DOCSLIB.ORG

Guidelines on Wilderness in Natura 2000

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guidelines on Wilderness in Natura 2000 Technical Report - 2013 - 069 Guidelines on Wilderness in Natura 2000 Management of terrestrial wilderness and wild areas within the Natura 2000 Network Environment Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union New freephone number: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 This document reflects the view of the Commission services and is not of a binding nature. ISBN 978-92-79-31157-4 doi: 10.2779/33572 © European Union, 2013 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged This document has been prepared with the assistance of Alterra in a consortium with PAN Parks Foundation and Eurosite under contract to the European Commission (contract N°07.0307/2010/576314/SER/B3). It has also greatly benefitted from discussions with, and information supplied by, experts from Member States, key stakeholder groups and the Expert Group on management of Natura 2000. Parts concerning national legislation and mapping have built on work done in the Wildland Research Institute, University of Leeds. Photograph cover page: Central Balkan, Natura 2000 site number BG 0000494 ©Svetoslav Spasov, who has kindly made this photo available to the European Commission for use in this guidance document EU Guidance on the management of wilderness and wild areas in Natura 2000 Contents Purpose of this Guidance 5 Background 5 Purpose of this guidance document 7 Structure and contents 7 Limitations of the document 8 1 What is wilderness in the context of Natura 2000? 10 1.1 Introduction 10 1.2 Definition of wilderness 10 1.2.1 Ecological aspects of the definition 11 1.2.2 Wilderness continuum 12 1.2.3 Use of the definition in the guidance document 12 1.3 Other existing definitions 13 1.4 Legislative and statutory measures in EU Member States to protect wilderness 15 1.4.1 Strict nature reserve and wilderness (IUCN categories Ia and Ib) 15 1.4.2 Other IUCN categories 16 1.5 Spatial link between wilderness and the Natura 2000 network 17 2 EU policy framework on biodiversity preservation 19 2.1 EU Biodiversity strategy 19 2.2 EU Nature Directives 20 2.3 Managing and protecting Natura 2000 sites 22 2.4 Favourable conservation status 23 2.4.1 Requirements under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 24 2.4.2 Requirements under Article 4(1) and 4(2) of the Birds Directive 28 2.5 Relevant guidance documents 30 3 Ecosystem resilience, ecosystem services and benefits of wilderness areas 32 3.1 Wilderness areas as resilient ecosystems 32 3.2 Pressures due to anthropogenic disturbances 34 3.2.1 Habitat fragmentation 35 3.2.2 Climate change 36 3.2.3 Invasive alien species 37 3.3 Ecosystem services and benefits of Natura 2000 and wilderness 38 3.3.1 Key ecosystem services 39 3.3.2 Social, cultural and economic benefits 41 4 Management approaches for wilderness in Natura 2000 43 4.1 Introduction 43 4.1.1 Best practice 43 4.2 Planning non-intervention management 43 4.2.1 Conservation objectives for wilderness areas 44 4.2.2 When is non-intervention management not appropriate? 45 4.2.3 Management measures in wilderness areas 47 3 EU Guidance on the management of wilderness and wild areas in Natura 2000 4.2.4 Management plans 47 4.2.5 Compensatory measures to overcome limitations posed by wilderness 48 4.2.6 Measures taken to ensure and improve wilderness qualities 49 4.3 Management challenges 58 4.3.1 Bark beetles as key species in areas with non-intervention management 59 4.3.2 Forest fires in Boreal and Mediterranean forests 62 4.3.3 Reindeer herding and wilderness management: seeking the balance 64 4.4 Concluding remarks 66 5 Communication strategies 68 5.1 Involvement of stakeholders 68 5.2 Importance of effective communication 68 5.3 Communication strategies and actions 69 ANNEXES 71 A1 Glossary 71 A2 Definitions of technical terms 72 A3 Legislation and protection provisions in EU Member States 78 A4 Responses to the Questionnaire 83 A5 Habitat types representing wilderness value 85 A6 Species of the Habitat and Birds Directives with wilderness values 88 References 92 4 EU Guidance on the management of wilderness and wild areas in Natura 2000 Purpose of this Guidance Background Natura 2000 protects areas of high biodiversity value across the European Union. It is the largest co-ordinated multi-national network of protected areas in the world, covering more than 18% of the European terrestrial territory of the Member States as well as significant marine areas. As establishment of Natura 2000 nears completion the focus is increasingly shifting to the effective management and restoration of sites in the network. Ensuring a fully functional Natura 2000 network is central to achieving the EU target of halting and reversing the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU by 20201. Europe is one of the most densely populated areas in the world and European nature is to a large extent shaped by long-term human intervention. The sites in Natura 2000 reflect both historical and current human influences but the network also includes places that are in a relatively undisturbed natural state and where species and habitats of EU conservation concern are not dependent on human intervention. The management of the network will need to reflect the fact that human intervention has a key role to play in achieving conservation objectives for many of the sites whereas in specific cases non-intervention can be applied for the same purpose. There are also many degraded habitats which will require important investments and restoration measures in order to achieve the objective of favourable conservation status. Natura 2000 is not a system aimed at providing a barrier to activities. Instead, human activities need to comply with the provisions outlined in Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, to ensure that these activities are in line with the conservation objectives of Natura 2000 sites. Whereas Natura 2000 fully embraces the principles of conservation and sustainable use a variety of protection approaches can be applied to the sites by Member States at national or regional level. Several Member States apply strict protection in parts of their Natura 2000 network to protect sites' natural conditions. As a management measure this means ensuring minimal human intervention in order to allow natural processes to predominate. There are examples of such setting aside of areas for nature or non-intervention management in the Natura 2000 network. Natural processes require sufficiently large areas to allow for dynamic changes over time and space. Natural areas, where natural processes predominate, which are sufficiently large and lack infrastructure, or are managed to achieve those qualities, are for the purposes of this guidance document being called wilderness areas. Many Member States designate areas with the purpose of preserving those qualities of wilderness, or a set of them, and may have a special class of protected areas for this purpose. However, it is important to note that occurrence of wilderness qualities is not limited to areas formally designated for their protection. Protection and restoration of wilderness and wild areas has gained increasing attention in recent years (see text box: EP Resolution on wilderness in Europe). Wilderness and wild areas are not 1 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/2020.htm 5 EU Guidance on the management of wilderness and wild areas in Natura 2000 explicitly mentioned in the EU Birds and Habitats Directives but applying a wilderness approach to the management of Natura 2000 sites is seen compatible with the provisions of the Directives. Furthermore, scientific evidence shows that wilderness areas are resilient against pressures affecting biodiversity and should be considered important tool in helping achieve biodiversity targets. Wilderness areas inside and outside protected areas could e.g. deliver an important element of Green Infrastructure2, by the amount of various ecosystem services these core areas could potentially deliver, and their function as reservoir of biodiversity that can be drawn upon to re-populate and revitalise degraded ecosystems. EP Resolution on wilderness in Europe In 2007, a broad coalition of NGOs in Europe addressed a resolution to the European Commission and the EU Member States on the preservation of wilderness areas. This was followed in December 2008 by a report drawn up by Gyula Hegyi3, Member of the European Parliament, stressing the importance of wilderness in Europe to stop further loss of biodiversity. This report contained a motion on a European Parliament resolution on wilderness in Europe and was adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. The vote on the special report on Wilderness in Europe provided the popular mandate for improving wilderness conservation in Europe as the report was adopted by the European Parliament on 3 February 2009. It was a non-legislative resolution bringing forward a range of recommendations, and stating the need for further action in several key areas - defining wilderness, mapping it, studying wilderness benefits, developing an EU strategy for wilderness, developing new wilderness areas, promoting them, bringing in effective protection of wilderness areas, accepting the Wild Europe Initiative, ensuring that wilderness zones are given special status and stricter protection for wilderness zones in the Natura 2000 network, getting Member States to set wilderness conservation as a priority in their strategy to address climate change and forward the resolution to the governments and parliaments of the Member States. The ‘Wilderness Report’ adopted by the European Parliament states that the European Commission should develop appropriate recommendations that provide guidance to the EU Member States on the best way of ensuring protection of present and potential wilderness or wild lands and their natural processes, which are likely to be covered by the Natura 2000 network.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Population Structure and Genetic Diversity of Non-Native Aoudad
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Population structure and genetic diversity of non‑native aoudad populations Sunčica Stipoljev1, Toni Safner 2,3*, Pavao Gančević1, Ana Galov 4, Tina Stuhne1, Ida Svetličić4, Stefano Grignolio 5, Jorge Cassinello 6 & Nikica Šprem 1 The aoudad (Ammotragus lervia Pallas 1777) is an ungulate species, native to the mountain ranges of North Africa. In the second half of the twentieth century, it was successfully introduced in some European countries, mainly for hunting purposes, i.e. in Croatia, the Czech Republic, Italy, and Spain. We used neutral genetic markers, the mitochondrial DNA control region sequence and microsatellite loci, to characterize and compare genetic diversity and spatial pattern of genetic structure on diferent timeframes among all European aoudad populations. Four distinct control region haplotypes found in European aoudad populations indicate that the aoudad has been introduced in Europe from multiple genetic sources, with the population in the Sierra Espuña as the only population in which more than one haplotype was detected. The number of detected microsatellite alleles within all populations (< 3.61) and mean proportion of shared alleles within all analysed populations (< 0.55) indicates relatively low genetic variability, as expected for new populations funded by a small number of individuals. In STRU CTU RE results with K = 2–4, Croatian and Czech populations cluster in the same genetic cluster, indicating joined origin. Among three populations from Spain, Almeria population shows as genetically distinct from others in results, while other Spanish populations diverge at K = 4. Maintenance of genetic diversity should be included in the management of populations to sustain their viability, specially for small Czech population with high proportion of shared alleles (0.85) and Croatian population that had the smallest estimated efective population size (Ne = 5.4).
    [Show full text]
  • Tatra National Park Between Poland & Slovakia
    Sentinel Vision EVT-623 Tatra National Park between Poland & Slovakia 12 March 2020 Sentinel-2 MSI acquired on 20 April 2019 at 09:40:39 UTC Sentinel-1 CSAR IW acquired on 20 August 2019 at 04:53:23 UTC Sentinel-2 MSI acquired on 22 September 2019 at 09:40:31 UTC Author(s): Sentinel Vision team, VisioTerra, France - [email protected] Keyword(s): Mountain range, national park, UNESCO biosphere reserve, forestry, glacial lake, glacier, biosphere, wetland, 2D Layerstack peatland, bog, Slovakia, Poland, Carpathians Fig. 1 - S2 (22.09.2019) - 12,11,2 colour composite - Tatra National Park is a mountainous park located both in Slovakia and in Poland. 2D view Fig. 2 - S2 (20.04.2019) - 4,3,2 natural colour - It lies at the northernmost & westernmost stretches of the Carpathian range. 2D view / Tatra National Park is a mountainous park located both in Slovakia and in Poland. It includes valleys, meadows and dense forests, as well as caves. There are tenths of mountain lakes, the largest of which are Morskie Oko and Wielki, located in the Five Lakes Valley. The Chocholow Valley meadow is the largest of the Polish Tatras, and is one of the main mountain pastures in the region. Many torrents give rise to waterfalls, including the Wielka Siklawa, literally "the big waterfall", which jumps 70 meters. The TAtra NAtional Park (TANAP, Slovak side) was established in 1949 and is the oldest of the Slovak national parks. The Tatra National Park (TPN, Polish side) was created in 1954, by decision of the Polish Government. Since 1993, TANAP and TPN (Polish side) have together constituted a UNESCO transboundary biosphere reserve.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring of Pseudotuberculosis in an Italian Population of Alpine
    ary Scien in ce r te & e T V e Besozzi et al., J Vet Sci Technol 2017, 8:5 f c h o Journal of Veterinary Science & n n l o o a a DOI: 10.4172/2157-7579.1000475 l l n n o o r r g g u u y y o o J J Technology ISSN: 2157-7579 Research Article Open Access Monitoring of pseudotuberculosis in an Italian Population of Alpine Chamois: Preliminary Results Martina Besozzi1*, Emiliana Ballocchi2, Pierluigi Cazzola2 and Roberto Viganò1 1Study Associate AlpVet, Piazza Venzaghi, 2-21052 Busto Arsizio (VA), Italy 2IZSPLV Section of Vercelli, Via Cavalcanti, 59-13100 Vercelli, Italy *Corresponding author: Martina Besozzi, Study Associate AlpVet, Piazza Venzaghi, 2-21052 Busto Arsizio (VA), Italy, Tel: +393493556003; E-mail: [email protected] Rec date: September 26, 2017; Acc date: October 04, 2017; Pub date: October 05, 2017 Copyright: © 2017 Besozzi M, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Abstract Caseous lymphadenitis (CLA) of sheep and goats is a chronic and often sub-clinical disease, with high prevalence in different parts of the world, which can caused significant economic losses for farmers. The causative agent is Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis that primarily infects domestic small ruminants, but it has been isolated also in wildlife such as pronghorns (Antilocapra americana) and elk (Cervus elaphus canadensis). Furthermore, a recent research has demonstrated a maintenance of the infection on an endemic level in a Spanish ibex (Capra pyrenaica hispanica) population after an outbreak with high morbidity and mortality.
    [Show full text]
  • Human-Induced Environmental Changes Influence Habitat Use by an Ungulate Over the Long Term
    Current Zoology, 2019, 65(2), 129–137 doi: 10.1093/cz/zoy035 Advance Access Publication Date: 23 April 2018 Article Article Human-induced environmental changes influence habitat use by an ungulate over the long term a, b Michał CIACH * and Łukasz PE˛ KSA aDepartment of Forest Biodiversity, Institute of Forest Ecology and Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry, University of Agriculture, al. 29 Listopada 46, 31–425 Krako´w, Poland and bTatra National Park, ul. Kuznice 1, 34-500 Zakopane, Poland *Address correspondence to Michał Ciach. E-mail: [email protected]. Handling editor: James Hare Received on 11 December 2017; accepted on 18 April 2018 Abstract Habitat use and preferences may be subject to spatial and temporal changes. However, long-term studies of species–habitat relationships are the exception. In the present research, long-term trends in habitat use by an alpine ungulate, the Tatra chamois Rupicapra rupicapra tatrica, were analyzed. We examined how environmental changes attributable to climate change, removal of sheep, and habituation to hikers, which took place over the last half-century have changed the spatial distribu- tion of animals. Data on the localities of groups sighted between 1957 and 2013 during autumnal population surveys were used to evaluate habitat associations: these were correlated with year, group size, population size, and climatic conditions. The results indicate that the Tatra chamois is tending, over the long term, to lower its altitude of occurrence, reduce its average distance to hik- ing trails, and stay less often on slopes with a southerly aspect. These trends are independent of group size, population size, and the weather conditions prevailing during observations, though not for altitude, where increases in air temperature are related to finding chamois at higher elevations.
    [Show full text]
  • Ente Di Gestione Delle Aree Protette Della Valle Sesia Chamois Scientific Classification Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Clas
    Ente di Gestione delle Aree Protette della Valle Sesia Chamois Scientific classification Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Artiodactyla Family: Bovidae Genus: Rupicapra Species: R. rupicapra Binomial name Rupicapra rupicapra (Linnaeus, 1758) The chamois, Rupicapra rupicapra, is a goat-antelope species native to mountains in Europe, including the Carpathian Mountains of Romania, the European Alps, the Gran Sasso region of the central Italian Apennines, the Tatra Mountains, the Balkans, parts of Turkey, and the Caucasus. The chamois has also been introduced to the South Island of New Zealand. Chamois are strictly protected animals under the European Habitats Directive. There are two species of chamois in the genus Rupicapra: R. rupicapra (the type species) is replaced in the Pyrenees by the Pyrenean chamois, R. pyrenaica. The chamois are in the goat-antelope subfamily (Caprinae) of the family Bovidae, along with sheep and goats. The usual pronunciation in English is /ˈʃ æmw ʌ / ("shamwa"), but when referring to its leather (and in New Zealand often for the animal itself) it is pronounced / ˈʃæm ɨ / ("shammy"), and sometimes spelt "chamy". As with many quarry species, the plural is the same as the singular. Names The English name is from the French chamois. This is derived from Latin camox, borrowed from Gaulish, itself perhaps a borrowing from Iberian or Aquitanian akin to modern Basque ahuntz "goat". The Dutch name for the chamois is gems, and the male is called a gemsbok. In Afrikaans, the name gemsbok came to refer to a species of Subsaharan antelope of the genus Oryx and this meaning has been adopted in English.
    [Show full text]
  • 22.NE/05 Stefancikova 81-101*.Indd
    Galemys 22 (nº especial): 81-101, 2010 ISSN: 1137-8700 ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS OF CHAMOIS INFECTION BY LUNG NEMATODES IN THE SLOVAK NATIONAL PARKS ASTÉRIA ŠTEFANČÍKOVÁ1, BARBORA CHOVANCOVÁ2 & BEDRICH HÁJEK3 1. Parasitological Institute Slovak Academy Sciences, Hlinkova 3, 04001 Košice, Slovak Republic. ([email protected]) 2. Tatra National Park Research Station, Tatranská Lomnica, Slovak Republic. ([email protected]) 3. State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic, Administration of the Slovak Paradise National Park, Spišská Nová Ves, Slovak Republic. ([email protected]) ABSTRACT In the territory of Slovakia, the chamois is native only in the High Tatras and Belianske Tatras. The fact that the Tatras chamois are not only the glacial relict, but also the vital Tatras endemic subspecies considerably increases their cultural, historic and environmental importance. To prevent its extinction, the subspecies was introduced into the central part of the Low Tatras National Park (central Slovakia) in 1969-1974. On the other hand, Alpine chamois was introduced into the Slovak Paradise National Park and the Vel'ká Fatra National Park Alpine (eastern and central Slovakia) in 1964-1968. A substantially decreased number of Tatras chamois in the last decade has initiated a large-scale range of activities aimed at its protection. Parasite infections have also contribute to the decline of the chamois population. The attention is therefore being paid particularly to a health status of both chamois population, including monitoring of species composition and degree of infection with parasites and its intermediate hosts. In the present report we analyse data from the study of ecological conditions for infection of chamois with lung nematodes carried out during the last years in biotopes of Slovakia.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Chamois (Rupicapra Rupicapra Tatrica) – Slovakia
    Northern Chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra tatrica) – Slovakia Conservation status Global IUCN: Critically Endangered EU27 IUCN: Critically Endangered SK: U1 (+) Protection status Habitats Directive: Annexes II and IV Habitats Directive: Annex V (R. rupicapra whole species) Bern Convention: Appendix III (R. rupicapra whole species) EU population EU: 786–1,341 individuals (2007-12) SK: 500–1,055 individuals MS where increasing PL, SK Other MS Photo © Juraj Švajda Summary: The tatrica subspecies of Northern Chamois is endemic to the Tatra mountains of Slovakia and Poland, occurring entirely within protected areas. The population declined to a low point in 1999 in response to changes in the management and more disturbing recreational use of national parks, and, poaching. This trend was reversed through the implementation of site and species action plans, and in particular, the employment of 52 park guards (previously 1). As a result, the main population in Slovakia’s Tatranský National Park rose from 162 individuals in 1999, to 488 in 2006 and then to 1,096 in 2012. Background Status and EU occurrence Northern Chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra) comprises five subspecies in Europe. Three of the subspecies are in favourable conservation status and the overall population of all five was estimated to be well in excess of 400,000 mature individuals in 2004/5. However, two subspecies, R. r. cartusiana of France and R. r. tatrica1 of Poland and Slovakia are much rarer, and are considered Vulnerable and Critically Endangered respectively at the global and European levels. The tatrica ssp. of Northern Chamois occurs in the Tatra mountains in the Western Carpathians – south central Poland and north central Slovakia (Aulagnier, Giannatos and Herrero, 2008; Deinet et al, 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • SECCION I Biología E Historia Evolutiva
    I BIOLOGÍA E HISTORIA EVOLUTIVA BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY Foto: Marcelino Fernández EL REBECO CANTÁBRICO 1. Identificación, biología y ecología del rebeco cantábrico Identification, biology and ecology of the Cantabrian chamois (Rupicapra pyrenaica parva) F. Javier Pérez-Barbería y Estefanía Pérez-Fernández Ilustración: José Luis Benito FICHA TÉCNICA Nombre común: Rebeco, rebeco cantábrico, gamuza, robezu (asturiano), rebezo (gallego). Nombre científico: Rupicapra pyrenaica parva. Sistemática: Familia: Bovidae 26 IDENTIFICACIÓN, BIOLOGÍA Y ECOLOGÍA Subfamilia Caprinae Tribu: Rupicaprini Género: Rupicapra. Identificación: Bóvido de pequeño tamaño. Cuernos ganchudos en am- bos sexos, más gruesos y gancho más cerrado en machos. Cabeza y gar- ganta claras, con una mancha oscura que cubre el ojo a modo de antifaz. Color del cuerpo marrón oscuro en el dorso, pecho, patas y flancos, más claro en los cuartos traseros y hombros. Pelaje más contrastado en invier- no. Fórmula dentaria: I (0-0)/ (3-3), C (0-0)/(1-1), PM (3-3)/(3-3), M (3-3)/(3-3)= 32. Biometría (hembra-macho): Peso: 24-30 Kg. Longitud cabeza-cola: 100-104 cm. Altura a la cruz: 72-74 cm. Longitud pata posterior: 32-34 cm. Perímetro torácico: 71-77 cm. Longitud mandibular: 13,7-13,9 cm. Longevidad: Media y máxima, machos 9-18 años, hembras 10-21 años. Distribución: Exclusivo de la Cordillera Cantábrica. Al este desde la Re- serva de Saja y el alto Asón (Cantabria) hasta el límite oeste de la Reserva de Ancares (Lugo, Galicia). Distribución del género: Existen 10 poblaciones bien definidas a lo largo de las cadenas montañosas del sur de Europa, los Balcanes, extendiéndose hasta el Cáucaso.
    [Show full text]
  • Slovakia 2010 (Lynx & Wolf)
    PROJECT REPORT Expedition dates: 30 January – 19 February 2010 Report published: March 2011 White wilderness: winter wolf and lynx tracking in the Tatra mountains of Slovakia. BEST BEST FOR TOP BEST WILDLIFE BEST IN ENVIRONMENT TOP HOLIDAY VOLUNTEERING GREEN-MINDED RESPONSIBLE VOLUNTEERING SUSTAINABLE AWARD FOR NATURE ORGANISATION TRAVELLERS HOLIDAY HOLIDAY TRAVEL Germany Germany UK UK UK UK USA PROJECT REPORT White wilderness: winter wolf and lynx tracking in the Tatra mountains of Slovakia Expedition dates: 30 January – 19 February 2010 Report published: March 2011 Authors: Robin Rigg Slovak Wildlife Society Matthias Hammer (editor) Biosphere Expeditions Cover page courtesy of Robin Rigg 1 © Biosphere Expeditions www.biosphere-expeditions.org Abstract Many hunters consider wolves and other carnivores such as lynx as competitors, because they prey on valuable game animals such as red deer and wild boar. As a result hunters tend to overestimate carnivore numbers and cull them intensively. While official game statistics list more than 1,500 wolves in Slovakia, others claim that the annual winter hunting season leaves fewer than 150 individuals. Are wolves being hunted to extinction, as the environmentalists say, or too numerous, as hunters claim? The dispute shows the clear need for reliable, objective methods to estimate numbers of predators. The work of this project aimed to answer that need by designing and testing a methodology for indexing wolf and lynx abundance. In doing so it brought together international volunteers and local people, nature conservationists, foresters, landowners and hunters. This report deals with the 2010 field season, which was conducted in collaboration between Biosphere Expeditions and the Slovak Wildlife Society.
    [Show full text]
  • (Rupicapra Rupicapra Tatrica) in the Nízke Tatry Mts., Central Slovak
    Lynx (Praha), n. s., 39(1): 25–30 (2008). ISSN 0024–7774 Brief information on the restitution of the Tatra Chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra tatrica) in the Nízke Tatry Mts., central Slovakia (Artiodactyla: Bovidae) Reštitúcia kamzíka vrchovského tatranského (Rupicapra rupicapra tatrica) do Nízkych Tatier, stredné Slovensko (Artiodactyla: Bovidae) Peter BAČKOR1,2 1 Matej Bell University Banská Bystrica, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Department of Biology and Ecology, SK–974 01 Banská Bystrica, Slovakia; [email protected] 2 Slovak Zoological Society, Comenius University in Bratislava, Mlynská dolina B2, SK–842 15 Bratislava, Slovakia received on 15 May 2008 Abstract. Two attempts to restitute the Tatra chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra tatrica Blahout, 1971) were made in the Nízke Tatry Mts. The first one occurred in the eastern part of the mountain range (Kráľova hoľa Mt., Orlová) in 1935, but was not successful. During the second attempt, a substitute population of the Tatra chamois was established in the Nízke Tatry Mts. in the years 1969–1976. The main aim of these actions was to preserve this endangered and endemic subspecies. Altogether 30 adult individuals (9 males, 21 females) were brought from the Vysoké and Belianske Tatry Mts. At present, the population numbers around 98 individuals. This paper provides a short description of the restitution of the Tatra chamois based on previously unpublished archive materials. Key words. Restitution, chamois, cooperation, Nízke Tatry Mts, central Slovakia. INTRODUCTION The distribution range of the endemic and critically endangered Tatra chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra tatrica Blahout, 1971) is restricted to the Slovakian and Polish sides of the Tatry Mts. (Bl A h o u T 1976).
    [Show full text]
  • Negative Effects of Mass Tourism on High Mountain Fauna: the Case of the Tatra Chamois Rupicapra Rupicapra Tatrica
    Negative effects of mass tourism on high mountain fauna: the case of the Tatra chamois Rupicapra rupicapra tatrica Ł UKASZ P Ę KSA and M ICHAŁ C IACH Abstract Until recently animals inhabiting mountain areas support species with narrow and highly specific ecological were relatively free from disturbance by people but they are requirements (Körner, 2004; Spehn & Körner, 2005). High- now coming under increasing pressure. Tourism, especially mountain species, formerly relatively undisturbed by that involving large numbers of people, is having an ever human influence, have in recent decades been subjected to more detrimental effect on the natural resources of high ever greater anthropogenic pressure. Habitats are being mountains, even in protected areas. We analyse the effect of transformed and degraded as a result of mining, over- tourist pressure on the population of the Tatra chamois grazing, climate change and other influences, and tourism is Rupicapra rupicapra tatrica, which inhabits the strictly having increasingly deleterious effects on the natural protected high-altitude habitats of the Tatra mountains resources of high mountains, including in protected areas. (Carpathians, Poland). The Kasprowy Wierch cable car The spatial and temporal concentration of tourism, tourist system, in operation since 1936, was modernized in 2007;as infrastructure, forms of recreation and the behaviour of a consequence 50% more people can now be carried into the tourists may all have potentially negative impacts on wild chamois’ habitat. The effect of this sudden increase in species and their habitats (Gössling, 2002; Zaręba, 2008). tourist pressure has been to reduce the size of herds (3.9 vs One of the most significant threats to high-mountain 5.3 individuals) and to increase the distance between the environments comes from people entering them (Beale & animals and the cable car station (1,664.0 vs 693.0 m), the Monaghan, 2004), and from the noise they make and their cable car infrastructure (1,415.0 vs 467.8 m) and adjacent ski- motor vehicles (Holmes et al., 1993).
    [Show full text]
  • Tatra Chamois Rupicapra Rupicapra Tatrica): Influence of Herd Size, Sex, Weather and Human Disturbance
    Mammal Research https://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-018-0376-y ORIGINAL PAPER Daytime activity budget of an alpine ungulate (Tatra chamois Rupicapra rupicapra tatrica): influence of herd size, sex, weather and human disturbance Łukasz Pęksa1 & Michał Ciach2 Received: 6 June 2017 /Accepted: 26 April 2018 # The Author(s) 2018 Abstract Environmental factors have strong influence on activity of alpine ungulates. However, the presence and activities of people in high mountains have been growing rapidly and have led to the advent of human-induced factors, which may modify the time budget. In this study, we examined the influence of natural and human-induced factors on the daytime budget of Tatra chamois Rupicapra rupicapra tatrica. On average, chamois spent 46% of their time foraging, 40% resting, 13% moving around and 1% on social behaviour. The amount of time devoted to particular categories of behaviour was influenced by the time of day, herd size, weather conditions and human disturbance. Human disturbance and the time of day had the highest effect on the proportion of foraging in the daytime budget, which increased as the day progressed and at greater distances from the nearest hiking trail. These two factors also increased the amount of time spent resting, which peaked during the afternoon hours and at greater distances from the nearest trail. The time spent moving around decreased with increasing herd size, distance from the nearest trail and as the day progressed. Males devoted less time to foraging and more to resting and moving around than females. The intensity of human-induced factors is particularly important for a population inhabiting a small, isolated area, as is the case with strictly high-mountain species.
    [Show full text]