Search

Effective protection of highly mobile and data-poor species constitutes a great challenge amid growing ocean exploitation and use. Blue whales and bowhead whales in the North-East Atlantic face several threats, such as climate change, ship strikes, pollution, and entanglement in fishing gear. Consequently, the OSPAR ("Oslo-Paris Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic") Commission recognised their need for protection and included them on the OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species. Two actions to protect these endangered species that OSPAR Contracting Parties have agreed on are (i) identifying areas that play an essential role in the species' life cycle—subsequently called key habitats, and (ii) ensuring that those key habitats are covered by OSPAR marine protected areas (MPAs). In addition, OSPAR has committed to expanding its network of MPAs and other effective area-based conservation measures by 2030 to cover at least 30% of the OSPAR maritime area (termed the 30 × 30 target) from today's approx. 11%. In this paper, we present the results of modelling key habitats for the bowhead and blue whales in the North-East Atlantic, including Arctic waters. Due to the sparse data situation for these species, we apply presence-only modelling methods. As this method can, in principle, produce somewhat biased results, we recommend that systematic, regular surveys on these species in Arctic waters be significantly intensified for future analyses to overcome the data paucity and allow using presence–absence/count data modelling approaches. Key habitats of blue whales were identified between Iceland and Svalbard, extending to the Azores. For bowhead whales, key habitats were identified in the Fram Strait. However, our findings show that only 11.8% of blue whale key habitats and 4.1% of bowhead whale key habitats are currently covered by OSPAR MPAs. To protect 30% of key habitats for these species in the most efficient way, our analyses suggest that suitable areas to designate new OSPAR MPAs are located around the Azores for blue whales and in the Fram Strait for bowhead whales. With these additional MPAs, OSPAR would substantially improve the protection of the two endangered species and, at the same time, progress towards its 30 × 30 target. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Effective protection of highly mobile and data-poor species constitutes a great challenge amid growing ocean exploitation and use. Blue whales and bowhead whales in the North-East Atlantic face several threats, such as climate change, ship strikes, pollution, and entanglement in fishing gear. Consequently, the OSPAR (“Oslo-Paris Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic”) Commission recognised their need for protection and included them on the OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species. Two actions to protect these endangered species that OSPAR Contracting Parties have agreed on are (i) identifying areas that play an essential role in the species’ life cycle—subsequently called key habitats, and (ii) ensuring that those key habitats are covered by OSPAR marine protected areas (MPAs). In addition, OSPAR has committed to expanding its network of MPAs and other effective area-based conservation measures by 2030 to cover at least 30% of the OSPAR maritime area (termed the 30 × 30 target) from today’s approx. 11%. In this paper, we present the results of modelling key habitats for the bowhead and blue whales in the North-East Atlantic, including Arctic waters. Due to the sparse data situation for these species, we apply presence-only modelling methods. As this method can, in principle, produce somewhat biased results, we recommend that systematic, regular surveys on these species in Arctic waters be significantly intensified for future analyses to overcome the data paucity and allow using presence–absence/count data modelling approaches. Key habitats of blue whales were identified between Iceland and Svalbard, extending to the Azores. For bowhead whales, key habitats were identified in the Fram Strait. However, our findings show that only 11.8% of blue whale key habitats and 4.1% of bowhead whale key habitats are currently covered by OSPAR MPAs. To protect 30% of key habitats for these species in the most efficient way, our analyses suggest that suitable areas to designate new OSPAR MPAs are located around the Azores for blue whales and in the Fram Strait for bowhead whales. With these additional MPAs, OSPAR would substantially improve the protection of the two endangered species and, at the same time, progress towards its 30 × 30 target.

Europe has been dominated by cultural landscape and rather intensively managed forests. It is thus no surprise that the ongoing global biodiversity crisis as well as the consequences of climate change have been apparent. In recent years, forestry in Central Europe has been going through a crisis caused by extensive disturbances primarily in commercial monocultures; this phenomenon is particularly striking in the Czech Republic. Given the significance of the situation, it is essential to review and optimise the current forest management practices in relation to biodiversity protection. Therefore, a survey among Czech biologists was conducted in an effort to provide specific feedback to foresters and other stakeholders based on scientific and empirical knowledge of the survey respondents. The survey assessed the forest habitat (in terms of light conditions and the structure of the forest environment), forest management tools and conceptual approaches regarding specific species and groups of organisms. The respondents negatively perceived the current forestry practices, especially in terms of creating homogeneity across the forest environment and eliminating important habitats. Structurally diverse old-growth forests as well as the open forests with the presence of old and habitat trees were emphasised by the survey respondents as essential environments. Large-scale non-intervention within protected areas is necessary to support the presence of old-growth forests. On the other hand, there is an urgent need to restore open forests which requires (but not exclusively) the active efforts of man. These two basic appeals are essential in order to diversify the landscape through a combination of segregative and integrative forest management tools that aim to support biodiversity.

Little is known about the distribution of dormouse species in the Middle Volga region. The habitats of the Edible Dormouse Glis glis L. and the Hazel Dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius L. are fragmented and mainly lost in the agricultural landscape of the right bank of the Volga River and in the coniferous forests of the right bank of the Lower Oka River in Nizhny Novgorod oblast. New data are given of features of the habitats of two sympatric dormouse species from a patch of a lime–oak forest surrounded by coniferous forests. Within the area studied, 80 wooden nestboxes were put up in places with well-connected tree canopies and well-developed understory. Over the three years of our study (2016–2018), preliminary data were obtained on the dynamics of nestbox use and the relative abundance and reproduction of both dormouse species. The patch of the lime–oak forest with an area of approximately 20 ha is divided into two parts by a road and a 50 m-wide glade. Both parts did not differ in vegetation, but the Edible Dormouse was found only in the southern part. The Hazel Dormouse was found throughout the whole lime–oak patch, except for woodplot no. 1 (1.5 ha), which was occupied by the Edible Dormice with a high density. On the basis of the data obtained, management actions are suggested to raise the level of connectivity and immigration in the population of isolated broad-leaved patches in coniferous forests, in particular, to develop a network of "key habitats." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little information is available on the movements and behaviour of tropical rays despite their potential ecological roles and economic value as a fishery and a tourism resource. A description of the movement patterns and site fidelity of juvenile rays within a coral reef environment is provided in this study. Acoustic telemetry was used to focus on the use of potential nursery areas and describe movement patterns of 16 individuals of four species monitored for 1-21 months within an array of 51 listening stations deployed across a lagoon, reef crest, and reef slope at Mangrove Bay, Ningaloo Reef, Western Australia. Juveniles used a small (< 1 km), shallow (1-2 m depth) embayment where three receivers recorded 60-80 % of total detections of tagged animals, although individuals of all species moved throughout the array and beyond the lagoon to the open reef slope. Detections at these primary sites were more frequent during winter and when water temperatures were highest during the day. Long-term use of coastal lagoons by juvenile rays suggests that they provide an important habitat for this life stage. Current marine park zoning appears to provide an effective protection for juveniles within this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper deals with lichen flora of Vepssky Forest Protected Area situated in the Eastern Leningrad Region (northwestern Russia). In total 183 species of lichens and allied fungi are reported. Eight species of lichens — Biatora flavopunctata, Bryoria fremontii, Chaenotheca cf. gracilenta, Chaenotheca laevigata, Lecidea enclitica, Lepraria lobificans, Multiclavula vernalis, Pyrrhospora elabens and three species of lichenicolous fungi — Chaenothecopsis nigra, Chaenothecopsis viridi-alba, Dactylospora deminuta — are reported here for the first time in the Leningrad Region. Chaenotheca sphaerocephala and Lecanora cf. ramulicola are new for Russia. A total of 38 species are indicators of habitats with long ecological continuity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: New forestry practices have been developed during the past decade in order to enhance biodiversity in managed forests. In Finland, Forest Act legislation has attempted to identify a set of key habitats (Forest Act habitats) to conserve biodiversity. The importance of Forest Act habitats (FAHs) for threatened vascular plants, lichens and bryophytes was studied in SW Finland. Of the populations of threatened species outside nature reserves 78% occurred in habitat types included in the Forest Act, but only 28% of the populations occurred in sites fulfilling the criteria defined in the Act. Most of these populations occurred in herb-rich forests, cliff forests and rock outcrops serving as hot spot habitats for threatened species. However, only 4% of the populations of threatened species occurring in sites fulfilling the criteria of the Forest Act were actually located in sites defined as FAHs by the forestry authorities. Furthermore, recent logging activities had often reduced the quality of defined FAH. In principle, FAHs have a potential to protect biodiversity in boreal forests, provided that the Act is properly implemented. However, the current study revealed an obvious gap between the Finnish forest legislation and its practical application, due to which the biodiversity targets of the Forest Act have been poorly fulfilled. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

To evaluate the efficiency by which fine-scale diversity hotspots capture threatened species in northern forests, we investigated the spatial distribution of vascular plants, bryophytes, macrolichens, and polypore fungi with 1-ha resolution (in 0.25-ha plots) within six approximately 2-km2 forest landscapes in Norway. Of 1295 recorded species (118,000 records), 62 species (842 records) were on the Norwegian Red List, of which 7 species (12 records) were new to Norway. We studied the degree of clustering of different red-listed species among plots by comparing observed co-occurrence of red-listed species to a null model of random co-occurrence. Red-listed species were moderately clustered within study areas but less so within each forest type. Clustering was similar for areas with high and low densities of red-listed species. However, the proportion of records captured in rarity hotspots (plots with the highest number of red-listed species) depended on both the total number of records of red-listed species per area and the degree of clustering of species among plots. The 5% highest-ranking rarity hotspots captured, on average, 59% of red-listed species and 23% of all records of red-listed species in study areas, compared with 56% and 18% captured by hotspots selected from a random distribution of species, respectively. Hotspots based on the most species-rich plots (richness hotspots) were significantly less effective than rarity hotspots in capturing red-listed species and their records. Based on the observed pattern of species co-occurrence and the high proportion of area seemingly occupied by red-listed species in mature forest, we hypothesize that 20–25% of the populations of red-listed species may be located within rarity hotspots constituting 5% at the scale of 1 ha. We conclude that limited spatial overlap of species constitutes an important constraint on the efficiency of a fine-scale hotspot conservation strategy, such as the “woodland key habitats” (0.1–10 ha) currently mapped and protected in northern European forests. Para evaluar la eficiencia de la captación de especies amenazadas en bosques boreales, investigamos la distribución espacial de plantas vasculares, briofitas, macrolíquenes y un hongo poliporáceo con una resolución de 1 ha (parcelas de 0.25 ha) en seis paisajes boscosos de ∼2-km2 en Noruega. De 1295 especies registradas (118,000 registros), 62 especies (842 registros) estaban en La Lista Roja Noruega, de las cuales 7 especies (12 registros) fueron nuevas para Noruega. Estudiamos el nivel de agrupamiento de las diferentes especies en listas rojas entre parcelas comparando la co-ocurrencia observada de especies en listas rojas con un modelo nulo de co-ocurrencia aleatoria. Las especies en listas rojas estaban moderadamente agrupadas dentro de las áreas de estudio, más que dentro de cada tipo de bosque. EL agrupamiento fue similar en áreas con densidades altas y bajas de especies en listas rojas. Sin embargo, la proporción de registros captados en áreas de rareza crítica (parcelas con el mayor número de especies en listas rojas) dependió tanto del número total de registros de especies en listas rojas por área y el nivel de agrupamiento de especies entre parcelas. El 5% de las áreas de rareza crítica de mayor categoría captaron, en promedio, al 59% de las especies en listas rojas y al 23% de todos los registros de especies en listas rojas en áreas de estudio, comparado con 56% y 18% captadas por áreas críticas seleccionadas de una distribución aleatoria de especies, respectivamente. Áreas críticas basadas en las parcelas con mayor riqueza de especies (áreas de riqueza crítica) fueron significativamente menos eficientes que áreas de rareza crítica en la captación de especies en listas rojas y sus registros. Con base en el patrón de co-ocurrencia de especies observado y en la alta proporción de área aparentemente ocupada por especies en listas rojas en bosques maduros, proponemos la hipótesis de que 20–25% de las poblaciones de especies en listas rojas pueden estar localizadas dentro de áreas de rareza crítica que constituyen 5% a la escala de 1 ha. Concluimos que el traslape espacial limitado de especies constituye una importante limitación para la eficiencia de una estrategia de conservación de áreas críticas a escala fina, tal como los “hábitats boscosos clave” (0.1–10 ha) mapeados y protegidos actualmente en bosques boreales de Europa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The preservation of key habitats is included in modern forest-management practices as one of the main means to preserve biodiversity in northern European production forests. I examined the distribution patterns and persistence of occurrence of rare epiphytic macrolichens in a predominantly unprotected forest landscape with an area of 278 km2 in southern Finland. Occurrence data of macrolichens in two key habitats, rock outcrops and mires, were compared with data from production forests. The density of populations of rare macrolichens was 50-fold higher on rock outcrops and 25-fold higher on mires than in production forests. Most rare species of epiphytic macrolichens were found only in key habitats. In modern, intensively managed forest landscapes, rock outcrops appeared to represent the main habitats for rare macrolichens as a result of the long-term continuity of old trees. Most macrolichen occurrences represented very small populations with a high extinction risk. Of the populations found in 1989–1995 in key habitats, 51% had disappeared, by 2000–2001, mainly as a result of forestry activities. The disappearance of populations significantly exceeded the rate of establishment of new populations. My results emphasize the importance of key habitats for declining forest species. There is also a need to improve and sharpen the guidelines for delimiting and managing key habitats in order to halt the continued decline of epiphytic macrolichens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summer farming was formerly an important part of Norwegian husbandry and mountain areas have been used for grazing for hundreds of years. A decline in summer farming practices, during the twentieth century, has caused a large-scale encroachment of trees and shrubs leading to extensive landscape changes and decreased biodiversity. Therefore, in order to maintain the biodiversity in summer farm mountain areas, it is now necessary to detect, map and monitor remaining species-rich fragments, i.e. key habitats. It is also important to identify still grass- and herb-rich areas that can be successfully restored for grazing because of a new interest for summer farming. Field surveys in the re-growing mountain areas are extremely time consuming, as the concomitant terrain renders movement by foot arduous. A method was thus developed for detection of key-habitats and other grass and herb-rich habitats in such areas based on interpretation of coloured infrared aerial photographs (CIR). In addition, black-and-white aerial photographs, taken nearly 40 years ago, were used to identify past open land and pastures and thus in combination with the modern ones allow the identification of areas that exhibit a continuity in grazing. Interpretation keys were developed and vegetation maps were constructed. The interpretation from the aerial photographs was compared to detailed field control and the method was found to be efficient and accurate. The method gave useful information about the landscape history and continuity of grazing. The cattle’s movements were traced by GPS equipment mounted on a collar on the leading cattle, and their movements were later transferred to a map and analysed together with the vegetation map in a GIS. The results show that the cattle preferred to graze in the areas identified as most valuable and species rich. The developed method also makes it possible to identify areas for which pasture-restoration might be successfully achieved. Furthermore, the study revealed that there is a high correspondence between key habitats in the summer farming areas and grazing preferences of the cattle. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Demands for additional conservation of forests have been strong in Finland where a remarkable number of threatened species need wooded lands. In the southern half of the country the proportion of strictly protected forestland is as low as 1.1% and three quarters of forests are owned by private individuals and families. In order to promote forest protection on private lands the possibilities of landowners to participate in decision making should be improved. To assess the role of voluntary or incentive-based conservation contracts in protection of privately owned forestlands two existing conservation practices were studied: (1) voluntary establishment of permanent nature reserves and (2) payment of environmental grants that are appropriated for fixed-periods and that compensate for statutory preservation of woodland key habitats. Mean areas and compensation sums associated with sites protected using these two practices were simply compared to each other. Nature reserves were on average larger than key habitat sites. However, in the long run fixed-period environmental grants paid for key habitats provide landowners with higher compensation than that paid for establishing permanent nature reserves. These results are assessed in the light of international discussion on social, economic and ecological factors related to protection of private lands. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]