Italian Protected Areas and Their Role in the Conservation Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ITALIAN PROTECTED AREAS AND THEIR ROLE IN THE CONSERVATION OF VERTEBRATES A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy with a Major in Natural Resources in the College of Graduate Studies University of Idaho by Luigi Maiorano June 2007 Major Professor: Edward O. Garton, Ph.D. ii AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT DISSERTATION This dissertation of Luigi Maiorano, submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy with a major in Natural Resources, and titled “ITALIAN PROTECTED AREAS AND THEIR ROLE IN THE CONSERVATION OF VERTEBRATES”, has been reviewed in final form. Permission, as indicated by the signatures and dates given below, is now granted to submit final copies to the College of Graduate Studies for approval. Major Professor __________________________________Date____________ Edward O. Garton Committee Members __________________________________Date____________ Luigi Boitani __________________________________Date____________ Raymond J. Dezzani __________________________________Date____________ J. Michael Scott Department Administrator __________________________________Date____________ Kerry Paul Reese Discipline’s College Dean __________________________________Date____________ Steven B. Daley Laursen Final Approval and Acceptance by the College of Graduate Studies __________________________________Date____________ Margrit von Braun iii ABSTRACT In response to a specific request from the Italian Ministry of the Environment and Territorial Protection (Directorate of Nature Conservation) I initiated a study on the Italian existing and proposed protected areas. In particular, I considered the conservation status of terrestrial vertebrates (mammals, regularly breeding birds, amphibians, reptiles) and freshwater fish. For each of the (roughly) 500 species considered, I built a habitat suitability model and, using GAP analysis, irreplaceability analysis, and red list criteria, I evaluated their conservation status inside conservation areas. Moreover, I evaluated the capacity of the existing protected areas to act as buffers against the massive changes in land-use/land-cover that are occurring throughout the Italian peninsula. More than 11% of the Italian national territory is legally protected, but on the average Italian protected areas are small. Moreover, even considering that the number of GAP species in Italy is relatively low, it must be stressed that most of the species presented a conservation deficit and were not represented enough by the existing protected areas. The protected areas that are currently proposed for institution in Italy (the so- called Natura2000 network) is an extremely important conservation effort that will raise the percentage of national territory to be protected to almost 20%. However, even with this percentage, the system of conservation areas is not able to preserve into a favorable conservation status the species for which it has been instituted. There are important gaps especially in the Mediterranean islands, exactly where the concentration of species important for conservation is highest. iv Finally, given their size, protected areas are not able ,with few exceptions, to arrest or even to slow down the land-use/land-cover change that is ongoing in Italy. This is particularly important in flat areas and coastal plains, where the areas are smaller and most of the changes go towards artificial land-use/land-cover classes. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Most of my work for this dissertation has been possible thanks to the Italian Ministry of the Environment and Territorial Protection (Directorate of Nature Conservation) that provided the economic support and part of the data used for the analyses. Many people have helped me during the years of my PhD and I would like to thank all of them. This work would not have been possible without the help of the species experts that helped create the habitat suitability models for almost 500 species: Paolo Agnelli (Università di Firenze - Museo Zoologico La Specola, Firenze), Gianni Amori (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Roma), Luigi Boitani (Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”, Roma), Anna De Marinis (Istituto Nazionale per la Fauna Selvatica, Bologna), Eugenio Duprè (Istituto Nazionale per la Fauna Selvatica, Bologna), Piero Genovesi (Istituto Nazionale per la Fauna Selvatica, Bologna), Anna Loy (Università degli Studi del Molise, sede di Isernia), Paolo Molinari (KORA, Berna, Svizzera), Carlo Murgia (Cagliari), Luca Pedrotti (Istituto Nazionale per la Fauna Selvatica, Bologna), Mario Posillico (Corpo Forestale dello Stato, L’Aquila), Gabriella Reggiani (Istituto di Ecologia Applicata, Roma), and Walter Trocchi (Istituto Nazionale per la Fauna Selvatica, Bologna) provided their help for the habitat suitability models of mammals; Massimo Brunelli (Stazione Romana Osservazione e Protezione Uccelli, Roma), Fulvio Fraticelli (Bioparco, Roma), and Alessandro Montemaggiori (Istituto di Ecologia Applicata, Roma) provided their help for the habitat suitability models of breeding birds; Franco Andreone (Museo Regionale di Storia Naturale, Torino) provided help for the habitat suitability models of amphibians and reptiles; Piergiorgio Bianco (Università di Napoli, Napoli) and Teresa de Majo (Università di Napoli, Napoli) provided their help for the habitat suitability models of freshwater fish. vi I would also like to thank all my collegues at the University of Rome and at the Institute of Applied Ecology that worked with me on the project REN: Fabio Corsi, Alessandra Falcucci, Ilaria Marzetti, Monica Masi, Alessandro Montemaggiori, Daniela Ottaviani, Gabriella Reggiani and Carlo Rondinini. A particular thanks to all my committee members: Oz Garton, who first proposed a PhD for me in Moscow and who has always been support and generous not only as a primary advisor but also as a friend; Mike Scott for his endless questions and for the passion and the competence that he has in his work; Raymond Dezzani that accepted enthusiastically to jump into my committee knowing nothing about me; Luigi Boitani, the person without which all this would not have been possible. Thanks to all my American and Italian friends who have supported me in many ways, providing food and comfort during prelims and supporting me in any possible way throughout the rest of my PhD program: Kath, Jocelyn, Bill, Marta, Ginny, Larry, Linda, Jan, Valeria, Annette, Simone, Alessandro, Gianluca, Monica. Finally a particular thanks to Karla, for all the kindness and the help that she has always provided, and to Fabio who tought me almost all what I know including getting me into trouble. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT DISSERTATION ii ABSTRACT iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v TABLE OF CONTENTS vii LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES xi PREFACE 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 4 Protected areas 5 IUCN classification of protected areas 8 Managing, designing and planning for protected 10 areas Systematic conservation planning 13 Measuring and mapping biodiversity 15 Identifying conservation targets 31 Reviewing existing protected areas 37 Selecting additional protected areas 39 Implementing conservation actions on the ground 66 Management and monitoring of reserves 71 Systematic conservation planning and the real world 72 Protected areas in the era of climate change 73 References 75 CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF EXISTING AND 96 PROPOSED PROTECTED AREAS IN ITALY References 110 CHAPTER 3: GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF TERRESTRIAL 111 VERTEBRATES IN ITALY Introduction 111 Materials and methods 112 Results and discussion 117 References 120 APPENDIX I: list of the Italian terrestrial vertebrates 124 considered in the analyses CHAPTER 4: GAP ANALYSIS OF TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES IN ITALY:PRIORITIES FOR CONSERVATION PLANNING IN A HUMAN 136 DOMINATED LANDSCAPE Introduction 136 Materials and methods 139 Results 145 viii Discussion 153 Acknowledgements 161 References 161 CHAPTER 5: CONTRIBUTION OF THE NATURA2000 NETWORK TO 169 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN ITALY Introduction 169 Materials and methods 171 Results 177 Discussion 184 Acknowledgments 190 References 190 CHAPTER 6: SIZE-DEPENDENT RESISTANCE OF PROTECTED 195 AREAS TO LAND-USE CHANGE Introduction 195 Materials and methods 196 Results 200 Discussion 213 Acknowledgments 217 References 218 Supporting materials 222 CONCLUSION 234 ix LIST OF TABLES Chapter 3, Table 1. List of variables considered for the classification into 117 conservation categories of each taxa. Chapter3, Table 2. Results of the validation of DMs for individual 118 taxonomic groups. Chapter 4, Table 1. List of variables considered for the classification into 143 conservation categories of each taxa. Chapter 4, Table 2. Total-gap species, partial-gap species and covered 152 species subdivided considering conservation value and taxonomic group. Chapter 5, Table 1. Results of the validation of DMs for individual taxonomic groups. 1Better than random reports the percentages (minimum – maximum) of distribution models that agreed with points of presence more than expected by chance alone. 2Significant reports the 179 percentage (minimum – maximum) of distribution models that agreed with points of presence significantly more than expected by chance. 3 median number of points of presence per taxonomic group (interquartile range). Chapter 5, Table 2. Number of gap species per taxonomic group. 182 Chapter 5, Table 3. Number of BIRD and HABITAT species classified as Critically Endangered (CE), Endangered (EN) or Vulnerable (VU) in protected areas and in protected