Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A gap analysis comparing the effectiveness of Natura 2000 and national protected area networks in representing European amphibians and reptiles

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Protected area networks represent one of the mainstays of worldwide conservation policies and play a key role in the protection of biodiversity. While numerous studies have evaluated the extent to which reserves fulfil their role of protecting biodiversity (so called ‘gap analysis’) in Europe at national and subnational scales, their performance across the whole of Europe has seldom been assessed. Here we assess the effectiveness of nationally designated protected areas and the pan-European Natura 2000 network in representing and maintaining over time European amphibian and reptile biodiversity using a comprehensive and newly available species occurrence dataset. Overall, our results show that often national protected areas and Natura 2000 sites perform poorly in representing amphibians and reptiles, but highlight differences in the effectiveness of both protected area networks when the goal is to promote the persistence of the species. While nationally designated areas did not usually cover more species than a random selection of areas for both vertebrate groups across different conservation targets, Natura 2000 network usually covered significantly more species than random when the goal was to include multiple representations of each species. In any case, these covered species were mostly widespread taxa, while narrow-range species remained under-represented. Additionally, our findings provide important evidence of the need to assess sensitivity of reserve effectiveness assessments to data and decision-rules, as the effectiveness of both reserve networks varied greatly across the different thresholds used for assigning reserves to grid cells and the criteria used to consider species as covered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Araújo MB (2004) Matching species with reserves—uncertainties from using data at different resolutions. Biol Conserv 118:533–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Araújo MB, Lobo JM, Moreno JC (2007) The effectiveness of Iberian protected areas in conserving terrestrial biodiversity. Biol Conserv 21:1423–1432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Araújo MB, Alagador D, Cabeza M, Nogués-Bravo D, Thuiller W (2011) Climate change threatens European conservation areas. Ecol Lett 14:484–492

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Böhm M, Collen B, Baillie JEM, Bowles P et al (2013) The conservation status of the world’s reptiles. Biol Conserv 157:372–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BWPi (2006) Birds of the Western Palearctic interactive. BirdGuides, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabeza M, Moilanen A (2001) Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evol 16:242–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cabeza M, Araújo MB, Wilson RJ et al (2004) Combining probabilities of occurrence with spatial reserve design. J Appl Ecol 41:252–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceballos G (2007) Conservation priorities for mammals in megadiverse Mexico: the efficiency of reserve networks. Ecol Appl 17:569–578

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chape S, Harrison J, Spalding M, Lysenko I (2005) Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philos Trans R Soc B 360:443–455

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cox N, Chanson J, Stuart S (2006) The status and distribution of reptiles and amphibians of the Mediterranean Basin. IUCN, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • D’Amen M, Bombi P, Campanaro A, Zapponi L, Bologna MA, Mason F (2013) Protected areas and insect conservation: questioning the effectiveness of Natura 2000 network for saproxylic beetles in Italy. Anim Conserv 16:370–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrakopoulos PG, Memtsas D, Troumbis AY (2004) Questioning the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 special areas of conservation strategy: the case of Crete. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 13:199–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2009) Natura 2000—Europe’s nature for you

  • European Commission (2014) Natura 2000 Barometer—update 2013. Natura 2000 nature and biodiversity newsletter 35:8–9

  • European Environment Agency (2012) Protected areas in Europe: an overview. EEA Report 5/2012, Copenhagen

  • Evans D (2012) Building the European Union’s Natura 2000 network. Nat Conserv 1:11–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ, Jackson SF, Nagy A, Cantú-Salazar L, Johnson M (2008) Protected areas in Europe. Ann NY Acad Sci 1134:97–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gruber B, Evans D, Henle K, Bauch B, Schmeller D, Dziock F, Henry PY, Lengyel S, Margules C, Dormann C (2012) “Mind the gap!”—how well does Natura 2000 cover species of European interest? Nat Conserv 3:45–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkinson P, Evans J, Gregory RD (2000) National-scale conservation assessments at an appropriate resolution. Divers Distrib 6:195–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iojă CI, Pătroescu M, Rozylowicz L, Popescu VD, Vergheleţ M, Zotta MI, Felciuc M (2010) The efficacy of Romania’s protected areas network in conserving biodiversity. Biol Conserv 143:2468–2476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IUCN (International World Conservation Union) (2012) The IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2012.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org

  • Jalas J, Suominen J (1964–2010) Atlas florae Europaeae. Committee for Mapping the Flora of Europe and Societas Biologica Fennica Vanamo, Helsinki

  • Jantke K, Schleupner C, Schneider UA (2011) Gap analysis of European wetland species: priority regions for expanding the Natura 2000 network. Biodivers Conserv 20:581–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins CN, Joppa L (2009) Expansion of the global terrestrial protected area system. Biol Conserv 142:2166–2174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kujala H, Araújo MB, Thuiller W, Cabeza M (2011) Misleading results from conventional gap analysis–messages from the warming north. Biol Conserv 144:2450–2458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maiorano L, Falcucci A, Boitani L (2006) Gap analysis of terrestrial vertebrates in Italy: priorities for conservation planning in a human dominated landscape. Biol Conserv 133:455–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maiorano L, Falcucci A, Gaston EO, Boitani L (2007) Contribution of the Natura 2000 network to biodiversity conservation in Italy. Conserv Biol 21:1433–1444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez I, Carreño F, Escudero A, Rubio A (2006) Are threatened lichen species well-protected in Spain? Effectiveness of a protected areas network. Biol Conserv 133:500–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell-Jones AJ, Amori G, Bogdanowicz W, Krystufek B, Reijnders PJH, Spitzenberger F et al (1999) Atlas of European mammals. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Papageorgiou K, Vogiatzakis IN (2006) Nature protection in Greece: an appraisal of the factors shaping integrative conservation and policy effectiveness. Environ Sci Policy 9:476–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2010) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Development Core Team, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues ASL, Gaston KJ, Gregory RD (2000) Using presence–absence data to establish reserve selection procedures that are robust to temporal species turnover. Proc R Soc B 267:897–902

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues ASL, Andelman SJ, Bakarr MI, Boitani L, Brooks TM, Cowling RM, Fishpool LDC, da Fonseca GAB, Gaston KJ, Hoffmann M, Long JS, Marquet PA, Pilgrim JD, Pressey RL, Schipper J, Sechrest W, Stuart SN, Underhill LG, Waller RW, Watts MEJ, Yan X (2004) Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428:640–643

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-Fernández D, Bilton DT, Abellán P, Ribera I, Velasco J, Millán A (2008) Are the endemic water beetles of the Iberian Peninsula and the Balearic Islands effectively protected? Biol Conserv 141:1612–1627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-Fernández D, Abellán P, Picazo F, Millán A, Ribera I, Lobo JM (2013) Do protected areas represent species’ optimal climatic conditions. A test using Iberian water beetles. Divers Distrib 19:1407–1417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott JM, Davis FW, Mcghie RG, Wright RG, Groves C, Estes J (2001) Nature reserves: do they capture the full range of America’s biological diversity? Ecol Appl 11:999–1007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sillero N, Campos J, Bonardi A, Corti C, Creemers R, Crochet PA, Isailovi JC, Denoël M, Ficetola JF, Gonçalves J, Kuzmin S, Lymberakis P, Pous P, Rodríguez A, Sindaco R, Speybroeck J, Toxopeus B, Vieites DR, Vences M (2014) Updated distribution and biogeography of amphibians and reptiles of Europe. Amphib-Reptil 35:1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soutullo A (2010) Extent of the global network of terrestrial protected areas. Conserv Biol 24:362–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sundseth K, Creed P (2008) Natura 2000: protecting Europe’s biodiversity. European Commission, Directorate General for the Environment, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Verovnik R, Govedič M, Šalamun A (2010) Is the Natura 2000 network sufficient for conservation of butterfly diversity? A case study in Slovenia. J Insect Conserv 15:345–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vimal R, Rodrigues AS, Mathevet R, Thompson JD (2011) The sensitivity of gap analysis to conservation targets. Biodivers Conserv 20:531–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wake DB, Vredenburg VT (2008) Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:11466–11473

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank two anonymous referees for their constructive comments. D. S.-F. was supported by a postdoctoral Grant (Juan de la Cierva program) from Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pedro Abellán.

Additional information

Communicated by Dan Cogalniceanu.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1463 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abellán, P., Sánchez-Fernández, D. A gap analysis comparing the effectiveness of Natura 2000 and national protected area networks in representing European amphibians and reptiles. Biodivers Conserv 24, 1377–1390 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0862-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0862-3

Keywords

Navigation