Search

56 pages. 58 figures, Aquest informe és un encàrrec del Departament de Territori i Sostenibilitat (DTES) al Centre de Ciència i Tecnologia Forestal de Catalunya (CTFC) i al Centre de Recerca Ecològica i Aplicacions Forestals (CREAF), que han elaborat el document conjuntament amb l'Institut Català d'Ornitologia (ICO), l'Institut de Ciències del Mar i la Direcció General de Polítiques Ambientals i Medi Natural. Es tracta d'una obra inèdita que ha comptat amb la contribució de més de 40 entitats de recerca en l'estudi de la natura, així com en dades i evidències científiques a tot el territori recollides per universitats, administracions, associacions privades i ONGs i centenars de persones voluntàries agrupades en projectes de ciència ciutadana. Sens dubte, es tracta d'un document clau per orientar les polítiques i accions de conservació que ens han de permetre aturar la pèrdua de biodiversitat a casa nostra

Figure S1. Annual average daily mean temperatures in Spain for the period 1850-2005. Represented values are anomalies (in °C) from the mean values from 1961 to 1990, as reported by Brunet et al. (2007). Squares and whiskers are mean and standard error values for the periods 1850-1870, 1900-1920 and 1990-2005. A and B mark the significant differences among periods found by a Tukey HSD post-hoc test (P< 0.001). The temporal temperature trend is represented by a weighted average line with a 10-year period Brunet M et al. 2007 Temporal and spatial temperature variability and change over Spain during 1850–2005. J. Geophys. Res. 112, D12117.; Figure S2. Response curves of thermic suitability for trout to temperature variables using data from 1850 and 2000. The values shown are average suitability for temperature categories of 0.5 °C intervals, using 2000 temperature as a reference. Annual mean, July maximum and January minimum have 32, 36 and 35 categories, respectively. The curves shown correspond to those modelling techniques that accurately predicted trout distribution in both periods (i.e., AUC > 0.7).GLM: Generalized Linear Models; GBM: Generalized Boosting Models; GAM: Generalized Additive Models; ANN: Artificial Neural Networks; FDA: Flexible Discriminant Analysis; MARS: Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines; and RF: Random Forest. Classification Tree Analysis (CTA) and Surface Range Envelope (SRE) were also run but are not shown in the figure for not reaching AUC thresholds.; Figure S3. Extinction probability as determined by trout prevalence in 10×10km cells. Proportion of extinction cells (trout cited in the 1850s but not in the 2000s) among the different categories of trout prevalence defined for cells with information from at least 3 localities from the Madoz (1850s data). Low: trout present in 1 to 50% of the localities (n= 48); High: trout present in 51 to 90% of the localities (n= 178); Widespread: trout present in more than 90% of the localities (n= 439).; Figure S4. Changes in temperatures in Spain between the 1850s and 2000s climatic scenarios. See methods for a description of the development of climatic scenarios; Figure S5. Relationship between the predicted and observed changes in thermal suitability for trout between the 1850s and 2000s. Predicted change was calculated as the suitability difference between the projection of the 1850s model to the 2000s thermal scenario (2000s predictions) and the 1850s estimates, while observed change is the difference between the suitability estimates of the 2000s and the 1850s models.

The European Union (EU) has made significant conservation efforts in the last two decades, guided by the Birds and Habitats Directives, currently under evaluation. Despite these efforts a large proportion of priority species are still in unfavorable condition and continue declining. For this reason, a thoughtful review of the implementation of conservation efforts in Europe is needed to identify potential causes behind this poor effectiveness. We compiled information on the distribution of all conservation funds under the LIFE-Nature, the main financial tool for conservation in Europe. We found that LIFE-Nature has not adequately covered continental conservation needs. The majority of funds have been directed toward nonthreatened species or regions of low conservation priority. Given the limited resources available, two key aspects are in urgent need for revision and improvement. First, the distribution of funds should be guided by continental and global conservation needs and planned at the EU scale. Second, new mechanisms are required to set conservation priorities in a dynamic fashion, rather than relying on fixed lists (i.e., the Directives’ Annexes) that may rapidly become outdated. These improvements would require new mechanisms to set priorities and redistribution of conservation efforts, supported by adequate policy and a more effective top-down control on investment.