Dupré, E., Pedrotti, L., & Arduino, S. Alpine Ibex Conservation

Dupré, E., Pedrotti, L., & Arduino, S. Alpine Ibex Conservation Strategy - The Alpine ibex in the Italian Alps: status, potential distribution and management options for conservation and sustainable development. 1-126. 2001. WWF International.

Keywords: 8IT/Alps/Capra ibex/conservation/development/distribution/growth rate/ibex/Large Herbivore Initiative/LHI/Malme/management/population size/reintroduction/ strategy/susceptibility/translocation

Abstract: This study presents the first comprehensive overview of the status of Alpine ibex in the Italian Alps, based on an extensive data collection used according to a standardized methodology. For the first time, a thorough synthesis of information on the 69 Italian ibex colonies is available, covering traditional themes such as distribution, population size and growth rate, but also more specific issues such as the year and cause of origin, number of translocated ibexes, and type of management. Then, a comparison is made between current and potential ibex status and distribution, and implications for the conservation and management of the species are presented. The potential situation (distribution, size, density) is estimated by applying two models that assess the quality of ibex habitat and predict ibex potential distribution at the local scale for the entire Italian Alps. The two models had already been conceptually developed from data on different ibex populations living in the Italian Alps (one for the siliceous substratum and one for the calcareous-limestone-dolomite substratum), but, for the purpose of this study, they were redesigned to reflect the coarser scale of the data available for the whole Italian Alps. Their application to the study area according to the underlying lithological substratum revealed the gap between current and potential status and contributed to identifying conservation and management issues and developing recommendations for future reintroduction programs.

Notes: Internet website in pdf format

file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

Alpine Ibex Conservation Strategy

The Alpine ibex in the Italian Alps:

status, potential distribution and management options

for conservation and sustainable development

Istituto Oikos

Istituto Nazionale per La Fauna Selvatica "Alessandro Ghigi"

Università degli Studi dell’Insubria – Dipartimento di Biologia Strutturale e Funzionale

With the contribution of:

Gruppo Stambecco EuropaFederazione Italiana della Caccia

Pending

Eugenio Dupré, and Luca Pedrotti and Serena Arduino

DRAFT, JuneSeptember October 2001

Authors:

● Eugenio Dupré, Istituto Nazionale per la Fauna Selvatica "Alessandro Ghigi" (National Wildlife Institute), Bologna, Italy.

● Luca Pedrotti, Istituto Nazionale per la Fauna Selvatica "Alessandro Ghigi" (National Wildlife Institute), Bologna, Italy.

● Serena Arduino, Istituto Oikos, Varese, Italy.

This study draws extensively from the Italian Ungulate Database and recognizes the following scientists as essential contributors:

● Damiano Preatoni, Università degli Studi dell’Insubria, Dipartimento di Biologia Strutturale e Funzionale, Unità di Analisi e Gestione della Biodiversità (State University of Insubria, Biology Department, Biodiversity Analysis and Management Unit), Varese, Italy.

● Guido Tosi, Università degli Studi dell’Insubria, Dipartimento di Biologia Strutturale e Funzionale, Unità di Analisi e Gestione della Biodiversità (State University of Insubria, Biology Department, Biodiversity Analysis and Management Unit), Varese, Italy.

● Silvano Toso, Istituto Nazionale per la Fauna Selvatica "Alessandro Ghigi" (National Wildlife Institute), Bologna, Italy.

Project coordination:

● Serena Arduino, Istituto Oikos, Varese, Italy.

The study was funded by WWF International through the Large Herbivore Initiative (Project 9E0154.01).

The Italian Ungulate Database was funded by Ministero per le Politiche Agricole, Ministero dell’Ambiente – Servizio Conservazione della Natura and Federazione Italiana della Caccia (Ministry of Agricultural Policy, Ministry of Environment-Nature Conservation Service, and the Italian Hunting Federation).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract iii Acronyms iv AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgements v

1. Introduction 1

1. 1.1 Problem statementt 1

1.2 Background 1 1.3 Project goals and objectives 2 1.4 Project design 3 1.5 Organization / Project team 4

2. Overview of ibex issues in the Italian Alps 4 2.1 The Italian Alps 4 2.2 Brief history 5 2.3 Current status 6

2.4 Ecological distribution 7

2.5 Main policy and decision-making levels 8

2.6 Hunting 8

2.7 Protected areas 10 2.8 Status of Alpine chamois and its relationship to ibex 112

3. Present status of ibex in the Italian Alps 13 3.1 Collection of data on existing Alpine ibex colonies: methodology 13 3.2 Present distribution 16 3.3 Population size 18

3.4 Status and evolution of population size 25

3.5 Hunting and numerical control 310

4. Assessing potential distribution of Alpine ibex in the Italian Alps 354 4.1 Review of similar studies 35

4.2 Methodology 35

4.2.1 Study area and management units 35

4.2.2 Ibex ecology 38

4.2.3 The database and the GIS 39

4.2.4 Data analysis 42

4.3 The predictive model for siliceous environment 43

4.3.1 Case study 43

4.3.2 Model implementation 45

4.4 The predictive model for limestone environment 49

4.4.1 Case study 49

4.4.2 Model implementation 52

4.5 Model validation 55

4.6 Model application 58

4.7 Synthesis 623

5. Conclusdiveing remarks 712 5.1 Conclusions 712 5.2 Recommendations 723 5.3 Drafting guidelines for a future conservation strategy of Alpine ibex in Italy 734 5.4 Next steps 756

6. References 767

Annex 823

ABSTRACT

This study presents the first comprehensive overview of the status of Alpine ibex in the Italian Alps, based on an extensive data collection usingaccording to a standardized methodology. For the first time, a thorough synthesis of information on the 69 Italian ibex colonies is available, covering traditional themes such as distribution, population size and growth rate, but also more specific issues such as the year and cause of origin, number of translocated ibexes, and type of management. Then, a comparison is made between actual current and potential ibex status and distribution, and implications for the conservation and management of the species are presenteddrawn. The potential situation (distribution, size, density) is estimated by applying from the application to the entire Italian Alps of two models that assess the quality of ibex habitat and predict ibex potential distribution at the local scale. The two models had already been conceptually developed from data on different ibex populations living in the Italian Alps (one for the siliceous substratum and one for the calcareous-limestone-dolomite substratum), but, for the purpose of this study , they were redesigned to reflect the coarser scale of the data available for the whole Italian Alps. Their application to the study area according to the underlying lithological substratum revealed the gap between current and potential status and contributed to identifying conservation and management issues and developing recommendations for future reintroduction programmes.

ACRONYMS file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (6 of 126)07.02.2007 09:58:59 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

EU European Union

GP Game Park

GPNP Gran Paradiso National Park

INFS Istituto Nazionale per la Fauna Selvatica (National Wildlife IInstitute)

LCIE Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe

LHI Large Herbivore Initiative

MU Management Unit

NP National Park

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Several people contributed to this study, by both providing data and discussing various aspects of ibex conservation in the Italian Alps. The authors wish to thank them for their assistance.

Bruno Bassano Parco Nazionalea Gran Paradiso Sandro Bergamo Parco Naturale Alta Valsesia Pierre Bertieux Regione Valle d’Aosta Radames Bionda Parco Naturale Alpe Veglia Devero Carlo Borgo Enrico Boscaini Ufficio Operativo Azienda Regionale delle Foreste Alto Garda Sandro Brugnoli Provincia di Trento Giuseppe Canavese Parco Naturale Alpi Marittime Marco Cantini Provincia di di Como Giorgio Carmignola Provincia di Bolzano file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (7 of 126)07.02.2007 09:58:59 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

Ermanno Cetto Provincia di Trento Barbara Chiarenzi Istituto Oikos Paolo Craveri Provincia di Cuneo Michele Da Pozzo Parco Naturale Dolomiti d’Ampezzo Renzo De Battisti Coordinamento Regionale Veneto Corpo Forestale dello Stato Paolo De Martin Foresta Demaniale di Tarvisio Andrea De Matteis Università di Torino Mauro Devalier Provincia di Belluno Di Bernardo Foreste Demaniali di Tarvisio Lilia Domeneghetti Regione Valle d’Aosta Renato Dotta Heinrich Erhard Provincia di Bolzano Luca Favalli Parco Naturale Dolomiti Friulane Maria Ferloni Provincia di Sondrio Pietro Ferraris Parco Naturale Alta Valsesia Pietro Gatti Provincia di Lecco Fulvio Genero Parco Naturale Prealpi Giulie Marco Giovo Romano Maséè Provincia di Trento Silvano Mattedi Parco Naturale Dolomiti Friulane Piergiuseppe Meneguz Università di Torino Benito Moriconi Comprensorio Alpino Alta Valtellina Daniele Moroni Provincia di Sondrio Giacomo Moroni Provincia di Bergamo Andrea Mustoni Istituto Oikos Paolo Orellier Regione Valle d’Aosta Michele Ottino Parco Nazionale Gran Paradiso Piergiuseppe Partel Parco Naturale Paneveggio Pale di S.Martino

Franco Perco Provincia di Pordenone Aurelio Perrone Stefano Piccinini Lucia Pompilio Alberto Ricci Parco Nazionale Stelvio Luca Rotelli Ettore Sartori Parco Naturale Paneveggio Pale di S.Martino Giovanni Scherini Istituto Oikos Graziano Simonini Provincia di Sondrio Gianmaria Sommavilla Provincia di Belluno Marco Testa Provincia di di Como Andrea Vanotti Provincia di Sondrio Vittorio Vigorita Regione Lombardia Gilberto Volcan Parco Naturale Adamello Brenta Mathias Zoeschg Provincia di Bolzano.

Alpine Ibex Conservation Strategy

The Alpine ibex in the Italian Alps: status, potential distribution and management options for conservation and sustainable development

Eugenio Dupré and Luca Pedrotti

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Problem statement

The Alps are a unique mountain ecosystem threatened by increasing human pressure. In this region, conservation and development issues have usually been addressed at the local or national levelscale; rarely at the scale of the entire ecosystem. What seems to have been missing is a regional approach and an overall strategy for the Alps. Only recently have attempts been made to look at the whole Alpine range beyond national boundaries: one is the work of the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE); another is the ecoregional conservation initiative launched in 1999 by the WWF organizations of the Alps. These initiatives deserve to be encouraged and need to be integrated with others.

The LCIE sponsored a study of the large carnivores on of the Alps (bear, wolf, lynx) and was responsible for the development of action plans at European level. As part of the study, the current distribution and the areas suitable to large carnivores throughoutin the entire Alps were identified, as well as were potential corridors (Corsi et al. 1998). SA similar effort research for large herbivores hasdoes not yet exist been undertaken but it would nicely be extremely interestingcomplement the carnivore study.

This study on Alpine ibex is a first attempt to remedy the lack of information on herbivores, and this report describes its results for the entire Italian Alps. Far from being as comprehensive as that of the LCIE on large carnivores, it is a first step towards an Alpine-wide map; it does no’t cover the entire Alps but atl least – and for the first time – it covers the whole Italian portion.

1.2 Background

The purpose of the study is to provide a tool that will assist in planning ibex management and distribution in the Italian Alps through an estimation of the extent of available habitat and a comparison of current and potential population. is to assess the present status of Alpine ibex in Italy, to develop a GIS-based model to evaluate the potential ibex winter distribution, to estimate the extent of available habitat, to compare current and potential population, and to provide a tool that will assist in planning ibex presence and management in the Italian Alps. To do so, two models that were already available (one for siliceous and one for calcareous substrata) were redesigned and extended to the entire Italian Alps.

The first model (predictive of the potential distribution of Alpine ibex over siliceous substratum in South Tyrol) was developed by the INFS (Istituto Nazionale per la Fauna Selvatica, the Italian National Wildlife Institute) in cooperation with the public administration in of Bolzano (Pedrotti & Dupré 2000).

The second model (for the potential distribution of Alpine ibex on sedimentary/calcareous substratum) was also recently developed by Istituto Oikos as part of the feasibility study for the re-introduction of ibex in the south-western Dolomites (Paneveggio-Pale di S. Martino Natural Park and Dolomiti Bellunesi National Park) (Pedrotti et al. 2000).

These two substrata (siliceous-metamorphic and sedimentary-calcareous or limestone) represent the main and most common habitat types in the Alpine range. Both models are based on wintering areas because winter is considered the most critical period for ibex survival (Nievergelt 1966, Wiersema 1983a). Assessing the range and distribution of ibex potential wintering areas assists in predicting ibex potential range and driving sound management options. The validation of the two sub-models has proven excellent.

The two predictive models were applied to the whole Italian Alps, according to the different geological substrata, to compare actual current and potential ibex winter distribution. Potential wintering areas turned outwere determined to be much more extended and widely distributed than the actual ones: ibex populations are currently distributed over only about 5,000 km2 only, which represents a small portion of the estimated suitable areas, and the present current distribution ranges of ibex populations are is still small limited in all management units. file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (10 of 126)07.02.2007 09:58:59 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

However,It is important to state that the two original models were calibrated based on estimated from local data sets;, therefore, a simple extrapolation to the whole alpine range based on data sets collected aton a different scale may presented an intrinsic weakness that needed to be addressed and which is due to the fact that the covariates coefficients of the regression/classification functions were estimated from local spatial data sets acquired at a detailed map scale. Namely, the predictions of the models may have been give incorrect if the models had been applied to environmental data sets arranged (acquired) at a different scale level (i.e., less or more detailed), or may have been misleading if the characteristics of the spatial data set of the predictions area did not conform to the model ones.

For this reason,, for the purpose of this study the two original models were redesigned to yield more generally applicable results and, as a trade-off, they are less accurate when considered at at a small (i.e., small (i.e., more detailed)) scale.

1.3 Project goals and objectives

Project goal:

To contribute to the conservation and management of ibex in the Alps through an assessment of their current status (chapter 3) and through the implementation of two models of potential distribution models in the Italian Alps (chapter 4). The synthesis of this information will help to identify the conservation and management priorities and define courses of action at a broad levellarge scale (chapter 5).

Project objectives:

1. To collect preliminary ibex data available in Italy (distribution, population size, type of management of ibex colonies) (paragraphs 3.2., 3.3 and 3.5).

2. To digitise and harmonize data into GIS as necessary (chapter 3 and 4).

3. To define the current status (population size evolution and future trend) of ibex in the Italian Alps (paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4).

4. To briefly analyse briefly the types of ibex management in the Italian Alps (paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5).

5. To briefly review briefly other similar studies or habitat suitability models (paragraph 4.1).

6. To assess the areas ecologically suitable to ibex (i.e., / the potential distribution of ibex) in the Italian Alps (at a broad regional scale) (chapter 4).

7. To evaluate whether new field surveys are needed (paragraph 4.5).

8. To draft guidelines/action plan for future conservation and management strategies (including reintroductions) of ibex populations and their important habitat in the Italian Alps, while ensuring the compatible development of human activities (chapter 5).

In particular, chapter 3 is devoted to a thorough overview of ibex status in the Italian Alps. It refers to all the existing ibex colonies and presents an overall census, archive and database with information on year and cause of colony their origin, colony size and growth rate, type of management, etc. This wealth of information had never before been compiled and synthesized for the entire Italian portion and is thus a new contribution.real novelty.

Chapter 4 focuses on the two redesigned models and their extension to the entire Italian Alps. Specific colony data refer only to the sample colonies used to develop the models and file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (11 of 126)07.02.2007 09:58:59 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm the relevant environmental variables. This colony database is more detailed than that described in chapter 3.

1.4 Project design

The project was undertaken in five different phases:

Phase 1: Preliminary activities

● Contacts with relevant agencies, organisations, local experts and universities of the Italian Alps to ensure their cooperation.

● Fine-tuning of the ibex models and definition of sample areas for the application extension of the models to other areas.

Phase 2: Data collection

● Collection of environmental data (for the data already obtained and used for the Ungulate database of INFS, seeking ofk new permission to re-use the material (for the data already obtained and used for the Ungulate database of INFS).

● Collection of the ibex data available in all Italian Alpine regions:

● data concerning distribution, population size and management of each Alpine colony;

● data concerning location and range of ibex wintering areas in the sample units.

● Evaluation of whether field surveys are needed to integrate the available data.

Phase 3: Data input and harmonisation

● Digitisation of data into GIS (for data obtained in hard copy only) and harmonisation of other digital data (for ibex only; environmental data had already been digitised by public administrations).

● Analysis of the status of ibex.

● Analysis of the types of ibex management.

● Review of similar studies of habitat evaluation models for ibex.

● Analysis of the areas ecologically suitable to ibex (at the regional scale).

● Validation of the models.

● Production of maps (species distribution and density, areas ecologically suitable to ibex and potential connecting areas, priority areas).

Phase 5: Development of guidelines for an action plan

● Contacts with local administrations, organisations (GSE – European Ibex Group) and uUniversities of the Italian Alpine regions to present and discuss preliminary results in order to outline regional management priorities.

● Production of a final report including the results of the data analysis and the management guidelines defined in cooperation with the local agencies, taking into account the regional management needs that have emerged from the study.

1.5 Organisation/Project team

The project team is composed of the Istituto Nazionale per la Fauna Selvatica, the Biodiversity Analysis and Management Unit of the State University of Insubria, the non-profit organisation Istituto Oikos. Istituto Oikos was the project promoter and was responsible for project management; INFS and the State University of Insubria were responsible for the technical implementation and the scientific supervision.

Financing for the project was provided by the Large Herbivore Initiative (LHI) through WWF International.

Co-financing to outline status, distribution and population size of all ungulates distributed in the Italian Alps, and to compile a database for the Italian ungulates was provided by the Italian Ministry of Agricultural Policy, te, the Italian Ministry for Environment and Federazione Italiana della Caccia (FIdC, the main national hunting association).

2 . OVERVIEW OF IBEX ISSUES IN THE ITALIAN ALPS

2.1 The Italian Alps

Italy is a mountainous country with about 35% of its 300,000 km2 lying above 2000m. The Italian Alps are arc-shaped and form the country’s northern border with France, Switzerland, Austria and Slovenia. They can be divided into three contiguous sections: 1) the Western western Alps running south from Aosta almost to the Gulf of Genoa; 2) the cCentral Alps stretching east from Aosta as far as the Brenner pass between Italy and Austria and . They includinge Italy’s highest mountains (Monte Cervino, 4,478m, and Monte Rosa, 4,634m ) and of course Mont Blanc, the highest peak of the entire Alps, (4,808 m), the highest peak of the entire Alps); and 3) the eEastern Alps extending east from beyond the BBrenner to Trieste, and includinge the Dolomites.

According to the boundaries of the Alpine Convention, tThe Italian Alps cover 45about ,39052,600 km2, from the Imperia province to the west, to the province at of Trieste to the east (but the study area of this project is slightly smaller). Fourty-oneTwenty-eight percent of the Alpsir land area lies below 1000m;, 4739% lies between 1000 and 2000m, and the remaining 215% is found above 2000m (Fig. 2.1). The three sections, however, are not homogeneous. T: the Wwestern Alps (Piemonte and Valle d’Aosta regions) have higher peaks on average;. h Here, only 21% of the land area is below 1000m while 34% is above 2000m. I; in the cCentral Alps, 31% of the area lies below 1000m and 27% above 2000m. I; and in the Eastern eastern Alps, with the lowest average elevation, 32% is found below 1000m and only 15% above 2000m.

Figure 2.1 - Distribution of elevation in the Italian Alps: highest massifs are mainly located in the north-western and central portions. The red lines represent the borders of the management units for ibex conservation and management (see par. 3.1 for further explanations).

2.2 Brief history

Ibex (Capra ibex) is distributed in Eurasia and Ethiopia in extremely fragmented areas corresponding to main mountain ranges.

Systematicss of Genus Capra is still controversial due to the different classification criteria in use. Capra ibex is subdivided into the following subspecies: Capra i. ibex, the Alpine ibex, distributed all over the Alps; C. i. sibirica, the Siberian ibex, present in Asia, the Russian Turkestan and Central central Siberia, Mongolia, Chinese Turkestan, Kashmir, a limited portion of Tibet, Chitral (Pakistan) and north-western Afghanistan; C. i. nubiana, the Nubian ibex, in Northern northern Egypt, Northnorth-eastern Sudan, Oman and some parts of Arabia, Israel and Jordan; C. i. walie, the Walie ibex, in the Semien massif; C. i. caucasica, in the Westernwestern Caucasian tur or Kuben tur (C. i. severtzovi, according to Ellerman & Morrison-Scott 1951). Recently a subdivision into 5 different species has been proposed, whereby and ibex populations presently occurring in northern Africa and Asia at present would be are usually treated as species distinct from Capra ibex (C. nubiana, C. sibirica, C. walie).

The ancestors of Genus Capra appeared between the end of Miocene and the beginning of Pliocene in Centralcentral-western Asia. Subsequently, according to Geist’s hypothesis (1985, 1987), four radiations originating in the Caucasus led from Ammotragus to the current species of Genus Capra. The most recent one led, during the Riss glaciation, led to file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (15 of 126)07.02.2007 09:58:59 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm today’s form of Capra ibex.

During the last glaciation (Riss) ibex ended up occupiedying their most extended ranges in the Alps and in other mountain areasranges, both in Alpine and non-Alpine countries: Spain, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria, and Germany, Slovenia and Croatia up to Montenegro, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania. In Italy, past distribution reached the southern regions of Campania, Basilicata, Puglia and perhaps Sardinia. After the last ice age, ibex disappeared from the territories surrounding the Alps as soon as forests recovered their former, larger ranges, as showed by Neolithic findings in the upper high Po Rriver Bbasin.

After centuries of active extermination mainly due to intensive hunting, at the beginning of the XIX century only about 50-100 individuals of Alpine ibex survived in the Gran Paradiso massif (Valle d’Aosta region, Italy), due to the protection granted by the Royal Savoia Royal Family. Current ibex populations found inon the Alps are generally restricted to mountain areas above the tree line and are the result of both translocations from the original core of 100 individuals and natural colonisation. Re-introductions began at the end of the XIX century in the Swiss Alps, while in Italy they have been significant only in the last 20-30 years. These efforts, together with spontaneous migration from adjoining countries, have increased the number of areas inhabited by ibex, although the distribution is still discontinuous (Stüwe & Nievergelt 1991).

With current conservation and management practices the status of Alpine ibex is now considered safe and the species is listed as Lower Risk in the 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals.

2.3 Current status

Nowadays Alpine ibex is currently distributed throughoutall over the Alps due to re-introduction projects and natural population dispersion. Up to 1990, ibex reintroduction involved 175 different Alpine areas sites were interested by ibex immissionintroduction.! Ibex distribution starts in goes from tthe western Maritime Alps (Argentera massif) in the west and continues eastward to the Stirian limestone Alps in Austria and the eEastern Karawanken Alps on the border between Austria and Slovenia, covering all Alpine countries.

In 1993, At present, 31,000 ibex live in the Alps (Weber 1994, Pedrotti & Lovari 1999). Populations have been growing steadily since the 1960s, showing a mean annual growth rate between 3% and 6% (Table 2.1). About 15,000 ibex wereare estimated in Switzerland, 9700 in Italy, 3,200 in Austria, 3,300 in France, 250 in Slovenia and, and 220 in Germany (Shackleton 1997).

On the whole, 1455 different colonies are are estimated in the Alps (Giacometti 1991, Weber 1994).

There exist about 1456 colonies; Oof these, 50% of the individuals and 33% of the colonies are found in Switzerland. However, a wide gap between actual and potential distribution is still present in a large portion of the Alps, although even if with major differences among the Alpine countries. In Switzerland and Austria, for example, all suitable ibex habitat is considered occupied; in France the policy for ibex conservation is to continue re-introducing and restocking populations in appropriate habitat; in Germany only a limited portion of the country provides suitable ibex habitat and the species has a patchy and isolated distribution; and in Italy between 1985 and 2000 ibex increased from 5,100 to 13,000 individuals with and more than 50% (6,900) are found within protected areas.

Table 2.1 – Increase of Alpine ibex population in the Alpine range (1962-1993).

Year 1962 1977 1983 1987 1993

Abundance 6,500 15,000 18,000 23,000 31,000

Mean annual growth -- 5.7% 3.1% 6.3% 5.1%

2.4 Ecological distribution

Ibex is a good climber, well adapted to rocky, steep and arid environments and to a fibreer-rich diet. These characteristics, together with a preference for open habitats, make ibex a typical glacier follower like other wild Caprinae. Most habitat suitable to ibex is located both in sub-Mediterranean climate and continental regions, where dry climate characterizes inner valleys.

In the Alps, ibex live mainly above the tree line, visiting lower elevations only in winter and spring. C (chamois, on the contrary, are more adaptable and range from submontane, mixed broadleaf woodlands around 500m or lessower in winter, to alpine areas in summer).

The most important ecological constraints to ibex spatial distribution are the elevation of the rocky montanemountain regions and the type of vegetation available type. Ibex occupy elevation ranges between 1,600 and 2,800m during winter and between 2,300 and 3,200m during summer. Rock cliffs and alpine meadows are most frequented throughout the year. Wintering areas, situated at intermediate elevation, are steep rugged south-exposed slopes (35°-45°) with grassy vegetation,, rugged and interspersed with rocks. Rock cliffs and alpine meadows are the land cover categories most frequented throughout the year. Rock vegetation and scree at the highest elevation are frequented exclusively during summer. Closed and continuous forests and glaciers interfere with ibex dispersal and slow down the colonization of new areas.

Alpine ibex’ and Alpine chamois’ ranges overlap substantially, but because the former tends to keep stay at higher altitudes, competition between them is unlikely to occur (Pfeffer & Settimo 1973, Schröder & Kofler 1984) (see also 2.8). Exceptions are ibex colonies introduced in atypical locations, wheren the two species completely overlap during winter (Kofler & Schröder 1985, 1990).

The ibex dispersion strategy when colonizing new areas is quite slow. Due to their ecological constraints, wWinter ranges characterize ibex as an insular species. are used in a "traditional" way, especially by females (Pedrotti 1995). When colonizing new areas, ibex dispersion strategy is quite slow. Their ecological constraints characterize ibex as an insular species. Ibex do not disperse as fast as like chamois or roe deer, but tend to remain in their traditional ranges while increasing their density (Gauthier et al. 1994). Indeed, only when a certain population density level is reached will new areas will new areas be colonized by young, pioneer individuals, but in winter these individuals stage actual annual migrations as they tend to return to their original wintering areas. Wintering areas are thus used in a "traditional" way, especially by females (Pedrotti 1995), and Ccolonization of new areas becomes permanent only one generation later, with the offspring of pioneer females. The whole process takes 10-15 years (Nievergelt 1966, Gauthier & Villaret 1990).

2.5 Main policy and decision-making levels

In Italy, at the national level, the Ministry of Agricultural Policy and the Ministry of Environment are responsible for the management and protection policies of wildlife. Regional and provincial services, as well as national and regional park agencies, are responsible for local management. In both cases (local administrations and protected areas) the advisory agency is the Italian National Wildlife Institute (INFS).

Several independent groups have a strong interests in Alpine ibex conservation, such as the European Ibex Group and the Friends of the Rhaetian Ibex.

2.6 Hunting

Based on current hunting legislation, hunting activity is organized according to sub-provincial management units called "Comprensori Alpini" (Fig. 2.2). Each Any hunter is entitled file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (17 of 126)07.02.2007 09:58:59 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm to hunt in only one unit. Within each Comprensorio, hunting of wild ungulates is regulated according to annual harvest plans which specify the sex and age class of the individuals to be hunted. These plans are developed on the basis of the numerical evolution of the populations, determined through censuses (exhaustive or by sample areas).

The INFS has recently developed a data management system (Ungulate Database, Pedrotti & Dupré 2001) containing all the information available for hunting units and protected areas on:

● size and characteristics of area;

● size, structure and evolution of the ungulate populations from 1996 to 2000;

● management strategies adopted (harvest plans, actual harvest).

This is an unparalleled source for information on hunting practices in Italy.

The mMean extension of the 49 Comprensori in the western Italian Alps (Piemonte, Valle d’Aosta) is 41,710 ha (min 8,260 ha, max 96,050 ha, sd 23,235 ha); in the western-central Italian Alps (Lombardia, some provinces of Veneto) the mean extension of the 39 Comprensori is 38,360 ha (min 8,210, max 126,680, sd 24,960 ha). In the central-eastern Italian Alps (Trentino-Alto Adige, Veneto, Friuli-Venezia Giulia), instead, the administration of hunting activities mainly follows central European criteria and the basic management unit is the "Riserva Comunale di Diritto" (Community Reserve) open to the access of residents only. The extension of these 845 Community Reserves is a great deal smaller than that of the Comprensori, with a mean value of 2,970 ha (min 73 ha, max 29,365 ha, sd 3,000 ha).

Figure 2.2 – Basic hunting management units in the Italian Alps (black lines). In red the boundaries of the various provinces; in dark green the protected areas.

The dDensity of ungulate hunters is higher in the central-eastern Alps and in the Province of Torino (Fig. 2.3). T: this is usually directly correlated to the size of hunted populations and of the hunting bag. In the eastern Alps and in some Comprensori of the Province of Brescia hunting of roe and red deer is also undertaken with hounds.

Figure 2.3 – Hunters’ density in the management units (Comprensori) of the Italian Alps (from Carnevali et al. 2000).

2.7 Protected areas

In Italy there exist Ddifferent types of areas in which hunting is not allowed exist in Italy, according to different pieces of legislation. The national legislation on protected areas (L. 394/91), for example, establishes National Parks and Regional Natural Parks; in the latter, any hunting activity is prohibited. , in accordance with national legislation. Exceptions are the Natural Parks of the Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano: here the 8 existing parks are here under a separate local hunting legislation and hunting takes place according to the different Community Reserves system as in the like in the other part of the remaining provinceial territory. By law hunting is also prohibited in state forests under both national and regional jurisdiction.

The national legislation on hunting and the protection of homeothermic fauna (L. 157/92) calls for hunting-free areas called "Oasi di Protezione" (protection areas) and "Zone di Ripopolamento e Cattura" (areas of repopulation/re-stocking and capture). These are placed under provincial jurisdiction and are managed according to 5-year wildlife management plans (Piani Faunistico-Venatori). At the end of the 5-year period, On the expiration date tthese areas can be placed under a different type of land tenure; , however, at least 20% of the land area in each Alpine province must be closed to hunting (protected areas and state forests also are included in concur to this percentage). file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (22 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:00 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

Figure 2.4 – Distribution of protected areas in the Italian Alps. In dark green national and natural parks; in light green "oasi di protezione" and state forests (Foreste Demaniali); in red boundaries of management units for ibex conservation and management (see par. 3.1). for further explanations).

Of the 45,390 km2 of the Italian Alpine area under consideration for this study, 21.8% (9,900 km2) is under some form of protection (24.7% in the western Alps and 20.5% in the central-eastern Alps). The distribution of the various types of protected areas, however, is markedly different in the two sectors of the Alps (Fig. 2.4). I: in the western Alps, 50% of

the 3,430 km2 under protection is National or Natural Parks and the remaining 50% is Oasi di protezione and state forests. In the central-eastern Alps, 74% of 6,470 km2 i is National and Natural Parks, whereas only 26% is Oasi di protezione and Foreste Demaniali.

2.8 Status of Alpine chamois and its relationship to Alpine ibex

The Ungulate Database made it possible to compile a satisfying overview of the current distribution and status of Alpine chamois. Given that ibex and chamois ranges overlap (see 2.4), the information currently available on chamois distribution and abundance represents one key factor to take into account when developing a future strategy for the file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (23 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:00 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm reintroduction of ibex on the Italian Alps.

Alpine chamois is today unevenly distributed throughout the Italian Alps , even if with different density levels (Fig. 2.5): it is evenly present from the Friuli Venezia Giulia region in the east to the Province of Imperia in the west, and only sporadically present in the Province of Savona, the south-western limit of its range (Tosi & Lovari 1997). The Alpine chamoisIts range extends to 41,130 km2, or 14% of the national territory.

The total chamois population in the Italian Alps is estimated around 123,000 individuals, with a mean density of 4.3 individuals/100 ha calculated on the total extension of the areas suitable to chamois (about 27,000 km2). About 19,500 individuals (or 16% of the entire Italian population) are found in 5 protected areas (the Maritime Alps and the Dolomiti Ampezzane Natural Parks, and the Gran Paradiso, Stelvio and Dolomiti Bellunesi National Parks). The largest population sizes are recorded infor the autonomous provinces of Trento and Bolzano and infor the Piemonte region, where 62% of all Italian chamois are found (37% only in the Trentino-Alto Adige region only).

Chamois densities (calculated only on the the extension of arareas suitable to chamois in each province) are generally higher in the Lecco, Bergamo, Trento and Bolzano provinces (5.5-8.6 chamois/100 ha). Overall highest densities (7.4-10 chamois/100 ha) are found in certain protected areas and private hunting preserves, probably due to a population "compression" consequent toresulting from hunting in adjacent areas and from to the fact that almost all landbase is suitable. The absolute highest densities are recorded for GPNP, Valle d’Aosta side (18 chamois/100 ha) and the Maritime Alps Natural Park (12 chamois/100 ha). Excluding the large national and natural parks, the highest densities are found in the central-eastern Alps (Fig. 2.5), especially in the Trento and Bolzano provinces (concentrating the highest densities in the western part of the Trentino region).

Chamois hunting is undertaken in almost all Italian Alps; only in the provinces of Savona, Como, Brescia, Verona, Gorizia and Trieste is is the species is not hunted. In the 1998-99 period 9,000-11,000 chamois were annually harvested (7-9% of the total population, 60% of which in the Trentino-Alto Adige region only). The total number of hunted chamois increased progressively between 1996 and 1999 (respectively 7,617, 8,817, 8,764 and 10,798 individuals harvested). In 1999 hHarvest was numerically significant in the following provinces (1999): Verbania (313 chamois), Torino (418), Sondrio (493), Belluno (768), Aosta (1,007), Trento (2,458) and Bolzano (4,147).

3. PRESENT STATUS OF IBEX IN THE ITALIAN ALPS

This chapter provides the first complete overview of the status of ibex in the Italian Alps and is based on the Ungulate Database. Local information has been available all along, but never before was it compiled onat such a llarge scale and with standardized methodology.

3.1. Collection of data on existing Alpine ibex colonies: methodology

In 1998-2000 the status of ibex colonies in the Italian Alps was investigated by an extensive review of available literature and by direct contacts with provincial, regional and protected area agencies to gather all the information related to origin, distribution, abundance and evolution of their ibex populations. This information was subsequently refined, corrected and validated by direct contacts and data exchange with researchers and local experts (for a detailed list of the people involved please see AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgements).

The colonies’ distribution ranges were reported on paper maps at 1:25000-50000 scale. Boundaries of colony areas were then digitised in Universal Transverse Mercatore (UTM, zone 32N) coordinates using the geographic information system ArcI/info for NT Windows 2.07 and ArcV-view 3.1. In some cases, provincial agencies and local experts directly supplied distribution ranges of colonies in numerical form. All data were harmonized into a single coverage in shapefile format (see Figg. A.1 and A.2 in Annex).

The polygon data set was joined, by means of an ID colony number, to an Access database file containing all the information collected on each colony (Fig. 3.1). For each ibex colony the following data were collected:

● ID number;

● colony name;

● management unit;

● province(s);

● year of origin;

● origin (autochthonous, natural immigration, reintroduction); file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (25 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:00 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

● number of translocated individualsbexes;

● years, release sites and numbers of translocated individualsbexes;

● colony size (in 1984-85, 1994-95 and present);

● distribution (names of principal massifs and valleys in the colony’s range);

● notes on colony growth;

● type of management;

● person responsible for data supply and validation.

Figure 3.1 – The insertion mask for the ibex colonies’ database.

The Italian Alpine range was subdivided into 17 ibex management units (MUs) including areas with similar habitat characteristics (Fig. 3.2 and Table 3.1). Such units were defined to include populations which are relatively isolated and with minimum chance of exchange of individuals from one unit to the other. By "Ppopulation" is defined as meant a group file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (26 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:00 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm of individuals of the same species that lives in a common territory and are that can be characterized by the same demographic parameters.

For this reason, MU boundaries were defined following natural boundaries like main valley bottoms and lowest alpine passes, which are deemed to be the main ecological barriers to ibex movements and thus the features limiting the populations’ ranges. The southernmost boundaries towards the Po plaine were set along the ideal line joining all the 1000m contour lines. Needless to say, given that ibex does not recognize administrative boundaries, in many cases ibex MUs should in many cases extend beyond national borders to include entire populations. This was not attempted as part of this study, but its obvious implications should be kept in mind.to consideration.

Several MUs currently contain ibex colonies completely separate and without exchanges of individuals among them. The MU’s shape and extension were defined on the basis of the species’ potential distribution to allow a comparison with actual distribution, and to support the assist the development of an overall strategy for ibex conservation and management. Average MU extension is 2,670 km2; min extension MU No. 2 "Alpi Marittime" with 930 km2, max extension MU No. 15 "Dolomiti" with 6,100 km2 (Table 3.1). Each MU was named according to the main mountain range included.

Figure 3.2 – The Italian Alps were subdivided into 17 management units (MUs) that minimize population exchange (red lines); in light green the present distribution of Alpine ibex colonies.

Table 3.1 – Size and administrative boundaries of the 17 management units into which the Italian Alps were subdivided for ibex population management purposes.

No. Management Unit (MU) Total surface (km2) Provinces (km2) 1 Imperia 1218 Imperia, Cuneo 2 Alpi Marittime 929 Cuneo 3 V. Maira – Orsiera 3166 Cuneo, Torino 4 V. Lanzo - G. Paradiso - M. Bianco 3594 Torino, Aosta 5 Sx Aosta – M. Rosa - V. Anzasca 3587 Aosta, Biella, Vercelli, Verbania 6 V. Formazza - V. Grande 1339 Verbania, Varese file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (28 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:00 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

7 Alpi Lepontine 1292 Como, Sondrio 8 Alpi Retiche - Bernina 1042 Sondrio 9 Alpi Orobie 3190 Lecco, Bergamo, Sondrio, Brescia 10 Adamello 2279 Brescia, Trento 11 Brenta 2936 Trento, Bolzano, Brescia, Verona 12 Alpi Retiche - Ortles - Cevedale 3255 Sondrio, Brescia, Trento, Bolzano 13 V. Venosta - Brennero 2484 Bolzano 14 V. PusteriaPusteria 1547 Bolzano 15 Dolomiti 6104 Bolzano, Trento, Belluno 16 Alpi Carniche - Alpi Giulie 4552 Udine, Pordenone, Belluno, Bolzano 17 Asiago – Grappa 2876 Trento, Verona, Vicenza, Belluno, Treviso

WESTERN ALPS (1-6) 13833 CENTRAL ALPS (7-13) 16478 EASTERN ALPS (14-17) 15078

TOTAL 45389

The following ancillary thematic coverages were harmonised and stored into a GIS project in Universal Transverse Mercatore (UTM, zone 32N) coordinates:

● management units (MU) for ibex populations ● province’s boundaries; ● hunting management units; ● protected areas; ● main roads; ● main rivers; ● Corine landcover; ● digital terrain model (250m resolution).

3.2 Present distribution

At present about 69 colonies are found in the Italian Alps ranging over 5,000 km2 (Fig. 3.3). In some portions of the western and central Alps, distribution of populations has become rather continuous in the last ten years, thus making the identification of well-defined boundaries between colonies more difficult. file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (29 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:00 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

Reintroduction programmes started in the 1980s, except for translocation into the Maritime Alps Natural Park (the former Valdieri-Entracque Real Hunting Preserve) in 1921 and some pioneer attempts in the Valle d’Aosta region before the 1980s (see Annex).

In Italy, currentactual Alpine ibex distribution is still quite fragmented and far from meeting itsthe potentiall one. Ibex are present in all Alpine regions, from Friuli–Venezia Giulia to Piemonte, and in all Alpine Provinces (15) with the exception of Trieste, Gorizia, Varese, Biella and Imperia (probably lacking habitat suitable to ibex) (Fig. 3.4). The following figures provide evidence of the scattered ibex distribution: 70% of individuals (9,200) is found in three provinces only (Aosta, Torino and Sondrio); 43% (5,600) are found in three parks, namely the Gran Paradiso National ParkNP and Maritime Alps Natural Park in Piemonte and the Stelvio National Park in Lombardia; and 30% (4,000) are in the Gran Paradiso National Park alone. Furthermore, most of the newborn colonies are still characterized by low numbers and densities.

Figure 3.3 – Present distribution of Alpine ibex in the Italian Alps (2000). In light grey, the provinces’ borders .

Figure 3.4 – Alpine ibex presence in the different Italian provinces in 2000. In dark green, larger populatin size; light green shows the presence of fragmented small populations and lower population size (less than 500 individuals); initials of provinces are showned (seecfr. Fig. 3.3).

3.3 Population size

As already mentioned, about 13,000 ibex are currently found in the Italian Alps, divided among about 69 colonies. For a detailed description of of the distribution, origin, size and evolution of each colony see the Annex.

Overall, about 6,800 ibex, or 51% of the total, areis found within protected areas where hunting is prohibited (National and Natural Parks, State Forests).

Generally, larger populations are concentrated in six provinces: Cuneo, Torino, Vercelli, Aosta, Sondrio and Bolzano (Table 3.2). However, the single largest colonies are localized in (in brackets the province’s name): Gran Paradiso National Park, Lanzo Valleys (Torino and and Aosta), Stelvio National Park (Sondrio and and BBrescia), Maritime Alps Natural Park (Cuneo), Valtournanche (Aosta), Monzoni–Marmolada Massif (Trento and, Belluno), Pelline Valley, St. Marcel and Rhèemes Valleys (Aosta), Monte Rosa Massif (Aosta, Vercelli and, Verbania), Orobie Alps (Bergamo, Como and, Sondrio), Livigno territory (Sondrio), Palla Bianca Peak and Tessa Group (Bolzano) (Fig. 3.5).

REGION POPULATION SIZE Piemonte 3,6975 Valle d’Aosta 5,6435 Lombardia 2,134400 Total central-western Alps 11,474740

Trentino–Alto Adige 99856 Veneto 31600 Friuli–Venezia Giulia 450 Total central-eastern Alps 1,75245

TOTAL 13,226485

Figure 3.5 – Ibex distribution and mean population density in the Italian Alps (1999-2000).

A comparison between the central-western and the central-eastern Italian Alps shows that abundance is seven times higher in the former, outlining how current abundance distribution of ibex populations is unbalanced (the central-western Alps include Piemonte, Valle d’Aosta and Lombardia; the central-eastern Alps include Trentino–Alto Adige, Veneto and Friuli–Venezia Giulia).

A first rough analysis of suitable ibex wintering areas (Ungulate BatabaseDatabase) showed that they are wider in the central-western Alps than in the central-eastern Alps (2,390 km2 vs. 2,050 km2); also ibex actual distribution and abundance are higher in the central-western Alps. Mean densityies, in relation to weighed to the extent of potential areas, isare 1.3 ibex/100 ha in central-western Alps (0.9 ibex/100 ha without the GPNP population) and 0.25 ibex/100 ha in central-eastern Alps. Mean densityies, in relation to weighed to the extent of potential wintering areas, isare 4.8 ibex/100 ha in central-western Alps (3.6 ibex/100 ha without GPNP population) and 0.8 ibex/100 ha in central-eastern Alps (Pedrotti et al. 2001) (Table 3.3). Highest population densities are found in the provinces of Aosta, Lecco and Vercelli (2.5-2.8 ibex/100 ha); however, Aosta mean density dropsfalls to 0.8 ibex/100 ha if GPNP is not considered. Torino and Bergamo reach densities between 1 and 2 ibex/100 ha. Pordenone, Sondrio, Udine and Cuneo haveare characterized by more than 0.5 ibex/100 ha, while the other provinces have less. are below this value.

file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (33 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:00 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm A rough habitat suitability model developed in a previous work (Pedrotti et al. 2001) outlines ranges and distribution of potential ibex wintering areas. This model represents an extremely simplified version of reality and has to be considered at a large scale; however it contributes to a comparative overview of the present and potential situation for the whole Italian Alps. The model assesses winter potential ranges on the basis of the values of elevation, aspect and slope, and assesses global potential distribution assuming all un-forested areasareas not forested aboveover 2000m are suitable summer habitat. Considering the extent and distribution of potential wintering areas derived from the application of the model, it is possible to compute a "mean winter density" for each province as the ratio between current abundance and the extent (in km2) of potential winter areas.

Ibex population of the Gran Paradiso National Park has a winter density of 12.6 ibex/100 ha. The provinces of Vercelli, Torino and Aosta (except the GPNP population) show winter densities between 4 and 8 ibex/100 ha. Lecco, Pordenone, Sondrio, Bergamo, Udine and Cuneo have a density between 2 and 3 ibex/100 ha; Verbania and Brescia about 1 ibex/100 ha and Bolzano, Trento and Belluno between 0.5 and 1.

Without more rigorous predictive models based on objective data and sound statistical procedures, these results provide at least ainteresting orders of magnitude of reference for comparison with the actual situation.

Considering a precautionary density level in wintering areas of 7 ibex/100 ha, the Italian Alps could host at least 30,000 ibex, as opposed to the 13,000 currently present (43% of the potential), of which about 17,000 in the central-western Alps, and about 14,000 in the central-eastern Alps. Having used very conservative potential values, in the Valle d’Aosta region - due to the high actual population density of the GPNP – the difference between real and potential density is even positive. Vercelli, Torino, Sondrio, Lecco and Pordenone are the only provinces where current ibex density is as high as 40% of its the potential one or higherabove. In Cuneo, Bergamo and Udine ibex density values areis between 25% and 40% of its the ppotential ones, while and in the remaining provinces the density isvalues are between 5% and 12% of the potential ones.

Table 3.3 and Fig. 3.5 confirm how present distribution and abundance of Alpine ibex in Italy are still under below their potential values.

Table 3.3 – Ibex distribution and population size in the provinces of the Italian Alps (1998-2000). Density was calculated in relation to on potential wintering ranges (km2) (see text) for further explanations). Potential abundance was set at a conservative mean winter density of 7 ibex/100 ha. The last column (Difference %) shows the percentage of present population size against its the estimated potential one. The number of reintroduced colonies is at times expressed aswith a decimal numberfraction (e.g., 3.5) whenn the colony was established by man-made releases after a few individuals had arrived spontaneously but the colony was established by man-made releases.

Province Number of Number of Population Density Winter Potential Difference colonies reintroduced size potential abundance % coloniepopulations /100 ha distribution (km2) Cuneo 6 3 66870 0.55 284 1988 34% Torino 6 3.5 2178 1.40 462 3234 67% GPNP 1 0 765 2.24 114 798 96% Rest 5 3.5 1413 1.17 348 2436 58% Vercelli 1 1 600 2.80 87 609 99% Verbania 5 2 2510 0.39 236 1652 15% Biella 0 0 0 -- 22 154 -- file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (34 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:00 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

Aosta 12 5 56430 2.55 635 4445 127% GPNP 1 0 3245 8.89 205 1435 226% Rest 11 5 2398 0.83 430 3010 80% Como 1 1 41 -- 27 189 -- Lecco 1 1 90 2.57 27 189 48% Bergamo 2 1 36070 1.34 140 980 38% Brescia 5 4 181200 0.3300 178 1246 156% Sondrio 9 3.5 1499380 0.8175 468 3276 462% CENTRAL-WESTERN ALPS 11474379 1.321 2566 17962 643%

Bolzano 11 2 71820 0.20 957 6699 11% Trento 4 4 26870 0.15 526 3682 7% Belluno 3 2 31600 0.313 405 2835 11% Vicenza 0 0 0 -- 9 63 -- Pordenone 1 1 150 0.88 49 343 44% Udine 2 2 300 0.59 116 812 37% CENTRAL-EASTERN ALPS 175240 0.25 2062 14434 12%

TOTAL 69 365 13226119 0.83 4628 32396 40% without GPNP 68 365 9216109 0.61 4309 30163 30%

As shown in Table 3.4, the 17 ibex MUs were grouped to form three sections of the Italian Alps of comparable extension: the western Alps (MU 1-6) of 13,830 km2, the central Alps (MU 7-13) of 16,480 km2, and the eastern Alps (MU 14-17) of 15,080 km2. In these three sectors, population density and size decrease from west to east: 9,300 ibex (71%) are estimated for the western Alps, 2,800 (21%) in the central Alps and 1,075 (8%) in the eastern Alps (Fig. 3.6). Summer density is respectively 1.6, 0.5 and 0.3 ibex/100 ha; winter density is 6.0, 1.7 and 0.8 ibex/100 ha. In the western sector, densities remain theare highest even when the historical colony of the GPNP is excluded (summer density: 1.0 ibex/100 ha; winter density: 4.3 ibex/100 ha).

The highest population sizesdensities (>1000 individuals) are found in MUs "Valli di Lanzo – Gran Paradiso – M.te Bianco", "Sx Aosta – M.te Rosa – Valle Anzasca" and "Alpi Retiche – Ortles – Cevedale". Populations above 500 individuals are also found in MUs "Alpi Marittime" and "Dolomiti". Smaller populations below 150 individuals are found in MUs "Alpi Lepontine", "Adamello", "Val Formazza", "Val Pusteria" and "Brenta".

There exist 69 colonies overall: 31 in the western sector, 26 in the central sector and 12 in the eastern sector. Of the 69 colonies, 2 are autochthonous, 36 were created through reintroductions and 31 originated from natural colonization. Of the colonies originated from natural recolonizsation, 11 came from Italian populations, 3 from French ones, 11 from Swiss ones and 6 from Austrian ones. In the western, central and eastern sectors, respectively 42%, 58% and 67% of colonies were created through reintroductions. file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (35 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:00 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

Summer density, calculated over the entire summer area available in each MU, varies from 0.1 to 5.8 ibex/100 ha. Not considering the GPNP, the highest summer densities are between 0.8 and 1.6 ibex/100 ha and are found in MUs "Valli di Lanzo – Gran Paradiso – M.te Bianco", "Alpi Marittime", "Sx Aosta – M.te Rosa – Valle Anzasca" and "Alpi Orobie".

Winter density, also calculated over the entire wintering area available in each MU, varies from 0.3 to 12.4 ibex/100 ha. The highest winter densities (3.2-12 ibex/100 ha) are found in MUs "Valli di Lanzo – Gran Paradiso – M.te Bianco", "Alpi Marittime", "Sx Aosta – M.te Rosa – Valle Anzasca" and "Alpi Retiche – Ortles - Cevedale".

The average population density per MU, calculated over the land area currently occupied by each colony, more accurately describes the present situation and varies between 1 and 7.3 ibex/100 ha (GPNP).

Table 3.4 – Ibex distribution and population size in the ibex management units of the Italian Alps (1998-2000). Density was estimated according to summer and winter potential ranges (km2) (see text) for further explanations). "Reintro" indicates the number of re-introduced colonies; "Den/distr" indicates the density calculated on omputed on the present distribution range.

No. Management Unit Total Colony No. of Reintro Size Summer Winter Den/ surface surface colonies density /100 density /100 distr /100 (km2) ha ha ha (km2) 1 Imperia 1218 0 0 0 0 2 Alpi Marittime 929 285 3 1 606 1.4 7.7 2.1 3 V. Maira – Orsiera 3166 282 6 4.5 368 0.3 1.2 1.3 4 V. Lanzo - G. Paradiso - M. 3594 1095 9 1.5 6120 3.1 12.4 5.6 Bianco 4a GPNP 707 551 1 0 4010 5.8 12.6 7.3 4b Rest 2887 544 8 1.5 2110 1.6 12.0 3.9 5 Sx Aosta – M. Rosa - V. 3587 646 10 5 2135 1.3 4.1 3.3 Anzasca 6 V. Formazza - V. Grande 1339 107 3 1 11107 0.3 0.8 1.0 7 Alpi Lepontine 1292 88 3 0.5 147 0.6 1.5 1.7 8 Alpi Retiche - Bernina 1042 104 2 1 150 0.3 0.7 1.4 9 Alpi Orobie 3190 151 2 2 490 0.8 2.2 3.2 10 Adamello 2279 135 4 4 129 0.2 0.7 1.0 11 Brenta 2936 6 1 1 40 0.2 0.6 6.7 12 Alpi Retiche - Ortles - 3255 418 11 6 1344 0.6 3.2 3.2 Cevedale 13 V. Venosta - Brennero 2484 174 3 0.5 494 0.4 1.2 2.8 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (36 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:00 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

14 V. Pusteria 1547 79 4 1 86 0.1 0.3 1.1 15 Dolomiti 6104 134 5 4 556 0.3 0.9 4.1 16 Alpi Carniche - Alpi Giulie 4552 113 3 3 450 0.4 1.4 4.0 17 Asiago - Grappa 2876 0 0 0 0

WESTERN ALPS (1-6) 13833 2416 31 13 934036 1.6 6.0 3.9 WA without GPNP 13126 1864 30 13 533026 1.0 4.3 2.9 CENTRAL ALPS (7-13) 16478 1075 26 15 2794 0.5 1.7 2.6 EASTERN ALPS (14-17) 15078 326 12 8 1092 0.3 0.8 3.3

TOTAL 45389 3817 69 36 132262 0.8 3.0 3.5 TOTAL without GPNP 44682 3265 68 36 92162 0.6 2.2 2.8

Figure 3.6 – Presence of Alpine ibex in management units in 2000. Dark green shows higher population size; shades of lighter green show the presence of small, fragmented populations and lower population size.

Table 3.5 presents information similar to that ofin Table 3.4 (distribution, size and density of ibex colonies in MUs), but it is relative referred to the 1984-85. period. In that period thereFifteen years ago there were 42 colonies with a total of 6,300 ibex, of which over 60% belonged to the GPNP population. There were about 5,500 ibex (87%) in the western Alps, 700 (11%) in the central Alps and 130 (2%) in the eastern Alps. Not counting the GPNP colony, whose size has remained virtually unchanged, no MU had a population size higher than 600 individuals. Summer density varied from 0.1 to 1 ibex/100 ha, winter density from 0.1 to 5.8.

The average annual population growth rate between 1984-85 and 2000 was almost 10% (excluding the GPNP colony, whose size has been oscillatinges around the carrying capacity, with net annual growth near 0). Average annual net growth increased from west to east due to the different population densities and was 9%, 10% and 15% for the western, central and eastern Alps respectively. The annual net growth rate between 1984-85-85 and 2000 is significantly correlated to the population density calculated over the area actually occupied by each colony (Fig. 3.7). In all MUs growth rates range between 10% and 18%, except for MUs "Alpi Marittime" (2%) and "Alpi Retiche – Ortles - Cevedale" (6%), where density is higher (1.6 and 1.5 ibex/100 ha respectively, see Table 3.6).

Table 3.5 – Ibex distribution and population size in the management units of the Italian Alps (1984-85). Density was estimated according to summer and winter potential ranges (km2) (see text). for further explanations). "Reintro" indicates the number of re-introduced colonies; "Den/distr" indicates the density calculated on omputed on the present distribution range.

No. Management Unit Total Colony No. of Reintro Size Summer Winter Den/ surface surface colonies density /100 density /100 distr /100 (km2) ha ha ha 1 Imperia 1218 0 0 0 0 2 Alpi Marittime 929 285 3 1 453 1.0 5.8 1.6 3 V. Maira – Orsiera 3166 282 4 2.5 54 0.0 0.2 0.2 4 V. Lanzo - G. Paradiso - M. 3594 1037 8 1.5 4422 2.2 8.9 4.3 Bianco 4a GPNP 707 551 1 0 4010 5.8 12.6 7.3 4b Rest 2887 486 7 1.5 412 0.3 2.3 0.8 5 Sx Aosta – M. Rosa - V. 3587 610 7 4 522 0.3 1.0 0.9 Anzasca 6 V. Formazza – V. Grande 1339 87 1 1 10 0.0 0.1 0.1 7 Alpi Lepontine 1292 42 1 0 40 0.2 0.4 1.0 8 Alpi Retiche – Bernina 1042 104 2 1 35 0.1 0.2 0.3 9 Alpi Orobie 3190 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 Adamello 2279 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 Brenta 2936 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 Alpi Retiche – Ortles - 3255 341 6 2 528 0.3 1.3 1.5 Cevedale 13 V. Venosta – Brennero 2484 174 3 0.5 110 0.1 0.3 0.6 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (39 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:00 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

14 V. Pusteria 1547 58 2 0.5 8 0.0 0.0 0.1 15 Dolomiti 6104 111 3 3 84 0.0 0.1 0.8 16 Alpi Carniche - Alpi Giulie 4552 95 2 2 40 0.0 0.1 0.4 17 Asiago – Grappa 2876 0 0 0 0

WESTERN ALPS (1-6) 10745 2301 23 10 5461 0.9 3.5 2.4 WA without GPNP 10038 1749 22 10 1451 0.3 1.2 0.8 CENTRAL ALPS (7-13) 16478 660 12 4 713 0.1 0.4 1.1 EASTERN ALPS (14-17) 15078 264 7 6 132 0.0 0.1 0.5

TOTAL 42301 3225 42 19 6306 0.4 1.4 2.0 TOTAL without GPNP 41594 2674 41 19 2296 0.2 0.6 0.9

Figure 3.7 – The net growth rate estimated between 1984-85 and 2000 for each management unit is correlated with the population density (population size / distribution area of colonies).

No. Management Unit Total Colony Size Colony Size Mean annual surface growth rate (km2) 1984-85 1998-2000 1 Imperia 1218 0 0 -- 2 Alpi Marittime 929 453 606 0.02 3 V. Maira – Orsiera 3166 54 368 0.14 4 V. Lanzo - G. Paradiso – M. Bianco 3594 4422 6120 0.02 4a GPNP 707 4010 4010 0.00 4b Rest 2887 412 2110 0.12 5 Sx Aosta – M. Rosa - V. Anzasca 3587 522 2135 0.10 6 V. Formazza – V. Grande 1339 10 11107 0.17 7 Alpi Lepontine 1292 40 147 0.09 8 Alpi Retiche – Bernina 1042 35 150 0.10 9 Alpi Orobie 3190 0 490 -- 10 Adamello 2279 0 129 -- 11 Brenta 2936 0 40 -- 12 Alpi Retiche – Ortles – Cevedale 3255 528 1344 0.06 13 V. Venosta – Brennero 2484 110 494 0.11 14 V. Pusteria 1547 8 86 0.17 15 Dolomiti 6104 84 556 0.13 16 Alpi Carniche - Alpi Giulie 4552 40 450 0.18 17 Asiago – Grappa 2876 0 0 --

WESTERN ALPS (1-6) 10745 5461 934036 0.04 WA without GPNP 10038 1451 533026 0.09 CENTRAL ALPS (7-13) 16478 713 2794 0.10 EASTERN ALPS (14-17) 15078 132 1092 0.15

TOTAL 42301 6306 132262 0.05 TOTAL without GPNP 41594 2296 92162 0.10 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (41 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:00 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

3.4 Status and evolution of population size

During historical times ibex populations ranged over the whole Alps up to the 13° east longitude (the line joining Carinthia and Salzburg).

Numerous sources confirm an the great historical iinterest in ibex throughout history. In the Middle Ages ibex were hunted as desirable game and their abundance waswere an important source of food for the people who inhabited the Alpine valleys. Therapeutic power was ascribed to various ibex body parts since the Roman Empire. This subsequently led to the establishment in 1654-1668, by Prince Bishop Guidobald von Thun, of an "Ibex Pharmacopoeia" in the episcopal royal pharmacy of Salzburg. Hunters were required to deliver all the parts of hunted ibex to the pharmacy. The rarer the ibex became, the more valuable the business, and the prospective good profit drove many to poaching. The great value of their attributed to hornsits trophy, the large amount of meat and the supposed thaumaturgic properties of different parts of their its body determined the overexploitation of ibex populations and drove them ibex almost to extinction.

In spite of various attempts at ibex protection, farming and translocation (first in Tyrol in 1538 and then near Salzburg at the end of the XVII century), ibex progressively disappeared from the Alps during the XVI, XVII and XVIII centuries. In Grisons (CH) tThe last ibex in Grisons (CH) were seen in 1650; they disappeared from the Bernese Alps between 1750 and 1800, and from Valais between 1800 and 1850. After centuries of active extermination, in the second half of the XIX century only one ibex population of 50-100 individuals survived on the Gran Paradiso Massif, western Italian Alps, due to the protection granted by the Savoia Royal Family.House.

HThe main reasons that drove ibex to the verge of extinction are hunting and the poaching of highly priced gamedrove ibex to the verge of extinction. Hunters took advantage of the ibex’ typical flight behaviour: in case of danger, instead of running long distances, ibex reach the nearest steep cliff, from the top of which they survey the surroundings. While this escape behaviour proves effective with natural enemies, it is rather ineffective with armed hunters. Thus, w, and with the onset and improvement of firearms, hunting became a serious threat to ibex conservation.

Only the Gran Paradiso population was spared the fate of extermination thanks to strict conservation measures. In 1821, when the future "mother colony" of all Alpine ibexes countedhad less than 100 individuals, the first protective measures were implementedput into place, followed in 1836 by the "Regie Patenti" that declared the ibex area a royal hunting preserve for King Vitctorio Emanuele II. In 1922, the last ibex refuge finally became the Gran Paradiso National Park.

The protection granted to ibex was the first step in for the conservation and restoration of the Alpine ibex population. Even though protection was granted for royal hunting purposes, it contributed to an increase in the size of the ibex population: in 1878, about 2000 ibexes lived in the hunting preserve, and they were about 4000 at the beginning of the XX century their number was about 4000. During the last century, with the exception of the minimum values reached during the two war periods, the abundance of GGran Paradiso population ranged between 3500 and 5000 individuals (Peracino & Bassano 1990).

The hunting limitation or prohibition and the creation of protected areas for ibex protection (Switzerland, 1920; France, 1963) facilitated the colonization of new areas and the increase of ibex populations size. In Switzerland, ibex hunting was prohibited in 1875, year of the first re-introduction programmes; here ibex is are currently strictly protected by federal legislation, and annual hunting quotas have been set since 1977 (Giacometti, in Shackleton 1997). In Liechtenstein, ibex they haves been protected since 1972. In France, they ibex wereas hunted between 1959 and 1976, when the Law on Nature Protection (10.7.76) introduced legal protection for the species (Roucher, in Shackleton 1997). In Germany, ibex they haves been fully protected since 1936, year of the first re-introduction. In Austria, ibex they is are legally hunted in few a small number of populations in the federal provinces of SStyria and Tyrol (Gossow & Zeiler, in Shackleton 1997). In Slovenia, selective hunting of ibex has been permitted since 1953.

In Italy, until 1969 ibex werecould be legally hunted until 1969 only in the Gran Paradiso National Park and in the Alpi Marittime Natural Park (formerly the Hunting Preserve of Valdieri-Entracque). The past hunting law (Legge 27 December 1977, n. 968) listed the species as It used to be listed as "par"particularly protected" species" according to, while the present law on hunting and wildlife conservation (Legge 157/92) lists it as the past hunting law (Legge 27 December 1977, n. 968), and is now considered "protected" species" according to . the present law on hunting and wildlife conservation (Legge 157/92). Since the coming into force of the regional regulations on taxidermic preparation and keeping file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (42 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:00 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm possession of specimens (1977) there has been a moderate decrease in poaching and illegal trophy sale.

Ibex areis now listed as "lLower rRisk (1c)" species in the 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals (IUCN 1996) and is listed as "lLower rRisk" (least concern) in the Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan for the Caprinae (Shackleton & IUCN 1997). The species It is listed represented in Appendix III of the Bern Convention (ratified by the Italian government in August 1981) and in Appendix V of the EU Habitat Directive (animal and plant species of community interest whose taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management measures; Dir. 92/43/CEE). Appendix E of the Italian D.P.R. 8 September 1997, n. 357 (Regulation for the implementation of the directive 92/43/CEE for the conservation of natural and semi-natural habitat and wildlife and flora) lists ibex as a species whose exploitment in nature may need require strict management.

The second step in the conservation and restoration of the ibex populations was the numerous re-introduction programmes implemented in different portions of the Alps.

During the second half of the XIX century, the first attempts at re-introductions in Switzerland failed probably due to the poor performance of the hybrid ibexes individuals used: since pure-bred ibexindividuals were difficult to obtain from the GPNP (for release or breeding in enclosures), hybrids ofbetween domestic goats and captive ibex were produced and released into the wild. Although fertile, they gave birth too early (March-April) and were not well adapted to the harsh climate of the Alps (Uri Canton- CH, 1854; Welschtobel- CH, 1879; Ljubelj- SLO, 1898; Gressoney-I, end of XIX century).

In 1875, in its law on hunting and protection of wildlife, Switzerland prescribed the re-introduction of ibex in all suitable areas of the countryConfederation. In 1906, some pure- bred individuals ibexes were obtained from Gran Paradiso NP and established moved to in the Peter and Paul Game Park near St. Gallen (CH). Between 1906 and 1942, a basic breeding stock of at least 109 ibexesibex went from Gran Paradiso NP to Peter and Paul GP and (sincestarting in 1915) to Interlaken-Harder Game Park. They and their descendants are the ancestors of the extremely successful ibex populations now found in the Swiss Alps and in part of the Austrian Alps. From 1911 to 1938 the first mother colonies were founded with captive-bred individualsibexes. At the beginning theyibexes were released in ad hoc enclosures, sometimes with domestic goats. Between 12 and 51 individuals were released Withinwithin each re-introduction project., 12 to 51 individuals were released. The first colony was created in the area of the Graue Hoerner area, in the St. Gallen Alps (Giacometti 1991). In this period the largest and "historic" Swiss colonies were created: Augstmatthorn (1921-24), Piz Albris (1921-28) and Mont Pleureur (1928-29), as well as the colonies of Berchtensgaden (D, 1936-38), Bluhnbach (A, 1924) and Wildalpen (A, 1936). In the mean time (1921), the first Italian re-introduction was implemented in the former Royal Hunting Preserve of Valdieri Entracque. To obtain a viable population, 25 ibexesibex from the Gran Paradiso NP were released in six different stages over 13 years. After the second world war, translocations of captive-bred ibex continued in Austria: . Tthey started in 1951 in Tyrol (Plansee) and, continued in the other provinces until the 1970s in the other provinces, originatingand led to the creation of about 20 new colonies. S However, starting around 1950, most new re-introductions occurred with ibex from the original mother colonies, (especially Gran Paradiso, Mont Pleureur, Augsmathorn and Piz Albris). In the French Hautes High Alpes (Cerces Roche Colombe) a new colony was created in 1959-60 with ibexesibex coming from Mont Pleureur and the Dahlholzi Game Park (Bern), while in High Savoy 135 ibexesibex coming from Mont Pleureur were released in Upper Savoy from 1969 to 1976, all coming from Mont Pleureur. In the latter area there is evidence of natural recolonizsation from the adjacent Gran Paradiso in the period before the release.

Since 1911 ibex have been re-introduced in at least 175 different Alpine areas. Thus, while iIbex conservation has started with the implementation of "passive" protection measures, current abundance but the actual spread of populations was supported by severala great number of "active" translocation programmes aimed atfor the creatingon of new colonies.

In Italy, with the exception of the mother colony of the Gran Paradiso National Park and the historical population of the Alpi Marittime Natural Park, the status of Alpine ibex began improving in the 1960s. In that period the first translocations were undertaken mainly in Valle d’Aosta and in the Stelvio National Park. In the 1970s and especially the 1980s and 1990s, re-introduction programmes became more frequent as well asand natural colonization via immigration from Switzerland and Austria became more frequent (Peracino & Bassano 1986, Tosi et al. 1986; Table 3.7).

In recent years there have been newmore reintroductions of individuals coming from the Gran Paradiso NP and the Grisons Canton, based on feasibility studies and re-introduction plans that take into account environmental and demographic factors and, more recently, also genetic factors (Nascetti et al. 1990, Randi et al. 1990 and 1991, Stüwe et al. 1991, Tosi et al. 1991b). In the last 15 years, Italian ibex colonies have grown from 42 to 69, with 36 populations out of 69 (52%) originating from "man-made" translocations rather than (as opposed to natural recolonizsation) (Table 3.7). In Italy, the first translocation project took place in 1921 on the Argentera Massif (N° 1, Royal Hunting Preserve of Valdieri Entracque – Cuneo, MU "Alpi Marittime"), followed by 7 other ibex releases between 1949 and 1969: thus, 22% of the Italian translocation programmes took place before 1970, 78% (21) Seventy-eight percent (21) of the Italian translocation programmes started after 1970, and , and 58% (28.5) after 1980 alone.. In Italy, the first translocation project, as file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (43 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:00 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm already mentioned, occurred in 1921 on the Argentera Massif (N° 1, Royal Hunting Preserve of Valdieri Entracque – Cuneo, MU "Alpi Marittime"), followed by 7 other ibex releases between 1949 and 1969, representing the remaining 22% which took place before 1970.

An uncertain number of ibexesibex coming from GPNP was released in Val Veny–Ferret (N° 26, Aosta, MU "V. Lanzo–Gran Paradiso–M. Bianco") in 1949, 1962-65 and 1975. There is evidence of natural immigration from Valais in the 1950s. In the Ayas Valley (N° 32, Aosta, MU "Sx Aosta–M. Rosa–V. Anzasca") some individuals were released iIn the 1960s, some individuals were released in Ayas Valley (N° 32, Aosta, MU "Sx Aosta–M. Rosa–V. Anzasca") and 36 individuals (ibexes coming from GPNP) were released again subsequently released in 1970-72. in that same area.

In the Gressoney Valley (N° 34, Aosta, MU "Sx Aosta–M. Rosa–V. Anzasca") the first translocations date back to the end of the XIX century; 16 more individuals coming from GPNP were then released in 1961-66 and there is evidence of a first attempt of colonization in 1963-67 in Valsesia (N° 36, Vercelli, MU "Sx Aosta–M. Rosa–V. Anzasca") in 1963- 67. Here In Valsesia (N° 36, Vercelli, Mgmt Unit "Sx Aosta–M. Rosa–V. Anzasca") a more recent re-introduction programme brought 14 more ibexesibex from GPNP were released between 1974 and 1979.

In the Dolomites tThe first colony in the Dolomites was created in 1965 with 6 ibexesibex from the Grisons Canton. They were released near Sorapiss Mountain (N° 73, Belluno, MU "Dolomiti") from where some and part of them dispersed northwards to form a new colony (named N° 68 "Croda Rossa–Croda del Becco", N° 68, between Belluno and Bolzano). In 1975 four more individuals were taken there from Grisons. were translocated into the Dolomites.

In 1966, a translocation of 11 ibexesibex from GPNP were translocated into concerned the area of Macugnaga and Valle Anzasca (N° 37, Verbania, MU "Sx Aosta – M. Rosa – V. Anzasca"), at the same time as the beginning of the natural dispersion from Valais. In the 1967, the second Italian ibex colony on limestone settled in Stelvio National Park (N° 49, Sondrio, MU "Alpi Retiche – Ortles – Cevedale"). The first 17 individuals released in Stelvio National Park came from GPNP, and the other 12, released in 1968 in Val Zebrù, from GPNP and Grisons. From 1969 to 1978 an unknown number of ibexesibex was reintroduced in the Tournanche Valley (N° 31, Aosta, MU "Sx Aosta – M. Rosa – V. Anzasca").

Table 3.7 – Date of origin of the ibex colonies created by natural dispersion or re-introduction projects.

Period Autochthonous New re- New colonies created Number of colonies introduced by natural dispersion present at the end of the colonies period cColonies

1900-1949 2 1 1 4

1950-1969 -- 7 5 16

1970-1979 -- 7.5 11.5 35

1980-1989 -- 8.5 4.5 45

1990-1995 -- 7 7 59

1996-2000 -- 5.5 4.5 69 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (44 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:00 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

Thirty-six ibex reintroduction operations have taken place in the Italian Alps overall; their frequency has increased gradually in the last 30 years. From the information available it is estimated that at least 755 ibex have been translocated since 1921, at an increasing rate: 12% of individuals was released between 1921 and 1969, 18% in the 1970s, 31% in the 1980s and 40% in 1990s (Table 3.8). The average number of individuals used in each reintroduction ranges between 23.0 and 12.1. LThe lowest figures value are recorded refers toin 1996-2000, when cases of Brucellosis were found in the GPNP population.

Table 3.8 – History of ibex re-introduction in the Italian Alps.

Period New re- Minimum known number of Mean number of ibex released in each introduced translocated ibex area of re-introduction area translocated colonies

1900-1949 1 23 23.0

1950-1969 7 66 15.7

1970-1979 7.5 127 16.3

1980-1989 8.5 237 24.1

1990-1995 7 184 19.7

1996-2000 5.5 118 12.1

Total 36.5 755

The evolution of Tthhe number of ibex colonies with time shows a pattern of linear growth starting in the 1960s. At the end of the 1950s, 8 colonies existed distributed only inon the central-western Alps only (Fig. 3.8). During the following 4 decades, the number of colonies present onin the Italian Alps has progressively increased to 23 (1970), 33 (1980), 52 (1990) and 69 (2000). In the 1960-2000 period, between 10 and 19 new colonies formed during each decade.

Figure 3.8 – EHistorical evolution of Alpine ibex colonies in the Italian Alps. Autochthonous colonies are shown in green; darker red indicates older colonies, lighter red younger ones; the red lines outline ibex management units.

A remarkable increase in population size is reported for the last 20 years. An overall population of 4400 ibexesibex is estimated for the period 1975-77; 5100-5300 ibex are estimated for 1983-85, 7000 in 1990, and 9700 in 1995. This paper - although lacking missing some updated values - estimates the population of 2000 at more than 13000 ibex, distributed in a fragmented pattern all over the Italian Alps. From 1975 until present, the mean annual net growth rate is about 4.6%, but this rises to 6% considering the 1988-2000 period only (Table 3.9).

Table 3.9 – Estimates of the mean annual net growth rate of the ibex population in the Italian Alps from 1976 to present; estimates from 1975 to 1995 by Tosi & Perco, 1981, Tosi et al., 1986 and Pedrotti, 1995.

Period Estimated population size Mean annual growth

1975-77 4,.400 ---

1983-85 5,.100 2%

1988-89 7,.000 6%

1995 9,.700 6%

2000 13,.000 6%

3.5 Hunting and numerical control

According to the national law on hunting and the conservation of wildlife (L. 157/92), at present in Italy Alpine ibex is not listed as a game species. This piece of legislation partly modifies and softens the restrictions placed on ibex by the earlier national hunting law (L. 968/77), where the species was listed as "particularly protected". This "delisting", however, is probably due to the constant improvement of the ibex status in the last 30 years. Any illegal hunting is punished with a 3-12 month arrest and a fine of 1000-6000 Euro. Indirect conservation regulations derive also from law n. 394/91 on protected areas, which establishes new national and natural parks where hunting is forbidden or restricted.

Although Alpine ibex is protected at national scale, the Province of Bolzano has implemented a harvest plan since 1991 (Fig. 3.9). Although in the provincial law ibex is not listed as a game species, the numerical control of its populations is allowed on the basis of the experience of Switzerland and Austria (Table 3.10).

Table 3.10– Distribution and size of annual Alpine ibex harvest in 1999-2000.

REGION HARVEST Piemonte Protected file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (47 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:00 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

Valle d’Aosta Protected Lombardia Protected Province of Trento Protected* Province of Bolzano 50 individuals annually harvested Veneto Protected Friuli – Venezia Giulia Protected TOTALE 50 individuals

*Only two adult males culled in 1998-99 (see text). for further details).

Figure 3.9 – Distribution of harvest of Alpine ibex harvest. Provinces where selective culling is performed are in red, provinces where Alpine ibex is completely protected in grey.

According to art. 6 of its local hunting law (L.P. 17 July 1987 n. 14, updates through L.P. 28 November 1996, n. 23) the Province of Bolzano, which enjoys autonomous statute, began to adopt ibex culling plans (numerical control plans) to "prevent the overgrowth of the ibex population from negatively affecting the natural balance and the abundance of other wildlife species". Furthermore, the fourth paragraph of the same article states that "the councillor responsible for the province may allow an ibex culling plan, limited to adult or weak individuals, in the hunting reserves where a satisfactory ibex abundance is proven". Under the current wildlife management system, the main goal is to keep the sizeabundance of ibex colonies stable and avoid negative interactions with chamois, the most important game species in the area. Considering the recent and still ongoing file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (48 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:00 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm colonization process of ibex and its high harvest rate, in no colony is the ibex population at carrying capacity level and there are still wide opportunities for the population to expand over other suitable habitat in the area (Carmignola & Krause 2000).

In 1985 the first ibex (a 18-year-old female) was harvested in Val Senales (MU "Val Venosta–Brennero"). In the following years harvest was limited to single old individuals. Since 1991 the larger colonies have been subjected to regular harvest plans: from 1985 to 1999, 350 ibexesibex were culled (193 males and 157 females). In the last three years the mean harvest plan amounted to about 45-50 individuals, equally divided among the sexes. Such mean harvest rate represented 8% of the population size and seems to have counter- balanced populations growth (Fig. 3.10).

Figure 3.10 – Ibex harvest plan in the province of Bolzano in relation to population size.

Annual ibex population censuses are undertaken every year in April-May through block count, and a harvest plan is subsequently developed for each colony subjected to culling. Hunting quotas are assigned randomly to the members of the hunting community reserves. When hunting for ibex, hunters must be accompanied by a gamekeeper.

The management strategy currently in place plans to harvest 2/3 of the net recruitment rate for each of the three main colonies ("Palla Bianca–Weisskugel", "Tessa–Senales" and "Tribulaun"). In the last years this led to the stabilization of the three populations.

Whereas the female quota is equally subdivided among the different age classes, for males the harvest plans are addressed especially to mature individuals, lowering the mean age of the male population. From 1985 to 1998, 69% of the harvested males were more than 5 years old and the 1-5-year-old males represented only 31% of the total harvest. Unlike males, the female age structure is much more similar to that of a natural (i.e., unexploited) population (Fig. 3.11).

The effects of the overexploitation of adult males are seen in the census data of the last three years (1997-1999): 74% of counted males are 1-5 years old, 23% are 6-10 years old and only 3% are more than 10 years old. Fig. 3.12 shows the decrease in the mean age of the males counted from 1988 to 1997.

Adults have an important role in the social structure and population balance, especially during the rutting season; unbalanced sex and age ratio may lead to higher mortality rates and lower net growth rates. The impactsoutcome of the hunting activity in South Tyrol is are partly due to present legislative restrictions and partly to hunting practices strictly based on trophy valuation. On this account, a new corrective measure has been introduced since 1999, excluding 4-7 year-old males from the harvest plans.

Figure 3.11 – Age distribution of the ibex harvested in the Province of Bolzano since 1988.

Figure 3.12 – Male age structure in the ibex populations of the Bolzano province (spring census).

In 1999, the Province of Trento, based on a legal framework similar to that of the province of Bolzano (art. 31 of provincial law n. 24/91), implemented the first culling of two adult male ibexesibex in the Monzoni–Marmolada colony (MU "Dolomiti"). The Wildlife and Hunting Service suspended the culling programme shortly thereafter because of the pressure from a long debate with the local environmental associations.

4. ASSESSING POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTION OF ALPINE IBEX IN THE ITALIAN ALPS

This chapter describes the two GIS-based models used to assess and map the quality of ibex winter habitat (including how they were redesigned) and the results of their integrated application to the entire Italian Alps. The results allow for a comparison between real and potential ibex distribution and density, and an estimate of available habitat, therefore providing a management tool for actual ibex distribution. file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (52 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:00 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

The models were developed based on sample colonies in two study areas of the Italian Alps, one on siliceous and one on limestone substratum. It is important to underline that each model was developed on a particular geologic substratum, and thus its predictive ability is limited to that specific substratum. The two models already available had therefore to be redesigned and the equations recreated to make them more generally applicable to the entire Italian Alps, thus rendering them less detailed but at the same time better able to make predictions for the areas for which data wereas only available at a coarser scale.

4.1. Review of similar studies

Many authors dealt with the prediction of suitable ibex wintering areas. Some of them, using an holistic approach, based their work on empirical evidence or literature review and produced habitat suitability models based on a subjective synthesis of the analysed data, not adequately supported by statistical validation (Von Elsner-Schack 1983, Apollonio & Grimod 1984, Tosi et al. 1986, Choisy 1994, Peracino & Bassano 1994). Others started promising analyses to assess ibex habitat quality using statistical techniques or Landsat imagery (Wiersema 1983b, Wiersema & Schröder 1985, Wiersema & Zonneveld 1990).

In recent years, the widespread diffusion of geographic information systems and the increasing availability of digital cartography have made it possible and easy to develop GIS- based predictive models supported by a sound (rigorous) statistical approach.

4.2 Methodology

4.2.1 Study area and management units

The area interested by this GIS study is similar to that of the Ungulate Database (see parr. 2.1 and 3.1): it covers the whole Italian Alps, from the Friuli–Venezia Giulia region in the east to the Liguria region in the west. While the national Italian border defines a clear northern limit of the study area, the southern limit was set approximately along the 1000m contour line (Fig. 4.1), given that ibex presence will not be recorded below this limit, at least in Italy. The resulting study area extends over 45,389 km2 and includes 23 provinces belonging to 7 different regions. While the minimum altitude is around 300m (on the southern border), the maximum altitude is around 4700m. The entire study area is characterized by rough mountain ranges; the few areas located below 1000m and in deep valleys were later excluded by the model extrapolation.

To describe the potential ibex distribution and compare it to the present status, 17 management units (MUs) were defined as explained in par. 3.1 and shown in Fig. 4.2 (which is similar to Fig. 3.2, but simplified). Table 4.1 lists the MUs (similar to Table 3.1 but with new information on the area above 2000m).

Figure 4.1 – The study area for the ibex distribution model in the Italian Alps. The thin lines indicate the regions’ borders.

Figure 4.2 – Map of the 17 ibex management units defined within the Italian Alps.

Table 4.1 – The identification number, name, extent and percentage of area located above 2000m for the 17 ibex management units in the Italian Alps.

file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (56 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:01 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm AREA % of area (km2) above ID NAME (km2) 2000m 1 Imperia 1218 5.3 2 Alpi Marittime 929 35.3 3 V. Maira - Orsiera 3166 32.0 4 V. Lanzo - G. Paradiso - M. Bianco 3594 47.6 5 Sx Aosta - M. Rosa - V. Anzasca 3587 35.9 6 V. Formazza - V. Grande 1339 21.9 7 Alpi Lepontine 1292 14.5 8 Bernina 1041 39.8 9 Alpi Orobie 3190 11.8 10 Adamello 2279 27.0 11 Brenta 2936 4.8 12 Alpi Retiche - Ortles - Cevedale 3255 54.4 13 V. Venosta - Brennero 2484 41.0 14 V. Pusteria 1547 44.3 15 Dolomiti 6104 19.9 16 Alpi Carniche - Alpi Giulie 4552 17.4 17 Asiago - Grappa 2876 0.8 Total extent 45389

A geological map of the Alps was used to distinguish areas mostly interested by limestone from areas with siliceous rocks (Fig. 4.3). As described below, habitat characteristics are so strongly affected by this basic distinction, that separate model functions were extrapolated and applied according to the rock type of the MU. The two different functions of the potential distribution model were developed in two different areas characterized by a stable presence of ibex population: the siliceous rock model was prepared in the northern part of the Venosta valley (Bolzano), the limestone model in the Dolomites (Trento and Belluno provinces).

Figure 4.3 – Simplified geological map of the Italian Alps. The grey area is characterised by siliceous environment, the dashed area is mainly limestone.

4.2.2 Ibex ecology

The Alpine ibex are widely distributed over Alpine alpine mountain ranges and, like all species of genus Capra, it is well adapted to steep rocky areas poor in vegetation (Nievergelt & Zingg 1986). Alpine ibex have adapted to harsh high altitude environment through behavioural and physiological specializations that include seasonal patterns of habitat use (Francisci et al. 1985,; Hofmann 1971). They inhabit rocky mountainous regions at altitudes between 1000 and 3500 m, with winter range generally between 1600 and 2800 m., and summer range from 2300 to 3200 m (Wiersema 1984). The lowest altitudes are reached during spring, when in many cases the species stays below tree linethe tree line mostly in steep, rocky and open areas. Seasonal and daily altitude migrations are influenced mostly by temperature, food availability and the need for refuge areas (Hofmann 1971).

IbexesIbex show a sharp preference for the grassland of xeric and steep slopes (Festucetum variae, Pedrotti 1995), very strong in winter, less in summer when also other vegetation types of rocky areas above tree linethe tree line are selected (Caricetum-curvulae and Seslerietum-semperviretum, Adrosacion, Thlaspion; Wiersema 1983a).

Due to the very severe winter conditions typical of the Alpine region, the ibex winter range is probably the most critical aspect for survival and is limited to small vegetation patches and strips on more or less snow-free, south-facing, steep slopes (over 45-50°) (Tosi et al. 1986,; Wiersema 1983a). In particular, a rugged and , rock-interspersed relief, as well as and slopes with a high degree of small-scale complexity are required (Tosi et al. 1986). On the contrary, summer habitat requirementsneeds (i.e., large continuous mountain areas above tree linethe tree line or above 2000 m) are easier to fulfil in the Alpine area (Choisy 1990).

Ibex show the most distinct and defined habitat needs among ungulates (Gauthier et al. 1991). This explains the ibex’ limited occurrence relatively to other species (e.g., chamois), and but is also a favourable condition for applying habitat modelmodellingization on a GIS basis.

4.2.3 The database and the GIS

The study was conducted on a GIS basis with the support of a statistical package for the model definition. The programmes used are Arc/Info 7.1 and ArcVview GIS 3.1 for the GIS aspects, and SPSS 8 for the statistical evaluations.

It is important to underline that each of the two pre-existing models was developed on a particular geologic substratum, and thus its predictive ability is thus limited to that specific substratum. Ridge complexity (land surface ruggedness, Divine et al. 2000) accounts for the higher effect on determining the p-values of the expected predictions. The implemented algorithm used to estimate ridge complexity is strictly dependent on the shape of the contour lines and on the base scale of acquisition. Areas characterised by different geological features (i.e., metamorphic and igneous rocks vs. limestone or dolomites) result in the markedly different development of elevation contour lines at the same map scale.

The maps, gathered from different sources, had various projection parameters; to make them comparable and overlay them, all layers where projected in UTM (Universal Transverse Mercatore) zone 32.

All data handled were georeferenced on maps to allow for a spatially-explicit elaboration and description of the phenomena investigated, and consequently permit the complete mapping of the resulting model on the entire study area of the Italian Alps. file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (59 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:01 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

The data can be divided into two categories: 1) distribution of ibex areas, particularly the wintering areas (these data represent the dependent variable in the subsequent analyses), and 2) several layers of different thematic maps for all environmental variables that seem to influence ibex distribution (these data represent the independent variables).

The exact wintering areas were investigated by direct observation during censuses and repeated field trips. The areas identified within the three-year period were reported on a 1:10.000 scale map and used for both for the implementation and the validation of the model. In the text below the areas within inside wintering areas are indicated as "ibex areas", while all areas outside of the wintering areas are indicated as "non ibex areas".

The data obtained from three basic maps describing environmental variables were used as independent variables:

1. a geological map of the Alps (1:250.000), which was simplified to the only two categories of siliceous and limestone substrata. This map was used only in vector format (Fig. 4.3);

2. a Corine map of the Corine land use, derived from Landsat data at a scale of approximately 1:100.000. The maps, separately produced by the 7 different Italian Alpine regions, were combined into a single map that was used in raster format. The reclassification of the Corine land use map originated 12 individual maps each representing one of the main land use categories occurring in mountain areas (Fig. 4.4);

3. the digital terrain model, which provides information on altitude, slope, aspect and ridge complexity. This (in raster format) was created combining the digital terrain model of different regions and provinces. F; for the Liguria, Valle d’Aosta and Friuli Venezia Giulia regions the model was based on made referring to a national model oin a coarser scale. The scales of the different digital terrain models range from 10 to 50m pixel, and for the national model the pixel is 250m. Aspect was reclassified into 6 classes: north (including north-east and north-west), east, south-east, south, south-west and west. Ridge complexity was defined as the mean slope in the surrounding 25 hectares (Land Surface Ruggedness, Divine et al. 2000; Fig. 4.5).

Figure 4.4 – Sample of the land use map derived from the Corine land use map (Dolomites area). Some land use categories are originated from aggregation of the original categories.

Figure 4.5 – Examples, referred to a portion of the Dolomites, of the maps produced from the digital terrain model (upper left); different colours indicate different aspect (upper right); the increasing slope is represented by a darker shadedegree of red (lower left); the ridge complexity, defined as the mean slope in the surrounding 25 ha, ranges from 1 = white to 3 = dark green (lower right).

Table 4.2 shows a complete list of the independent variables. For each of them a raster map of the Italian Alps was produced for the subsequent modellingization process. All rastersraster were produced with the same origin, the same extent and the same cell size (20m). Thus, further elaboration became a simple algebraic operation on the cell values.

Table 4.2 - The complete list of independent variables.

Altitude Metres above sea level (a.s.l.)

Slope Degrees

Ridge complexity Land surface ruggedness (mean slope in the surrounding 25 ha)

Aspect Aspect For each 20X20m pixel, the mean value in the surrounding 25 ha

N % of surface facing from north-west to north-east

E % of surface facing east

SE % of surface facing south-east

S % of surface facing south

SW % of surface facing south-west

W % of surface facing west

Land use For each 20X20 m pixel, the mean value in the surrounding 25 ha

Urban % of urban surface

Agriculture % of land used for agriculture

Meadows % of surface withused as meadows

Broadleaf forest % of surface with broadleaf forest

Mixed forest % of surface with mixed forest

Coniferous forest % of surface with coniferous forest

Transitional woodland scrub % of surface with transitional woodland scrub

Subalpine shrubs % of surface with shrubs file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (63 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:01 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

Alpine pastures % of surface with pastures

Alpine vegetation % of surface with fragmented alpine vegetation and boulder fields

Rocks % of rock surface

Glaciers % of surface with glaciers

4. Data analysis

The 21 environmental variables give precise and local information on the habitat characteristics for each point: this means that the maps of each variable describe the real habitat in a 20X20m cell, but each cell contains no information on the surrounding area. As there is no doubt that ibexesibex, like all large animals, are aware of the surrounding habitat characteristics within a certain radius (much larger than 20 m), and since this "awareness" should be taken into account, the mean value of each cell in a 280m radius (about 25 ha) was calculated for each variable. The maps were produced by were obtained moving a mobile circular window with a radius of 14 cells overon the original maps a mobile circular window with a radius of 14 cells, and for each position the mean value of all surrounding cells was assigned to the central cell.

The model was created on the basis of a logistic regression performed on the habitat characteristics inside and outside the ibex wintering areas, and two different models where produced for the siliceous and limestone environment. The same procedure was followed in the two areas identified for the case studies (Venosta Valley and Dolomites).

The model implementation, and therefore also the model application, were limited to the areas above 1100m, since no ibex was ever recorded wintering below this altitude. Limiting the area of application of the model is important because the inclusion of larger areas will automatically extendspread the values of the environmental variables to "non ibex areas", and consequently the resulting model will be less precise in determining the areas suitable to ibex wintering.

The classification is sensitive to the relative size of the two groups ("ibex" and "non ibex" areas) and will always favour the classification into the larger group (Hosmer and Lemeshow 1992). As the best possible classification of the predictive model was the stated goal of our analysis, it was decided to extract equal samples from "ibex" and "non ibex" areas (see text below).

To compare ibex winter preference with the available habitat by logistic regression, a random set of 1000 points was collected both within inside the "ibex areas" and inside the "non ibex areas". The locations of these random points were used to collect a sample of habitat characteristics within inside and outside of the ibex winter distribution. The database derived by overlaying the random points onto the maps of environmental variables is the basis for all the statistical elaborations which lead to the model implementation.

Each random point of the "ibex areas" and of the "non ibex areas" was spatially tied with the previously-described environmental variables. To explore the collected variables for the multivariate analysis, each independent variable was assessed by univariate statistics (ANOVA) and fitted with the univariate logistic regression model to asses its contribution and importance. Biologically or statistically insignificant variables were excluded from the model analysis. Any variable whose univariate test had a p-value < 0.25 was considered for the multivariate model along with all variables of known biologic importance.

The habitat and morphological variables characterizing "ibex" and "non ibex" areas were used to implement the predictive model through a stepwise logistic regression (SLR). The dichotomic regression (ibex presence/absence as dependent variable) was performed for the two models on the 2,000 randomly-extracted points. A forward stepwise method was used based on likelihood ratio test with a pentry = 0.1 and a preject = 0.25, according to the aim of the analysis which was to obtain a model containing more variables in order to provide a more complete picture of possible models (Hosmer & Lemeshow 1992). For continuous scaled variables, the assumption of linearity in the logit was checked and the contribution of each interaction among variables to the developed model was assessed.

The fit of the model was assessed through a re-classification table with a probability cut point p = 0.5, which is reported to be the most appropriate method when classification is the file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (64 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:01 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm stated goal of the analysis (Hosmer and Lemeshow 1992). Furthermore, each model was validated on an independent data set, the model application on the validation areas was compared to the real distribution of ibex wintering areas, and the percentage of the wintering areas given as suitable to ibexesibex by the model was measured.

Finally the two models were applied to the entire Italian Alps; during this last step, the limestone or the siliceous environment model were used based on the information in the geological map. The resulting model will be useful to compare actual and potential ibex distribution and to provide management options in planning future ibex distribution.

3. The predictive model for siliceous environment

1. Case study

The study site in which the model for the siliceous environment was implemented is located in the north-western part of the Province of Bolzano. It covers about 1368 km2 and is limited north by the national boundary along a mountain ridge from the Resia to the Brenner Passes, and on the other sides by valley bottoms (the Venosta, Passiria, Giovo and Isarco valleys) (Fig. 4.6). Within the study area it is possible to define three different MUs, corresponding to mountain ranges inhabited by partially-separate ibex populations (Fig. 4.7): the "Palla Bianca" MU is located in the western part of the study area and its population amounts to about 170 ibexesibex; the "Tessa" MU is located in the central part with about 160 ibexesibex and the "Tribulaun" MU, in the eastern part, accounts for about 170 ibexesibex. The three populations originated in the 1960s and 1970s due to natural colonization from Austria.

Figure 4.6 – Geographic location of the study site for the siliceous environment case study, located in a very high mountain range within the Bolzano province.

The area is characterized by rough and steep mountains with a mean altitude of 3100m and mountain tops ranging from 3000-3700m. Below a large area mostly covered by glaciers and rock cliffs (respectively 6% and 30% of the entire area), vegetation includes alpine grassland (29%), coniferous forest (24%) and meadows (6%). The vegetation class "alpine grassland" includes extensive alpine pastures and natural alpine grassland (Caricetum curvulae and Elynetum) as well as sparse vegetation such as Androsacion alpinae and Thlaspeion located in cirques and steep slopes. The land cover class "rock cliffs" includes very sparse vegetation in boulder fields, rocky slopes and moraines (generally formed by Androsacion valdelii) and bare rock. The lower slopes are mostly forested: mixed mountain forest (spruce and larch) and pure spruce (Picea excelsa) forest. Broadleaf forest (generally mixed beech woods, Fagus sylvatica) are poorly represented. The tree line is located at 1800-2100 m. Higher up are open sub-alpine larch forest and patches of sub-alpine shrubs as alder (Alnus viridis), rhododendron (Rhododendrum sp.), juniper (Juniperus nana), blueberry (Vaccinium sp.) and knee-pine (Pinus mugo) in the small scraps of calcareous rocks.

Geologically, the main mountain massifs consist mainly of metamorphic rocks. file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (66 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:01 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

The region is characterised by low precipitation (average annual precipitation varies from 442 to 1146 mm; Fliri 1975).

Figure 4.7 – Map of the study site for the siliceous environment case study. From left to right the thin green line separates the Palla Bianca area, the Tessa area and the Tribulaun area. The red areas indicate the wintering areas actually occupied by ibexesibex.

2. Model implementation

Three different ibex colonies were identified in the study: 1) "Palla bianca" in the western part, 2) "Tessa group" in the central part, and 3) "Tribulaun" in the eastern part. Wintering areas of the first and third colony were used to produce the predictive model, while the wintering areas of "Tessa group" were used for validating the model. The wintering areas included in the first and third one extend over 34.6 km2. The wintering areas include only the area with stable presence of ibexesibex, while occasional trips outside were not reported on the map. Wintering areas polygons were defined as "ibex areas", while the remaining parts of the study area were defined as "non ibex areas".

A preliminary univariate habitat characterization of ibex wintering areas confirms the results reported for other Alpine areas (Gauthier et al. 1991, Nievergelt 1966, Wiersema file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (67 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:01 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm 1983a, Tosi et al. 1986): in the study area, ibex selected habitat between 2100 and 2900m, rich in alpine vegetation and rock cliffs (Fig. 4.8); no ibex was ever seen below 1500m, nor over 2900m (in winter). They chose slopes between 40° and 60°, mainly facing south-east to south-west, and they preferred areas with considerable ridge complexity (> 1.4) and a high degree of fragmentation between alpine grassland and rocks. The positive selection of heterogeneous and fragmented areas is due to the small-scale availability of the different habitats essential to ibex, namely, pastures, resting sites, escape terrain (Tosi et al. 1986, Pedrotti et al. 2000).

Figure 4.8 – Environmental characterization of the siliceous study area. Grey bars represent the proportion (%) of ibex wintering areas; white bars represent the composition of the areas not used during winter. The preferred values are those where the grey bar is higher than the white one.

The dependence of ibex presence on environmental factors was tested with univariate statistics (ANOVA). All variables - except south-east aspect, urban areas and agriculture - resulted significantly different between "ibex areas" and "non ibex areas". Glaciers were discarded from the analysis because their contribution in fitting the univariate logistic regression was not significant, and the three different forest types were pooled together to better fit the logistic regression. Altogether, 6 out of 21 variables were discarded before performing the multivariate analysis.

The linear relationship of the logit of all continuous variables with the dependent variable was tested (p<0.05). The quadratic terms of altitude, slope, bushes, rocks and alpine vegetation were introduced to take into account the non-linear relationship with the logit. The eight following interactions significantly contributed to the model (likelihood ratio test) and were selected for the stepwise logistic regression: bushes*rocks, growing trees*alpine vegetation, pasture*alpine vegetation, N*SW, N*E, S*E, S*W, SE*SW.

Overall, 28 variables and their interactions were tested in the stepwise logistic regression, after which the final model selected 14 explanatory variables, 3 quadratic terms and 6 interactions (Table 4.3). Five covariates were automatically discarded by the software (growing trees, bushes2, rocks2, bushes*rocks, growing trees*alpine vegetation). The univariate logistic regression showed that ibex presence is significantly and positively correlated with ridge complexity, slope, southern to western aspect, rock cliffs, alpine vegetation, pastures and bushes, and negatively correlated with forest, northern and eastern aspect. Obviously, in the stepwise logistic regression the degree of correlation between ibex presence and covariates may be different due to the interactions among variables.

Table 4.3 – Results of the predictive model of winter ibex distribution in siliceous environment. The variables included in the model contribute positively (R>0) or negatively (R<0). "B" represents the coefficient of regression, "SE" its standard error, "y " the contribution of each variable to the final suitability (see text for further details), "•" the rating, "p" the level of significance and "R" the univariate correlation coefficient (Spearman).

Variables B SE(b) y • p R

Constant 2.323 1.98 0.242

Bushes 0.053 0.01 1.70 10 0.000 0.111

Forest 0.035 0.01 1.41 10 0.000 -0.369

Pastures 0.062 0.00 1.86 10 0.000 0.199

Rocks 0.021 0.01 1.24 10 0.000 0.140

Alpine vegetation. 0.167 0.01 5.32 10 0.000 0.321

Altitude -0.011 0.00 0.35 100 0.000 0.276

Slope -0.089 0.03 0.91 1 0.001 0.400

East -0.177 0.02 0.17 10 0.000 -0.204

South -0.113 0.02 0.32 10 0.000 0.340

SE -0.149 0.02 0.22 10 0.000 0.065

SW -0.149 0.02 0.23 10 0.000 0.385

West -0.128 0.02 0.28 10 0.000 0.210

North -0.1416 0.02 0.24 10 0.000 -0.263

Ridge complexity. 13.521 1.17 3.87 0.1 0.000 0.599

Elev2 2.7E-06 0.00 1.00 100 0.000

Slope2 0.002 0.01 1.00 5 0.001

Alpine veg.2 -0.001 0.00 0.99 10 0.000

E * N -0.002 0.00 0.005

N * SW 0.002 0.00 0.000

E * S 0.003 0.00 0.000

S * W 0.003 0.00 0.000

SE * SW 0.001 0.00 0.008

Meadows * Alp. Veg. -0.001 0.00 0.000

- 2 log likelihood constant 2772.6

- 2 log likelihood model 1263.4

Hosmer & Lemeshow goodness of fit 21.8 8 df p<0.05

Nagelkerke R2 0.706

The logistic regression equation provides a p-value, ranging from 0 to 1, that represents the probability of each geographic unit to be classified as suitable habitat for ibex. The odds ratios (ψ ) reported in Table 4.3 define the weight of each variable in increasing the probability to be a suitable habitat: the odd ratios are obtained by the formula exp(B * •), meaning that an increase of 10% (•) in the amount of alpine vegetation (B = 0.167) gives a 5.32 (ψ ) times greater probability to be a suitable area. Ridge complexity, alpine vegetation, pasture and different aspects resulted the most important covariates for determining the p-values estimates.

To assess the fit between the model and the data set, the expected values of the 2,000 extracted points were estimated and a classification table was obtained (Table 4.4). The overall rate of correct classification was 87%, with 89% of the "ibex areas" and 85% of the "non ibex areas" resulting correctly classified.

Table 4.4 - Classification table based on the stepwise logistic regression model for ibex potential wintering areas. "0" indicates the "non ibex areas", "1" indicates the "ibex areas", cut point c = 0.5; n = 2,000.

Predicted

Observed 0 1 Percent correct

0 849 151 84.9%

1 109 891 89.1%

Overall 87.0%

The stepwise logistic regression provides a coefficient (B) for each included variable and a constant. The p value for the ibex suitability will be obtained from the formula

P = 1 / (1 + exp(-1 * (constant + B1 * var1 + B2 * var2 + ….))).

This formula was applied to the whole study area above 1100m; afterwards the suitable areas smaller than 1 ha were discarded to give a biological sense to these areas given that no wintering area smaller than 2 ha was recorded (Fig. 4.9). In the study area, extending over about 1400 km2, the potential ibex wintering areas cover 270 km2. In particular, there are 11372 ha with lower probability (50% < p < 75%) to be suitable ibex wintering areas, and 15616 ha with high probability (50% < p < 75%). A simple comparison with current ibex distribution in the same area (3460 ha) indicates that there is still potential for the current colonies to increase their population size, and that only 13% of the suitable territories have already been colonised. file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (71 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:01 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

Figure 4.9 – Map of model predictions (green) and real ibex wintering areas (red) in the case study areas of Palla Bianca (left) and of Tribulaun (right). Light green indicates p > 50% and < 75%, dark green indicates p > 75%.

4.4 The predictive model for limestone environment

4.4.1 Case study

The study site in which the model for the limestone environment was implemented is located in the core of the Dolomites and is almost completely included in the Belluno province (Fig. 4.10). The area extends over about 135 km2; the main mountains included are Marmolada (3343m), Cima di Valfredda (3009), Cima dell’Auta (2623m), Sasso Bianco (2407m) and Sass di Roi (2369m). The eastern and southern boundaries are represented by deep valleys (the Falcade and Cordevole valleys), while the western and northern boundaries follow less evident valleys.

The area is characterized by dolomite, the limestone typical of this area.

The highest mountain of the Dolomites (Mt. Marmolada) is included in the area and in general the environment is characterized by steep mountains with a very high ridge complexity. The mean altitude is around 1800m; about 33% of the land base is located below 1500 m, 34% ranges from 1500 to 2000m, 23% ranges from 2000 to 2500m and only about 10% is situated above 2500m. A glacier is present in the highest area, covering less than 2% of the total area. The land use is mostly characterized by coniferous forest (40%), growing trees (15%), rock cliffs (13%), alpine vegetation (8%), bushes (2%), pastures (10%), while agriculture and settlements cover only 8%. The "alpine vegetation" class includes mainly sparse vegetation located in boulder fields, rocky slopes and moraines, and the "rock cliffs" class includes bare rocks (Seslerietum-semperviretum, Caricetum firmae, Thlaspietum rotundifolii, Potentilletum nitidae); broadleaf forests are poorly represented.

Figure 4.10 - Geographic position of the study site for the limestone environment case study, located in the core of the Dolomites range, mostly in the Belluno province.

The area is inhabited by about 370 ibexesibex belonging to the Monzoni-Marmolada colony, which originated in 1978 through the re-introduction of 10 individuals in the S. Niccolò valley. The wintering areas of this colony extend over about 11.,5 km2 (Fig. 4.11).

Figure 4.11 – The study area used to develop the model for the limestone environment. In green, the wintering areas of the Marmolada-Monzoni ibex colony; in red, the boundaries of the study area; in blue, urban areas and roads.

Like the study area for the siliceous environment, here also the habitat selection does not differ from that reported in other studies (Wiersema 1983a, Tosi et al. 1986). Wintering areas are included between 1900 and 2500m, with alpine pastures, sparse vegetation, boulder fields, rock cliffs and limited forest occurrence. Stable wintering areas have never been observed below 1500 or above 2600m. The slope is always very high, mainly between 40° and 60°; the preferred aspect ranges from south to south-east, and - as expected - the ridge complexity in the wintering areas is higher than outside, even if the whole area is interested by is characterized by an overall high ridge complexity (Fig 4.12).

Figure 4.12 – Environmental characterization of the limestone study area used to develop the model. Grey bars represent the proportion (%) of ibex wintering areas; white bars represent the composition of the areas not used during winter. The preferred values are those where the grey bar is higher than the white one.

4.4.2 Model implementation

The dependence of ibex presence on environmental factors was tested with univariate statistics (ANOVA). All variables - except urban areas and agriculture - resulted significantly different between "ibex areas " and "non ibex areas". Glaciers were discarded from the analysis due to their scarce occurrence and because their contribution in fitting the univariate logistic regression was not significant; the three different forest types and the three aspects from south-west to south-east were pooled together to better fit the logistic regression. Overall, 10 out of 21 variables were discarded before performing the multivariate analysis.

The linear relationship of the logit of all continuous variables with the dependent variable was tested (p<0.05). The quadratic terms of altitude, slope, growing trees and ridge complexity were introduced to take into account the non-linear relationship with the logit. The pastures*forest interaction significantly contributed to the model (likelihood ratio test) and was selected for the stepwise logistic regression.

Quadratic terms are used to improve the discriminating power of the model by compensating for a non linear distribution of values (Fig. 4.13). The quadratic term can be useful if in

the logistic function there is no linear relationship between the independent variable and the logit ( ).

Figure 4.13 – Trend of the logit value of the probability of ibex presence in relation to individual environmental variables (see text). for further explanations). South aspect in the upper left box, Altitude in the upper right box, Rock areas in the lower left box.

Fifteen variables and their interactions were tested in the stepwise logistic regression (Table 4.5). The univariate logistic regression showed that ibex presence is significantly and positively correlated with ridge complexity, slope, rock cliffs, alpine vegetation, pastures, bushes. Obviously, in the stepwise logistic regression the degree of correlation between ibex presence and covariates may differ due to the interactions among variables.

Table 4.5 – Results of the predictive model of winter ibex distribution in dolomite (limestone) environment. The variables included in the model contribute positively (R>0) or negatively (R<0). "B" represents the coefficient of regression, "SE" its standard error, "y " the contribution of each variable to the final suitability (see text for further details), "•" the rating, "p" the level of significance, and "R" the univariate correlation coefficient (Spearman).

Variables B SE(b) y • p R

Constant -66.265 17.02 0.001 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (79 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:01 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

Growing trees 0.378 0.15 43.73 10 0.013 0.055

Grow. trees2 -0.001 0.00 0.99 10 0.001 -0.084

Bushes 0.349 0.15 32.62 10 0.020 0.050

Pastures 0.343 0.15 30.94 10 0.021 0.049

Rocks 0.354 0.15 34.40 10 0.019 0.050

Alpine veg. 0.363 0.15 37.83 10 0.016 0.052

Altitude 0.024 0.01 10.49 100 0.000 0.096

Altitude2 0.000 0.00 1.00 100 0.000 -0.096

Slope 0.068 0.04 1.07 1 0.090 0.025

Slope2 -0.001 0.00 1.00 1 0.044 -0.039

Ridge compl2 10.238 1.82 2.78 0.1 0.000 0.146

Forest 0.303 0.15 20.66 10 0.041 0.040

North -0.102 0.01 0.36 10 0.000 -0.206

South -0.020 0.01 0.88 10 0.007 -0.062

Pasture * forest 0.001 0.00 0.007 0.062

- 2 log likelihood constant 1386.3

- 2 log likelihood model 523.5

Hosmer & Lemeshow goodness of fit 7.1 8 df p<0.52

Nagelkerke R2 0.771

The logistic regression equation provides a p-value, ranging from 0 to 1, that represents the probability to be classified as suitable habitat for ibex. The odds ratios (ψ ) reported in Table 4.5 define the weight of each variable in increasing the probability to be a suitable habitat: the odd ratios are obtained by the formula exp(B * •), meaning that an increase of 0.1 points (•) in the amount of ridge complexity (B = 10.238) gives a 2.78 (ψ ) times greater probability to be a suitable area.

To assess the fit between the model and the data set, the expected values of the 12,000 points extracted were estimated and a classification table was obtained (Table 4.6). The file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (80 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:01 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm overall rate of correct classification was 89%, with 93% of the "ibex areas" and 85% of the "non ibex areas" being correctly classified.

Table 4.6 - Classification table based on the stepwise logistic regression model for ibex potential wintering areas; "0" indicates the "non ibex areas", "1" indicates the "ibex areas", cut point c = 0.5; n = 21,000.

Predicted

Observed 0 1 Percent correct

0 427 73 85.4%

1 37 463 92.6%

Overall 89.0%

The stepwise logistic regression gives a coefficient (B) for each included variable and a constant. The p value for the ibex suitability will be obtained from the formula

P = 1 / (1 + exp(-1 * (constant + B1 * var1 + B2 * var2 + ….))).

This formula was applied to the whole study area above 1100m; afterwards, the suitable areas smaller than 1 ha were discarded to give a biological sense to these areas given that no wintering area smaller than 2 ha was recorded (Fig. 4.14). In the study area, which extends over about 13500 ha, the potential ibex wintering areas cover 2810 ha. In particular, there are 844 ha with lower probability (50% < p < 75%) to be suitable for ibex wintering and 1966 ha with high probability (50% < p < 75%). A simple comparison with actual ibex distribution (1150 ha) in the same area indicates that the ibex colonies still have great potential for increasing their population size (only 41% of the suitable territories have already been colonised).

Figure 4.14 - Map of model predictions (green) and real ibex wintering areas (red) in the case study areas for the limestone environment. Light green indicates p > 50% and < 75%, dark green indicates p > 75%.

4.5 Model validation

file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (82 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:01 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm With the new computer technology it is extremely easy to create any kind of models, however these models have no reliability if they are not validated, which probably is the most difficult task. The validation of a model is essential to know whether the results reflect the reality of the study area, and whether the model is exportable to other situations (Flather & King 1992). The model vValidation is especially important when the model is used to predict the outcome in new areas of future subjects (Hosmer and Lemeshow 1992).

There are two different levels of validation: 1) the evaluation of the correct predictions within the area used by the model, and 2) the comparison of the results of the model in a different area with data collected independently. The results of the first type of validation are almost tautological and most models fit well with the data used to create them. For the models of the siliceous and limestone environments for ibex winter distribution, these results have already been presented and the percentages of correct classifications has to beis considered satisfactory compared to other similar studies (Buckland & Elston 1993, Augustin et al. 1996, Flather & King 1992).

What follows is a discussion of the results of the validations performed on data and area different from those used to implement the models.

In the model for siliceous environment, the data set of the Tessa MU (the middle area in Fig. 4.7) was excluded from the analysis and used only to test the model (i.e., the control area). Within this MU, the extension and distribution of actual ibex wintering areas in the region above 1100m (42,600 ha) wereas compared to the prediction of the model (Fig. 4.15). The result was that, out of the 1969 ha over which ibexesibex were observed during winter, the model had identified 1205 ha (61.2%) as suitable. On the other hand, a large amount of area not actually used by ibex during winter (14671 ha, or 33% of the total area) had been classified as suitable. These results are confirmed by analogous results in the model implementation area and by the population dynamics of the ibex colonies present, typical of expanding and growing populations.

Figure 4.15 - Map of model predictions (green) and real ibex wintering areas (red) in the validation area of the Tessa mountain range. Light green indicates p > 50% and < 75%, dark green indicates p > 75%.

For the model of the limestone environment it was difficult to identify the control areas in which the ibex wintering areas had been mapped with the necessary accuracy. Finally, the data sets of two small colonies in the Dolomites were used to perform the validation.

The first control is the Lasties Valley, a small valley in the Sella mountain range, about 10 km north-west from the area inhabited by the Marmolada-Monzoni colony. The Lasties Valley has recently been colonized by few ibexesibex (30 individuals during 2000) spontaneously coming from the larger colony ofin the Marmolada-Monzoni range. In this case the wintering area of the new colony is completely within the areas indicated by the model to beas highly suitable for ibex wintering.

The second control case is probably more significant, because the Croda Rossa–Croda del Becco colony ranges over a large area (about 8500 ha) and has been living there since 1965, with about 70 ibexesibex counted. This area is located at the border between the Bolzano and Belluno provinces, about 25 km north-east of the Marmolada-Monzoni range. The extension and distribution of the actual ibex wintering areas of the Croda Rossa–Croda del Becco colony were compared to the prediction of the model (Fig. 4.16), with the result that, out of the 378 ha over which ibexesibex had been observed during winter, the model had identified 284 ha (or 75.1%) as suitable.

Figure 4.16 - Map of model predictions (green) and real ibex wintering areas (red) in the case study areas of the Croda Rossa–Croda del Becco colony. Light green indicates p > 50% and < 75%, dark green indicates p > 75%.

4.6 Model application

The two models were developed and validated through on visual observations of actual ibex wintering areas in the Venosta Valley and in the Dolomites. Subsequently, the two formulas derived from these models were applied to the entire Italian Alps. The geological map in Fig. 4.3 was used to determine which of the two models had to be used in the different parts of the Alps, and as a consequence the final map of potential ibex winter distribution derives from the combination of the siliceous and the limestone environment formulas (Fig. 4.17).

Figure 4.17 – Map of potential ibex winter distribution, produced as the combination of the siliceous and the limestone environment models.

The total extension of the areas suitable as winter habitat in the Italian Alps identified by the two models is 4950 km2, almost 11% of the study area. If the ibex density values actually found in the wintering areas currently used (8-30/100 ha in the two case study areas) is extrapolated to all these potential wintering areas of the Italian Alps, then a potential ibex population of 40,000-150,000 ibex is calculated.

It is not possible to compare in detail the extension of the potential ibex distribution with the actual distribution, since the collected data refer to whole-year space occupancy while the model data focus on wintering distribution only. In any case, real distribution will never raise to the potential level indicated by the model (40,000-150,000) given that - even if summer habitat is generally not the limiting factor - not always is there enough available habitat to permit the round-year presence of the species.

To achieve the potential ibex distribution the availability of wintering areas is crucial (Wiersema 1983a), but it is also important to consider the less critical aspect of summer areas. To this purpose, and according to Tosi et al. (1986), it was decided to consider all the Italian Alpine territory above 2000m as suitable potential summering areas, with the exception of forested areas and glaciers. In the case of the Friuli–Venezia Giulia region, the elevation limit for summering areas was lowered to 1700m, according to the mean elevation of the upper tree line. Needless to say, only mountain ranges with sufficient summer and winter areas can be colonized by the ibex. The MU "Sx Aosta - M. Rosa - V. Anzasca" well represents the importance of both areas. Here ibexesibex are largely distributed and inhabit most of the areas indicated as suitable by the winter distribution model, nevertheless there is a large amount of potential wintering areas in the eastern part of the MU in which no ibex colonies are counted (Fig. 4.18). Comparing the actual ibex distribution to the file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (87 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:01 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm spatial distribution of the areas above 2000m, it is apparent that almost all wintering areas near summer areas have already been colonized by the species, and that only the large wintering areas in the eastern part of the MU, with almost no territory above 2000m nearby, have not been colonized.

Figure 4.18 – Model results for potential wintering areas identification in the management unit "Sx Aosta - M. Rosa - V. Anzasca" (green). Red lines indicate the actual ibex distribution in the area; in brown, the areas above 2000m (potential summer areas).

The following table and two figures report the results of the model in relation to the MUs and to the availability of summering areas.

Table 4.7 – Territory extent of the different management units recognised as suitable and not suitable for ibex wintering; t. Total extent of the management units and percentage of territory potentially interested by ibex winter presence.

Extension (ha) Management Units Suitable Not suitable Total Suitable (%) Imperia 8005 113829 121834 6,6% Alpi Marittime 11378 81502 92880 12,3% V. Maira – Orsiera 49575 267045 316619 15,7% V. Lanzo - G. Paradiso - M. Bianco 55853 303523 359376 15,5% Sx Aosta - M. Rosa - V. Anzasca 51681 307002 358682 14,4% V. Formazza - V. Grande 17896 116030 133926 13,4% Alpi Lepontine 10214 118947 129161 7,9% Bernina 16570 87552 104122 15,9% Alpi Orobie 26339 292691 319030 8,3% Adamello 16448 211450 227898 7,2% Brenta 16633 276974 293607 5,7% Alpi Retiche - Ortles – Cevedale 31613 293915 325528 9,7% V. Venosta – Brennero 34074 214366 248440 13,7% V. Punsteria 25096 129578 154674 16,2% Dolomiti 75667 534698 610365 12,4% Alpi Carniche - Alpi Giulie 41346 413849 455194 9,1% Asiago – Grappa 6666 280890 287556 2,3% TOTAL 495054 4043840 4538894 10,9%

Figure 4.19 – Model results for the western Italian n Alps. Left, the areas above 2000m (potential summer areas); right, the potential wintering areas.

Figure 4.20 - Model results for the eastern Italian Alps. Top, the areas above 2000m (potential summer areas); bottom, the potential wintering areas.

4.7 Synthesis

To predict the distribution and extent of the potential wintering areas actually useable by ibex, only areas near potential summer habitatquarters were considered. In the final map of potential ibex winter distribution all wintering areas identified by the model were included, except those more than 5 km away from other wintering areas or from summer areas (Table 4.8, Figg. 4.21 and 4.22). This was based on the assumption that each ibex population requires adequate extension of both winter and summer areas to meet its seasonal ecological needs, and that such areas need to be somehow connected and not impedein order to allow seasonal migrations.

Table 4.8 - Territory Eextent of the different management units recognised as suitable for ibex wintering, percent of area above 2000 m, potential wintering area considering the availability of summering areas, percent of wintering area decrease excluding areas too far from summering areas.

file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (92 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:02 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm Potential Model % of area above winter area % Management Units (km2) (km2) 2000m (km2) (km2) decrease Imperia 80 5.3% 71 11% Alpi Marittime 114 35.3% 110 3% V. Maira -– Orsiera 496 32.0% 496 0% V. Lanzo - G. Paradiso - M. Bianco 556 47.6% 552 1% Sx Aosta - M. Rosa - V. Anzasca 517 35.9% 467 10% V. Formazza - V. Grande 179 21.9% 108 40% Alpi Lepontine 102 14.5% 73 28% Bernina 166 39.8% 166 0% Alpi Orobie 263 11.8% 211 20% Adamello 164 27.0% 146 11% Brenta 166 4.8% 100 40% Alpi Retiche - Ortles - Cevedale 316 54.4% 309 2% V. Venosta -– Brennero 341 41.0% 341 0% V. PusteriaPunteria 251 44.3% 250 1% Dolomiti 757 19.9% 686 9% Alpi Carniche - Alpi Giulie 413 17.4% 388 6% Asiago - Grappa 67 0.8% 19 71% TOTAL 4948 26.3% 4493 9%

Figure 4.21 - Model results for the western part of the Italian Alps. Only the wintering areas located within 5 few kilometres offrom potential summering areas were considered; , compare also Fig. 4.19 and table 4.8.

Figure 4.22 - Model results for the eastern part of the Italian Alps. Only the wintering areas located within few5 kilometres offrom potential summering areas were considered;, compare also Fig. 4.20 and Table 4.8.

Based on the above considerations above, two final versions of the following distribution maps were produced:

● a map of potential summer distribution, based on different altitude limits according to the various geographic regions and the distribution of forested areas and glaciers;

● a map of potential winter distribution, based on the implementation of the models (chapter 4) and on the connectivity to summer areas.

The comparison ofbetween the real (chapter 3) with and the potential (chapter 4) situation for each MU are shown in Tables 4.9 and 4.10. file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%2...n/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (96 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:02 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

Table 4.9 – Ibex distribution and population size in the Management Units of the Italian Alps. "Potential summer" and "potential winter areas" were estimated according to the models developed (see text) for further explanations). "Present density" (number of ibex/100 ha) was calculated on the present ranges occupied by each colony (km2).

ID Management Unit Total Colony Population Potential Potential Present surface range size summer winter density (km2 ) area (km2) area (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) /100 ha (km2) 1 Imperia 1218 0 0 55 6671 0 2 Alpi Marittime 929 285 606 328 110 2.,1 3 V. Maira – Orsiera 3166 282 368 1013 496 1.,3 4 V. Lanzo - G. Paradiso - M. 3594 1095 6120 1590 552 5.,6 Bianco

4a GPNP 707 551 4010 642 144 7,.3

4b Resto 2887 544 2110 948 408 3,.9

5 Sx Aosta – M. Rosa - V. 3587 646 2135 1218 467 3,.3 Anzasca 6 V. Formazza - V. Grande 1339 107 11107 273 108 1,.0 7 Alpi Lepontine 1292 88 147 178 73 1,.7 8 Alpi Retiche – Bernina 1042 104 150 376 166 1,.4 9 Alpi Orobie 3190 151 490 357 211 3,.2 10 Adamello 2279 135 129 554 146 1,.0 11 Brenta 2936 6 40 132 97100 6,.7 12 Alpi Retiche – Ortles - 3255 418 1344 1656 309 3,.2 Cevedale 13 V. Venosta – Brennero 2484 174 494 962 341 2,.8

14 V. Pusteria 1547 79 86 655 249250 1,.1 15 Dolomiti 6104 134 556 1188 686 4,.1 16 Alpi Carniche – Alpi Giulie 4552 113 450 774 388 4,.0 17 Asiago – Grappa 2876 0 0 14 1619 0

WESTERN ALPS (1-6) 13833 2416 934036 4671 1799 3,.9 W. Alps without GPNP 13126 1864 533026 3996 1443 2,.9 CENTRAL ALPS (7-13) 16478 1075 2794 4482 1342 2,.6 EASTERN ALPS (14-17) 15078 326 1092 2663 1339 3,.3

TOTAL 45389 3817 132262 11816 449380 3,.5 TOTAL without GPNP 44682 3265 92162 11141 4349124 2,.8

Table 4.10 – Estimates of Ibex potential distribution and population size in the Management Units of the Italian Alps. "Present density" (number of ibex/100 ha) was calculated on the present ranges occupied by each colony (km2). "Winter density" was calculated on potential wintering ranges (km2) (see text). for further explanations). "Winter potential population size" was set at a conservative mean winter density of 10 ibex/100 ha. "Summer potential population size" was set at a conservative mean summer density of 5 ibex/100 ha. "Population size difference (%)" shows the percentage of present population size against as a percentage of the estimated potential one. "Wintering areas difference (%)" shows the percentage of wintering areas occupied against as a percentage of the estimated potential ones.

ID Management Unit Present Winter Winter Summer Population Wintering areas density density potential potential size difference population population difference size size (Proportion againstreal vs. (real vs. ersus ersus (Proportion potential %) against potential %) 1 Imperia 0 0,0 660 276 -- -- 2 Alpi Marittime 2,.1 5,.5 1103 1640 55% 49% 3 V. Maira – Orsiera 1,.3 0,.7 4958 5063 7% 15%

4 V. Lanzo - G. Paradiso - 5,.6 11,.1 5516 8534 M. Bianco

4a PNGPNP 7,.3 27,.8 2300 3375 174% 63%

4b Resto 3,.9 5,.2 3220 5160 66% 37%

5 Sx Aosta – M. Rosa - V. 3,.3 4,.6 4669 6419 46% 35% Anzasca 6 V. Formazza - V. Grande 1,.0 1,.0 1080 1421 10% 21% 7 Alpi Lepontine 1,.7 2,.0 733 917 20% 42% 8 Alpi Retiche – Bernina 1,.4 0,.9 1656 2071 9% 16% 9 Alpi Orobie 3,.2 2,.3 2105 1801 27% 20% 10 Adamello 1,.0 0,.9 1460 3064 9% 21% 11 Brenta 6,.7 0,.4 970 659 6% -- 12 Alpi Retiche - Ortles - 3,.2 4,.3 3092 8821 43% 30% Cevedale 13 V. Venosta - Brennero 2,.8 1,.4 3407 5079 14% 22% 14 V. Pusteria 1,.1 0,.3 2491 3413 3% 11% 15 Dolomiti 4,.1 0,.8 6856 5963 8% 9% 16 Alpi Carniche - Alpi Giulie 4,.0 1,.2 3885 3869 12% 11% 17 Asiago - Grappa 0 0,.0 161 72 --

WESTERN ALPS (1-6) 3,.9 5,.2 17986 23354 52% W. Alps without GPNP 2,.9 3,.4 15686 19979 34% CENTRAL ALPS (7-13) 2,.6 2,.1 13424 22411 21% EASTERN ALPS (14-17) 3,.3 0,.8 13392 13316 8%

TOTAL 3,.5 3,.0 44802 59081 30%

TOTAL without GPNP 2,.8 2,.2 42502 55706 22%

In the sample areas used for developing the model the actual winter areas actually occupied by ibex within the sample areas used for developing the model, densities are estimated at between 8 and 30 individuals/100 ha. To compare current actual withand potential presence in each MU, very conservative density values were applied to the potential areas (10 ibex/100 ha for winter areas; 5 ibex/100 ha for summer areas) (Table 4.10). The resulting potential population sizes obtained are therefore should be to be considered as minimum values, as indicatedproven by the high population densities reached in some protected areas (GPNP, Stelvio NP, Alpi Marittime Natural Park, Valsesia Natural Park). Current Actual density (calculated over the entire range occupied by each colony and therefore including both summer and winter areasquarters) is higher than 5/100 ha only in GPNP,; while in other long-established MUs it is 2-4/100 ha.

MU 4 "V. Lanzo - G. Paradiso - M. Bianco" refers only to the portion outside of GPNP (GPNP actual population is assumed to be considered the same as the potential one).

In 2 of the 17 MUs (MU 1 "Imperia" and MU 17 "Asiago - Grappa") the extent of the potential ibex areas is so small that the 2 MUs are considered unsuitable to the stable continued presence of ibex.

Overall, the extent of potential summer areas is higher in the central Alps (4480 km2), intermediate in the western Alps (4000 km2 excluding GPNP) and lower in the eastern Alps (2650 km2). The extent of the suitable wintering areas, on the contrary, is comparable in the three subregions (1350-1450 km2). Average MU density, calculated over the ranges occupied, is 2.6-3.3 ibex/100 ha. Considering Focusing on the entire Italian portion of the Alps (about 45,400 km2), the extent of suitable summer areas is 11,800 km2 (11,150 km2 without GPNP) and the extent of suitable winter areas is 4,480 km2 (4,120 km2 without GPNP).

Average winter MU densities, calculated for over the extent ofon potential winter areas of each MU, range between 0.3 and 5.5 ibex/100 ha, andprovingindicating their large differences between the real actual and the potential situation varies a great deal. As usualespectedexpected, GPNP stands out with a winter density of 27 ibex/100 ha.

Densities calculated over the extent offoron potential winter areas decrease from west to east: 3.4 ibex/100 ha in the western Alps, 2.1 ibex/100 ha in the central Alps and 0.8 ibex/100 ha in the eastern Alps, corresponding to 34%, 21% and 8% of the potential value, respectively. In other words, the difference between real and potential density is lower in the west and increases moving eastwards along the Italian Alps.

The proportion of the potential winter areas currently actually occupied (those predicted by the model and included within the range of each population) and versus the total potential winter areas is a good indicator of how well ibex are distributed in each MU (Table 4.10). MUs with a proportion of <20% have a distribution that is still low and requires direct translocations. MUs with a proportion of >30% require actions mainly aimed at encouraging the natural growth and dispersion of the colonies already existing.

For an overview of MU potential densities to use as a reference, the extent of potential summer and winter areas was multiplied by very conservative estimates of summer and winter density (5 and 10 ibex/100 ha respectively). The potential densities obtained are therefore to be considered as minimum values, as the high population densities reached in some protected areas prove (GPNP, Stelvio NP, Alpi Marittime Natural Park, Valsesia Natural Park).

The implementation of the models leads us to a total estimated potential ibex population in the Italian Alps of 44,800 in winter and 59,100 in summer. Given that the actual population is 13,000 ibex, the proportion of real popyulationpopulation against as a proportion of potential population is about 30%.

In 6 of the 17 MUs, potential summer populations are lower than winter ones, leading to the hypothesis that the limiting factors linked are tied more to the summer season have more weight (for example, in summer ibex seek areas at higher elevation, meaning that the availability of high-altitude summer areas is an important limiting factor). Of these 6 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%.../Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (100 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:02 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm MUs, MU 1 and MU 17 had already been considered unsuitable forto stable ibex presence; MU 9 ("Alpi Orobie") has relatively low mean altitudes (the crest line is between 2500 and 2900m); and MUs 11 ("Brenta"), 15 ("Dolomiti") and 16 ("Alpi Carniche-Alpi Giulie") are in the calcareous-dolomite portion of the central-eastern Alps, with lower mean altitudes.

In 2 of the 15 MUs suitable to a stable ibex population (MU 7 "Alpi Lepontine" and MU 11 "Brenta"), the minimum potential population is <1000 individuals. This figure was chosen as a cut pointthreshold for priority actions, which should be focused on large (>1000 ibex) populations first. The size of MUs 7 and 11 penalises them in the ranking for priority actions.

Table 4.11 synthesises the status of ibex populations in the various MUs compared to the potential situation, and recommends priority actions for the conservation and management of these populations. Priority is ranked according to a 0-3 scale. Under "Actions", the interventions deemed important to achieve the potential objectives are listed. Actions include translocations and other direct interventions aimed at encouraging and speeding up natural recolonizsation. They purposefully do not include regular monitoring ofn the status, genetics, demography and ecology of the populations. Although not included here, they are considered paramount for a correcteffective, long-term management of strategy of the species.

Table 4.11 – Synthesis of the priority actions recommended for each Management Unit of the Italian Alps, aimed ato increasinge range and size of the ibex colonies. At this point, actions such as monitoring and research (status, demography, genetics) have not been considered.

"Current presence" is considered "low" when the density over the entire winter area is <1 ibex/100 ha, "good" when density is >4 ibex/100 ha, "medium" when it is intermediate.

"Distribution" is described as "low" when the proportion of winter area occupied is less than 20% against theof the total potential areaone is <20%;; "good" when the proportion is equal to or >30%, "medium" when it is intermediate.

"Priority for action" is expressed asin "0" (no priority), 1, 2 orand 3 (high priority), depending on: a) the current population size and distribution compared to the potential situation, b)on existing reintroduction programmes, and c) on high chamois density. "0" indicates either GPNP or MUs unsuitable to ibex presence, or the GPNP, where no actions aren is planned to increase population distribution and size.

ID Management Unit (MU) Current Distribution Priority Actions recommended presence for action

1 Imperia -- -- 0 ● None.

2 Alpi Marittime Good Good 1 ● Encourage dispersion towards the north-western portion of the MU.

3 V. Maira - Orsiera Low Low 3 ● Continue reintroduction programme initiated began in the Cuneo province in 1999.

● Consider new reintroductions in the Torino province.

file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%.../Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (101 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:02 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

4 V. Lanzo - G. Paradiso - M. Bianco

4a PNGPNP Good Good 0 ● None.

4b RestoRest Good Good 1 ● Encourage population increase in southern portion of the MU.

5 Sx Aosta – M. Rosa - V. Good Good 1 ● Encourage population increase Anzasca especially outside of protected areas.

6 V. Formazza -– V. Grande Medium Medium 2 ● Encourage dispersion towards northern portion of the MU (possibly new translocations).

7 Alpi Lepontine (1) Medium Good 1 ● Monitor trends inof the population of the Alpi Lepontine in the Como province and consider new translocations.

8 Alpi Retiche – Bernina Low Low 2 ● Encourage dispersion and increase in central-eastern portion of the MU.

● Val Codera and Valle dei Ratti show good suitability for future translocations.

9 Alpi Orobie Medium Medium 1 ● Encourage merging of the western and eastern colonies.

10 Adamello Low Medium 3 ● Continue reintroduction programme in areas where ibex presence is still low (high chamois density).

file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%.../Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (102 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:02 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

11 Brenta (1) -- -- 2 ● Monitor the Alto Garda colony (sub- optimal range).

● Consider reintroduction in the Brenta Group (high chamois density).

12 Alpi Retiche - Ortles – Good Good 1 ● Implement reintroductions in the Cevedale provinces of Trento and Bolzano to speed up the reicolonizsation process.

13 V. Venosta – Brennero Medium Medium 2 ● Encourage further dispersion of the populations present.

● Reconsider current criteria for hunting management.

14 V. Pusteria Low Low 3 ● Encourage further population dispersion, including , otheralso through reintroduction programmes (presence of mange).

● Reconsider current criteria for hunting management.

15 Dolomiti Low Low 3 ● Continue current reintroduction programmes and encourage new translocations (presence of mange; high chamois density).

16 Alpi Carniche - Alpi Giulie Medium Low 2 ● Plan future reintroductions in north- western portion of the MU.

17 Asiago – Grappa -- 0 ● None.

(1) Minimum potential population <1000 individuals.

file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%.../Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (103 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:02 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

5. CONCLUDINGSIVE REMARKS

5.1 Conclusions

● TWhile the results of these studies on ibex habitat use and preference add no significant new knowledge on ibex ecology, they use supply two new simple and objective and spatially explicit models to automatically assess the quality of ibex habitat and predict ibex potential distribution at local scale.

● This study on the ibex offor the Italian Alps makes adds an important contribution piece to the knowledge of the Alps and takes us one step closer to a regional conservation strategy which will guide policy-making.

● The present actualcurrent general status of Alpine ibex in Italy can beis considered satisfactory and the species is no longer is at risk of extinction. After overcoming a n initial phase of scarce distribution and abundance, various new colonies are now present and some older ones have grown to high densities.

● In the past, poaching and illegal trophy trade affected the population structure and dynamics of some Italian populations. The improved enforcement of hunting restrictions has recently contributed helped to reduceing these threats.

However:

● Ibex is still absent from a significant portion of its potential distribution area, especially in Italy; its distribution is still scattered and population density is high only in limited areas.

● Alpine ibex is the Italian autochthonous indigenous ungulate with the largest gap between potential (historical) and present range (Peracino & Bassano 1985). The implentation of the models leads us toindicate a total estimated potential ibex population of 44,800. Given that the actual population is 13,000 ibex, there is an estimated gap of about 70% between the actual and the real and ppotential population size. Considering the whole entire Italian Alps (about 45,400 km2), the extent of suitable summer areas is 11,800 km2 and of suitable winter areas is 4480 km2. Densities calculated over the extent of potential winter areas decrease from west to east: 3.4 ibex/100 ha in the western Alps, 2.1 ibex/100 ha in the central Alps, and 0.8 ibex/100 ha in the eastern Alps. The difference between the actual and real and potential situations increases moving eastwards along the Italian Alps. The comparison of the status of ibex populations in the various MUs with the potential situation leads to recommended actions for the conservation and management of the populations. The priority for actions is assigned to MUs 3 ("Val Maira – Orsiera"), 10 ("Adamello"), 14 ("Val Pusteria") and 15 ("Dolomiti").

● Under the present conditions, the role of protected areas as centres of conservation and potential emigration of mountain ungulates is only valid only in parts of the Italian Alps.

● Currently At present in Italy there exists no legislative reference tofor appropriate ibex management through hunting, even although, from a technically, and conservation file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%.../Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (104 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:02 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm point of view,the conservation conditions are such that make possible a rational management through hunting possible is possible.

5.2 Recommendations

● Assuming that "more ibex is better", a shared conservation and management strategy to fill the gap between real actual and potential distribution should be developed.

● The discontinuity of the areas and the isolation of many colonies encourage tohe continuation ofesupport the continuation of reintroduction programmes, especially in the Italian Alps.

● Any future reintroduction, however, should be undertaken only after a thorough evaluation of the potential release site and its surroundings has proven the site to be suitable. been made and the site has proven to be suitable. This study has provided a highly informative rather satisfying overview of the current status of ibex colonies in the Italian Alps, and has quantified – on at large scale – the areas into which of the potential species potentially could be distributed. Based on a cdistribution of the species. From a comparison between of the two types of information it will beis possible to identify the priority areas to focus on for future reintroduction programmes. When identifying priority areas, it will be important to consider the current distribution and density of the chamois population. An appropriate feasibility study – one that considers all issues relevant to assessing the appropriateness of a reintroduction - will haveneeds to be undertaken prior to any future reintroduction programme (par. 5.3) (IUCN 1995, AA.VV. 1997, Gauthier et al., 1994). This should include an assessment of habitat suitability at on a small scale, which cancould not??? be developed starting frombased on the models and results of this study.

● Reintroduction projects should be co-ordinated under a common ibex conservation strategy aiming at making the separate colonies part of a single metapopulation (Gauthier et al. 1994, Tosi et al. 1991b).

● If a more homogeneous distribution of ibex populations is desired, more rational hunting/harvest plans are needed. An increase in hunting management units, with the direct involvement of hunters, may help to reduce poaching of both ibex and chamois.

● Rationale hunting management of the larger colonies outside of protected areas should be considered acceptable if planned strictly on the basis of biological and technical considerations. (iInn Switzerland, the country with most ibex and where colonies are numerous and evenly distributed, for a few decades ibex management has included harvest according to precise selection criteria.). In this case, reference regulations for to ibex harvest/hunting should be placed into the legislationlegislated.

● Ibex conservation and management will require practical actions both at a regional and a local scale. Because As the effectiveness of these actions will strongly depend on the level of commitment of variousthe agencies (regional and provincial agencies, protected areas, European Ibex Group), a serious effort has to be made to secure their cooperation.

● The various organisations responsible for wildlife conservation and management and for tourist and recreational areas must coordinate efforts to develop a common management strategy / action plan for the conservation and development of ibex populations in the Italian Alps (Ministry for Environment, National Wildlife Institute, European Ibex Group, National and Natural Parks).

5.3 Drafting guidelines for a future conservation strategy forof Alpine ibex in Italy

An Alpine ibex management strategy or action plan should be developed and , which needs to be shared by all the relevant key players. Issues such as 1) monitoring, 2) translocations, 3) genetic implications, 4) habitat management, 5) hunting and harvest, etc. should be addressed. file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%.../Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (105 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:02 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

1. Monitoring:

- Greater efforts should be made to standardize count and census methods (Tosi & Scherini 1989).

2. Translocations. Planning and implementation of translocation projects should be based on careful assessment of environmental, sanitary, demographic and genetic issues (Tosi et al. 1997), namely:

- The selection of reintroduction areas should be supported by environmental evaluation models (Meneguz et al. 1986,; Tosi et al. 1986,; Pedrotti and Dupré 2000,; this report).

- All areas potentially selected for reintroduction will haveneed to first undergo a preventive environmental analysis to verify whether they are suitable from a healthsanitary point of view (i.e., thesee present mange epidemic in the north-eastern Italian Dolomites). The original populations from whichere specimens for translocation are captured should undergo regular health control to avoid the potential spreading of pathologies diseases (Anon. 1997).

- Priority for ibex release should be given to protected areas or other areas capable oftof ensureinging efficient surveillance against poaching and disturbance. This does not exclude a priori transfer to controlled hunting areas, as long as the transfer is undertaken after adequate communication with the hunters and is followed by regular monitoring, perhaps using radiotelemetry (Tosi & Pedrotti 1990, Tosi et al. 1991a).

- For the highest chance of success, the founders’ stock should always be as numerous as possible (at least 40-50 individuals in no more than three years of release) (Gauthier & Villaret 1990). It would be preferable to focus resources on few operations with severalmany founders, rather than several operations with few (10-20) founders.

- In reintroduction areas, grazing of domestic sheep and goats should be limited in order to decrease the chance of diseases and parasite transmission and of hybridisation (some cases of hybridisation were found in both the western and central Italian Alps, in areas of recent ibex reintroduction with high goat density;, e.g., the Ossola Valley in Piemonte and the Chiavenna Valley in Lombardia).

3) Genetic implications:

- The founders’ stock to create new colonies should be selected according to the latest findings on the genetic variability of the different populations (Luikart 2001). Ideally, individuals from It is recommended to use individuals directly from the Gran Paradiso mother colony should be used to , which fully satisfyies this requirement (Nascetti et al. 1990, Randi et al. 1990). Alternatively, and/or individuals coming from the areas established for the longest time and with the largest colonies. should be used.

- The recent results on the genetic variability of Italian ibex colonies (DNA analysis, Luikart 2001) provide interesting input to the future planning selection of the stocks to use in reintroductions. However, the samples analysed so far are limited and do not refer to all the populations potentially qualified to provide founding individuals. This research theme should be further developed and tailored to the information needed for planning selecting stocks which are as suitable as possible. It would also be useful to verify by electrophoresis and DNA analysis that none of the founders show traces of hybridisation with domestic goats (Randi et al. 1990).

- Finally, a network or coordination should be established among the ibex colonies that provide founders’ stocks (Gran Paradiso NP, Alpi Marittime NP, Stelvio NP, etc.) in order to plan exchanges and vary the origin of the individual ibex released in each area.

4) Habitat management: file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%.../Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (106 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:02 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

● Decrease any further interference between ibex and domestic Caprinae.

● Regulate and limit the use of motor vehicles in the most important ibex ranges, also while also strictly controlling disturbances caused by recreational tourism (skiing, use of helicopters, paragliding) in, and adjacent near to, winter ranges.

● Regulate and control livestock access to alpine pastures in order to limit the health risk of disease transmission (see above).

5) Hunting and harvest: detailed guidelines should be developed for rational ibex management through hunting. The following should be included in the guidelines:

● Identify and delimit ibex colonies according to demographicy and space use criteria (management unit) criteria.

● Perform annual ibex censuses, regularly and with a standardized methodology.

● Define thresholds for population size and density, beyond which annual harvest becomes possible.

● Define harvest structure rate and rate structure:

❍ define age classes:

■ females: 1-2 years, >3 years

■ males: 1-2 years, 3-5 years, 6-10 years, >11 years

❍ define thresholds for harvest rate in each age classdefine harvest rates:

■ 5-10% to ensure further population growth

■ 10-16% to stabilize population size

❍ define thresholds for harvest rate in each age class

❍ maintain the natural population structure:

■ balance among sexes

■ 60% of harvest on young and subadults (0-5 years)..

● Define criteria for developing and endorsing the plans for selective hunting.:

define harvest rates:

■ 5-10% to ensure further population growth file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%.../Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (107 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:02 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

■ 10-16% to stabilize population size

❍ maintain the natural population structure:

■ balance among sexes

■ 60% of harvest on young and subadults (0-5 years).

● Possibly consider captures side by side with the first selection hunting plans (the younger portion is captured while the older is harvested).

5.4 Next steps

Reintroduction programmes to narrow the gap between present and potential ibex distribution in a short time should be encouraged because of: a) Tthe discontinuity of the ibex areas and the parallel isolation of many colonies, b) the ibex’ limited colonization ability, and c) the general current lower densities compared to the potential carrying capacity of the Italian Alps. encourage the development of reintroduction programmes to narrow the gap between present and potential ibex distribution in a short time.

This study represents the first step of a process;: other steps will have to follow. Now that a comprehensive overview of the current status of Alpine ibex in Italy is available, and that the gap between to itscurrent and potential levels of distribution and density has been identifiedquantified, we have a yardstick against which to pace our efforts and measure our success in ibex conservation. What is needed at this point is the translation of this information into management actions. To this end the following actions should be taken: purpose:

● this study should be circulated among the public administrations and other key interested parties, highlighting the local management needs which have emerged;

● the its conclusions and recommendations of this study should be discussed and regional management priorities should be identified;

● the extension of this study to the entire Alpine range beyond Italy should be considered, to provide a regional overview and draw conclusions on the entire ibex population of the Alps;

● an Alpine ibex action plan should be produced, preferably at the regional (Alpine) level or at least at the national level. This study has identified of which here only some preliminary issues relevant to such a plan. have been identified, preferably at regional (Alpine) level or at least at national level.

6. REFERENCES

file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%.../Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (108 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:02 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

ANONYMOUS, 1997. Linee guida per la prevenzione del rischio sanitario legato alle immissioni di fauna selvatica sul territorio nazionale. In: Spagnesi M., V. Guberti, M.A. De Marco (Eds.), Atti del Convegno Nazionale: Ecopatologia della Fauna Selvatica, Suppl. Ric. Biol. Selvaggina, XXIV: 715-720.

AA.VV., 1997. Linee guida per le introduzioni, reintroduzioni e ripopolamenti di Uccelli e Mammiferi. In: Spagnesi M., S. Toso, P. Genovesi (Eds.), Atti del III Convegno Nazionale dei Biologi della Selvaggina, Suppl. Ric. Biol. Selvaggina, XXVII: 897-905.

APOLLONIO M. & GRIMOD I., 1984. Indagine preliminare sulla capacità faunistica della Valle d'Aosta per quattro specie di Ungulati. Reg. Auton. Valle d'Aosta. 64 pp.

AUGUSTIN N.H., MUGGLESTONE M.A. & BUCKLAND S.T., 1996. An autologistic model for the spatial distribution of wildlife. J. App. Ecol., 33: 339-347.

BASSANO B. & PERACINO V., 1990. Areali estivi e di svernamento occupati dallo stambecco (Capra ibex ibex L.) nei territori del Parco Nazionale del Gran Paradiso: metodologie di censimento ed interpretazione. Atti Con. Int. Lo stambecco delle Alpi: realtà e prospettive, Valdieri, pp. 115-121.

BUCKLAND S.T. & ELSTON D.A., 1993. Empirical models for the spatial distribution of wildlife. J. App. Ecol., 30: 478-495.

CARMIGNOLA G. & KRAUSE M., 2000. Lo stambecco in Alto Adige. Ripartizione Foreste, Ufficio Caccia e Pesca, Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano, 80 pp.

CARNEVALI L., DUPRéE’ E. & GENOVESI P., 2000. Strategia di conservazione dei grandi carnivori sulle Alpi: indagine sulle attività di caccia sulle Alpi. INFS, UNCZA, WWF. Pp. 18+20 maps.

CHOISY J. P., 1990. Le bouquetin des Alpes (Capra ibex L.) et les facteurs écologiques. Comparaison avec d'autres espèces. II et dernière partie: Faits et interprétation. Office National de la Chasse - Bulletin Mensuel, 145: 13-23.

CHOISY J. P., 1994. Réintroduction de Bouquetin, Capra Sp.: conditions de réussite, choix de massifs, enseignements. L’exemple du Vercors. Gruppo Stambecco Europa. Coll. Sci. P.N.G.P., 2: 15-34.

CORSI F., SINIBALDI I. & BOITANI L., 1998. Large carnivores conservation areas in Europe: discussion paper for the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe. IEA, Rome. Pp. 28 +6 maps.

DIVINE D.D., EBERT D.W. & DOUGLAS C.L., 2000. Examining desert bighorn habitat using 30-m and 100-m elevation data. Wildlife Society Bullettin, 28(4): 986-992.

ELLERMAN J.R. & MORRISON-SCOTT T.C.S., 1951. Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian Mammals 1758 to 1946. Tr. Brit. Mus., London. 810 pp.

FLATHER C.H. & KING R.M., 1992. Evaluating performance of regional wildlife habitat models: implications to resource planning. J. Env. Mgmt., 34: 31-46.

FLIRI F., 1975. Das Klima der Alpen im Raum von Tirol. Universitätsverlag Wagner, Innsbruck-München.

FRANCISCI F., FOCARDI S. & BOITANI L., 1985. Male and female alpine ibex: phenology of space use and herd size. In: The Biology and Management of Mountain Ungulates. file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%.../Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (109 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:02 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm S. Lovari,(Ed): 124-133.

GAUTHIER D., CHATAIN G., CHOISY J.P., CRAMPE J.P., MARTINOT J.P., MICHALLET J., TERRIER G., TRON L. & VILLARET J.C., 1994. L’organisation des réintroductions de bouquetin en France - la charte du bouquetin. Atti Inc. Gruppo Stambecco Europa. Parco Nazionale Gran Paradiso. 14 pp.

GAUTHIER D., MARTINOT J.P., CHOISY J.P., MICHALLET J.P., VILLARET J.C. & FAURE E., 1991. Le bouquetin des Alpes. Rev. Ecol. Terre Vie, Suppl. 6: 233-275.

GAUTHIER D. & VILLARET C., 1990. Réintroduction d’une espèce protégée: le Bouquetin des Alpes. Rev. Ecol. (Terre Vie), suppl. 5: 97-120.

GEIST V., 1985. On evolutionary patterns in the Caprinae with comments on the punctuated mode of evolution, gradualism and a general model of mammalian evolution. In: The biology and management of mountain ungulates (S. Lovari ed.). Croom-Helm, London. Pp. 15-30.

GEIST V. 1987. On speciation in ice age mammals. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 65.

GIACOMETTI M., 1991. Beitrag zur Ansiedlungs dynamik und aktuellen Verbreitung des Alpensteinbockes (Capra ibex ibex L.) im Alpenraum. Z. Jagdwiss, 37:157-173.

GIACOMETTI M., 1997. Switzerland. In: Shackleton (Ed.) D.M. Wild sheep and Goats and their relatives. Status survey and conservation action plan for Caprinae. IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group, Gland and Cambridge, pp. 130-134.

GOSSOW H. & ZEILER H., 1997. Austria. In: Shackleton (Ed.) D.M. Wild sheep and Goats and their relatives. Status survey and conservation action plan for Caprinae. IUCN/ SSC Caprinae Specialist Group, Gland and Cambridge, pp. 80-85.

HOFMANN A., 1971. Das jahreszeitliche Verteilungsmuster und der Aesungsdruck von Alpensteinbock, Gemse, Rothirsch und Reh in einem begrenzten Gebiet im Oberengadin. Diplomarbeit Universität Zürich, 31 pp.

HOSMER D.W. & LEMESHOW S., 1992. Applied logistic regression. John Wiley & Sons, 308 pp.

KOFLER H. & SCHRÖDER W., 1985. Harvesting an atypical ibex population: a management plan. In: S. Lovari (Ed.), The biology and management of Mountain Ungulates. Croom-Helm, London, pp. 212-215.

KOFLER H. & SCHRÖDER W., 1990. Ibex and chamois: testing the competition hypothesis. Atti Conv. "Lo stambecco delle Alpi: realtà attuali e prospettive", 17-19 settembre 1987, Terme di Valdieri Cuneo. Reg. Piemonte PN Argentera. 21-24.

IUCN, 1995. Guidelines for re-introductions. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 5 pp. file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%.../Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (110 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:02 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm IUCN, 1996. 1996 IUCN Res List of Threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

LUIKART G., 2001.Microsatellite DNA and Conservation of Alpine Ibex. Workshop on " Past and recent bottlenecks: the conservation genetics of Alpine ibex". Rhêmes-Notre- Dame (Aosta) Italy, 3-4 May 2001.

MENEGUZ P.G., ROSSI L., DE MENEGHI D., LANFRANCHI P., PERACINO V. & BALBO T., 1986. A solar radiation model for Ibex relocation programs. Proc. 5th Symp. North. Wild Sheep and Goat Councl. Missoula, Montana. Pp. 423-435.

NASCETTI G., LANFRANCHI P., RATTI P., PERACINO V., MATTIUCCI S., MENEGUZ P.G., ROSSI L. & BULLINI L., 1990. Studi elettroforetici sulla variabilità e divergenza genetica di Capra ibex ibex e Capra aegagrus hircus delle Alpi. Atti Conv. Int. Lo Stambecco delle Alpi: realtà attuale e prospettive, Valdieri. Pp. 11-15.

NIEVERGELT B., 1966. Der Alpensteinbock (Capra ibex L.) in seinen Lebensraum. Verlag Paul Parey, Hamburg und Berlin. 85 pp.

NIEVERGELT B., 1981. Ibexes in an African environment. Ecology and social system of the walia ibex in the Simen mountains, Ethiopia. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 189 pp.

NIEVERGELT B. & ZINGG R., 1986. Capra ibex Linnaeus, 1758 - Steinbock. In: Handbuch der Saeugetiere Europas (Niethammer J. & Krapp F., Eds.) Band 2/II: 384-404.

PEDROTTI L., 1995. La reintroduzione dello stambecco (Capra ibex ibex) nelle Alpi Orobie. Ph.D. Thesis in Natural and Environmental Sciences. Milan State University, 270 pp.

PEDROTTI L. & DUPRéE’ E., 2000. La distribuzione potenziale dello stambecco in Alto Adige. In: Carmignola G. & Krause M. Lo stambecco in Alto Adige. Ripartizione Foreste, Ufficio Caccia e Pesca, Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano, pp65-78.

PEDROTTI L., DUPRéÈ E., MUSTONI A., CHIARENZI B., CARLINI E., TOSI G., 2000. Assessing winter potential distribution of Alpine ibex (Capra ibex L.) in southern western Italian Dolomites. Proceedings of the European Conference on Alpine ibex, Cogne (Aosta, Italy) , 5-6 December 2000.

PEDROTTI L., DUPRéE’ E., PREATONI D. & TOSO S., 2001. Banca Dati Ungulati: distribuzione, consistenza, status e gestione degli Ungulati in Italia. Biol. Cons. Fauna, 107.

PEDROTTI L. & LOVARI S., 1999. Capra ibex L., 1758. In: The Atlas of European Mammals (Mitchell-Jones A.J., Amori G., Bogdanovicz W., Krystufek B., Reijnder P.J.H., Spitzenberg F., Stubbe M., Thissen J.B.M., Yohvalik V. & J. Zima Eds.). Academic Press: 412-413.

PERACINO V. & BASSANO B., 1985. Relazione sullo stato delle colonie di Stambecco (Capra ibex ibex L.) create con l’immissione di animali provenienti dall’Ente Parco Nazionale Gran Paradiso. Coll. scient. P.N.G.P. 59 pp.

PERACINO V. & BASSANO B., 1986. Relazione sullo stato delle colonie di Stambecco (Capra ibex ibex L.) sull'arco alpino italiano create con l'immissione di animali provenienti dall'Ente Parco Nazionale Gran Paradiso. Coll. Sc. P.N.G.P., Torino. 58 pp.

PERACINO V. & BASSANO B., 1990 . Andamenti della popolazione di stambecco (Capra ibex ibex) nel Parco Nazionale del Gran Paradiso: anni 1986-89. Atti III Incontro Int. Gruppo Stambecco Europa.

PERACINO V. & BASSANO B., 1994. Valutazione di idoneità dei territori del Parco Naturale dell'Orsiera-Rocciavré ai fini della reintroduzione dello stambecco (Capra ibex ibex, L.). Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Ibex Group (Peracino V & Bassano B, eds), Grenoble; 24-26 June 1993; Ibex J. M. E. 2(Suppl.): 49-61. file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%.../Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (111 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:02 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

PERACINO V., BASSANO B. & GRIMOD I., 1989. Alcuni aspetti dell'uso dello spazio, dell'organizzazione sociale e della dinamica di popolazione dello stambecco (Capra ibex ibex) in un'area campione del Parco Nazionale del Gran Paradiso. Coll. Sc. P.N.G.P., Torino. 69 pp.

PFEFFER P. & SETTIMO R., 1973. Déplacements saisonniers et compétition vitale entre mouflons, chamois et bouquetin dans le réserve du Mercantour. Mammalia, 37: 203-219.

RANDI E., FUSCO G., LORENZINI R., TOSO S. & TOSI G., 1991. Allozyme divergence and phylogenetic relationships among Capra, Ovis and Rupicapra (Artiodactyla, Bovidae). Heredity, 67:281-286.

RANDI E., TOSI G., TOSO S., LORENZINI R. & FUSCO G., 1990. Genetic variability and conservation problems in Alpine ibex, domestic and feral goat populations (genus Capra). Z. Säugetierk., 55: 413-420.

ROUCHER F., 1997. France. In: Shackleton (Ed.) D.M. Wild sheep and Goats and their relatives. Status survey and conservation action plan for Caprinae. IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group, Gland and Cambridge, pp. 92-98.

SCHRÖDER W. & KOFLER H., 1984. Coexistence and competitive exclusion between ibex (Capra ibex) and chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra). Proc. 3rd Int. Theriol. Congr., Helsinki, Aug. 1982; Acta Zool. Fenn. 172: 87-88.

SHACKLETON (Ed.) D.M. & the IUCN/SSC Caprinae Sp. Group, 1997. Wild sheep and Goats and their relatives. Status survey and conservation action plan for Caprinae. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, 390 pp.

STÜWE M.B. & NIEVERGELT B., 1991. Recovery of Alpine ibex from near extinction: the result of effective protection, captive breeding, and re-introductions. App. Anim. Behav. Sci., 29: 379-87.

STÜWE M., SCRIBNER K. & GAUTHIER D., 1991. A genetic comparison of French ibex populations (Capra i. ibex) and implications for their management. In: Ongulés / Ungulates 91 (Spitz F. et al., Eds), Proc. Int. Symp. Toulouse France, Sept. 2-6 1991: 71-76.

TOSI G. & LOVARI S., 1997. Italy. In: Shackleton (Ed.) D.M. Wild sheep and Goats and their relatives. Status survey and conservation action plan for Caprinae. IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group, Gland and Cambridge, pp. 111-118.

TOSI G. & PEDROTTI L., 1990. Radiotelemetria sullo stambecco (Capra ibex ibex) nelle Alpi Orobie (Lombardia): metodologie e risultati preliminari. Atti LIII Congr. Unione Zool. Ital. 33-34.

file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%.../Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (112 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:02 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm TOSI G., PEDROTTI L. & SCHERINI G., 1991a. Progetto Stambecco Lombardia: reintroduzione nelle Alpi Orobie. Quaderni Regione Lombardia, Settore Agricoltura e Foreste, Milano, 4: 50 pp.

TOSI G., PEDROTTI L. & SCHERINI G.C., 1997. Pianificazione e controllo di un programma di reintroduzione: il caso dello Stambecco (Capra ibex ibex) nelle Alpi Orobie. In: Spagnesi M., S. Toso, P. Genovesi (Eds.), Atti del III Convegno Nazionale dei Biologi della Selvaggina, Suppl. Ric. Biol. Selvaggina, XXVII: 155-182.

TOSI G. & PERCO F., 1981. Stambecco Capra ibex Linnaeus 1758. In: Distribuzione e biologia di 22 specie di Mammiferi in Italia. C.N.R., Roma, pp. 169-174.

TOSI G. & SCHERINI G., 1989. Valutazione numerica dei Bovidi selvatici in ambiente alpino: indicazioni metodologiche. In: Atti II Sem. Italiano Censimenti Faunistici dei Vertebrati (M. Fasola ed.). Suppl. Ric. Biol. Selvaggina, 16: 519-532.

TOSI G., SCHERINI G., APOLLONIO M., FERRARIO G., PACCHETTI G., TOSO S. & GUIDALI F., 1986. Modello di valutazione ambientale per la reintroduzione dello Stambecco (Capra ibex ibex Linnaeus 1758). Quad. Ric. Biol. Selv. INFS, Ozzano Emilia (BO) 77: 80 pp.

TOSI G., TOSO S. & RANDI E., 1991b. Demografia e variabilità genetica in alcune colonie di Stambecco (Capra ibex ibex) e indicazioni per programmi di conservazione. In: Atti Conv. Genetica e conservazione della fauna (E. Randi & M. Spagnesi eds.). Bologna,1990, Ric. Biol. Selvaggina, XVIII: 109-122.

VON ELSNER-SCHACK I., 1983. Zur Wiedereinbuergerung des Steinbocks in den Gesamten Alpen. Tagungsbericht Hegegemeinschaft Roethelstein-Hochlantsch, (Kofler H., Ed.), Juni 1982, St. Erhard: 9-20.

WEBER E., 1994. Sur le traces de bouquetin d’Europe. Delachoux et Nestlé. Losanne, Switzerland.

WIERSEMA G., 1983a. L'habitat saisonnier du Bouquetin (Capra ibex L.) dans le Parc National de la Vanoise. Trav. Sci. Parc Nat. Vanoise, XIII: 211-222.

WIERSEMA G., 1983b. Ibex habitat analysis using Landsat imagery. ITC Journal, 2: 139-147.

WIERSEMA G., 1984. Seasonal use and quality assessment of ibex habitat. Acta Zool.. Fenn., 172: 89-90.

WIERSEMA G., 1989. Climate and vegetation characteristics of ibex habitats in the European Alps. Mount. Res. Dev., 9(2): 119-128.

WIERSEMA G. & SCHRÖDER W., 1985. How to Find Suitable Ibex (Capra ibex) Habitat Using Landsat Imagery. In: The Biology and Management of Mountain Ungulates (S. Lovari ed.): 226-230.

file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%.../Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (113 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:02 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm WIERSEMA G. & ZONNEVELD I.S., 1990. Land survey for land evaluation using remote sensing for the introduction and management of Ibex (Capra ibex L.). Atti Conv. Int. Lo Stambecco delle Alpi: realtà attuale e prospettive, Valdieri. 99-114.

ANNEX

Data on the ibex colonies of the Italian Alps

Figure A.1 – Current distribution of Alpine ibex in the western Italian Alps (2000). Numbers indicate the ibex colony identification code reported in the following tables (IDcol); red line indicates the borders of the ibex management units; light grey lines indicate the province borders.

Figure A.2 – Current distribution of Alpine ibex in the central-eastern Italian Alps (2000). Numbers indicate the ibex colony identification code reported in the following tables (IDcol); red line indicates the borders of the ibex management units; light grey lines indicate the province borders.

Table A.1 – Distribution, origin, size and evolution of Italian Alpine ibex colonies (1984-2000). "IDcol" and "IDmu" are the identification numbers of the colony and the management unit, respectively; "Prov" is the abbreviation of the Italian province; "Born" indicates the year of origin of the colony; "Colony size" is reported for three time intervals. Italian provinces: Cuneo (CN), Torino (TO), Aosta (AO), Vercelli file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%.../Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (117 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:02 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (VC), Verbania (VB), Sondrio (SO), Como (CO), Lecco (LC), Bergamo (BG), Bolzano (BZ), Brescia (BS), Trento (TN), Belluno (BL), Pordenone (PN), Udine (UD).

No. ibex Colony size IDcol Colony name Management Unit IDmu Prov Born Origin released 1984-85 1994-95 2000 1 Parco Naturale Alpi Marittime Alpi Marittime 2 CN 1920 re-introduction 23 409 475 552 2 Ciastella Alpi Marittime 2 CN 1970 immigration 0 20 25 30 3 Valle Stura Alpi Marittime 2 CN 1970 immigration 0 24 24 24 4 Oronaye Val Maira - Orsiera 3 CN 1990 immigration 0 0 0 5 5 Maurin Val Maira - Orsiera 3 CN 1990 immigration 0 0 0 17 6 Chersogno Val Maira - Orsiera 3 CN 2000 re-introduction 10 0 0 10 7 Alta Val Varaita Val Maira - Orsiera 3 CN 1999 re-introduction 10 0 0 30 8 Monviso-Val Pellice Val Maira - Orsiera 3 TO 1978 re-introduction 24 20 100 140 9 P.ta Vergia - P. Cornour Val Maira - Orsiera 3 TO 1978 immigration 0 6 0 0 10 Germanasca - Massello - Troncea Val Maira - Orsiera 3 TO 1978 re/immigration 12 15 78 150 11 Orsiera – Rocciavrè Val Maira - Orsiera 3 TO 1995 re-introduction 12 0 5 16 12 Roc del Boucher Val Maira - Orsiera 3 TO 1970 re-introduction 17 13 0 0 13 M. Levi - C. Vallonetto V. Lanzo - G. Paradiso - M. 4 TO 1990 re-introduction 38 30 60 70 Bianco 14 Rocciamelone – Lera V. Lanzo - G. Paradiso - M. 4 TO 1970 immigration 0 15 40 40 Bianco 15 Valli di Lanzo V. Lanzo - G. Paradiso - M. 4 TO 1960 immigration 0 70 437 997 Bianco 16 PNGPGPNP - Valle dell'Orco V. Lanzo - G. Paradiso - M. 4 TO autochthonous autochthonous 0 595 669 595 Bianco 17 PNGPGPNP - Val Soana V. Lanzo - G. Paradiso - M. 4 TO autochthonous autochthonous 0 170 168 170 Bianco 18 PNGPGPNP - Val di Cogne V. Lanzo - G. Paradiso - M. 4 AO autochthonous autochthonous 0 1297 1297 1297 Bianco

No. ibex Colony size IDcol Colony name Management Unit IDmu Prov Born Origin released 1984-85 1994-95 2000 19 PNGPGPNP – Valsavarenche V. Lanzo - G. Paradiso - M. 4 AO autochthonous autochthonous 0 1407 1407 1407 Bianco 20 PNGPGPNP – Val di Rhemes V. Lanzo – G. Paradiso – 4 AO autochthonous autochthonous 0 541 541 541 M. Bianco

21 Clavalité – Champocer V. Lanzo – G. Paradiso – 4 AO autochthonous autochthonous 0 80 273 251 M. Bianco 22 Valle di S. Marcel – Riserva Grand Avert V. Lanzo – G. Paradiso – 4 AO autochthonous autochthonous 0 35 133 172 M. Bianco 23 Sx Valle di Rhemes – V. Grisenche V. Lanzo – G. Paradiso – 4 AO autochthonous immigration 0 157 331 260 M. Bianco 24 Rutor – Val Grisenche V. Lanzo – G. Paradiso – 4 AO 1990 immigration 0 0 127 95 M. Bianco 25 La Thuille – Piccolo S.Bernardo V. Lanzo – G. Paradiso – 4 AO 1970 re-introduction 5 0 0 0 M. Bianco 26 Val Veny – Val Ferret V. Lanzo – G. Paradiso – 4 AO 1950 re/immigration 4 25 100 225 M. Bianco 27 Gr. Rochere – Golliaz Sx Aosta – M. Rosa – V. 5 AO 1970 immigration 0 25 65 55 Anzasca 28 M. Fallère Sx Aosta – M. Rosa – V. 5 AO 1990 immigration 0 0 36 40 Anzasca 29 Gran S. Bernardo Sx Aosta – M. Rosa – V. 5 AO 1970 immigration 0 20 50 110 Anzasca 30 Ollomont – Valpelline Sx Aosta – M. Rosa – V. 5 AO 1970 immigration 0 40 282 281 Anzasca 31 La Granda – Luseney – Dx Tournanche Sx Aosta – M. Rosa – V. 5 AO 1969 re-introduction 5 63 225 424 Anzasca 32 Ayas – Gr. Tournalin – M. Bettaforca Sx Aosta – M. Rosa – V. 5 AO 1960 re-introduction 36 106 309 323 Anzasca 33 M. Zerbion Sx Aosta – M. Rosa – V. 5 AO 1990 immigration 0 0 14 36 Anzasca

No. ibex Colony size IDcol Colony name Management Unit IDmu Prov Born Origin released 1984-85 1994-95 2000 34 Gressoney – C. Rosso – C. Bianco Sx Aosta – M. Rosa – V. 5 AO 1961 re-introduction 16 70 89 101 Anzasca 35 M. Nery Sx Aosta – M. Rosa – V. 5 AO 1990 re-introduction 5 0 6 25 Anzasca 36 Valsesia Sx Aosta – M. Rosa – V. 5 VC 1963 re/immigration 14 113 280 600 Anzasca 37 Macugnaga – Valle Anzasca Sx Aosta – M. Rosa – V. 5 VB 1966 re-introduction 11 65 85 100 Anzasca 38 Valle Antrona Sx Aosta – M. Rosa – V. 5 VB 1980 immigration 0 20 30 40 Anzasca file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%.../Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (119 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:03 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

39 Veglia – Devero V. Formazza – V. Grande 6 VB 1977 re-introduction 13 10 28 81 40 Alpi Lepontine Alpi Lepontine 7 SO-CO 1996 re/immigration 20 0 0 27 41 V. Bregaglia – Cranna-Acqua Fraggia Alpi Lepontine 7 SO 1960 immigration 0 40 115 120 42 Val Masino – V. di Mello Alpi Retiche – Bernina 8 SO 1984 re-introduction 32 21 40 70 43 Val Malenco – Sasso di Fora-Sasso Moro Alpi Retiche – Bernina 8 SO 1984 immigration 0 14 60 80 44 A. Orobie – P. 3 Signori – M. Legnone Alpi Orobie 9 LC-BG- 1989 re-introduction 29 0 83 190 SO 45 A. Orobie: Fiumenero-V. Seriana Alpi Orobie 9 BG-SO 1987 re-introduction 61 0 177 300 46 Sperella – Viola – Redasco Alpi Retiche – Ortles – 12 SO 1970 immigration 0 35 85 88 Cevedale 47 Livigno – PNS Alpi Retiche – Ortles – 12 SO 1920 immigration 0 60 190 298 Cevedale 48 PNS – Valle di Fraele Alpi Retiche – Ortles – 12 SO 1992 re-introduction 15 0 21 50 Cevedale 49 PNS – Val Zebrù – Braulio Alpi Retiche – Ortles – 12 SO 1967 re-introduction 29 345 550 700 Cevedale

No. ibex Colony size IDcol Colony name Management Unit IDmu Prov Born Origin released 1984-85 1994-95 2000 50 PNS –Umbrail – Stelvio Alpi Retiche – Ortles – 12 BZ 1973 immigration 0 30 10 10 Cevedale 51 PNS – Val di Rezzalo – Sobretta Alpi Retiche – Ortles – 12 SO 1987 re/immigration 19 0 29 20 Cevedale 52 PNS – Gavia – Sobretta Alpi Retiche – Ortles – 12 BS 1992 re-introduction 7 0 12 30 Cevedale 53 PNS – Val Canè – Serottini Alpi Retiche – Ortles – 12 BS-SO 1984 re-introduction 11 7 29 40 Cevedale 54 C. Baitone – V. del Miller Adamello 10 BS 1995 re-introduction 24 0 10 60 55 Tredenus – Frisozzo Adamello 10 BS-TN 1996 re-introduction 11 0 0 10 56 S. Valentino – Danerba Adamello 10 TN-BS 1995 re-introduction 23 0 10 50 57 Val di Genova – V. Borzago Adamello 10 TN 1998 re-introduction 24 0 0 9 58 Alto Garda – Tombea – Caplone Brenta 11 BS 1989 re-introduction 5 0 22 40 59 Ultimo – Orecchia di Lepre Alpi Retiche – Ortles - 12 BZ-TN 1996 re-introduction 8 0 0 15 Cevedale 60 Sesvenna Alpi Retiche - Ortles - 12 BZ 1968 immigration 0 51 95 83 Cevedale file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%.../Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (120 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:03 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

61 Palla Bianca - Weisskugel V. Venosta - Brennero 13 BZ 1968 immigration 0 30 121 171 62 Tessa - Senales V. Venosta - Brennero 13 BZ 1969 re/immigration 6 30 185 163 63 Tribulaun V. Venosta - Brennero 13 BZ 1978 immigration 0 35 135 160 64 Val di Vizze - Pfitschertal V. Pusteria 14 BZ 1971 immigration 0 3 8 17 65 Ponte di Ghiaccio - Eisbruggspitze V. Pusteria 14 BZ 1983 re/immigration 20 5 35 24 66 Tauri - Tauern V. Pusteria 14 BZ 1989 immigration 0 0 5 24 67 Cima Dura - Durreck V. Pusteria 14 BZ 1985 immigration 0 0 30 21 68 Croda Rossa Croda del Becco Dolomiti 15 BL-BZ 1975 re-introduction 17 28 55 70 69 Sella Dolomiti 15 TN-BZ 1993 immigration 0 0 4 30 70 Monzoni - Marmolada Dolomiti 15 TN-BL 1978 re-introduction 10 26 210 370 71 Pale di S.Martino Dolomiti 15 TN-BL 2000 re-introduction 10 0 0 10 No. ibex Colony size IDcol Colony name Management Unit IDmu Prov Born Origin released 1984-85 1994-95 2000 72 Sciliar Dolomiti 15 BZ 1998 immigration 0 0 0 1 73 Antelao - Marmarole Dolomiti 15 BL 1965 re-introduction 4 30 57 76 74 Col di Lana Dolomiti 15 BL 1993 immigration 0 0 0 1 75 Tofane Dolomiti 15 BL 1999 immigration 0 0 0 1 76 Dolomiti friulane Alpi Carniche - Alpi Giulie 16 PN 1985 re-introduction 31 11 80 150 77 M.te Plauris Alpi Carniche - Alpi Giulie 16 UD 1989 re-introduction 12 0 25 60 78 Tarvisio Alpi Carniche - Alpi Giulie 16 UD 1978 re-introduction 38 29 60 240 79 Formazza V. Formazza - V. Grande 6 VB 1998 immigration 0 0 0 8 80 Premia V. Formazza - V. Grande 6 VB 1998 immigration 0 0 0 18 81 M. Giove V. Formazza - V. Grande 6 VB 1998 immigration 0 0 0 4 82 Monte Serraglio Alpi Retiche - Ortles - 12 SO 1995 immigration 0 0 0 10 Cevedale

Table A.2 – Distribution, origin, size and evolution of Italian Alpine ibex colonies (1984-2000). "IDcol" is the identification number of each colony; "Colony size" is reported for three time intervals; "Management" shows where ibex are captured for re-introduction programmes, shot for culling reason, hunted or protected; "Source – Validation" lists people who supplied and validated the information on ibex colonies.

Colony size IDcol Colony name 1984-85 1994-95 2000 Distribution Management Source – Validation 1 Parco Naturale Alpi Marittime 409 475 552 V. Gesso, V. Rovine, V. di Trinità, Valdieri, Captured Canavese Argentera, M. Matto, V. Meris file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%.../Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (121 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:03 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

2 Ciastella 20 25 30 Valle di Corborant, M. Laroussa, C. Collalunga, Protected Canavese M. le Sterliere 3 Valle Stura 24 24 24 Distribuzione puntiforme e frammentaria lungo Protected Canavese tutta la destra orografica della V. Stura da V di S. Anna a Colle della Maddalena e V. Ischiator 4 Oronaye 0 0 5 Testata tra Vallle Stura e Val Maira. M. Oronaye Protected e V.ne Onerzio 5 Maurin 0 0 17 Dx orografica V. Maurin al confine con Francia Protected 6 Chersogno 0 0 10 M. Chersogno, sx orografica V Maira Protected Meneguz-Dematteis 7 Alta Val Varaita 0 0 30 Alta Val Varaita. V.ne di S.Anna – Bellino C. Protected Meneguz-Dematteis Battagliola e Chianale – Roc di Niera, fino a Sampeyre – C Lobbie 8 Monviso-Val Pellice 20 100 140 Monviso, Alta Val Po – M. Granero, Alta V Protected Giovo Pellice – Bric Bucie – C. la Croce, Pontechianale V. Varaita, M. Aiguillette. Scambi con PN Queyras 9 P.ta Vergia – P. Cornour 6 0 0 Tra V Pellice e V Germanasca; Piz Cornour – P.ta Protected Giovo Vergia

Colony size IDcol Colony name 1984-85 1994-95 2000 Distribution Management Source – Validation 10 Germanasca – Massello – Troncea 15 78 150 Massiccio tra V Chisone, V Troncea e V Protected Giovo Germanasca; Bric Rosso, Bric Ghininvert, M Barifreddo, P.ta Vergia; M Rognosa, M Appenna, V Argentiera sino a G. Queyron sul confine. Scambi con PN Queyras (FRA) e V Pellice 11 Orsiera – Rocciavrè 0 5 16 M. Orsiera – M Rocciavrè – C. Robinet; sx orog Protected V Chisone, dx orog V di Susa e Val Sangone 12 Roc del Boucher 13 0 0 Alta Val di Susa, prima del Sestriere; Val Thuras Protected Meneguz e Val Argentera, sul Roc del Boucher 13 M. Levi - C. Vallonetto 30 60 70 Sx orog media Val di Susa; tra M. Levi e C. Protected Meneguz Vallonetto 14 Rocciamelone - Lera 15 40 40 Rocciamelone, Moncenisio Protected Meneguz 15 Valli di Lanzo 70 437 997 Val Viù: M Lera, P.ta Corna, Mtorre Ovarda, Captured Borgo Croce Rossa, M Ciorneva; Val d'Ala: Uia di Ciaramella, Uia di Modrone, Cellerina P.ta Rossa; Val Grande: C. Monfrè, Levanna, Corno Bianco, Col Girard, Cima Piccola, Uia di Mombran file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%.../Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (122 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:03 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm 16 PNGPGPNP - Valle dell'Orco 595 669 595 Captured Bassano 17 PNGPGPNP - Val Soana 170 168 170 Captured Bassano 18 PNGPGPNP - Val di Cogne 1297 1297 1297 Captured Bassano 19 PNGPGPNP - Valsavarenche 1407 1407 1407 Captured Bassano 20 PNGPGPNP - Val di Rhemes 541 541 541 Captured Bassano 21 Clavalité - Champocer 80 273 251 V. Clavalité, P. Tersiva, V. Fenis, Dondenaz - Protected Bertieux Champocher), M. Glacier, (M. Avic e Parco?)

Colony size IDcol Colony name 1984-85 1994-95 2000 Distribution Management Source – Validation 22 Valle di S. Marcel - Riserva Grand 35 133 172 V. S.Marcel, Petite/Grande Roise, Becca Salè, M. Protected Bertieux Avert Emilius? M. Grauson? 23 Sx Valle di Rhemes - V. Grisenche 157 331 260 Sx orogr V. di Rhemes, AFV Conte Rossi, Gr. Protected Bertieux Rousse, B.ca di Tos 24 Rutor - Val Grisenche 0 127 95 Oasi di Rutor, Leseney, Plontaz; Sx V. Grisanche, Protected Bertieux Rutor, M. Paramont, M. Ormelune 25 La Thuille - Piccolo S.Bernardo 0 0 0 10 capi nel '75; estinta Protected Bertieux 26 Val Veny - Val Ferret 25 100 225 Tutta la parte nord di V. Veny e V. Ferret; Protected Bertieux compresa l'AFV Monte Bianco 27 Gr. Rochere - Golliaz 25 65 55 Grande Rochere, M. Cormet, La Saxe, Comba di Protected Bertieux Liconi, Gran Golliaz, 'V. del Gran S. Bernardo, Etroubles 28 M. Fallère 0 36 40 M. Fallère, Croix de Chaligne Protected Bertieux 29 Gran S. Bernardo 20 50 110 Valle del Gran S. Bernardo: M. Dronaz, M. Mort, Protected Bertieux Pain de Sucre, C. Menouve, M. Velan, St. Rhemy 30 Ollomont - Valpelline 40 282 281 V. di Ollomont, M. Avril, M. Morion, Dx orog Protected Bertieux Valpelline fino a M. Braulé 31 La Granda - Luseney - Dx Tournanche 63 225 424 Dx orografica V. Tournanche e cresta che la Protected Bertieux divide da Valpelline; Tsaat a l'etsena, M. Faroma; Chateaux des Dames; Luseney, M. Morion 32 Ayas - Gr. Tournalin - M. Bettaforca 106 309 323 Alta V. d'Ayas (Champoluc); testata e dx orog; Protected Bertieux Breithorn, Gr. Tourmalin 33 M. Zerbion 0 14 36 M. Zerbion Protected Bertieux

Colony size IDcol Colony name 1984-85 1994-95 2000 Distribution Management Source – Validation 34 Gressoney - C. Rosso - C. Bianco 70 89 101 sx orog V. Gressoney; Ciampa, Trista, Corno Protected Bertieux Bianco 35 M. Nery 0 6 25 Dx orog bassa V Gressoney; M. Nery Protected Bertieux file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%.../Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (123 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:03 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

36 Valsesia 113 280 600 Valle Vogna, Valle Otro, Corno Bianco, M. Rosa, Protected Bergamo M. Tagliaferro, Alagna, Carcoforo, P.zo Montevecchio, fino a Fobello 37 Macugnaga - Valle Anzasca 65 85 100 P.zzo Bianco, Cima di Iazzi, M. Moro, Oasi M. Protected Bassano Rosa 38 Valle Antrona 20 30 40 P.zzo di Saas, P.zo Bottarello, P.zo Montalto, P. Protected Bionda Turiggia; Valle Antrona e V. Bognanco 39 Veglia - Devero 10 28 81 M. Leone, P. Mottiscia, P.Boccareccio, M. Protected Bionda Cervandone, P.zo di Valdeserta 40 Alpi Lepontine 0 0 27 V. del Dosso, M. Duria, V. di Livo, V. Bares, V. Protected Ferloni - Vanotti Bodengo, Strem 41 V. Bregaglia - Cranna-Acqua Fraggia 40 115 120 Cranna, Carmezzano, Acqua Fraggia, P.zo Protected Ferloni - Vanotti Galleggione, P.zo Sommavalle, V. di Lei, M. te dei Forni, Valle Mola, M. Saragiolo, Sommasassa, Groppera, Pizzo Peloso 42 Val Masino – V. di Mello 21 40 70 Val di Mello, Val Torrone, Valle del Ferro, Valle Protected Ferloni – Vanotti Zocca, Valle Pioda, Val Porcellizzo 43 Val Malenco – Sasso di Fora-Sasso 14 60 80 1 sito: Monte dell’oro, Chiareggio, P.so Muretto, Protected Ferloni – Vanotti Moro P.so Tremoggia Sasso di Fora; 2 sito: Sasso Moro, M. Forbici 44 A. Orobie – P. 3 Signori – M. Legnone 0 83 190 M. Legnone, P.zo Alto, P.zzo dei 3 Signori, Val Protected Pedrotti Bona

Colony size IDcol Colony name 1984-85 1994-95 2000 Distribution Management Source – Validation 45 A. Orobie: Fiumenero-V. Seriana 0 177 300 P. Redorta, P. Coca, Barbellino, V. Morta, P. Protected Pedrotti Recastello, C. Soliva, P.zo del Diavolo, M. Aga, P. Ceppo, V. Grabiasca 46 Sperella – Viola – Redasco 35 85 88 Val Grosina, Val Viola – C.no Dosdè, C.ma Protected Ferloni – Vanotti Soaseo, Vetta Sperella, Val di Sacco, Valle di Avedo, Sasso di Conca, Cima Redasco, Cima de’ Piazzi 47 Livigno – PNS 60 190 298 Val Cantone, Valle delle Mine, Val Nera, Val di Captured Ferloni – Vanotti – Pedrotti Campo, Valle del Fieno, Valle del Monte, Valle Forcola, Val Saliente, Val Federia, Val Viera, Val Trenzeira, C. del Fopel, Punta dell’acqua, M. Serra con PNS 48 PNS – Valle di Fraele 0 21 50 Valle Alpisella, Cime di Plator, Cancano, M. Protected Ferloni – Vanotti – Pedrotti Sumbraida, P.so Foscagno, Val Pila, Canal Torto, Val Pettini, Valle del Gallo 49 PNS – Val Zebrù – Braulio 345 550 700 Val Zebrù, Valle dei Forni, M. Cristallo, Cresta di Captured Pedrotti Reit, V. del Braulio 50 PNS –Umbrail – Stelvio 30 10 10 M. Cavallaccio, P.zo Forcola, V. Trafoi Protected Pedrotti file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%.../Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (124 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:03 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

51 PNS – Val di Rezzalo – Sobretta 0 29 20 V. Rezzalo, M. Sobretta Protected Pedrotti 52 PNS – Gavia – Sobretta 0 12 30 Passo Gavia, Corno dei 3 Signori, Val Savoretta Protected Pedrotti 53 PNS - Val Canè - Serottini 7 29 40 V. Canè, Pietra Rossa, Serottini Protected Pedrotti 54 C. Baitone - V. del Miller 0 10 60 Conca del Baitone, Corni di Durello, Valrossa, Protected Pedrotti Valle del Miller, Corno del Miller, Val Salarno, M. Marser, Val Adamè, Val d'Avio e Aviolo

Colony size IDcol Colony name 1984-85 1994-95 2000 Distribution Management Source – Validation 55 Tredenus - Frisozzo 0 0 10 Val Paghera, Conca del Volano, M. Sablunera, Protected Pedrotti Val Dois, Cima Mezzamalga, M. Listino, al d'Arno, M. Recastello, Val Danerba 56 S. Valentino - Danerba 0 10 50 V. Borzago, V. S.Valentivo, V. Breguzzo, V. Protected Mustoni Daone - Danerba, M. Recastello 57 Val di Genova - V. Borzago 0 0 9 Val di Lares, Mandrone, C. Busazza, C. Protected Mustoni Presanella, Ago di Nardis 58 Alto Garda - Tombea - Caplone 0 22 40 Alto Garda Bresciano, M.te Tombea, M. Caplone Protected Boscaini 59 Ultimo - Orecchia di Lepre 0 0 15 Gioveretto, P.so di Soy, Orecchia di Lepre, Saent Protected Carmignola 60 Sesvenna 51 95 83 P. Lad, P. Russenna, C. Grion, P. Sesvenna, Val Hunted Carmignola Slingia, Val di Laudes, Urtiola, V. Monastero 61 Palla Bianca - Weisskugel 30 121 171 P. Clopai, Valle Lunga, Palla Bianca, P.so Planol, Hunted Carmignola C. Dentrovalle, P. Valbella, P. Saldura, Val Planol, Val Mazia 62 Tessa - Senales 30 185 163 M. Re, M. Principe, C. delle Anime, l'Altissima, Hunted Carmignola C. Fiammante, Gigat, C di Quairas, Similaun, P. di Finale, Giogo Alto, Val di Plan, Val di Fosse, Val Senales, P.so del Rombo 63 Tribulaun 35 135 160 Tribulaun, V. di Fleres, V. Ridanna, M. Alto, C. Hunted Carmignola di Tempo, C. Libera, Pan di Zucchero, C. di Malavalle, Alpi di Stubai 64 Val di Vizze - Pfitschertal 3 8 17 Croda alta, La Gerla Protected Carmignola

Colony size file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%.../Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (125 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:03 file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%20in%20RefMan/Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm

IDcol Colony name 1984-85 1994-95 2000 Distribution Management Source – Validation 65 Ponte di Ghiaccio - Eisbruggspitze 5 35 24 P.ta Rossa, Gran Pilastro, Scoglio rosso, Mesule, Hunted Carmignola Cima di Campo, Sasso Nero, Val di Fundres, Val Selva dei Molini, Val di Rio Bianco 66 Tauri - Tauern 0 5 24 M. Fumo, P.co dei 3 Signori, Vetta d'Italia Hunted Carmignola 67 Cima Dura - Durreck 0 30 21 C. Dura, P. Palù, Val di Riva, Valle Aurina Hunted Carmignola 68 Croda Rossa Croda del Becco 28 55 70 Seekofel, Croda del Becco, Croda Rossa, Fanes, Hunted Carmignola Sennes 69 Sella 0 4 30 Val Lasties, P.so Sella, Mesule Protected Brugnoli 70 Monzoni - Marmolada 26 210 370 Monzoni, Ort, Col Ombert, P.so Cirelle, C.me Hunted Brugnoli dell’Auta, Marmolada, Ombretta 71 Pale di S.Martino 0 0 10 Protected Partel 72 Sciliar 0 0 1 P.so Molignon Protected Carmignola 73 Antelao - Marmarole 30 57 76 M. Antelao, G.ppo Marmarole, M.te Oten Protected Debattisti 74 Col di Lana 0 0 1 Protected Debattisti 75 Tofane 0 0 1 Protected Debattisti 76 Dolomiti friulane 11 80 150 M.te Turlon - M.te Vacalizza - M.te Pramaggiore, Protected Genero M. Duranno, M. Lodina, M. Cridola? 77 M.te Plauris 0 25 60 M.te Plauris, M.te Lavara, Cima di Cervada Protected Genero

Colony size IDcol Colony name 1984-85 1994-95 2000 Distribution Management Source – Validation 78 Tarvisio 29 60 240 M.te Cacciatore, Iof Fuart, Montasio, Cimone Protected 79 Formazza 0 0 8 Protected Pompilio 80 Premia 0 0 18 Protected Pompilio 81 M. Giove 0 0 4 M. Giove Protected Bionda 82 Monte Serraglio 0 0 10 Monte Serraglio Protected Ferloni - Vanotti

file:///N|/MALME/_work%20folder/_Cecilia/Literature_New%20pdf/Not%20yet%.../Add/05_ibex/Management/OIKOS_2001_Alpine_Ibex_Conservation_Strategy.htm (126 of 126)07.02.2007 09:59:03