers immediately prior to or after 2005 did not host toad populations when we re-sampled them. Artificial sites that were still maintained (and therefore disturbed) were still occupied by the species. 

Figure 2. The transition between a maintained artificial water body (left) and an abandoned one unsuitable for yellow-bellied toads (right) can occur within a few years (photos: S. Canessa)

This preference for disturbed sites matches observations for other yellow-bellied toads in Europe (Warren and Büttner, 2008), provides significant information for local conservation actions, and suggests the need to link ecological and socio-economic objectives: for example, in Liguria current efforts for the conservation of the yellow-bellied toad focus on the integration of traditional practices and biodiversity conservation in new forms of human activities, such as sustainable farming or eco-tourism. On the basis of this study, the Regional Park of Monte Marcello – Magra is coordinating a project, funded by the regional administration of Liguria, which includes the recovery of several semi-natural sites and the creation of new artificial sites that can be used by local farmers whilst providing suitable habitat for the species.

The conservation of culture and biodiversity needs is deeply connected in many parts of Europe: this requires an approach that is somewhat contradictive of the usual point of view of human activities as inherently negative. However, where large scale processes such as land abandonment are involved, they may be difficult to reverse by conservation funding alone. However, where traditional practices are still widespread, it is imperative that social and environmental planning should take into account the impacts on biodiversity that the abandonment of such practices may entail.

Canessa, S.^a, Oneto, F.^b, Ottonello, D.^b, Arillo, A.^b and Salvidio, S.^b (2013). Land abandonment may reduce disturbance and affect the breeding sites of an endangered amphibian in northern Italy. Oryx, 47(2): 280-287
^a ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, School of Botany, University of Melbourne, 3010 Victoria, Australia  
^b Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, dell’Ambiente e della Vita, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy

Cited references
Canessa, S., Martel, A. and Pasmans, F. (in press). No detection of chytrid in first systematic screening of Bombina variegata pachypus (Anura: Bombinatoridae) in Liguria, northern Italy. Acta Herpetologica.
MacDonald, D., Crabtree, J.R., Wiesinger, G., Dax, T., Stamou, N., Fleury, P., Gutierrez-Lazpita, J. and Gibon, A. (2000) Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: environmental consequences and policy response. Journal of Environmental Management, 59: 47-69.
Warren, S.D. , Büttner, R. (2008): Relationship of endangered amphibians to landscape disturbance. The Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 738-744.

Contributed by Stefano Canessa, ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, School of Botany, University of Melbourne, 3010 Victoria, Australia
E-mail: canessas@unimelb.edu.au
Personal blog: http://www.canessas.wordpress.com

Evidence on grassland mappings to support protection of high nature value grasslands in the EU

Experts from more than 20 countries responded to the call by SCB-ES to gather information on grassland mappings in Europe. Based on this information and additional contribution from Birdlife and EEB, the Board submitted an official letter to the participants of the ongoing CAP trilogue discussion. For more country-specific information read the  google doc.

"14 May 2013

Recipients:
Mrs Anna Barnett, DG Environment
Ms Caroline Raes, DG Agriculture and Rural Development
Mr Pierre Bascou, DG Agriculture and Rural Development
Mr Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos
Ambassador Rory Montgomery
Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

Subject:  Evidence on grassland mappings in Member States supports inclusion of high nature value grasslands into EU agricultural policies

Dear Madam/Sir,

As the trilogue discussions related to the CAP subsidy reforms proceed, we are aware that difficulties were raised with respect to the question whether grasslands, wetlands and peatlands have been mapped with sufficient accuracy to enable parcel-level / farm-level payments by the EU.

We think that improved grassland protection through agri-environment measures does not necessarily require full scale mappings. Rather, existing programs within EU member states indicate that target oriented funding can be accomplished independent of mapping status (e.g. MEKA B4 agri-environment measure, Federal State of Baden-Württemberg, Germany).

In addition, in the context of the Natura 2000 implementation, EU member states are required to provide parcel level data on conservation status of Annex I grasslands. Therefore, plot specific data for those grassland areas most significant for nature conservation are already available or should be available according to legal requirements. Provided such data are not available for all countries, we urge the EU commission to consider immediate legal action against the according member states.

A relatively quick query across our European members reveals that such mapping efforts for natural/semi-natural grasslands, C-rich soils, peatlands and wetlands have already been completed in several member states or regions (e.g. Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden). These maps are of high quality standards and already inform conservation efforts at various administrative levels. In addition, colleagues from Greece, Italy, Netherlands, England have informed us about on on-going efforts and projects that explicitly engage in such mapping.

We found a clear indication that approaches, methods, and tools to permit an effective inclusion of high nature value grasslands into EU agricultural policies exist now, and therefore there is no reasons to exclude the protection of these areas from  the CAP 2014 – 2020. These grasslands harbouring up to 50% of the red listed plant species are under increasing pressure from intensification or abandonment. Effective protection can not be postponed beyond 2020, if the EU is serious about achieving its stated biodiversity targets.

We wish to further remind the participants of the trilogue that available information raised in the context of projects defining High Nature Value areas throughout the EU indicates that in many cases the current area of natural and semi-natural habitats within agricultural areas in Europe is considerably more than 7 % and thus above the maximum target of Ecological Focus Areas currently discussed. For Germany the 2010 Indicator report on national biodiversity targets indicates High Nature Value Farmland (HNVF) at 13% of the totally farmed area. The figures are even higher in the new EU Member States (for example in Romania, see Appendix). We therefore reiterate our strong support to adopting the highest possible scenario in order to avoid the likely situation where CAP funding continues to support the loss of semi-natural habitats and associated biodiversity in Europe.

We would be pleased to have an opportunity to discuss our concerns with DG Agriculture and Rural Development and members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Parliament.

Yours sincerely,

Prof. Dr. András Báldi, President, Society for Conservation Biology - Europe Section
europe@conbio.org"

Call for evidence – GRASSLAND MAPPING information is needed to address the CAP reform

Evidence for grassland mapping in Europe can help to save a part of CAP greenings - please read the letter of the SCB Europe Section, share your knowledge and circulate the call below.

"Dear Colleagues,

Members of the European Parliament (EP) have recently rejected many aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) which many of us perceive as essential to achieve the international targets on sustainable development, environmental protection and biodiversity conservation.

Two elements that were most profoundly compromised were the calls to protect 10% “Ecological Focus Area” and to protect biodiversity-rich grasslands and wetlands of Europe out of NATURA 2000 sites. However, the decision-making process has not come to an end: internal discussion of the so-called “trilogue” have been established to determine remaining open question including these two topics.

A main problem which seems to arise with respect to the protection of grasslands is a claim that high quality grasslands are not mapped well enough to enable parcel-level/ farm level payments to be directed to farmers, and hence the EU tends to reject it on the basis of practicalities. Here, our potential contribution as SCB, a professional society can be critical: If we can provide evidence that grassland mapping (out of Natura 2000) has been conducted in most EU member states, or at least that it is doable within reasonable time and efforts, such evidence can provide a very strong counter-argument against a claim that “in principle” one would like to protect grasslands, but in practice they cannot engage in such a mapping exercise. Thereby, we may prevent the dismissal of important texts and restore an important element in the CAP reform.

In order to collect country-specific and Europe-wide information on grassland maps, we announce a call for Evidence on grassland mapping.

We wish to gather information on grasslands and wetlands that have been mapped and assessed (or are under on-going efforts to do so) across Europe, preferably in all 27 Member States. This should be done by the 15th May 2013, in order to timely feed the discussion of the Trilogue with relevant evidence.

We ask for your contribution in answering four questions regarding grasslands, semi-natural grasslands, carbon rich soils/peatlands and wetlands by filling out the following document:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AofhLJWgSG5pdC0wSnR6Um5ydW4zcC1NaElqV1Z0enc&usp=sharing

Your contribution is highly appreciated. Please also circulate this call and link among your colleagues and grassland-experts in your country.

Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any question, please contact us: europe@conbio.org


András Báldi, President
Society for Conservation Biology – Europe Section


Guy Pe’er, Chair of the Communication Committee
Society for Conservation Biology – Europe Section"

Conservation Summer School in Greece

GSS-2013: Biodiversity Theory and Practice

 Zagori, Greece, July 1-12 2013

www.jmax.gr/gss2013

Aim

To equip participants with an understanding of the principles of modern biodiversity theory. They will learn practical skills for biodiversity fieldwork including sampling design and monitoring. Students will learn how to use some of the main computer packages for biodiversity data analysis, and have the opportunity to try these out on their own datasets.

Course Contents

The course will involve lectures, fieldwork, computer labs and an individual project in roughly equal proportions. There will also be regular evening lectures and activities of a more general interest. The main course topics are as follows:

-        Field techniques in biodiversity assessment

-        Biodiversity theory

-        Sampling design & monitoring

-        Biodiversity and ecosystem function

-        Statistical analysis of biodiversity data

-        Biodiversity software packages (primarily R-based packages)

-        Globalizing biodiversity networks and databases

-        Frameworks for biodiversity management and protection

Location: Zagori, Epirus, Greece (Ano Pedina and Papingo villages)

Eligibility:

Participants should have a degree in Biology or environmental science or equivalent and should have at least started a postgraduate degree. Applicants with good quantitative and computational skills are especially welcome. Should be familiar with the R programming environment. Participants are expected to bring their own laptop computers with Wi-Fi capability.

Number of participants:  limited to max. 15 persons

Cost of participation: 700€

This includes transport from Ioannina to the course location, all training fees, participation in all activities and programs, accommodation, and meals.

Examination and Credits

The course will be worth 6 ECTs (transferable course credits), and will be assessed as follows: Exam (written): 40%, Project: 40%, Continuous assessment: 20%

Sponsors

University of Ioannina

EEF (European Ecological Federation)

SCB (Society of Conservation Biology)

HELECOS (Hellenic Ecological Society)

Further details can be obtained at our website www.jmax.gr/gss2013

Save one of Turkey's most important wetlands, the Aras River wetlands - petition

Support us to save one of Turkey's most important wetlands, the Aras River wetlands that is also my long-term ornithological research site. We have documented 240 of Turkey's 470 bird species here, and 40% of all of Turkey's land vertebrate species. This site meets 4 different criteria of a Ramsar wetland of global importance but is about to be destroyed by a dam.

"This is one of the world’s most important wetlands for birds. If the Tuzluca dam is constructed in the Aras Valley, the feeding, breeding and wintering areas for at least 240 bird species and nearly 100 mammal, reptile and amphibian species will be destroyed. This includes 36 animal species threatened or near threatened with extinction. With more research, it is thought that HALF of all land animal species in Turkey will be recorded here."

Further details are in the petition  and I'd be grateful if you can sign it in less than a minute.

Cagan Sekercioglu, Ph.D.

University of Utah
Department of Biology
257 S. 1400 E. Rm. 201
Salt Lake City, UT. 84112
www.sekercioglu.org

How do brown bears respond to encounters with people?

Predation on livestock and occasional attacks to people are the most conflict-causing interactions between large carnivores and humans. In turn, humans cause the majority of large carnivore mortality and have caused severe population reductions and extirpations worldwide. However, some large carnivore populations are now increasing and some people living in re-colonizing areas oppose their recovery. Minimising interactions between people and carnivores and analyzing the effects of human disturbance on wildlife are major goals for the management and conservation of these species. Carnivore behavioural responses to the perceived risk of being killed by humans may ultimately influence population distribution and demography.

The bear population in Scandinavia (~3300 bears in 2008; Kindberg et al. 2011) provides a good model to analyse the interactions between an expanding large carnivore population and people that use forests extensively. GPS-collared bears were approached by Moen et al. (2012) to document their reactions when meeting people in the forest. Most bears (80%) ran away and none behaved aggressively towards the observers, reinforcing the idea that European bears are generally not aggressive to people (Moen et al. 2012).

A brown bear in Northern Europe. Photo credit: A. Ordiz

We experimentally approached 52 GPS-collared brown bears (293 approaches on foot) from 2006 to 2011, to document the reaction of bears and to quantify the effect of disturbance on bear movements. Again, none of the bears reacted aggressively to the observers.  Although the location of the animals was known, bears were usually in quite concealed spots and were physically detected in only 16% of the approaches; bears were seen in 42 approaches and heard in 6 approaches. However, the bears altered their daily movement patterns after the approaches. Bear movements increased at night and decreased during daytime (as also occurs after the start of the bear hunting seasons; Ordiz et al. 2012), which was most visible in days 1 and 2 after the approaches, altering bears’ foraging and resting routines. The shorter the distance between observers and bear and the denser the cover, the stronger the effect of the approach on bear movements, i.e. bear behaviour was especially disrupted where the bear detected humans at short distance and in the highly concealed spots where bears hide and rest during the day (Ordiz et al. 2011).

The lack of aggressive reactions to approaching observers reinforces the idea that European brown bears generally avoid people, although bears can respond aggressively if they feel threatened (e.g. when wounded). Management should secure the protection of cover where large carnivore populations persist, and the restoration of cover in areas where current carnivore recoveries are to succeed. Furthermore, people should be kept away from areas with shrub cover that provide concealment for resting carnivores during daytime, when people are outdoors. Unfortunately, the shrub layer is often destroyed, considered unproductive and/or to reduce fire risk, to increase pasture for cattle, or even to promote conservation of endangered species. Preserving cover and avoiding the most densely vegetated spots in the forests is a simple, but reliable way to avoid encounters with carnivores, which would ultimately benefit both human safety and large carnivore conservation.

Ordiz, A. ^a, Støen, O-G. ^{a, b}, Sæbo ^c, S., Sahlén, V. ^a, Pedersen, B. E. ^a, Kindberg, J. ^b & Swenson, J.E. ^a,d (2013). Lasting behavioural responses of brown bears to experimental encounters with humans. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50, 306-314 doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12047

^a Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Postbox 5003, NO-1432 Ås, Norway.

^b Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. SE-901 83 Umeå, Sweden.

^c Department of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Postbox 5003, NO-1432 Ås, Norway.

^d Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, NO-7485 Trondheim, Norway.

Cited references

Kindberg, J., Swenson, J.E., Ericsson, G., Bellemain, E., Miquel, C. & Taberlet, P. (2011) Estimating population size and trends of the Swedish brown bear Ursus arctos population. Wildlife Biology, 17, 114-123.

Moen, G.K., Støen, O.-G., Sahlén, V. & Swenson, J.E. (2012) Behaviour of solitary adult Scandinavian brown bears (Ursus arctos) when approached by humans on foot. PLoS ONE, 7, e31699.

Ordiz, A., Støen, O.G., Delibes, M. & Swenson, J.E. (2011) Predators or prey? Spatio-temporal discrimination of human-derived risk by brown bears. Oecologia, 166, 59-67.

Ordiz, A., Støen, O.G., Sæbo, S., Kindberg, J. & Swenson, J.E. (2012) Do bears know they are being hunted? Biological Conservation, 152, 21-28.