This article was downloaded by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] On: 24 January 2013, At: 11:34 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Italian Journal of Zoology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tizo20 conservation in Italy: The contribution of the WWF Oases network P. Bombi a , M. D'Amen a , D. Salvi b , M. A. Bologna a , F. Marcone c , C. Maggio c & A. Canu c a Università di Roma Tre, Dipartimento di Biologia Ambientale, Rome, Italy b CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Campus Agrário de Vairão, Portugal c WWF Oasi, Rome, Italy Version of record first published: 06 Dec 2011.

To cite this article: P. Bombi , M. D'Amen , D. Salvi , M. A. Bologna , F. Marcone , C. Maggio & A. Canu (2012): Amphibians conservation in Italy: The contribution of the WWF Oases network, Italian Journal of Zoology, 79:2, 287-295 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11250003.2011.623722

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Italian Journal of Zoology, June 2012; 79(2): 287–295

Amphibians conservation in Italy: The contribution of the WWF Oases network

P. B OM B I 1*,M.D’AMEN1,D.SALVI2,M.A.BOLOGNA1,F.MARCONE3,C.MAGGIO3, &A.CANU3

1Università di Roma Tre, Dipartimento di Biologia Ambientale, Rome, Italy, 2CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Campus Agrário de Vairão, Portugal, and 3WWF Oasi, Rome, Italy

(Received 17 May 2011; accepted 29 August 2011)

Abstract Amphibians have emerged as a major conservation concern because of the global decline in their numbers in recent decades. Notwithstanding, they are often neglected in conservation planning respects to other less threatened vertebrate groups. In Italy, few studies have analyzed the effectiveness of protection regimes. The main aim of this paper is to estimate the contribution of the WWF oases network to amphibians conservation in Italy. Moreover, we conducted a prioritization of this network and we individuated additional areas that should be protected for implementing an oases role. We assembled the largest and most up-to-date dataset available for amphibians in the WWF oases, and we adopted a spatial approach based on gap and irreplaceability analyses. Our results provide a critical assessment of the oases importance for amphibians conservation. Many species that are completely uncovered by oases protection have been identified, and new areas suitable for filling the conservation gap have been recognized. We recommend designation of new reserves in these areas to help guarantee amphibian conservation. Moreover, we identified those oases that ensure the representation of the largest number of species. In this light, Monte Arcosu appeared to be the most important site for the achievement of the current degree of species representation. Together with six other oases that obtained high irreplaceability scores, Monte Arcosu represents a priority for the preservation of amphibian diversity. Specific initiatives should be primarily implemented in these oases, guaranteeing that highly irreplaceable sites will maintain their crucial role in the future.

Keywords: protected areas, amphibians, Italy, gap analysis, irreplaceability

Introduction factors, acting synergistically, have been cited as potential causes of such declines, including: Amphibians are an important component of loss and degradation, climate change, increase of biodiversity that recently came into view as a global UV-B radiation, introduction of invasive species, conservation priority because of their worldwide pollution, over-exploitation, and emerging infectious decline (Stuart et al. 2004; Wake & Vredenburg diseases (e.g., Alford & Richards 1999; Alford et al. 2008; D’Amen & Bombi 2009). Since 1970, pre- 2001; Kiesecker et al. 2001; Collins & Storfer 2003;

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 11:34 24 January 2013 cipitous amphibian population reductions have been Daszak et al. 2003; Stuart et al. 2004). The latest observed worldwide and scientists documented assessment of the Status of the World’s Vertebrates several extinction events, especially of tropical reports that 41% of amphibian species are threat- mountain species, in Central and South America ened (Baillie et al.2010). Amphibians have the (e.g., Pounds et al.1999; Young et al. 2001; Ron highest proportion of threatened species among the et al. 2003). Many amphibian populations are char- vertebrate groups, but also the highest proportion of acterized by natural wide fluctuations (Pechmann Data Deficient species and the lowest proportion of et al. 1991), but recent declines were far more Least Concern species (Baillie et al.2010). In Italy, widespread and severe than would be expected Andreone and Luiselli (2000) assessed the threats under normal conditions of demographic variation to amphibian populations on the basis of natural (Pounds et al. 1997; Green 2003). A number of

*Correspondence: Pierluigi Bombi, Università di Roma Tre, Dipartimento di Biologia Ambientale, Viale G. Marconi 446, 00146. Rome, Italy. Email: [email protected] ISSN 1125-0003 print/ISSN 1748-5851 online © 2012 Unione Zoologica Italiana http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11250003.2011.623722 288 P. Bombi et al.

history parameters. Moreover, it has been evidenced with high species richness, species of national and that habitat loss and climate change had comparable community interest, rare and endemic species, and importance as major causes of recent population and species most threatened both at national disappearances in Italy (D’Amen & Bombi 2009; and international levels. D’Amen et al. 2010a). The main aim of this paper is to estimate the Notwithstanding their imperiled status, amphib- extent to which the network of WWF oases con- ians are relatively neglected in conservation stud- tributes to protecting the amphibian species in Italy. ies with respect to other less threatened taxonomic More specifically, our work aspires to give an answer groups (Brito 2008) and they are often ignored in to the following key questions: (i) how many, and conservation planning (Rodrigues et al. 2004; Pawar which species are protected by the oases network? et al. 2007). If compared with other European coun- (ii) Which oases give the largest contribution to tries, the Italian amphibian fauna is highly diverse amphibians protection? (iii) Which additional areas and has a high percentage of endemic and/or threat- should be protected for implementing the oases role? ened species (Gasc et al.1997; Bologna 2004; Temple To do this, we evidenced on the one hand the cur- & Cox 2009). In Italy, few studies have analyzed rent gaps of conservation, in terms of species that the effectiveness of amphibians protection regime. are not, or insufficiently represented into the oases Maiorano et al. (2006, 2007) evaluated the capa- network (Jennings 2000). On the other hand, we bility of Italian national parks and Natura 2000 calculated the contribution of each oasis for rep- sites to conserve terrestrial vertebrates in the cur- resenting the current set of species. In addition rent conditions. D’Amen et al. (2010b) analyzed to analyze amphibian species richness, we adopted the long-term efficacy of the same set of protected a spatial approach based on the principle of irre- areas for amphibian conservation under two climate placeability (Pressey et al. 1994; Coetzee et al. change scenarios for the mid of 21st century. These 2009) for measuring the contribution of individ- studies evidenced that, similarly to other European ual oases. Such a framework allowed us to iden- regions (e.g., Dimitrakopoulos et al. 2004; Araújo tify priorities for the conservation of amphibians et al. 2007), existing protected areas in Italy are in Italy, both in terms of critical species and of insufficient to conserve current patterns of bio- key sites. This could help to optimize the allo- diversity. The ensemble of nationally designated cation of limited conservation funds to priority parks and Natura 2000 sites does not represent the areas, limiting the investments in areas where con- entire set of protected areas available for biodiversity servation initiatives have an high probability to be conservation. inefficient. More than 100 additional sites across Italy, known as “oases”, are protected by WWF under differ- ent conservation regimes. Such network of oases Materials and methods represents the main instrument of WWF for the Dataset conservation of Italian biodiversity. These sites are placed in most of the Italian regions including all We derived species records for the 33 selected the biogeographic districts and most of the main oases from field researches, literature informa- ecosystems hosted in Italy. The size of the single tion, and appropriate faunal databases (Figure 1). oases ranges from 0.3 ha up to 3600 ha and as a Fieldwork was carried out in more than twenty field whole they cover nearly 30,000 ha (WWF 2010), campaigns during 2008 and 2009. On the whole, being the largest network of protected areas in Italy we surveyed 15 oases throughout Italy, including Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 11:34 24 January 2013 managed by a single private organization. The oases mountain systems such as Alps and Apennines, network protects the richest ecosystems in biodiver- mid-elevation, coastal, and insular areas. Surveys sity yet the most vulnerable and threatened ones. were carried out by visual census and placing live Thus, although this network is only a component traps. If necessary (as for larval stages), specimens of the overall system of protected areas in Italy, were temporarily captured and released immediately it may represent a complex and pervasive reserves’ after the specific identification. Since WWF oases framework, which embodies a strategic element for often coincide with sites of community impor- the conservation of the Italian biodiversity. Of the tance, special protection areas, or Ramsar sites, over one hundred oases that make up the network, we also examined the Bioitaly and the Natura2000 33 of these have been selected for their richness databanks (available at respectively: http://www in terms of biodiversity and vulnerability requiring bioitaly.casaccia.enea.it/wwwbioitaly; ftp://ftp.scn. intensive conservation efforts, and for the complexity minambiente.it/Cartografie/Natura2000/schede_e_ in their daily management. They reflect ecosystems mappe). Moreover, when appropriate, we utilized Amphibians conservation by the Italian WWF Oases 289

Figure 1. Geographic location of the 33 WWF oases considered in this paper and of place names used in the text.

other faunal databases, which contained local, (Rodrigues et al. 2004). We established the conser- georeferenced observations (e.g., the herpetological vation target for species conservation on the basis database of Latium used by Bologna et al. (2000) of species-specific extent of occurrence, following updated to 2009). In this study we considered all of Rodrigues et al. (2004). We assumed that each the 37 amphibian species of the Italian fauna. For species should be represented in the oases network the species names we followed Lanza et al. (2007). proportionally to its range size. The specific extent Contrary to the recent critical review by Speybroeck of occurrences were measured on the basis of the et al. (2010), here we considered Bombina pachypus, CKmap databank (Stoch 2000–2005) and updating Bufo balearicus,andBufo siculus as full species (Veith the distribution information for the newly recognized 1996; Stöck et al. 2006; Colliard et al. 2010) and we species using maps from IUCN Red List (IUCN adopted the name Mesotriton alpestris for the alpine 2009). We set the minimum conservation target to newt (Lanza et al.2007). Overall, we assembled the one oasis for the represented species with the small- largest and most up-to-date dataset available for est range (i.e., genei) and the maximum Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 11:34 24 January 2013 amphibians in the WWF oases. to 22 oases for the most widespread species (i.e., Pelophylax spp.), as this is the number of oases where Pelophylax spp. is represented in. Targets for all Gap analysis species with intermediate range sizes were calculated The basic principle of gap analysis consist of compar- by interpolating the extreme range size targets using ing species ranges to the distribution of conservation a linear regression on the log-transformed number areas and determining the elements that are not of occupied cells (Rodrigues et al. 2004; Maiorano represented in the reserve network, or represented et al. 2006). By comparing the number of oases that insufficiently with respect to predefined specific con- harbor each species with the respective conservation servation targets (Jennings 2000). We considered as targets, we calculated the percentage of target met for “total gap species” those represented in none oasis, each species. This procedure allowed us to identify while species that met only a portion of their conser- any current gaps of conservation in terms of non-, or vation target were considered “partial gap species” under-represented species. 290 P. Bombi et al.

Irreplaceability analysis Table I. Representation level of Italian amphibians in the WWF oases network. For each species are indicated: number of occupied To measure the relative conservation importance of oases, conservation target, and percentage of target met different oases, in addition to analyzing the relative occ. %of species richness, we estimated the summed irreplace- Species oases target target met ability value of each site using the C-Plan Systematic Conservation Planning System, Version 4 (Pressey Euproctus platycephalus 01 0 Salamandra atra 02 0 et al. 2009). Simply defined, the irreplaceability of Salamandra lanzai 01 0 a site is the degree to which that site is required Salamandra salamandra 61060 in a reserve network in order to achieve established Salamandrina perspicillata 24 50 conservation targets (Pressey et al. 1994). To avoid Salamandrina terdigitata 02 0 an intractable exact calculation, we estimated irre- Lissotron italicus 4 4 100 Lissotron vulgaris 12 11 >100 placeability as the number of combinations of sites Mesotriton alpestris 16 17 that include the focal site and meet conservation tar- Triturus carnifex 16 14 >100 gets, but which would not meet the targets if the Speleomantes ambrosii 01 0 focal site were removed. This estimation was done Speleomantes flavus 01 0 by using a predictive approach based on the central Speleomantes genei 1 1 100 Speleomantes imperialis 01 0 limit theorem (see Ferrier et al. 2000 for details). Speleomantes italicus 02 0 Summed irreplaceability is calculated by adding all Speleomantes strinatii 02 0 the feature (species) irreplaceabilities of all features Speleomantes supramontis 01 0 in that site. This value can range from zero to a large Proteus anguinus 01 0 number depending on the number of features in the Bombina pachypus 36 50 Bombina variegata 13 33 site. A high value of summed irreplaceability indi- pictus 03 0 cates that the site is crucial for achieving conservation Discoglossus sardus 2 2 100 targets for many species. Values close to zero indi- Pelobates fuscus 12 50 cate that the site is not important for any features. Pelodytes punctatus 01 0 > For irreplaceability analysis, we set the conservation Bufo bufo 24 19 100 Bufo balearicus 15 10 >100 target to one oasis for all the species. It means that Bufo siculus 2 2 100 the irreplaceability value we estimated quantifies the Bufo viridis 02 0 importance of each oasis in order that the entire oases Hyla arborea 01 0 network represents the current set of species. Hyla intermedia 22 16 >100 Hyla meridionalis 01 0 Hyla sarda 2 2 100 Pelophylax spp. 22 22 100 Results Rana dalmatina 11 12 92 Rana italica 59 56 Despite WWF oases protect less than 1% of the Rana latastei 4 4 100 Italian total surface, their network represents a con- Rana temporaria 38 38 siderable percentage of amphibian species (56.76%). Nevertheless, 16 species are completely uncovered by oases protection (Table I). The oases network rep- resents with similar efficiency Anura and Caudata are in northern Italy, one in central Italy, and two (respectively 5 and 11 total gap species; χ 2 = 2.588, in southern Italy. Similarly, two of the five species- p = 0.108). Moreover, out of the 21 species poor oases are in northern Italy, one in central Italy, Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 11:34 24 January 2013 represented in the network, nine species are under- one in southern Italy, and one in Sicily. All the represented with respect to their specific conserva- four considered oases located in insular regions are tion target (Table I). Partial gap species are similarly relatively species-poor (<5 species). Overall, oases’ abundant within Anura and Caudata (respectively six species richness comes from a normally distributed and three partial gap species; χ 2 = 0.845, p = 0.358). population (Shapiro-Wilk W = 0.958; p = 0.224) Overall, 32.43% of the total number of Italian species with a mean of 4.82 species. is adequately protected by the oases network. Summed irreplaceability (SI) allows the identifica- The number of represented species varies greatly tion of five groups of oases according to the Natural among different oases, from a minimum of one up to Breaks criterion (Figure 3a), which seeks to reduce a maximum of 10 species (Figure 2a). Species rich the variance within classes and maximize the variance oases are widespread along northern, central, and between classes (Jenks 1967). Only one oasis (Monte southern Italy (sensu Eurostat (2007)) (Figure 2b). Arcosu in Sardinia; SI = 2.24) obtained very high Of the five most species-rich oases (>7 species), two irreplaceability values (SI > 1.63) (Figure 3b). Six Amphibians conservation by the Italian WWF Oases 291

Figure 2. a, Number of represented species per oasis; b, geographic distribution of amphibian richness in the oases.

Figure 3. a, Summed irreplaceability scores per oasis; b, geographic distribution of irrepleaceability in the oases.

oases obtained high irreplaceability values (0.62 < a national scale in Italy and allows the identifica- SI ≤ 1.63). Together these seven sites represent pri- tion of the main conservation priorities in terms of Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 11:34 24 January 2013 ority oases for conservation initiatives. Three oases both species and sites. In this light, future initia- obtained medium irreplaceability values (0.33 < SI tives should be primarily focused on enlarging the ≤ 0.62). Nine oases obtained low irreplaceability val- representation of gap species (both total and par- ues (0.08 < SI ≤ 0.33). Fourteen oases obtained very tial) and on guaranteeing that highly irreplaceable low irreplaceability values (SI ≤ 0.08). Three of the oases should maintain their crucial role. The for- six highly irreplaceable oases are placed in northern mer goal could be obtained by increasing the local Italy, one in central Italy, one in southern Italy, and habitat suitability for the focal species in single sites one in Sardinia (Figure 3b). within appropriate oases, modifying the perimeter of appropriate oases to include potentially close sites of focal species presence, or creating new oases Discussion in appropriate areas characterized by the presence Our study represents the first estimation of WWF of the focal species. The latter goal requires the oases contribution for amphibian conservation at detailed understanding of all the potential threats for 292 P. Bombi et al.

amphibian populations at global, regional, and local stream , Rana italica, is endemic to peninsular scales. This understanding should represent the basis Italy and, despite it being quite common in suitable for planning any specific initiative, which should be habitats, it is acknowledged as highly threatened by primarily implemented in the priority oases. Andreone and Luiselli (2000) because of its natu- In terms of species, those completely uncovered ral history traits. Enlarging the number of oases that by the network have, evidently, the highest priority. harbor R. italica should be considered an important Nevertheless, among these 16 species some particu- initiative. lar emergency should be evidenced. The Sardinian Notwithstanding the achievement of respective brook newt, E. platycephalus, is an island endemic, conservation targets by non-gap species, some restricted to a few isolated areas mainly in the dangerous situations should be highlighted. The Limbara, Gennargentu, and Settefratelli Mountains Tyrrhenian Painted Frog, Discoglossus sardus,and (Lecis & Norris 2003; Bovero et al. 2005). This the Tyrrhenian Tree Frog, Hyla sarda, are mainly species is listed as endangered by IUCN (Romano restricted to Sardinia and Corsica. The Italian Agile et al. 2010), was identified by Andreone and Luiselli Frog, Rana latastei, is sub-endemic to northern (2000) as the most at risk on the basis of natural Italy, where it is mainly restricted to the Po River history parameters, and new threats from hotbeds of plain. These three species are considered vulnera- chytridiomycosis were revealed (Bovero et al. 2008). ble (R. latastei) or of least concern (D. sardus and Moreover, Maiorano et al. (2006) showed that H. sarda) following IUCN (2010), but are highly E. platycephalus is completely neglected by Italian threatened on the basis of their respective natural protected areas. Neither of the two Sardinian oases history traits (Andreone & Luiselli 2000) and are harbors this species, being primarily found on the scarcely represented in protected areas (Maiorano east side of the island. Nevertheless, recent, uncon- et al. 2006; D’Amen et al. 2010b). Therefore, they firmed observations from Monte Arcosu should be should be considered relative priorities and oases carefully verified, representing a potentially funda- harboring these species privileged in conservation mental step toward the protection of the Sardinian initiatives. brook newt. The painted frog, Discoglossus pictus,is In terms of oases, the highest priority should be rather widespread in northern Africa and in Sicily. given to the most irreplaceable sites, which can In Italy, this species has experienced a large reduc- guarantee the representation of the largest num- tion in recent decades (>30%) (D’Amen & Bombi ber of species considering the network as a whole. 2009) and it is poorly represented in protected areas Secondly, oases’ species richness should be taken (D’Amen et al. 2010b). Increasing the habitat suit- into account for maximizing local diversity. In this ability for the painted frog through appropriate action light, Monte Arcosu is by far the most fundamen- in at least one of the two Sicilian oases could rep- tal site for the achievement of the current degree resent an efficient strategy for achieving a sufficient of species representation. This oasis is relatively protection. species poor, but three of the four species present Among partial gap species some critical cases are restricted to Sardinia and one (Speleomantes genei) are demonstrated as well. The spadefood toad, is represented uniquely in this site. Moreover, as Pelobates fuscus, is widespread in the Palaearctic mentioned above, D. sardus and H. sarda are pri- region, but in Italy it is present as the endemic, highly ority species and, if confirmed, the observation of threatened subspecies P. f. insubricus. This taxon E. platycephalus would further increase the crucial had a strongly declined in recent decades (>50%) importance of this oasis. Both the low number of (D’Amen & Bombi 2009) and is predicted to face species and the very high irreplaceability of Monte Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 11:34 24 January 2013 further reductions in the future because of climate Arcosu derive from the insular location of this oasis. change (D’Amen et al.2010b). Moreover, it is the The six highly irreplaceable oases should also be con- least represented species in protected areas (D’Amen sidered as keystones of the current oases network. In et al. 2010b). Thus, the inclusion of one of the 12 particular, Valpredina, Guardiaregia-Campochiaro, remnant populations in the oases network would be Bosco Rocconi, and Bosco di Vanzago are highly a great goal for the conservation of P. f. insubricus. irreplaceable and species rich at the same time. The Apennine yellow-bellied toad, Bombina pachy- Moreover, some priority species are present in these pus, is endemic to peninsular Italy, where it has sites: Rana latastei (Valpredina), Bombina pachypus suffered severe declines in recent decades (D’Amen (Guardiaregia-Campochiaro, Bosco Rocconi), Rana & Bombi 2009). This species is listed as Endangered italica (Guardiaregia-Campochiaro, Bosco Rocconi), by IUCN (Andreone et al. 2010) and increasing its and Pelobates fuscus (Bosco di Vanzago). Therefore, representation in the oases network would be cru- the ensemble of these seven oases should be con- cial for meeting its conservation target. The Italian sidered the core of the network, where protection Amphibians conservation by the Italian WWF Oases 293

should be particularly strict and conservation mea- for incrementing the degree of connectivity of the sures should be primarily developed. Italian system of protected areas as a whole. The Our analysis also allowed us to identify further connectivity is a fundamental issue for increasing the areas that, if included in the network, would reinforce survival probabilities of species (Crooks & Sanjayan the existing set of oases partially filling the current 2006), especially in view of the future climate change gaps of conservation. Here we also demonstrated forecast in the 21st century. Predictive modeling some high priorities in terms of further areas. Three suggests that the distributions of many species in of the 16 total gap species (Pelodytes punctatus, Hyla Italy will be influenced by climate change, with the meridionalis,andSpeleomantes strinatii) occur sym- effects varying greatly between species, from regional patrically in western Liguria, which represents the extinction to very marked range shifts (Girardello easternmost limit of distribution for several species et al. 2010; D’Amen et al.2010b). The survival at West-Mediterranean chorotype (Vigna Taglianti of many species will depend on the possibility to et al.2000). In this area are also present two partial move through the landscape, thus a large numbers gap species (Mesotriton alpestris and Salamandra sala- of protected areas adequately connected, may assist mandra). Similarly, in the province of Trieste, where the geographic movement of those species that have some Balkan species are present, three species com- at least moderate dispersal abilities (Gaston et al. pletely neglected by the current set of oases (Proteus 2008). These effects of climate change should be anguinus, Hyla arborea,andBufo viridis)andtwopar- taken into account in planning future initiatives and tial gap species (Bombina variegata and Salamandra studies that clarify the role of each oasis for fac- salamandra) occur sympatrically. Thus, identifying ing such effects, by predicting the specific responses appropriate sites for setting new reserves in such to climate change (e.g., Bombi et al. 2011) would areas should maximize the species representation, be required. filling significant parts of the conservation gaps of the The availability of biodiversity data remains a sig- WWF network. Moreover, the identification of some nificant constraint to conservation assessment and additional sites in appropriate locations in Sardinia planning. For such a reason we claim the need for should be acknowledged for the possibility to cover concerted efforts to compile a faunal assessment on two more total gap species (Euproctus platycephalus the amphibian diversity for each oasis. This could and Speleomantes imperialis). Finally, the identifica- mean extending the prioritization analysis, carried tion of an appropriate site in northern Calabria out in this work, to the entire WWF network in Italy. would allow the inclusion of Salamandrina terdigitata Moreover, deepening the faunal knowledge of the in the set of the represented species and to implement oases would contribute to a reduction in the rate of the protection of five partial gap species (Mesotriton false absences, which could cause an underestima- alpestris, Bombina pachypus, Rana italica, Salamandra tion of the species representation and the selection salamandra,andRana dalmatina). The creation of a of conservation targets that are too small. Further reserved site in northern Calabria is particularly rel- and more detailed studies are required at the oasis evant to amphibian conservation as no other oases level for the real implementation of specific initia- are already established in the zone and a large part tives, especially in the here defined priority areas. of the genetic diversity of several Italian amphib- In particular, the size and viability of amphibian ians is hosted here because of the peninsular location populations should be investigated at the oasis level (Bombina pachypus, Pelophylax lessonae,andRana ital- because it may influence the role that each oasis can ica) (Canestrelli et al. 2006, 2008; Canestrelli & have for species conservation. In addition, the rela- Nascetti 2008). tion of species richness and size of populations with Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 11:34 24 January 2013 We identified priority areas for the expansion of the the oases’ surface should be clarified. Environmental oasis network, but our analysis is obviously at a spa- exigencies of the focal species should be analyzed tial scale that does not permit directly the location at the local scale for optimizing measures aimed of new reserved sites. In order to set oases bound- at increasing habitat suitability in single sites (e.g., aries in these broad areas, researches at higher spatial Bombi et al. 2009). In addition, a deep understand- resolution would be required (e.g., Bombi 2010). ing of all the threatening factors at local, regional, These researches should focus not only on the prop- and global levels (e.g., Bovero et al. 2008; D’Amen erties of individual sites, but also give great emphasis et al. 2010b) must be obtained for planning the to the issues of complementarity with other exist- most efficient initiatives to maximize the probabilities ing reserves (nationally designed and Natura 2000 of long-term survival. For these reasons, this paper networks). Indeed, other components of the Italian should be interpreted not only as an assessment of system of protected areas could be functionally linked the efficacy of the WWF oases network for protecting to the oases network and this linkage could be used Italian amphibians, but also as a basic instrument for 294 P. Bombi et al.

targeting further studies and optimizing conservation Brito D. 2008. Amphibian conservation: Are we on the right track? measures. Biological Conservation 141:2912–2917. Canestrelli D, Cimmaruta R, Costantini V, Nascetti G. 2006. Genetic diversity and phylogeography of the Apennine yellow- bellied toad Bombina pachypus, with implications for conserva- Acknowledgements tion. Molecular Ecology 15:3741–3754. Canestrelli D, Cimmaruta R, Nascetti G. 2008. Population This study was funded by the company WWF Oasi. genetic structure and diversity of the Apennine endemic stream We are grateful to all managers and staff of the frog, Rana italica – insights on the Pleistocene evolution- WWF oases who helped in data collection and field- ary history of the Italian peninsular biota. Molecular Ecology work. Thanks also to Daniela Lucente, Mirko Bessi, 17:3856–3872. Cristiano Liuzzi, and Roberto Colella for their help Canestrelli D, Nascetti G. 2008. Phylogeography of the pool frog Rana (Pelophylax) lessonae in the Italian peninsula and Sicily: in the fieldwork. Amphibians were captured and multiple refugia, glacial expansions and nuclear–mitochondrial handled under permits from the Italian Ministry of discordance. Journal of Biogeography 35:1923–1936. Environment DPN-2009-0005106. Coetzee BWT, Robertson MP, Erasmus BFN, van Rensburg BJ, Thuiller W. 2009. Ensemble models predict Important Bird Areas in southern Africa will become less effective for con- serving endemic birds under climate change. Global Ecology References and Biogeography 18:701–710. DOI: 10.1111/j.1466-8238. 2009.00485.x. Alford RA, Dixon PM, Pechmann JH. 2001. Global amphibian Colliard C, Sicilia A, Turrisi GF, Arculeo M, Perrin N, Stöck M. population decline. Nature 41:499–500. 2010. Strong reproductive barriers in a narrow hybrid zone Alford RA, Richards SJ. 1999. Global amphibian declines: a prob- of West-Mediterranean green toads (Bufo viridis subgroup) lem in applied ecology. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, with Plio-Pleistocene divergence. BMC Evolutionary Biology and Systematics 30:133–165. 10:232. Andreone F, Corti C, Sindaco R, Romano A, Giachi F, Vanni S, Collins JP, Storfer A. 2003. Global amphibian declines: sorting Delfino G. 2010. Bombina pachypus.In:IUCN.IUCNRed the hypotheses. Diversity and Distributions 9:89–98. List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. Available: http:// Crooks KR, Sanjayan M. 2006. Connectivity conservation: main- www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 3 November 2010. taining connections for nature. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan Andreone F, Luiselli L. 2000. The Italian batrachofauna and M, editors.Connectivity conservation. Cambridge, UK: its conservation status: a statistical assessment. Biological Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–20. Conservation 96:197–208. D’Amen M, Bombi P. 2009. Global warming and biodiversity: evi- Araújo MB, Lobo JM, Moreno JC. 2007. The effectiveness of dence for climate-linked amphibian declines in Italy. Biological Iberian protected areas in conserving terrestrial biodiversity. Conservation 142:3060–3067. Conservation Biology 21:1423–1432. D’Amen M, Bombi P, Pearman PB, Schmatz DR, Zimmermann Baillie JEM, Griffiths J, Turvey ST, Loh J, Collen B. 2010. NE, Bologna MA. 2010b. Will climate change reduce the effi- Evolution Lost: Status and Trends of the World’s Vertebrates. cacy of protected areas for amphibian conservation in Italy? London: Zoological Society of London. Biological Conservation 144:989–997. Bologna MA. 2004. Introduction: a monitoring project on threat- D’Amen M, Pietrangeli B, Bologna MA. 2010a Human provoked ened Italian amphibians and reptiles. Italian Journal of Zoology amphibian decline in central Italy and the efficacy of protected 71(Suppl. 1):3–8. areas. Wildlife Research 37:547–557. Bologna MA, Capula M, Carpaneto GM, editors.2000. Anfibi e Daszak P, Cunningham AA, Hyatt AD. 2003. Infectious dis- Rettili del Lazio. Rome: Fratelli Palombi Editori. ease and amphibian population declines. Diversity and Bombi P. 2010. Toward a new instrument for identifying Distributions 9:141–150. the Italian hotspots of biodiversity: the study case of the Dimitrakopoulos PG, Memtsas D, Troumbis AY. 2004. amphibians and reptiles of Sicily. Italian Journal of Zoology Questioning the effectiveness of the Natura2000 Special 77:453–459. Areas of Conservation strategy: the case of Crete. Global Bombi P, Capula M, D’Amen M, Luiselli L. 2011. Climate Ecology and Biogeography 13:199–207. change threatens the survival of highly endangered Sardinian Eurostat. 2007. Regions in the European Union. Nomenclature

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 11:34 24 January 2013 populations of the snake Hemorrhois hippocrepis. of territorial units for statistics. European Communities. Biology 61:239–248. DOI 10.1163/157075511X584191. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat.Accessed 3 November Bombi P, Salvi D, Luiselli L, Bologna MA. 2009. Modelling cor- 2010. relates of microhabitat use of two sympatric lizards: A model Ferrier S, Pressey RL, Barrett TW. 2000. A new predictor of the selection approach. Animal Biology 59:109–126. irreplaceability of areas for achieving a conservation goal, its Bovero S, Sotgiu G, Angelini C, Doglio S, Gazzaniga E, application to real-world planning, and a research agenda for Picciau L. 2005. New data on the distribution of the further refinement. Biological Conservation 93:303–325. Sardinian brook (Euproctus platycephalus) in south- Gasc JP, Cabela A, Crnobrnja-Isailovic J, Dolmen D, ern and western Limbara mountain complex (Sardinia). Grossenbacher K, Haffner P, Lescure J, Martens H, Martinez Herpetological Bulletin 93:17–20. Rica JP, Maurin H, Oliveira ME, Sofianidou TS, Vaith M, Bovero S, Sotgiu G, Angelini C, Doglio S, Gazzaniga E, Zuiderwijk A, 1997. Atlas of Amphibians and Reptiles in Cunningham AA, Garner TWJ. 2008. Detection of chytrid- Europe. Paris:Societas Europaea Herpetologica and Muséum iomycosis caused by Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in the National d’Histoire Naturelle. endangered Sardinian Newt (Euproctus platycephalus)in Gaston KJ, Jackson SF, Nagy A, Cantú-Salazar L, Johnson Southern Sardinia, Italy. Journal of Wildlife Diseases M. 2008. Protected areas in Europe: Principle and practice. 44:712–715. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1134:97–119. Amphibians conservation by the Italian WWF Oases 295

Girardello M, Griggio M, Whittingham MJ, Rushton SP. 2010. Gaston KJ, Hoffmann M, Marquet P, Pilgrim JD, Pressey Models of climate associations and distributions of amphibians RL, Schipper J, Sechrest W, Stuart SN, Underhill LG, Waller in Italy. Ecological Research 25:103–111. RW, Watts MEJ, Yan X. 2004. Global Gap Analysis: Priority Green DM. 2003. The ecology of extinction: population fluc- Regions for Expanding the Global Protected-Area Network. tuation and decline in amphibians. Biological Conservation BioScience 54:1092–1100. 111:331–343. Romano A, Sindaco R, Andreone F, Lecis R, Edgar P, Schmidt B, IUCN. 2009. 2009 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Avai- Corti C. 2010. Euproctus platycephalus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN lable: http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed November 2010. Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. Available: Jenks GF. 1967. The data model concept in statistical mapping. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed November 2010. International Yearbook of Cartography 7:186–190. Ron SR, Duellman WE, Coloma LA, Bustamante MR. 2003. Jennings MD. 2000. Gap analysis: concepts, methods, and recent Population decline of the Jambato toad Atelopus ignescens results. Landscape Ecology 15:5–20. (Anura: Bufonidae) in the Andes of Ecuador. Journal of Kiesecker JM, Blaustein AR, Belden LK. 2001. Complex causes Herpetology 37:116–126. of amphibian population declines. Nature 410:681–684. Speybroeck J, Beukema W, Crochet P-A. 2010. A tentative species Lanza B, Andreone F, Bologna MA, Corti C, Razzetti E., editors. list of the European herpetofauna (Amphibia and Reptilia) - an 2007. Fauna d’Italia, XLII, Amphibia. Bologna: Calderini update. Zootaxa 2492:1–27. Lecis R, Norris K. 2003. Habitat correlates of distribution Stoch F. 2000–2005. CKmap5.3.8. Ministero dell’Ambiente e and local population decline of the endemic Sardinian della Tutela del Territorio, Dir. Prot. Nat. Available: http:// newt Euproctus platycephalus. Biological Conservation 115: www.minambiente.it/index.php?id_sezione=1930. Accessed 303–317. January 2010. Maiorano L, Falcucci A, Boitani L. 2006. Gap analysis of ter- Stöck M, Moritz C, Hickerson M, Frynta D, Dujsebayeva T, restrial vertebrates in Italy: priorities for conservation plan- Eremchencko V, Macey JR, Papenfuss TJ, Wake DB. 2006. ning in human dominated landscape. Biological Conservation Evolution of mitochondrial relationships and biogeography of 133:455–473. Palearctic green toads (Bufo viridis subgroup) with insights Maiorano L, Falcucci A, Garton EO, Boitani L. 2007. in their genomic plasticity. Molecular Phylogenetics and Contribution of the Natura 2000 network to biodi- Evolution 41:663–689. versity conservation in Italy. Conservation Biology 21: Stuart SN, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Young BE, Rodrigues 1433–1444. ASL, Fischman DL, Waller RW. 2004. Status and trends Pawar S, Koo MS, Kelley C, Ahmed MF, Chaudhuri S, of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science Sarkar S. 2007. Conservation assessment and prioritization of 306:1783–1786. areas in Northeast India: Priorities for amphibians and reptiles. Temple HJ, Cox NA. 2009. European Red List of Amphibians. Biological Conservation 136:346–361. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Pechmann JHK, Scott DE, Semlitsch RD, Caldwell JP, Vitt LJ, Communities. Gibbons JV. 1991. Declining amphibian populations: the prob- Veith M. 1996. Molecular markers and species delimitation: exam- lem of separating human impacts from natural fluctuations. ples from the European batrachofauna. Amphibia-Reptilia Science 253:892–895. 17:303–314. Pounds JA, Fogden MPL, Campbell JH. 1999. Biological Vigna Taglianti A, Audisio PA, Biondi M, Bologna MA, response to climate change on a tropical mountain. Nature Carpaneto GM, De Biase A, Fattorini S, Piattella E, Sindaco 398:611–615. R, Venchi A, Zapparoli M. 2000. A proposal for a chorotype Pounds JA, Fogden MPL, Savage JM, Gorman GC. 1997. Test classification of the Near East fauna, in the framework of the of null models for amphibian declines on a tropical mountain. Western Palearctic region. Biogeographia (n.s.) 20:31–59. Conservation Biology 11:1309–1322. Wake DB, Vredenburg VT. 2008. Are we in the midst of Pressey RL, Johnson IR, Wilson PD. 1994. Shades of irreplace- the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of ability: towards a measure of the contribution of sites to a amphibians. Proceeding of the National Academy of Science reservation goal. Biodiversity Conservation 3:242–262. 105:11466–11473. Pressey RL, Watts ME, Barrett TW, Ridges MJ. 2009. The WWF. 2010. Documento Oasi 2010. Available: http://www.wwf. C-Plan conservation planning system: origins, applications, it/UserFiles/File/News%20Dossier%20Appti/DOSSIER/Oasi/ and possible futures. In: Moilanen A, Possingham HP, Wilson DOC_OASI_2010.pdf. Accessed November 2010. KA, editors. Spatial models for conservation. Oxford: Oxford Young BE, Lips K, Reaser J, Ibáñez R, Salas A, Cedeño R, University Press. Available: http://www.uq.edu.au/~uqmwatts/ Coloma L, Ron S, LaMarca E, Meyer J, Muñoz A, Bolaños F,

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 11:34 24 January 2013 cplan.html. Accessed December 2009. Chavez G, Romo D. 2001. Population declines and priorities Rodrigues ASL, Akçakaya HR, Andelman SJ, Bakarr MI, Boitani for amphibian conservation in Latin America. Conservation L, Brooks TM, Chanson JS, Fishpool LDC, Fonseca GAB, Biology 15:1213–1223.