Finnish Environment Institute SYKE, Finland
Five Year Program for National Biodiversity Monitoring
Twinning Project MK 13 IPA EN 02 17
Report D3.3. - 1.
07.11.2019
Funded by the European Union
The Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, Department of Nature, Republic of North Macedonia Metsähallitus (Parks and Wildlife Finland), Finland The State Service for Protected Areas (SSPA), Lithuania
This project is funded by the European Union This document has been produced with the financial support of the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of the Twinning Project MK 13 IPA EN 02 17 and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...... 6 2. Inventories and monitoring - what is the difference? ...... 6 3. Why do we need data on species and habitats? ...... 6 3.1. Establishment of the Natura 2000 network ...... 6 3.2. Data requirements for species of national interest ...... 7 3.3. Management and restoration plans for the protected areas ...... 8 3.4. Increasing awareness of public ...... 8 3.5. Reporting of the status of the sites, species and habitats ...... 8 4. Area based inventory and monitoring approach ...... 9 5. Species based inventory and monitoring approach ...... 10 6. Inventory and monitoring methods for the species ...... 12 6.1. Vascular plants and bryophytes ...... 13 6.2. Mammals ...... 17 6.3. Birds ...... 22 6.3.1. Point counts of breeding land birds ...... 23 6.3.2. Round counts of waterfowl ...... 24 6.3. Other vertebrate species (reptiles and amphibians) ...... 28 6.3.1. Methodology ...... 28 6.3.2. Amphibian specific monitoring recommendations ...... 30 6.3.3. Reptile specific monitoring recommendations ...... 33 6.4. Fish and crayfish species ...... 37 6.5. Invertebrate species ...... 40 6.5.1. Active searching ...... 40 6.5.2. Sieving ...... 41 6.5.3. Window traps ...... 42 6.5.4. Pitfall traps ...... 44 6.5.5. Tape traps ...... 44 6.5.6. Folio traps ...... 45 6.5.7. Light traps ...... 45 6.5.8. Odor traps ...... 47 6.6. Fungi and lichen species ...... 49 6.7. Inventory and monitoring methods for the habitat types ...... 53 6.7.1. Forests ...... 53 6.7.2. Open meadows and other open areas ...... 58 6.7.3. Water courses and wetlands ...... 62 7. Human resources...... 66 7.1. Organizing and coordinating ...... 66 7.2. Use of experts from universities, research institutes and NGOs ...... 66 7.3. Project roles ...... 66 7.4. Other resources ...... 66
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
8. Data management ...... 67 8.1. Identification ...... 67 8.2. Saving the data ...... 67 8.3. Databases ...... 67 8.4. Access to data ...... 68 8.5. Sensitive species ...... 68 8.6. Data flow ...... 68 9. Proposals for next steps...... 68 9.1. Organization(s) responsible for the management, inventories, monitoring, and other conservation activities should be established...... 68 9.2. Strengthening knowledge on species: identification material (books and web-pages in local language...... 69 9.3. Strengthening knowledge on habitats ...... 69 9.4. Strengthening knowledge on inventory methods and equipment ...... 69 9.5. Opening national biodiversity database for public ...... 69 10. References ...... 69
Photo in the front page: One year old Herman’s Tortoise (Testudo hermanni). Photo: Petri Ahlroth
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
1. Introduction
Monitoring provides a way to document environmental changes. Some of these changes are natural and some are of human origin (Anthropogenic), but the causality behind these changes is not always clear. However, monitoring helps to connect the effects of different management activities to their subsequent results and may provide valuable data for the further development of managing activities.
A monitoring plan must be based on national needs. The first round of data gathering in nature is called an “inventory”. It provides a baseline for the status of an area and valuable experience which can be taken into account when planning further steps in monitoring. Only after the data from the first inventory has been collected, assessed and repeated, it is possible to start gathering real evidence of the changes in the environment. An inventory can be a starting point for monitoring, but often inventory is done only once to get the basic data from a site and it is not regularly repeated.
It is very important to collect data from those species and habitats that are important for decision making. Especially species and habitats of community interest or species of national interest should be in focus when planning national monitoring programmes. It has to be noted, that monitoring requirements may differ between different species.
We propose that inventories should begin with several methods in two new areas every year. After five years the base-line data would be collected from 10 different areas. If the five year period is started (2019) in the Pelister National Park and the Prespa area, the first year data is already providing valuable monitoring data.
Pre-existing data is also needed to confirm the known past occurrences of species. This means that to accurately evaluate the status of species and habitats for every Natura 2000 area, pre-existing data is required along current data that is acquired through inventories and monitoring.
2. Inventories and monitoring - what is the difference?
An inventory of a species or a habitat means collection of data from a particular area for the first time. An inventory provides a “base line” for the subsequent monitoring activities. Monitoring is needed for the documentation of the potential changes that take place in the particular area. Monitoring is usually repeated after a certain time period and/or when possible, usually using similar or comparative methods that have been used during the initial inventory or during previous monitoring rounds. However, it is often necessary to improve the methods used for inventories and monitoring activities, but they should be changed so that monitoring can continue unhindered as the monitoring continues.
3. Why do we need data on species and habitats?
Data from species and habitats are needed for several purposes:
3.1. Establishment of the Natura 2000 network
The legal basis for the designation of a Natura 2000 site is based on the Annex II species and Annex I habitats of the Habitats Directive. For the establishment of a Natura 2000 network all relevant data should be collected, beginning with the initial inventory. After this first step, monitoring of the sites can fulfil the knowledge on the trends in the status of the species and habitats in the area. Even though Annex II species and Annex I habitats are the basis for the Natura 2000 network, also Annex IV (and V) species and other species of national interest are included in the list of “other noteworthy species” in the Standard Data Form (table 3.3. of SDF). Data of the species and habitats in each Natura 2000 site is collected and included in the Natura 2000- database. The database has “Standard Data Forms” (SDF) for each site, and while some fields of SDF can be filled
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring based on observations from a single site, most SDF fields require data that is based on a large number of sites or on data from the entire country.
In creating a Natura 2000 network, a member state needs to have proper data from the species and habitats of community interest. This data must cover the entire country. The final site selection must be done following the guidance rules accepted by the Habitats committee (Doc. Hab. 97/2 rev. 4 18/11/97): https://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Natura_2000/crit. The sufficiency of a Natura 2000 area will be assessed in the “Biogeographical seminar” and will be assessed for each biogeographical region separately.
Early in the Natura 2000 process each member state has to prepare a reference list of Annex habitats and for each biogeographical region separately a list of Annex II and IV species. The species list includes species that have permanent populations in the country. In addition, species that are extinct, migratory, occasional visitors, invasive or alien are on the list, but with separate markings. Reference lists are also required in the preparation of the reports according to the Article 17 of the Habitats Directive and Article 12 of the Birds Directive.
3.2.
Fig. 1. Ovaliptila newmannae is a very rare and endemic insect species, found globally only from seven localities in northwestern Greece and two localities in the southwestern part of the Republic of North Macedonia. All know sites are located in a relatively small area. Endemic species can be listed in the list under “other species” in the Standard Data Form (SDF table 3.3). The individual in the photo was found in Oteshevo by the Twinning project. Photo: Petri Ahlroth. Data requirements for species of national interest
The entire Balkan is very rich in biological diversity. The Central Balkan itself hosts a high number of endemic species that increases the biological value of the region. At the same time, data from the species does not cover all taxonomic groups in all areas and there is a good reason to assume the number of endemic species is much higher than currently known. This is the situation for the Republic of North Macedonia as well. Both past knowledge of species distributions and current knowledge has to be made available to allow comparisons. There is a clear need to increase knowledge also from those taxons and species groups from which data is lacking. For example planning of land use and management of areas needs proper information from the species living in the area. Populations of species of Habitat directive annexes, or nationally rare or threatened species can be taken into account in the land use planning only if their localities are known and the information is available for all relevant stakeholders through the use of a publicly available database.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
3.3. Management and restoration plans for the protected areas Management plans for each area should be based on the requirements and the current status of different species and habitats in the area. Collected data is the basis for management plans and actions, and monitoring of these areas is the way to see how management activities have influenced the status of protected areas and species.
3.4. Increasing awareness of public Data on species and habitats (and their status in the area) should be made publicly available. Also, information on management activities and impacts of these should be made available. Information from the impacts of management activities can be collected only if results from the monitoring are available. Leaflets on management activities and monitoring results can increase public awareness and help the public to understand why certain management or restoration activities are needed and implemented in particular habitats.
Case study: amphibian and reptile monitoring Amphibians and reptiles are especially abundant in tropical, sub-tropical and warm temperate climates such as the Mediterranean. Although widely abundant in these regions both classes are facing conservation challenges resulting in population declines.
Amphibians are considered the most endangered class of vertebrates worldwide (Stuart et al. 2004, Hof et al. 2011). According to the Red List of Threatened Species of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 41 % of all known species are threatened with extinction, primarily due to habitat loss, pollution, fires, climate change, disease and over-exploitation (IUCN 2019). The IUCN Red List Index (RLI), which indicates the threat status of a taxa, reveals a continuous downward trend since 1980 (Fig. 22). In absolute terms, the RLI for amphibians is lower than that of mammals and birds, with a more pronounced slope of decline.
As for reptiles, there is growing evidence suggesting that many snake populations (maybe most) are declining worldwide (Hibbitts et al. 2009; Santos and Llorente 2009; Reading et al. 2010; Godley and Moler 2013; Goiran and Shine 2013). This negative trend mirrors the worrying conservation status of reptiles as a whole, with more than 20% of the species being under imminent extinction risk (Böhm et al. 2013).
In general, trends present both in reptiles and especially evident in amphibians reflect the failure of international conventions (e.g. Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD) to slow down the erosion of biodiversity (Moyle and Williams 1990; Perfecto et al. 1997). Thus, there is an urgent need to shift away from a narrow conservation policy focused on few iconic or nearly extinct species, and instead allocate important conservation efforts towards common organisms.
3.5. Reporting of the status of the sites, species and habitats Another need for data comes from the requirements to prepare reports of all bird species, habitats (Annex I) and other species of community interest (Annex II, IV and V) on every sixth year. National assessment data is needed from the entire country. The conservation status in this document is assessed using the same principles that are used in the assessments of the Article 17 reporting of the habitats and species and Article 12 of the Birds Directive.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Fig. 2. Pygmy cormorant (Phalacrocorax pygmaeus) is a species of the Annex I in the Bird Directive. This species is common at the Prespa Lake in the Republic of North Macedonia. Photo: Petri Ahlroth.
Conclusions made for the yearly reports are often used in national reporting under the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) and other international conventions. Data on birds also serve specific needs that come from the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Water birds (AEWA) and Convention of wetlands (RAMSAR).
4. Area based inventory and monitoring approach
Our proposal is to start doing area based inventories and monitoring with several different methods in two new areas every year (table 1). After five years the baseline data would be collected from 10 areas. If the five year
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring period is started (2019) in the Pelister National Park and the Prespa area, this first year already provides valuable monitoring data. In the inventory phase all relevant or potential inventory methods for the area can be used, but during the later monitoring focus should be put only to those methods that clearly produce useful data from the area. Inventories and monitoring should cover habitats and species of the Habitat Directive, Birds Directive and of particular species and/or groups of species of national interests.
Table 1. A structure proposal for the inventory and monitoring of areas for the next five years. MoEPP has named the specific areas for the inventories and monitoring. During the first inventory a wide number of methods is used (defined in the chapter 6 of this report). During later monitoring, only those methods will be used that are essential for gathering monitoring data from each area. The decision non what methods to use must be done case by case and it must be based on the diversity and structures of the habitats in the area. Also, the volume of used methods needs to be decided case by case, depending on the site of the study area.
Area Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Pelister Inv mon
Prespa Lake Inv mon
Mavrovo inv mon
Galicica inv mon Dojran inv mon
Shara Mt. inv mon
Osogovo inv mon Ohrid inv mon
Jakupica inv mon
Jablanica inv mon
Kozuf inv Belasica inv
data analyses from all 5 years
Data gathering from areas outside protected sites
Establishment of a Natura 2000 network requires data from the entire country. However, the number of experts and other resources available for the inventories are limited. At this stage the main focus is in the areas that are known to maintain the highest number of biological value and are expected to be added into the Natura 2000 network. In addition, occurrences of species of Habitats Directive from areas other than listed in the five year program should be collected and saved in the national biodiversity database. In addition to the inventories compiled by experts, citizen science can potentially provide new and valuable observations from areas that are not under investigations. Data gathering is strengthened by creating a national biodiversity database. The database should follow the principles of open access, open data and open science. Requirements for the citizen science are defined in the Annex Report 3.1. (BM17) “Feasibility study”.
5. Species based inventory and monitoring approach
Inventory and monitoring serves both national needs and the establishment and management of a Natura 2000 network and reporting under Habitats and Birds Directive.
For the establishment of a Natura 2000 network, the following data is required to asses each species (Annexes II and IV, endemic species and other species with national interest, like nationally, European or World Red listed species):
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
• Place (Natura site number, if available) • Coordinates of the site • Date or time period of observation(s) • Unit of observation (individual, colony, number of calling / singing males, etc.) • Method • Information on habitat type and habitat quality for the species • Observations on management requirements, potential threats or pressures (if any)
Data on classification, legislation status, status in the Annexes (of Habitats and Birds Directive) or any other status category of the species should be included in the metadata of the database in which the observations are stored. This information should be filled automatically by the database and there is no need to include this information in the inventory and monitoring sheets.
Filling Standard Data Forms (SDF) is based on the data requirements above. Many sections of the SDF cannot be filled based on observations from a single site, but requires data from the entire country. At the moment the data on distributions and occurrences of Annex II species and Annex I habitats on the Habitats Directive in the country is rather incomplete. From some well-known species the amount of data can already be at a good level, but on the other hand there are species of which there is no data on whether they even occur in the country at the moment or not.
Fig. 3. Endemic Crocus pelistericus flowers soon after the snow has melt close to snow beds in the alpine parts of Mt. Pelister. Population size of species such as Crocus pelistericus can be assessed by determining the total area of the population (m2 or ha), the number of 1x1 m grids occupied by the species in the area of population and by counting or estimating the number of individuals (+ separating number of vegetative and generative individuals). Exact GPS coordinates are essential for each population but the borders and the area of population can also be determined using a GPS trail. Photo: Kimmo Syrjänen.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
6. Inventory and monitoring methods for the species
Nationally all species groups have a unique value for biodiversity and ecosystem functions, and knowledge on their status is important when making e.g. Red List assumptions and protecting the nature heritage in a country. Data on species of the Habitat Directive Annexes II and IV should be collected also outside of protected areas and the establishment of a Natura 2000 network should be partly based on the occurrences of Annex II species. For this purpose it is vital to make inventories and monitor populations based on the present knowledge and inventories of suitable habitats and locations. Data on endemic species is also very important when assessing national biodiversity and in e.g. protecting their occurrences as part of a Natura 2000 network.
Fig. 4. a) The Green Shield-moss (Buxbaumia viridis) is a moss of the Habitat Directive Annex II and at the national list of protected species. It lives on soft decaying wood (epixylic). In the Republic of North Macedonia there are a few old and present records (e.g. the Pelister and Mavrovo National Parks). It is easily identifiable by large sporophytes whereas leaves are inconspicuous and hidden in the surface of decaying wood. Leaves in the photo belong to the Fragile-fork-moss (Dicranum tauricum). b) Old-growth Silver fir (Abies borisii-regis) forest with plenty of dead wood and large viable population of Green Shied-moss above Rotino village has high conservation value. Inventories should be made in known sites, but they should also include potential habitats in forests with old growth characters and plenty of decaying wood. Photos: Kimmo Syrjänen.
Habitat Directive Annexes II and IV list species from the following organism groups: amphibians, fishes, invertebrates (consisting mainly of insects), mammals, molluscs, reptiles, non-vascular plants (mainly bryophytes, mosses and liverworts) and vascular plants. In the Annex V there are also some lichen species (Cladonia subgenus Cladina) and group Others that include only Hirudo medicinalis. The Twinning project inventoried and monitored amphibians, reptiles, bryophytes, invertebrates (mainly insects), vascular plants and birds (all birds were observed with particular attention paid on the Bird Directive’s birds, especially those of Annex I) and certain mammals. In addition, information on certain molluscs was gathered (mainly the Roman snail (Helix pomatia) of Annex V and the nationally rare and decreasing Turkish snail (Helix lucorum)). Field observation sheet for invertebrates can be used also for molluscs along with the collection techniques used for terrestrial invertebrate species. In specific organism groups an expert can identify species already in the field (or their presence from e.g. tracks), but a set of good photographs can also contain enough information for identification. However, in several invertebrate groups, bryophytes, lichens and fungi it is important to collect samples for adequate identification. It requires expertise on how to collect samples, how to identify them and to properly label each sample in a scientific collection. After determining the species field sheets on observation should also be filled and distributed (most of the time) to a public database. While collecting samples all permits according to national legislation should be in order (e.g. to collect samples from protected areas and their different zones, as well as collection permit of protected or strictly protected species). Collections should always be done without harming the local population or decreasing the conservation status of the species.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
6.1. Vascular plants and bryophytes
Main method for the inventory and monitoring of the vascular plant species is active searching of flowering individuals during growing season. Some species are possible to identify for a longer period of time with ripe capsules or other structures, but some are present and identifiable only for a short time. Bryophytes also require active searching and good knowledge on the ecology of the species in question.
In most vascular plants a photograph is enough for species identification. If there is a risk for misidentification (which sometimes occurs with grasses and sedges, and plants that include difficult species pairs), it is important to take a small herbarium sample. Sampling must not threaten the survival of the local population. Collected samples are put into a public herbarium (e.g. a University) and sample information should be put into an open access database (preferably connected to GBIF). Samples may also need to be taken for other scientific purposes (mainly for taxonomy).
For most bryophyte species and especially from new localities it is important to collect herbarium samples and label them with adequate information before placing them into public scientific herbaria. Samples must be collected with proper data from the collection site. With bryophytes, photographing can be used for identification only in a limited number of easily identifiable species. Among these is the Annex II species Green shield moss (Buxbaumia viridis), that can be identified based on photographs, instead of taking samples.
Inventories and monitoring on vascular plants and bryophytes should be based on the field observation sheets (Table 2 for vascular plants and Table 3 for bryophytes). These field forms have been used as the main method for inventories and monitoring in the Finnish database of threatened species over several decades. Accurate GPS coordinates from the site of occurrence are important when connecting the site to other GIS based data in the database. Borders of the population/suitable habitat should also be collected using a GPS.
In vascular plants it is sometimes possible to involve the wider public in inventory and monitoring activities by providing a digital platform for plant photographs. This “citizen science” can provide help to inventories and monitoring of easily known species.
Table 2. Field observation sheet for vascular plants.
FIELD OBSERVATION SHEET OF SPECIES MK / VASCULAR PLANTS Comments MOEPP * Obligatory fields SPECIES (scientific name): * Code (habitat directive)
Quality of information *
OBSERVER
Name: * Date: *
Address: Phone:
First visit (yes/no) Monitoring visit (yes/no)
LOCATION Site name:
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Province: Municipality: *
Village: Name of protected area: Code of area:
Land-owner (private/public/unknown): Name: Real estate number:
Description of location: Altitude (m.a.s.l.): GPS coordinates: *
GPS polygon(s):
SITE DESCRIPTION
Habitat type: Code: Precise location:
Extent of suitable habitat: Description of habitat: Accompanying common/typical species:
Competing species: Alien species: Rare/threatened species:
CONSERVATION MEASURES Threat factors at site: (SDF classes)
Recommendations for restoration and
management:
Comparison to earlier inventory(ies), changes:
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Area of population (m2/ha):
Nr. 1 x 1 m grid occupied by species:
Number of adult individuals (vegetative,
generative)
Seedlings observed: Condition of adult individuals:
Phase of flowering:
Previous year individuals
(present/not/amount):
Herbivory present (degree):
Fungal infections present (degree):
Earlier information on population:
OTHER INFORMATION
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
specimens collected + location: photos (by whom and where stored)
free comments:
SPECIES WAS NOT OBSERVED IN
MONITORING
Site has been disappeared How: Site has been changed
How: Species was not found: Because:
OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION:
Earlier information (herbarium, literature, experts) on species occurrences should be collected in order to direct inventory and monitoring efforts to the correct or most useful sites. Careful inventories for both vascular plants and bryophytes should be done at old known sites and also along suitable habitat types. Particular attention should be paid to the possible Natura 2000 sites and other conservation areas. The field observation sheet should be filled for each locality and monitoring should be based on repeated inventories of known sites (Field observation sheets for vascular plants and bryophytes, see Tables 2 and 3). Monitoring is usually repeated after 5- 10 years for Habitat Directive and other prioritized species to find out medium and long term trends in local populations. However, the first monitoring rounds can be done sooner, as early as 1-2 years from the initial inventory. It is also recommended to repeat the monitoring in 2-3 year intervals in order to get an idea on the natural variation of the number of individuals due to e.g. weather conditions.
Table 3. Field observation sheet for Bryophytes.
FIELD OBSERVATION SHEET OF SPECIES MK / Bryophytes Comments MOEPP * Obligatory fields SPECIES (scientific name): * Code (habitat directive) Quality of information *
OBSERVER Name: *
Date: *
Address:
Phone:
First visit (yes/no)
Monitoring visit (yes/no)
LOCATION
Site name: Province: Municipality: *
Village:
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Name of protected area: Code of area:
Land-owner (private/public/unknown): Name: Real estate number:
Description of location: Altitude (m.a.s.l.): GPS coordinates: *
GPS polygon(s):
SITE DESCRIPTION
Habitat type: Code: Precise location:
Extent of suitable habitat: Description of habitat: Accompanying common/typical species:
Competing species: Alien species: Rare/threatened species:
CONSERVATION MEASURES Threat factors at site: (SDF classes)
Recommendations for restoration and
management:
Comparison to earlier inventory(ies), changes:
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Area of population (m2/ha):
Nr. 1 x 1 m grid occupied by species:
Condition of population Sporophytes present
Earlier information on population:
OTHER INFORMATION specimens collected + location:
photos (by whom and where stored) free comments:
SPECIES WAS NOT OBSERVED IN
MONITORING
Site has been disappeared How:
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Site has been changed How:
Species was not found: Because: OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION:
6.2. Mammals
Vertebrate monitoring is a combination of different methods that are planned for each species separately. Large mammals can be monitored using camera traps and by collecting track and faeces data of the animals. For estimating population size, modern genetic methods offer good methods, but often sufficient amount of data on large mammals can be collected using more traditional methods. A proper number of camera traps varies between 5-20, depending on the size and diversity of the study area. Cameras can be used year round providing information on the changes in the migration and foraging behaviour during different seasons.
Hunting statistics, i.e. confirmed kills, and hunting activity should also be documented. They can provide indirect regional data on the density of specific species. In addition, road kill data of large mammals can be used to strengthen population estimations and can provide some indication of migration and activity. These kind of indirect observations provide valuable background information on the population changes of large mammal species.
Fig. 5. Photos taken camera traps often allow the identification of large carnivore individuals, especially if the photos are taken during a short time period. Estimating age and sex is often possible. This 14 year old male bear (Ursus arctos), for example, is easily recognizable from the scars on its face, but the exact age is known only because of long monitoring history of bears in the same area. Photo: Petri Ahlroth.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
European Commission has ordered several reports on large carnivores. Recent (updated) large carnivore report (Boitani et al. 2015) proposes several actions to be taken into consideration in MSs. Action 7 in the report concerns standardization of monitoring methods in MSs. However, methods mentioned are rather a proposal to collect all relevant and available data with different methods rather than a true recommendation to standardized methods. According to the report, the system will be based on: (1) the on-going natal den surveys (2) line transects (Finland) and (3) the development of new monitoring methods (e.g. camera trapping and DNA- sampling), especially in areas without stable snow conditions.
Fig. 6. Bears and other large mammals are easy to monitor with camera traps. They usually allow the identification of different individuals, which enables estimation of the size of the local population. In the photo, approximately four year old female bear is searching blueberries. Photo: Petri Ahlroth. According to the report (Boitani et al., 2015), “robust monitoring is a part of adaptive management”. Reports on the status of populations (abundance and distribution) should be published every year. The report also encourages sharing of the data between neighbouring countries.
In some countries NGOs have created systems to strengthen data gathering. One example is the large carnivore monitoring in the West Carpathians (http://www.carnivores.cz/large-carnivore-monitoring-in-the-west- carpathians/). In many countries, however the effort of volunteers comes from the observations they have made and saved in open databases (see an example of wolves in Finland: Kojola et al., 2018).
Part of the data concerning rare mammals has to be classified “sensitive”. Exact locations of some species such as the Balkan chamois (Rupicarpa rupicarpa balcanica) and the Balkan lynx (Lynx lynx) should not be made publicly available. Observations from sensitive species should be saved in a database, but the observations should be hidden from public and visible only to those authorities who need this kind of data in their work (in preparation of management plans, for example). Monitoring of such species should be planned to support activities improving their populations. Data on migration routes and foraging areas may help to regulate other activities and to avoid conflicts between the interests of humans and the needs of animals.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Monitoring of small mammals usually requires use of traps. Several different types of traps are for sale at the moment. Traps used in the inventory should capture the animals alive. Trapping of mammals must not cause losses for the populations of study species. For the inventory of small mammals 2-3 trapping periods per year, lasting five days, provides already information of main species and also some information on the population fluctuation. Number of traps can be between 20-60 traps, depending on the size and diversity of habitats in the area. Traps must be checked at the minimum once per day, but twice per day could be recommended to avoid mortality for the study species.
Bats can be monitored using either automatic detectors or detectors which are portable. Portable detectors often are connected with parabolic antennas, which may allow more sensitive work. Nowadays there are specific programs available which help in the identification of recorded voices. Usually best record can be found using both methods. Automatic detectors can be put in the same area several times, which allow the comparison of result between years. Stuff responsible for the bat monitoring has to be aware of habitat demands of different bat species to be able to allocate recording in suitable environments.
Bat monitoring should be repeated 3-5 times per season in all relevant (different types) of habitats, favouring those habitats, which bats usually use as territory and in foraging. Both in spring and in autumn monitoring may provide extra information from the migration routes of bats and wintering sites. In addition to monitoring with detectors, bats should be checked from the wintering sites and from the sites they use during day time (caves, hollow trees, old buildings, etc.). This may provide valuable additional information which is not possible to find from the data from the detector based monitoring.
Fig. 7. a) Bats can be found spending the day time in cellars, bunkers and old buildings. b) Caves are natural resting sites and wintering habitat for bats. Photos: Petri Ahlroth.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Table 4. Field observation sheet for mammals
Fig. 8. There are two species of Chamois in Europe, Pyrenean Chamois (Rupicarpa pyrenaica) from Pyrenees, Cantabria and Apennines and real Chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra) from Alps, Carpathians and the Balkans. There are several subspecies in both species. Chamois of central Balkan belongs to subspecies Rupicapra rupicapra subsp. balcanica. Photo: Petri Ahlroth. FIELD OBSERVATION SHEET OF SPECIES MK / MAMMALS Comments MOEPP * Obligatory fields SPECIES (scientific name): * Code (habitat directive)
Quality of information *
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
OBSERVER
Name: * Date: *
Address: Phone:
First visit (yes/no) Monitoring visit (yes/no)
LOCATION Site name: Province:
Municipality: * Village: Name of protected area:
Code of area: Land-owner (private/public/unknown): Name:
Real estate number: Description of location: Altitude (m.a.s.l.):
GPS coordinates: * GPS polygon(s):
SITE DESCRIPTION Habitat type: Code:
Precise location: Extent of suitable habitat: Description of habitat:
Accompanying common/typical species: Competing species: Alien species:
Rare/threatened species:
CONSERVATION MEASURES
Threat factors at site: (SDF classes)
Recommendations fomanagement activities:
Comparison to earlier inventory(ies), changes:
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS Alive / dead individual observed *
Number of observed individuals *
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Number of adult individuals Number of (young) offspring
Size of population: Earlier information on population:
OTHER INFORMATION
Type of observation: (individuals seen/ trapped * / photographed / faeces / traces)
photos (by whom and where stored)
Recorded voices (of bats) Programs used for the automatic identification
of voices Free comments:
SPECIES WAS NOT OBSERVED IN
MONITORING
Site has been disappeared How:
Site has been changed How: Species was not found:
Because: OTHER INFORMATION:
6.3. Birds For monitoring, methods used for the inventories can be applied to nearly all the bird species exploiting the habitats. Two main methods used are:
1) Point counts of the so-called land birds and 2) Round counts of waterfowl, covering together most species.
Raptor species are an exception since their population densities are usually very low and the advisable method is active searching of territories or nests.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Fig. 9. Binoculars, a telescope and a camera are useful tools in bird inventories and monitoring. Photos: a) Petri Ahlroth, b) Olli Pihlajamaa.
6.3.1. Point counts of breeding land birds
In many countries point counts are the main method of monitoring the population changes of breeding land birds. For instance in most Nordic countries over 250 routes per country are carried out annually. The data enables observations on the yearly changes of bird populations, differences in species compositions between habitats and abundance patterns of species. In addition to land birds, rails and waders are also counted.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Fig. 10. An example of a point counting line from southern Finland.
6.3.2. Round counts of waterfowl
The aim of round counts is to collect data on the population size and abundance of waterfowl over entire waterbodies. Divers, grebes, swans, geese, ducks, gulls, terns and coots are the main subjects. In larger waterbodies like Prespa Lake the recommended practise is counting by boat.
Other recommended inventory methods for land birds are the line transect census and the mapping census, and for waterfowl the waterfowl point counts.
For full guidance see: https://www.luomus.fi/en/methods-bird-monitoring http://www.ebcc.info/methods-2018/
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Fig. 11. Example of round counts of waterfowl. Counting of birds is often necessary to do from a long distance and for this reason a good binocular and sometimes also a telescope is needed. Counting requires bird expertize.
Fig. 12. The Black-necked Grebe (Podiceps nigricollis) is a typical bird species counted using round counts of waterfowl. An expert responsible for the counting must be able to make the identification on young individuals as well (e.g. the individual in the photo). Photo: Petri Ahlroth.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Main parameters for the reports of the Birds Directive (Article 12) are as follows in breeding bird species:
• Bird species status and trends • Population size (min/max) • Population trend o Short term (last 12 years) o Long term (ca 1980-2018, or a period as close as possible to that) • Breeding distribution (map and size) • Breeding distribution trend o Short term (last 12 years) o Long term (ca 1980-2018, or a period as close as possible to that) • Progress of species action and management plans • Main pressures and threats • Conservation measures • Natura 2000 (SPA) coverage • Information related to Art 7 (huntable) species o Hunting bag (statistics min/max)
For full guidance see: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/birds_art12 As an example species see Parus cristatus: https://bd.eionet.europa.eu/article12/summary?period=1&subject=A327
Table 5. Field observation sheet of birds. This sheet is used, for example, in saving single observations of birds in the National Biodiversity database. It serves the needs of citizen science, but cannot be used in the inventory or monitoring of avifauna in certain area.
FIELD OBSERVATION SHEET OF BIRD SPECIES BIRDS Comments MK / MOEPP * Obligatory fields
SPECIES (scientific name): * Code (habitat directive) Quality of information *
OBSERVER Name: *
Date: *
Address:
Phone:
First visit (yes/no)
Monitoring visit (yes/no)
LOCATION
Site name: Province: Municipality: *
Village: Name of protected area: Code of area:
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Land-owner (private/public/unknown): Name:
Real estate number: Description of location: Altitude (m.a.s.l.):
GPS coordinates: * GPS polygon(s):
SITE DESCRIPTION Habitat type: Code:
Precise location: Extent of suitable habitat: Description of habitat:
Accompanying common/typical species: Competing species: Alien species:
Rare/threatened species:
CONSERVATION MEASURES
Threat factors at site: (SDF classes)
Recommendations for restoration and
management:
Comparison to earlier inventory(ies), changes:
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS Number of observed individuals
type of observation (singing males, seen or
photographed individuals, etc.)
Area of suitable habitat Earlier information on population:
OTHER INFORMATION Method (active searching, counting, etc.)
photos (by whom and where stored) free comments:
SPECIES WAS NOT OBSERVED IN
MONITORING
Site has been disappeared How:
Site has been changed How: Species was not found: Because: OTHER INFORMATION:
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
6.3. Other vertebrate species (reptiles and amphibians)
Monitoring of amphibians and reptiles provides real in-situ life-history data and long-term monitoring can provide data on population trends as well. Monitoring can be done with a direct or indirect conservation approach by: 1. Targeting species that are internationally recognized as endangered or in need of strict protection (e.g. according to IUCN or the European Bird and Habitat Directive) or nationally identified as species that needing protection (e.g. the lists of strictly protected or protected wild species of Republic of North Macedonia). This approach can further target populations facing their own locality-specific threats and pressures, or even taxa that are regional endemics (e.g. only found on the Balkan Peninsula). 2. Targeting all taxa within a taxonomic group. This approach can be costlier in both time and resources, but when possible it can provide invaluable data on population trends of understudied species, and even reveal unexpected negative trends and new conservation priorities.
Furthermore, three parameters have to be taken into account when choosing monitoring methodology: • Monitoring period (bearing in mind the longitude and altitude where the monitoring will be carried out) • Monitoring capacity (available human recourses) • Monitoring means (are the basic expenses covered by the beneficiary of the monitoring programme)
Finding suitable compromises between the three has been referred to as the best available technique (BAT; please find further information at Dodd, 2010).
6.3.1. Methodology
Three different methods can be used to monitor amphibian and reptile species populations: search-and-seize, transect lines and mark-recapture.
Search-and-seize: Using this methodology the presence and distribution can be estimated of a species. It is based on the idea that a species is searched and caught, i.e. "Search-and-seize" (Vogt & Hine, 1982). For most of amphibian and reptile species active searching can cover the presence of the species in a particular location or area. Some species can be attracted by putting pieces of wood (plates) on ground in potential habitats for the study species. For frogs, recorded voices can be used to attract males to reply and their voices can also be recorded, potentially helping to estimate the density or size of a population. However, often a large number of male frogs signal each other simultaneously and estimation of the population size is difficult.
Transect lines: These methods can be used to determine the richness of amphibian and reptile biodiversity, density and the size of populations (Buckland et al., 1993; Everitt, 2002), because they are often considered low-mobility animals (McDiarmid et al., 2012). This technique also represents an approach that can be easily conducted on a shorter monitoring period (two active seasons minimum) and with a small capacity in terms of human recourses. The transect survey technique is used to measure the relative abundance of selected species and known sub- populations. Regular surveys are the basis for assessing the impact of threats to amphibian populations.
Equipment needed: • Identification manual (e.g. Speybroeck et al., 2016); • Data Sheets, GPS, binoculars, rubber boots, hand net, safety-equipment, first-aid kit. • Optional: camera, hydrometer, thermometer.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
A transect line consists of a predefined line from point A to point B and all subsequent monitoring follow these same pathways. The transect lines can be positioned at the shore or embankment close to water and can vary from 50 m up to 1000 meters long depending on the geographical relief and habitat types (Dodd, 2010). The number of transect lines also depends on the surface area. Transects should be randomly placed within the study area, but clearly defined so they can be repeated during subsequent surveys. Each transect path should be chosen by a person experienced in monitoring. A person counts the number of individuals seen and/or heard within approximately 1 m distance from the path. Two-sided transects are not applicable at the selected locations. Surveying relies on detecting amphibians and reptiles with the naked eye or with the aid of binoculars. If identification from the distance is not possible, a hand net can be used to catch and identify specimens, after which they are released.
Mark-recapture: This method is commonly used in ecology to estimate the population size of species. A portion of the population is captured, marked, and released by an expert qualified in field research. Later, another portion is captured and the number of marked individuals within the sample is counted. Since the number of marked individuals within the second sample should be proportional to the number of marked individuals in the whole population, an estimation of the total population size can be obtained by dividing the number of marked individuals by the proportion of marked individuals in the second sample (Krebs, 2009). The method is useful when it is not practical (or it is impossible) to count all the individuals of the population. Typically a researcher visits a study area and uses traps to capture a group of individuals alive. Each of these individuals is marked with a unique identifier (e.g. a numbered tag or band), and then is released unharmed back into the environment. This technique represents an approach that can offer detailed insight of the population size and structure as well as details on population dynamics. It has to be carried out repeatedly for a minimum of three years. Reaching a higher number of recaptures, i.e. a higher effectiveness and data quality, human resources has to be increased as well. These mark- recapture studies have to be conducted on the same predefined area at every subsequent time.
Equipment needed: • Identification manual • Data Sheets, pencils, GPS, binoculars, rubber boots, hand net, calliper, weight scale, safety clothes, first, kit, camera, hydrometer, thermometer.
Fig. 13. Monitoring snakes and other reptiles requires handling experience. Photo: Petri Ahlroth.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
The Lincoln–Petersen method (also known as the Petersen–Lincoln index or Lincoln index) can be used to estimate a population size only if at least two visits are made to the study area (Lincoln, 1930). This method assumes that the study population is "closed” (Peterson, 1896). In other words, the two visits to the study area are close enough in time so that no individuals die, are born, or move into or out of the study area between repeated visits. The model also assumes that no markings fall off animals between visits and that the researcher correctly records all markings. This technique represents an approach that can be easily conducted on a shorter monitoring period (minimum of one active season) using only small capacity in terms of human recourses. The Lincoln–Petersen method uses a predefined area and all subsequent visits use the same area.
Equipment needed: • Identification manual • Data Sheets, pencils, GPS, binoculars, rubber boots, hand net, safety clothes, first aid kit. • Optional equipment: camera, hydrometer, thermometer.
There are 46 species of reptiles and amphibians present in the Republic of North Macedonia (Sterijovski et al., 2014). These animals represent two classes of vertebrates often clumped together based on their ectothermy and absence of truly social behaviours (e.g. no parental care: Speybroeck et al., 2016). Nevertheless, their biology is often more different than similar, e.g. amphibians lack scales on their skin and unlike reptiles they have a larval stage that metamorphoses into an adult form and the Macedonian amphibians are generally nocturnal unlike most local reptiles. These differences are reflected in their respective habitats and habitat requirements: • Amphibians often require breeding ponds of varying species-specific sizes and shapes because they need specific general microclimatic conditions for adult courtship, egg-laying and larval development. Additionally, various terrestrial habitats are also necessary, ranging from dry passages to damp refuges (often also for hibernation) that offer ample food and shelter to promote dispersal to other nearby breeding ponds. • Reptiles prefer open habitats often close to small vegetation, or even edges of forests, but almost never favour closed-canopy forests. A mosaic structure of their habitat is necessary to provide both basking opportunities and shelter when needed. Most species are egg-laying (all Macedonian lowland reptiles) and require suitable egg-laying habitat (soft gravel, sand, etc.). South-facing hibernation sites, usually made of underground shelters, are also required.
These striking differences between the two vertebrate groups are projected onto the monitoring methodologies that are used to study these groups. For example, monitoring amphibians usually takes us close to water bodies and along more uniform coastal or riparian habitats. On the other hand, reptile monitoring will usually take us to drier habitats with a mosaic structure comprised of shrubs, rocks and sand intermittently exposed to sunlight. These general notions, while a necessary starting point, become almost superfluous when species- or group-specific monitoring protocols are constructed. Monitoring of amphibians and reptiles can often be very difficult, particularly with some very elusive species. Besides personal knowledge and experience, general ecology and distribution are often consulted (e.g. Speybroeck et al., 2016).
6.3.2. Amphibian specific monitoring recommendations
There are 14 species of amphibians present in the Republic of North Macedonia: one salamander, four newts and nine frogs or toads. Special attention should be paid to thephenology when monitoring amphibians, since most are only present in their water habitats during the breeding season (broadly March – June) and are very difficult to spot when in their terrestrial habitat. Nevertheless, this parameter varies between years (i.e. climatic conditions) and localities (particularly with altitude: higher altitudes exhibit delayed breeding and vice versa). Keeping in mind that amphibians have been identified as the most endangered vertebrate group globally (IUCN, 2016) and are much more prone to population fluctuations compared to reptiles, monitoring efforts are of vital importance. Additionally, these fluctuations call for a more diligent (at least yearly) monitoring in order to plan for potential conservation measures in a timely manner.
Toads and salamanders
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Three species of toads and salamanders exist in the Republic of North Macedonia: The Yellow-bellied Toad (Bombina variegata), The Eastern Spadefoot (Pelobates syriacus) and the Fire-salamander (Salamandra salamandra). They are all widespread nationally, both across latitudes and altitudes (the Eastern spadefoot is more common in the lowlands, but can be found up to 1000 m a.s.l.). The Yellow-bellied Toad is the most dependent on water, often breeding in temporary ponds. While it can share these ponds with other species of its ecological group, choosing monitoring localities for these species should include areas with temporary ponds in the vicinity of streams or rivers or very damp terrestrial habitats preferred by the Fire-salamander. Common toads (Bufo sp.) are generalists and can be found under rocks in extremely dry habitats but also in rivers, ponds and lakes. The Eastern- Spadefoot is almost exclusively nocturnal and largely fossorial, coming out of its burrows for breeding usually after rain. It prefers loose soil habitats close to deep temporary waters, estuaries and lake shores.
Active searching is used to spot these species in their preferred habitats. Ponds and streams should be checked for the larvae of the Fire-salamander and the easily recognizable black eggs of the common toads that are laid in strands and are usually partly woven through vegetation. Additionally, the elusive Eastern Spadefoot toad can sometimes be spotted by the presence of their unusually large tadpoles (up to 20cm). The Yellow-bellied toad is an excellent candidate for capture-recapture (CR) studies, due to the unique patterns on its belly that allow for continuous identification of individuals without invasive marking methods (e.g. Cayuela et al., 2016).
Fig. 14. a) Common Green Toad, b) the unique ventral colour pattern on the Yellow-Bellied Toad. Photos: Dragan Arsovski.
Frogs Frogs as a species group is closely dependent on water, and thus their monitoring will never be far from a pond, lake or a river. Nevertheless, different species have different habitat requirements. The Marsh Frog (Pelophylax ridibundus) is a generalist, found in oligotrophic and eutrophic stagnant water bodies up to 2000 m a.s.l., also found in urban habitats. The Agile Frog (Rana dalmatina) and the Greek Stream Frog (Rana graeca) are a common sight in riparian habitats up to 2000 m a.s.l., whereas the Common Frog (Rana temporaria) can only be found in stagnant water bodies at higher altitudes (generally above 1000 m a.s.l., often in and around glacial lakes in the Republic of North Macedonia). Finally, the European Tree Frog (Hyla arborea) inhabits well-vegetated parts of various water bodies (ponds, lakes, slow parts of rivers, etc.).
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Fig. 15. Agile frog (Rana dalmatina) is commonly met around wetlands of SW North Macedonia. However, it is easy to mix with closely related Greek Stream Frog (Rana graeca) that favours more high altitude habitats. Recognition needs photos from ventral (belly) site. Photo Dragan Arsovski.
Active searching is the preferred method for Rana sp. and R. ridibundus. The European Tree Frog is often difficult to spot when in vegetation, thus indirect methods have been developed for its monitoring. The specific mating call of the males allows for easy detection of this species, and they can also be used to estimate population size under the assumption of a sex ratio of 1-1 (Edenhamn, 1996). R. ridibundus can also easily be identified from its mating calls.
Fig. 16. Frogs and newts are easiest to monitor during the reproduction period when they are most visible (and sometimes noisy as well). The Marsh Frog (Pelophylax ridibundus) and the Common Newt (Triturus vulgaris) are common species in standing waters. The Marsh Frog is included in the Annex V of the Habitats Directive. Photos: Petri Ahlroth.
Newts During their breeding season newts inhabit fish-free ponds, lake-shores and estuaries with ample vegetation at varying altitudes (note that Ichtyosaura alpestris can only be found above 1500 m a.s.l.). They are often difficult to
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring spot, thus special traps can be used to verify their presence (Fig. 15) and run population estimates or CR studies. Four species are present in North Macedonia: the Smooth Newt (Lissotriton vulgaris), the Alpine Newt (Ichtyosaura alpestris), the Macedonian Crested Newt (Triturus macedonicus) and Buresch’s Crested Newt (Triturus ivanbureschi). Wielstra et al. (2014) established the presence of a contact zone in North Macedonia where T. macedonicus and T. ivanbureschi hybridize, thus monitoring efforts should largely overlap between the two.
Fig. 17. a) Traps used to capture newts, other amphibians and possibly terrapins. b) The Macedonian Crested Newt (Triturus macedonicus). Photos: Dragan Arsovski.
6.3.3. Reptile specific monitoring recommendations
There are 32 species of reptiles present nationally: 16 snakes, 12 lizards and four chelonians. They inhabit a multitude of habitats and are therefore under varying pressures reflected in their conservation statuses. Reptile populations are generally more stable, and the species are long-lived (except Podarcis sp. of 5-10 years) thus efforts should be made for continuous monitoring, although once every three years can prove sufficient for establishing population trends and taking timely conservation measures when needed. Due to reptile longevity their population responses are slow, and it is therefore essential to note any long-term changes in their habitat. Due to the elusive nature of whip snakes, their monitoring will not be discussed in details. Besides active search, fibrocement slabs have been used to increase sighting probability (Ballouart et al., 2013), but obtaining dense and large datasets for the estimation of precise population parameters is still difficult. Monitoring snakes, whether egg-laying or bearing live young, offers the opportunity to easily estimate fecundity by counting young ones using palpation.
Terrapins and natricine snakes Two terrapins and two natcisine snakes are found in North Macedonia: the European Pond Turtle (Emys orbicularis), the Balkan Pond Turtle (Mauremys rivulata), the Grass Snake (Natrix natrix) and the Dice Snake (Natrix tessellata). The habitat preferences of all these four species overlap with many amphibian species, therefore making monitoring of all these species simultaneously possible. Both terrapin species prefer stagnant water bodies or widenings in river flows, usually with vegetation. Natricine snakes can be found within and around all kinds of water bodies, and are only limited by the presence of their main prey (amphibians for N. natrix and fish for N. tessellata).
Active searching is the preferred method for monitoring these species, but the timid nature of both terrapin species sometimes require the use of binoculars in order to spot them from a distance when they are basking on logs and rocks. Traps used to capture amphibians can also be efficient to capture terrapins (Fig. 16), especially when performing mark-recapture studies (for marking terrapins see Cagle, 1939). Natricine snakes can form large
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring assemblies when basking or even mating balls, sometimes making them easy to capture and monitor (e.g. Ajtić et al., 2013).
Fig. 18. European Pond Turtles caught in a trap. Photo: Dragan Arsovski
Common Macedonian reptiles
The Wall Lizard (Podarcis muralis), Erhaard’s Wall Lizard (P. erhardii), Balkan Wall Lizard (P. tauricus), Eastern Green Lizard (Lacerta viridis), Balkan Green Lizard (L. trilineata), Snake-Eyed Skink (Ablepharus kitaibelii), Slowworm (Anguis fragilis), Kotschy’s Gecko (Mediodactylus kotschyi), Caspian Whip Snake (Dolichophis caspius), Balkan Whip Snake (Hierophis gemonensis), Four-Lined Snake (Elaphe quatuorlineata), Smooth Snake (Coronella austriaca), Eastern Montpellier Snake (Malpolon insignitus), Leopard Snake (Zamenis situla), Aesculapian Snake (Zamenis longissimus), Horn-Nosed Viper (Vipera ammodytes, Fig. 12) and Hermann’s Tortoise (Testudo hermanni).
All non-viper snakes present in this group are elusive animals and are very difficult to monitor in detail. Fibrocement slabs can be used to increase their encounter probability (Ballouard et al., 2013) and that of the Slowworm. The Leopard Snake is almost completely crepuscular and nocturnal, thus it can be spotted absorbing heat from rocks or roads on warm summer nights. Most of these species can be found up to 1500 m a.s.l., but the Smooth Snake is also present on high-mountain pastures (>1800 m a.s.l.). The Horn-Nosed Viper is the best candidate for monitoring studies since this species is not very mobile and usually does not attempt to escape when spotted. Mark-recapture studies can be performed by marking them using a modified technique of scale-clipping (Bonnet et al., 2002). Adult green lizard species share habitats and are difficult to tell apart, thus monitoring efforts should concentrate on the whole genus (Lacerta sp.). Continuous counts along transects are likely the best method for monitoring these fast moving animals. This method is also applicable to wall lizard species. Unlike the green lizards, wall lizards usually do not share habitats, and species can most often be easily told apart after suitable training. The Hermann’s Tortoise is widespread in North Macedonia, yet facing many threats (Nikolić et al. (2018) also suggested an uplifting of its IUCN category to Vulnerable) and is assessed globally as Near Threatened (IUCN, 2016). This along with its conspicuous nature makes them perfect candidates for detailed mark-recapture studies. Animals can be marked using a notch code on the marginal scutes (Stubbs et al., 1984) and easily recaptured and identified. Monitoring of a few populations under varying threats (prone to illegal trade, roadkill, habitat degradation, etc.) based on the mark-recapture method can provide solid national estimates in a few years.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
High altitude reptiles Four reptile species are bound to North Macedonia’s high mountain pastures: the Viviparous Lizard (Zootoca vivipara), the Sand Lizard (Lacerta agilis), the Adder (Vipera berus) and Orsinii’s Viper (Vipera orsinii). Monitoring can easily be done in localities where all four species are present. Active searching is one of the best methods, since they are not very fast and generally inhabit open habitats with short grass and rocks and are therefore easily detectable. Orsinii’s Viper is endangered globally (Vu; IUCN, 2016) with a wide, but very sporadic distribution. It is additionally tightly bound to high-mountain pastures in North Macedonia and therefore a good indicator of pasture overgrowth. Consequently, this viper is a good candidate for mark-recapture studies. The snakes can be marked fairly simply using a modified technique of scale-clipping (Bonnet et al., 2002) making them easily recognizable during recapture. Orsinii’s Vipers can be an umbrella species, promoting the monitoring of other high-mountain species that often share habitats.
Turano-Mediterranean species There are six reptile species that can be found in Turano-Mediterranean habitats: The Spur-Thighed Tortoise (Testudo graeca), European Glass Lizard (Pseudopus apodus), Worm Snake (Xerotyphlops vermicularis), Sand Boa (Eryx jaculus), Dahl’s Whip Snake (Platyceps najadum) and Cat Snake (Telescopus fallax). Most of these species are very elusive, three of which are very hard to properly monitor: X. vermicularis and E. jaculus are largely fossorial whereas the Cat Snake is mostly crepuscular or even nocturnal. The former two can be searched for under stones in dry and mostly barren habitats (Fig. 17) usually in spring time and preferably after rain, whereas the latter, on warm summer nights, can be found absorbing heat from rocks or even roads.
The Spur-Thighed Tortoise, on the other hand, can easily be monitored with active search in a suitable habitat. Similar to the Hermann’s Tortoise it is a suitable candidate for detailed mark-recapture studies due to its timid and conspicuous nature and easy marking technique using a notch code on the marginal scutes (Stubbs et al., 1984). All species in this group are at the edge of their distribution range in North Macedonia, thus national populations are likely facing peculiar environments (for them) and should therefore be monitored in order to see if their range is expanding or shrinking. Furthermore, the Spur-Thighed Tortoise is globally vulnerable (IUCN, 2016).
Fig. 19. Suitable habitat for turano-mediterranean species. Photos: Dragan Arsovski.
The Dalmatian Algyroides (Algyroides nigropunctatus)
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
This Dalmatian Algyroides lizard is not endangered globally (IUCN, 2016), but is endemic to the Balkan Peninsula and the Macedonian populations inhabit two broad localities (the Matka region and the Ohrid-Prespa region) that are separate from each other, but apparently from other Balkan Dalmatian Algyroides as well. This calls for stricter monitoring of the Macedonian populations in order to primarily learn this species’ habitat preference in detail and properly conserve them.
Table 6. Field observation sheet of reptiles and amphibians.
FIELD OBSERVATION SHEET OF SPECIES MK / REPTILES and AMPHIBIANS Comments MOEPP
* Obligatory fields
SPECIES (scientific name): * Code (habitat directive) Quality of information *
OBSERVER Name: *
Date: *
Address:
Phone:
First visit (yes/no)
Monitoring visit (yes/no)
LOCATION
Site name: Province: Municipality: *
Village: Name of protected area: Code of area:
Land-owner (private/public/unknown): Name: Real estate number:
Description of location: Altitude (m.a.s.l.): GPS coordinates: *
GPS polygon(s):
SITE DESCRIPTION
Habitat type: Code: Precise location:
Extent of suitable habitat: Description of habitat: Accompanying common/typical species:
Competing species:
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Alien species: Rare/threatened species:
CONSERVATION MEASURES Threat factors at site: (SDF classes)
Recommendations for restoration and
management:
Comparison to earlier inventory(ies), changes:
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Area of population (m2/ha):
Number of (observed) adult individuals Number of (observed) young individuals Estimation of population size
Earlier information on population:
OTHER INFORMATION
Type of observation (seen, trapped, * photographed)
specimens collected + location: photos (by whom and where stored)
free comments:
SPECIES WAS NOT OBSERVED IN MONITORING
Site has been disappeared How: Site has been changed
How: Species was not found: Because:
OTHER INFORMATION:
6.4. Fish and crayfish species
Inventory and monitoring of fish and crayfish species is mostly based on exploratory fishing by scientists. In many European countries electric fishing is allowed for scientific purposes, but not for public. Especially in small streams electric fishing has been used in estimating e.g. small trout populations.
Another (indirect) way to collect data on fish populations is gathering the data on what fish local fisherman have caught and what the fishing intensity has been (e.g. how many fisherman, how many nets). However, the problem may rise from the identification of fish species: fishermen are usually able to name the fish species that have commercial value, but not other ones. The main focus in the inventories should be in 1) endemic species and 2) species of community interest. However, population size and growth rate of invasive alien fish species can also be a target of monitoring.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Inventory of crayfish can be done by 1) traps or 2) by collecting samples with single equipment: a pond net and a stick with small bait (piece of meat or fish) at the top.
Fig. 20. Crayfish are easy to monitor using pond nets and a stick with bait at the top. This Stone Crayfish (Austropotamobius torrentium) was captured and documented from the Brajcino River. Photo: Petri Ahlroth.
Table 7. Field observation sheet for fish and crayfish. This sheet in made for the documentation of single observations / results from on species monitoring of fish and crayfish.
FIELD OBSERVATION SHEET OF SPECIES MK / FISH and CRAYFISH Comments MOEPP * Obligatory fields
SPECIES (scientific name): * Code (habitat directive) Quality of information *
OBSERVER Name: *
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Date: *
Address: Phone:
First visit (yes/no) Monitoring visit (yes/no)
LOCATION Site name: Province:
Municipality: * Village: Name of protected area:
Code of area: Land-owner (private/public/unknown): Name:
Real estate number: Description of location: Altitude (m.a.s.l.):
GPS coordinates: * GPS polygon(s):
SITE DESCRIPTION Habitat type: Code:
Precise location: Extent of suitable habitat: Description of habitat:
Accompanying common/typical species: Competing species: Alien species:
Rare/threatened species:
CONSERVATION MEASURES
Threat factors at site: (SDF classes)
Recommendations for restoration and
management:
Comparison to earlier inventory(ies), changes:
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Area of population (m2/ha):
Nr. 1 x 1 m grid occupied by species: Number of (observed) adult individuals Number of (observed) young individuals
Estimation of population size
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Earlier information on population:
OTHER INFORMATION Method specimens collected + location:
photos (by whom and where stored) free comments:
SPECIES WAS NOT OBSERVED IN
MONITORING
Site has been disappeared How:
Site has been changed How: Species was not found:
Because: OTHER INFORMATION:
6.5. Invertebrate species
Efficient inventory and monitoring of invertebrates usually requires several different methods. The list of methods includes methods for several species that have not been found in the Republic of North Macedonia (at least not yet), but which could potentially be found in the area.
1. Active searching (usually with an insect net, a pond net, or a sweeping net and a camera): all taxonomic groups 2. Sieving: Molluscs, Pseudoscorpions and Insects 3. Window traps: Insects, mainly Beetles 4. Pitfall traps: Molluscs, Pseudoscorpions and Insects 5. Tape traps: Pseudoscorpions and Insects 6. Folio traps: Molluscs, Pseudoscorpions and Insects, mainly Beetles 7. Light traps: Insects, mainly Moths and some Beetle species 8. Odour traps: Insects, mainly Butterflies and Moths
The effort required for the inventories and monitoring (e.g. traps and other sampling effort and seasonal allocation) and the allocation of resources (time for active searching) depend on the study area size and diversity of habitat types inside this area. Only an experienced surveyor can estimate a reasonable volume of activities for each area. During the first inventory in the area it is still possible to adjust the volumes of using different methods. The first inventory is an important possibility to test which methods work best and which volumes are reasonable. Later monitoring instances the volume should be kept close to the initial sampling in order to allow the comparison of results between years.
When comparing results between years, differences may occur and they may be due to several reasons. Weather conditions, for example, strongly affect the trapping results of invertebrates. Differences between two years are not necessarily in relation with the changes in the environment or populations of different species. Only a long time series and the use of appropriate statistical analyses are required to better understand the factors that affect populations.
6.5.1. Active searching
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Invertebrate species that require active searching are: Lycaena dispar, Euphydryas aurinia, Hypodryas maturna, Maculinea arion, Parnassius mnemosyne, Gallimorpha quadripunctaria, Eriofaster catax (larvae), Cordulegaster heros (adults), Lindenia tetraphylla (adults), Leucorrhinia species (adults), Morimus funereus, Lucanus cervus, Cucujus cinnaberinus, Cerambyx cerdo, Rosalia alpina and Osmoderma species.
Efficient active searching requires regular visits of experts to the area during the entire season. Some species are active only for a short period of time (e.g. many butterfly, moth and dragonfly species) whereas some long living species and species with several generations per year can be observed for a longer period.
Working in the field can be effectively carried out only if the personnel are well trained for the identification and ecology of the species under investigation. Ideally one person can carry out inventories of several taxonomic groups at the same time.
Fig. 21. Active searching is an effective way to observe different taxonomic groups. Effective working, however, should be done by an expert who has a wide knowledge on the ecology of large number of species. These experts can carry out inventories and monitoring duties of several taxonomic groups at the same time. An expert (Sami Karjalainen) in the photo is using different types of equipment in the field including a sweeping net and a pond net and a camera is available all the time. Usually a camera with GPS options is a very suitable tool for documenting observations in the field. Parts of the vertebrate fauna (mainly herpetofauna and some mammal species) can be monitored at the same time with invertebrate monitoring. Photo: Petri Ahlroth.
6.5.2. Sieving
In the field sieving material can be collected from 8-15 sites per day. If the sieving samples are taken during winter, animals are mostly inactive in the sample and difficult to observe. Therefore the sample should be taken out from the sieving box and put inside a fabric bag that is dense enough to keep all the animals inside. Plastic bags are not as useful as fabric bags because they may collect carbon dioxide inside and kill the animals.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Species that can be monitored using sieving are Anthrenochernes stellae, Phryganophilus ruficollis and Osmoderma species of which the Osmoderma species are the only ones currently found in the Republic of North Macedonia.
After a field trip each sample should be examined as soon as possible. One easy way to check the samples is to: 1) Take several plastic boxes (covers are needed) and cover the bottom of each box with paper (e.g. a soft tissue paper) to dry out the moisture from the samples. 2) Put the sample on the paper and take the active animals. 3) Cover the sample again by several layers of paper. After covering the sample with paper layers the whole box is closed. 4) After a few hours animals have become activate and are climbing on the papers. 5) Capture active animals and check the papers 2-5 times a day. After five days most of the animals have been found and the rest of the sieving material (detritus) can be thrown away.
Fig. 22. Material from sieving boxes under investigation. Sieving material can be collected from different kinds of organic material, including the bark and branches of dead trees, soil detritus, organic litter inside hollow trees etc. It is an effective method for finding e.g. beetles, bugs and pseudoscorpions. Photo: Petri Ahlroth.
6.5.3. Window traps
Window traps are built from a funnel that has two pieces of (40 x 40 cm) plastic “windows” crossing each other on top of it. Under the funnel is a bottle which is usually filled with ethylene-glycol (the same liquid is used as an engine coolant liquid in cars). At the side of the bottle is a hole cowered with a dense plastic net that allows excess water to go out.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Species that can be caught using window traps are Buprestis splendens, Cucujus cinnaberinus, Cerambyx cerdo, Rosalia aplina and Aradus angularis that currently have no observations in the Republic of North Macedonia although it is a potential species.
The recommended number of window traps for a forest area is 4-8. If there are several forest types in the study area, an equal number of traps should be located in each type. This number provides the basic data of common species but only a small part of the rare species can usually be found. To find most of the species in an area would require a massive amount of traps, which would ultimately mean a huge number of captured individuals and the identification work might be difficult to arrange.
Window traps should be emptied once a week. If the weather is dry, the time period between emptying the traps can be extended to two weeks, but an interval longer than that usually leads to problems: the funnel often collects falling leaves, branches and other material that may obstruct animals from falling to the bottle.
Window traps are emptied on a fabric net. If the ethylene-glycol is not diluted by rain water, it can be re-used. The fabric net with insect samples is put into an empty bottle and the bottle is filled with ~70% alcohol. A label with date and place is put inside the bottle.
Fig. 23. Window traps are mainly used to collect species living in dead, dying or hollow trees. A large number of the invertebrate species listed in the Annexes of the Habitat Directive are dependent on dead wood material (saproxylic species). In the photo experts from Macedonian Ecological Society (MES) put traps close to dead trees. Photo: Petri Ahlroth.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
6.5.4. Pitfall traps
A typical pitfall trap is a plastic cup that is put in the ground so that the upper side of the cup is at the same level as the ground surface. They are effective in catching spiders, ground beetles (Carabidae) and other insects living on the ground and they can be used in many different habitat types. Usually they are put in long lines and the typical distance between cups is one meter. Each cup is filled with ethylene glycol or salt water to preserve the specimens and they can be cowered by a small shelter that prevents the dilution of the preservation liquid while also attracting some species. Species that can be caught using pitfall traps include Bolbelasmus unicornis and Carabus variolosus that are both potential species, although no observations in the Republic of North Macedonia exist as of yet.
Pitfall traps should be checked once a week, but during rainy weather they may be fill with rain water and should be checked more frequently. Specimen handling follows the protocols of window traps.
Fig. 24. Pitfall traps are often used to study ground beetles (Carabidae) and other insect and spider species living on the ground. A typical pitfall trap is a plastic cup that is put in the ground with the rim of the cup on the level of the ground surface. Ethylene glycol or salt water can be used in the cup to preserve the samples during the trapping period. Photo: Petri Ahlroth.
6.5.5. Tape traps
A tape trap uses a wide tape that has been set sticky side up around the lower part of a tree. Common packing tape is cheap and it works well for a couple of days before the glue gets too dry. Tape traps can be used to inventory and monitor wingless species, such as Erannis anceraria females, Leptodirus hochenwarti and Duvalius species, of which the last species is the only one currently found in the Republic of North Macedonia.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Winglessness is a common life strategy in cold conditions. In general, females are more often wingless than males. The proportion of wingless species increases towards the north and higher altitudes such as mountain tops. Species that are active in late autumn, in winter or early in the spring are more often wingless than flying species which are more active during the warm season. Species that live deep in caves are also often wingless.
In caves the tape is put around a stone that is located in a potential place for the study of species. In cave habitats non selective traps should be used only if they are not a risk for the small populations of cave inhabiting species.
Fig. 25. Tape traps are often used when collecting e.g. wingless females of specific moth species. Winglessness of these moth species is usually related to cold climate conditions. Wingless moth species occur in early spring, late autumn or winter. Also some species living in high mountains or in very northern conditions are wingless. Tape traps can also be used in caves. Photo: Petri Ahlroth.
6.5.6. Folio traps
Folio traps use aluminium folio that has been shaped to match the bottom of a hollow tree trunk or a cave bottom. The slick surface prevents animals from escaping. In cave habitats the use of these traps must be carefully planned, because non-selective capturing can be a threat to small populations that are usually a norm in caves. Species that can be caught using folio trap are Osmoderma species and Anthrenochernes stellae that is a potential species without confirmed sightings in the Republic of North Macedonia.
6.5.7. Light traps
A light trap uses a light source to attract insects which drop to a collection box through a funnel. They are usually used to inventory and monitor moths, but some beetle species may also be caught. Species that may be caught in the Republic of North Macedonia include Eriogaster catax, Lucanus cervus females, Erannis anceraria males and Dioszeghyana schmidtii of which the two last are potential species, but no records of them so far exist for in North Macedonia.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Usually two light traps are used for each study area and placed in different habitat types. A typical place for a light trap is at the border between a closed and an open habitat, because moths usually fly along habitat edges. Light trapping should begin when the snow starts to melt and ends when winter arrives. In North Macedonian mountain areas this means March and December, but in low altitudes light traps can be used around the year. Even if the traps do not collect much material in the winter time, the material may include species of community interest (e.g. Erannis anceraria males).
Fig. 26. Folio trap is an effective method for the inventories and monitoring of hollow trees and cave habitats. In a cave the folio is put at the bottom of a hole to form a small pool and the sides of this folio pool follow closely on the sides of the cave. Photo: Petri Ahlroth.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Fig. 27. Light traps can be used for the inventories and monitoring of moths, but it may bring additional information from certain beetle species as well. Lucanus cervus females, for example, are nocturnal and can be attracted by light. Using a single light trap it is possible to find 200 – 700 species of moths (from “Macrolepidoptera” groups) per site each year. In addition, light trap materials provide useful data for climate change studies. If the collected material is in good shape, DNA from the specimens can be used for studies on taxonomy and in phylogenetic analyses. Photo: Petri Ahlroth.
6.5.8. Odor traps
Odor traps use attractive liquid to lure and capture flying insects, mainly butterflies and moths, but they also attract a large numbers of insects from other taxonomic groups (e.g. beetles, flies, lace wings, scorpion flies). Species that may be caught in North Macedonia include Nymphalis vaualbum and Dioszeghyana schmidtii, of which the latter is a potential species with no observations existing so far.
At least two different kinds of liquids can be used to attract insects: a) a 50/50 mix of red wine and vinegar or b) a mixture of beer (2-3 bottles), yeast, and 0,5 -1,0 kg of sugar/brown sugar. Soft plastic foam (superlon) pieces are dipped in the sweet liquid. Foam pieces can be put inside a plastic cup and when the cup is filled with the liquid the foam does not dry too fast. The foam pieces should be checked daily. A cup with the attractive liquid and plastic foam is covered and a funnel is placed underneath it. The funnel is connected to a can that has insecticide and empty egg cells or kitchen paper in it and the bottom is covered with plastic foam (superlon). Small holes should be under the foam layer to let excess rain water to escape. Traps should be emptied 1-3 times a week depending on the weather conditions, activity of flying insects and the effectiveness of insecticide in the trap. If possible the trap should be emptied every morning, but in remote areas this is not feasible. The more often the traps are emptied, the better the sample quality.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Fig. 28. Odour based traps are used in the inventories and monitoring of butterflies and moths. The attractive liquid is put on foam (“superlon” in the picture) that can be placed in a cup preventing the foam from drying too fast. Photo: Petri Ahlroth.
Table 8. Field observation sheet for invertebrate species. This sheet is used in the field inventories if the method is “active searching”. Data from traps should be saved in excel files where there is no need to repeat the same background information for each species separately.
FIELD OBSERVATION SHEET OF SPECIES MK / INVERTEBRATES Comments MOEPP * Obligatory fields SPECIES (scientific name): * Code (habitat directive)
Quality of information *
OBSERVER
Name: * Date: *
Address: Phone:
First visit (yes/no) Monitoring visit (yes/no)
LOCATION Site name: Province:
Municipality: * Village: Name of protected area:
Code of area: Land-owner (private/public/unknown): Name:
Real estate number: Description of location: Altitude (m.a.s.l.):
GPS coordinates: * GPS polygon(s):
SITE DESCRIPTION Habitat type: Code:
Precise location: Extent of suitable habitat: Description of habitat: Rare/threatened species:
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
CONSERVATION MEASURES
Threat factors at site: (SDF classes)
Recommendations for restoration and
management:
Comparison to earlier inventory(ies), changes:
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS Number of obseved individuals
Size of population (estimation) Lifestage of observed individuals Size of population (estimation)
Earlier information on population:
OTHER INFORMATION
Method (trap, active searching, other) * specimens collected + location: photos (by whom and where stored)
free comments:
SPECIES WAS NOT OBSERVED IN
MONITORING
Site has been disappeared How: Site has been changed
How: Species was not found: Because:
OTHER INFORMATION:
6.6. Fungi and lichen species
Fungi and lichens are not included in the annexes of the Habitat Directive, except certain lichens at genus level in the Annex V of the Habitats Directive (e.g. Cladonia subgenus Cladina). However, both fungi and lichens are often good indicators of habitat quality. Especially in forest habitats the diversity of wood decaying fungi provide valuable information on the diversity of microhabitats and continuum of structures which are also essential for many saproxylic species. In similar way many epiphytic lichens are good indicators of forest (and air) quality.
Even though inventories on fungi and lichens are not essential for the establishment of a Natura 2000 network, any inventory data available can be used to assess the quality of some habitat types. For example bracket fungi species (Polyporaceae) grow on living and decaying wood, and this group contains several indicators and threatened species of different forest types. Lichens also include species with high conservation value, including epiphytes of old forests and very old trees (both broad-leaved and coniferous). This in mind, national biodiversity databases should include an option to save data from all species groups, including fungi and lichens.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
When identifying fungi and lichens, field samples are often required for accurate identification. However, a high amount of expertise is required to collect, handle, identify under a microscope, label and distribute samples of fungi and lichens into public scientific herbaria and open access databases. In addition, photos of fresh fruiting bodies and their habitat can be very useful for their identification. These can also be distributed into “Citizen science” web pages. Annual differences in the numbers of fruiting bodies of fungi can be remarkable. Under unfavourable conditions most fungi are not seen at all and the situation can be repeated during several following seasons. When monitoring fungi, same sites need to be checked several times before conclusions of the status of the local population can be made. On the other hand, certain species are easily observed (e.g. some perennial Polypores).
Fig. 29. Rare Battarrea phalloides and Geastrum sp. species can be found from the Golem Grad island of Prespa Lake. Battarrea phalloides is included in the list of strictly protected species in the Republic of North Macedonia. Old Juniperus excelsa woods in the Golemo Ezero belong to the priority habitat type of the Habitat Directive “Endemic forests with Juniperus spp.” which is very unique for the Republic of North Macedonia and the adjacent areas of the Prespa Lake in Greece and Albania. In addition to the Battarrea phalloides, the island hosts Anthrodia juniperina, a bracket fungi that grows on Juniperus excelsa. It is also strictly protected. Photos: Petri Ahlroth.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Fig. 30. Old oaks and beeches of the Pelister and Galicica National Parks host several rare epiphytic lichen species that are threatened in many European countries. Many of these rare epiphytes need clean air, old trees and a long continuity of suitable microclimate at sites. In the photo the Lung Lichen (Lobaria pulmonaria) is growing at a trunk of old oak in the Pelister National Park above Brajzino. Photo: Kimmo Syrjänen.
Table 9. Field observation sheet for fungi and lichen species:
FIELD OBSERVATION SHEET OF SPECIES MK / FUNGI and LICHENS Comments MOEPP
* Obligatory fields SPECIES (scientific name): * Code (habitat directive)
Quality of information *
OBSERVER
Name: * Date: *
Address: Phone;
First visit (yes/no) Monitoring visit (yes/no)
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
LOCATION Site name:
Province: Municipality: * Village:
Name of protected area: Code of area: Land-owner (private/public/unknown):
Name: Real estate number: Description of location:
Altitude (m.a.s.l.): GPS coordinates: * GPS polygon(s):
SITE DESCRIPTION Habitat type:
Code: Precise location: Extent of suitable habitat:
Description of habitat: Other species in the surrounding
Species living on tree / wood material Host species Stage of host species (alive /dead tree)
Stage of decomposition (1-4) Size of host species (diameter) Moisture of wood material
Rare/threatened species:
CONSERVATION MEASURES Threat factors at site: (SDF classes)
Recommendations for restoration and
management:
Comparison to earlier inventory(ies), changes:
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Size of population (fruiting bodies): Nr. 1 x 1 m grid occupied by species:
Condition of fruiting bodies
Dead fruiting bodies
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Signs of fungivores Infections by other fungi
Earlier information on population:
OTHER INFORMATION specimens collected + location: photos (by whom and where stored)
free comments:
SPECIES WAS NOT OBSERVED IN
MONITORING
Site has been disappeared How: Site has been changed
How: Species was not found: Because:
OTHER INFORMATION:
6.7. Inventory and monitoring methods for the habitat types
Habitat monitoring of a particular Natura 2000 area is mainly based on the use of combined data from remote sensing and field inventories. Field inventories provide data for the monitoring of structure and function of the habitat and plant species composition, but additional data from several other taxonomic groups can be collected at the same time. Usually all sites of larger conservation areas can’t be checked in the field individually but parts of the vegetation mapping can be based on remote sensing that is supported with more careful inventories on site. Regardless, habitat quality (structures and functions, presence of alien or threatened species, threats etc.) can only be seen in the field. For assessing the representativity of a habitat type, the habitat interpretation manual (European Commission 2013) provides a definition of each habitat type and indicates the characteristic species allowing comparison to other habitat types at each site. In order to collect relevant information of the different habitat types of the Habitat Directive, Field Inventory Forms have been compiled for 1) Forests and other wooded habitats and 2) Grasslands and other open habitats. In addition a Field Inventory Form for wetlands were added by the Twinning project. Forms for forests and grassland are based on the Lithuanian national inventory of Habitat Directive habitat types and have already been tested in the field.
Specific forms that complement the Field Inventory Forms have also been added: a) Recommended conservation / restoration actions b) Remarks on species values (all species groups) c) Representativity of the site/habitat These will serve as tools when planning the management of different Natura 2000 areas or when reporting under the Article 17 of the Habitat Directive. With these additions Field Inventory Forms provide enough information to help assessing the representativity of habitat types inside the Natura 2000 areas and nationally.
6.7.1. Forests
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
All relevant national data related to habitats should be collected and processed in a form that serves monitoring and later reporting of the habitats. In addition, background data is needed when planning inventories of those habitats that require inventory activities in the field. In many countries, the forest sector maintains databases that have been planned to serve forestry purposes. These databases often include data that also allow the determination of forests habitat and may provide some tools for monitoring – at least on a general level.
Example 1. 95A0 High Oro-Mediterranean pine forests: The Standard Field Inventory Form for forests (table 10) should be used in inventories and monitoring. Inventory information should be collected using GPS polygons/monitoring plots inside the studied forest stands. These polygons should be based on e.g. forestry plans. Repeated visits and an iteration of inventory at the same site is a basic method of monitoring. Suitable monitoring period is between 5-10 years for this habitat type. Forest stands with different ages, management histories, forestry activities and altitudinal positions should be taken into account when monitoring.
Table 10. Field inventory and monitoring form for Forests and other wooded habitats.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Inventory form MOEPP / Forests and other wooded habitats Name: Code: EUNIS name: EUNIS code(s):
General information
Name, surname Site / plot / polygon nr.
Date Polygon coordinates (WGS84)
Altitude (masl). Corner N:E
Vegetation type(s) Size (ha)
Coarse dead wood (>20 cm) estimation per hectare or Logs at different decay stages Projective coverage of (1- single, 2- scarse, 3- abundant) estimation per hectare or vegetation (0-100%) (1- single, 2- scarse, 3- abundant)
Tree layer % Dead tree I stage
Scrub layer % Snag II stage Grass cover % Log III stage
Herb cover % IV stage
Moss cover % V stage Lichen cover % Old alive trees Multiaged (underline) stand Bare soil cover % (underline)
Litter cover % No, Single, Yes No Scarse, Abundant
Rock cover %
Stone /Boulder cover % Openings (Y/N)
Fire marks (Y/N)
Natural regeneration Stand age (years) (Y/N)
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Soil disturbances Allien species Position in relief forms no - 0, minor – 1, moderate – 2, intensive - 3 N, NE, E, SE, Trampling Species Coverage Šlope exposition (underline) S, SW, W Trails Incline o Roads Animals Drainage (Y/N) Other Selective cuttings Clearcuts
Remarks Threats Code Point minor – 1, moderate – 2, intensive - 3
Code Point
Tree species, layer (c=canopy, i=intermediate, s=sapling), abundance
Species Layer % Species Layer % Species Layer % Species LayerA % Species LayerA % rdas rdas
Species, abundance (1-5)
ACTA SPI
ALLI URS
ANEM RAN
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Recommended conservation / restoration actions
Type of action Detailled description (intensity, extent,continuity of action) Support of certain tree species based on management plan Increase of natural structures and regeneration
Other actions / conservation measures needed at the site to maintain and improve biodiversity and ecosysten services of this particular habitat
Remarks on species values (all species groups)
Annex II and IV species Annex V species and other species with commercial and/or medicinal Values
Balkan and Nationsl Endemic / Red listed species Other important species
Representativity of site 1 = excellent, 2 = good 3 = average (or slightly degraded) 4= bad, degraded, restoration impossible Structure
Function
Restoration possibilities
Typical species composition
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Overall representativity of site/habitat A: excellent B: good C: significant D: non-significant
6.7.2. Open meadows and other open areas
Grassland habitats are probably the most demanding group when identifying vegetation and habitat types. Grasslands have a centuries long history of different land use ranging from grazing to mowing that have led to their current stage. Currently, the habitat or vegetation type of most grassland types are impossible to identify from satellite imagery or other remote sensing data and even in the field certain types are very difficult to identify. This is partly due to the fact that a lot of the overgrown grasslands do not belong to any specific habitat type of the Habitat Directive. However, these habitats still have the potential to be restored and they may contain species values especially for plants and invertebrates of the Habitat Directive Annexes.
Fig. 31. Many grasslands in the Republic of North Macedonia and in the Pelister National Park are badly overgrown and do not belong presently to any habitat type of the Habitat Directive. a) A former subalpine mountain meadow with overgrown tall herbs, bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) and white-flowered asphodel (Asphodelus albus) at slope of Ezerska river valley above Nize Pole. b) The Clouded Apollo (Parnassius mnemosyne) can still utilize overgrown habitats with nectar plants. These sites also pose high restoration potential. Photos: Kimmo Syrjänen.
Example 2. 6430 Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels: Inventory and monitoring of “6430 Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities” should be done simultaneously with the habitat “3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho- Batrachion vegetation” so that the entire stream with its shoreline vegetation is covered. So far there is no Standard Field Inventory Form for riparian habitats. Inventory information should be collected using a GPS marked polygons/transects along the river or sampling plots inside the studied river. Information on parts belonging to the habitat 6430 should be documented separately from the habitat 3260. Repeated visits and an iteration of inventory at the same site is a basic method of monitoring. Suitable monitoring period is between 5- 10 years for this habitat type. Transects along different altitudinal parts of the river should be taken into account when monitoring. The methodology used by Vrahnakis & Fotiadis (2009) for land use analyses and vegetation would be a good method for monitoring streams and should be applied also to the habitat 6240.
Example 3. 8220 Siliceous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation:
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Inventories and monitoring should include description of the habitat type and the area of inventoried surface, a list of chasmophytic plant species with abundance information and a list of litophytes and their abundances (by functional groups if species identification is impossible). There are little changes to be expected in these habitats inside conservation areas. Monitoring can be repeated in 10-20 year cycles. However, more information on the species composition of this habitat type is needed for there are several endemic and rare species living in this habitat type.
Fig. 32. Inventory and monitoring of (alpine) grassland habitats require good knowledge on both the plant species and vegetation types. Arūnas Balsevičius from Lithuania studying species composition of Oro-Moesian grassland at the Pelister National Park. Photo: Petri Ahlroth.
Table 11. Inventory and monitoring format for the open habitats.
Inventory form MOEPP / Open habitats - grassland, heath and scrub Annex I name: Code: EUNIS name: EUNIS code(s): General information
Name, surname Site / plot / polygon nr.
Date Polygon coordinates (WGA 84)
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Altitude (masl). Corner N:E
Vegetation type(s) Size (ha)
Disturbances of soil Projective vegetation coverage Way of current use no - 0, extensive – 1, no - 0, extensive – 1, estimation (0-100%) moderate – 2, intensive - 3 moderate – 2, intensive - 3
Trees % Fire Mowing
Shrubs % Trampling Grazing
Grasses % Trails Woody vegetation removal
Herbs % Roads
Mosses % Animal disturbance
Lichens % Other/Comments Human disturbance (point out) Bare soil % Ditches (Y/N)
Litter % Buildings (Y/N)
Rocks % Excavations (Y/N)
Boulders, stones % Dumping places (Y/N)
Overgrowt Allien species Position in relief forms no - 0, slow – 1, moderate – 2, intensive - 3 Species Coverage/ Slope exposition abundanc (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W) e if possiblre Trees % Incline (o) Bushes % Schrub % Grasses % Other/Comments % (point out)
Threats extensive – 1, moderate – 2, intensive - 3 General remarks Code Point Code Point
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Species, abundance
Remarks on species values (all species groups)
Annex II and IV species Annex V species and other species with commercial and/or medicinal Values
Balkan and National Endemic / Red listed species Other important species
Recommended conservation actions
Type of action Detailled description (intensity, extent,continuity of action) Removal of scrub and trees
Grazing /mowing
Other actions / conservation measures needed at the site to maintain and improve ecosysten services of this particular site7habitat
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Representativity of site 1 = excellent, 2 = good 3 = average (slightly degraded) 4= bad, degraded, restoration impossible Structure
Function
Restoration possibilities
Typical species composition
Overall representativity of site/habitat A: excellent B: good C: significant D: non-significant
6.7.3. Water courses and wetlands
Some basic information from water bodies can be found from different data resources - already the information concerning the quality of water may provide some information that is useful in the general typing of waterbodies. Often however, it is necessary to visit the water body to see the vegetation types before the final identification of a habitat type can be decided. Also, an assessment of structures and functions in the site can only be seen during the field visits.
Example 4. Petrifying springs with tufa formation (Cratoneurion): There is no standard Field Inventory Form available for springs so far. Collected data should include GPS coordinates, description of the vegetation types and information on their area. A list of typical plants with abundance information is required and an assumption of threat factors should be determined. Hydrological changes should be defined at a general level, since climate change may change the hydrology of small waterbodies. Repeated visits and an iteration of inventory at the same site is a basic method of monitoring. Suitable monitoring period is between 5-10 years for this habitat type.
Example 5. 3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho- Batrachion vegetation: So far there is no Standard Field Inventory Form for riparian habitats. Inventory information should be collected in GPS marked polygons/transects along a river or sampling plots inside the studied river. Repeated visits and an iteration of inventory at the same site is a basic monitoring method. Suitable monitoring period is between 5-10 years for this habitat type. Transects along different altitudinal parts of the river should be taken into account when monitoring. The methodology used by Vrahnakis & Fotiadis (2009) for land use analyses and vegetation would be a good method for monitoring streams. In addition to monitoring the vegetation, monitoring water flow and analyses of water chemistry are needed. Monitoring fish and invertebrate fauna will also provide important information on the development of the conservation status of this habitat type.
More information on the project “Inventory of the riparian forest vegetation along rivers hosting the endemic trout in Prespa” by Vrakhnanis and Fotiadis: https://www.spp.gr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=75&Itemid=75&lang=el?&lang=en
Example 6. 7140 Transition mires and quaking bogs:
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
There is no Standard Field Inventory Form for mires, but a modified grassland form can be used in inventories and monitoring. Description of the site, area, vegetation types and species composition should be done for each site of this habitat type. Inventory information should be collected in GPS marked polygons/ sampling plots inside the studied mire systems. Drone photos and videos may also be useful when following vegetation changes and analysing monitoring results. Repeated visits and an iteration of inventory of the vegetation at the same site is a basic monitoring method. Suitable monitoring period is between 5-10 years for this habitat type. Since this habitat type is potentially sensitive to climate change, all sites of this habitat type should be taken in monitoring.
Wetlands can sometimes be identified on a general level from satellite images or with other remote sensing data. Many wetlands, however, can only be named correctly according to their vegetation type. Vascular plants and mosses usually play an important role in the identification of nutrient levels in wetlands.
The monitoring protocol (a shortened definition and data sheets) for wetlands (and for small water bodies) is different from other habitat types and it has been developed in an earlier co-operation project with the government of Greece. Description of the methodology and data sheets are described in the report:
Vrahnakis, M.S. & Fotiadis, G. 2009: Inventory and Assessment of Riparian Forest Vegetation of the Prespa Area of Greece and FYROM with the use of the i) QBR (Qualitat del Bosc de Ribera / Riparian Forest Quality) Index and ii) Riparian Macrophyte Protocol (RMP). https://www.spp.gr/report_text_vrahnakis_fotiadis_dec2009_mv_gf_final.pdf
Table 13. Inventory and monitoring format for the wetlands.
Inventory form MOEPP / wetland habitats - mires, bogs, lakes and rivers
Annex I name: Code: EUNIS name: EUNIS code(s): General information
Name, surname Site / plot / polygon nr.
Date Polygon coordinates (WGA 84)
Altitude (masl). Corner N:E
Vegetation type(s) Size (ha)
Disturbances of hydrology Projective vegetation coverage Way of current use no - 0, extensive – 1, no - 0, extensive – 1, estimation (0-100%) moderate – 2, intensive - 3 moderate – 2, intensive - 3
Trees (if any) % Taking of water Fishing
Shrubs % Dams Taking of water
Grasses % Hydropower other
Herbs % Ditches
Mosses % Roads
Lichens % Other/Comments Human disturbance (point out) Bare soil % Dumping places (Y/N)
Litter % Buildings (Y/N)
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Rocks % Excavations (Y/N)
Boulders, stones % Other
Alien species Owegrowth Other biological aspects taken into no - 0, slow – 1, account moderate – 2, intensive - 3 Species Coverage/ abundanc e if possiblre Trees % Bushes % Schrub % Grasses % Other/Comments % (point out)
Threats extensive – 1, moderate – 2, intensive - 3 General remarks Code Point Code Point
Species, abundance
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Remarks on species values (all species groups)
Annex II and IV species Annex V species and other species with commercial and/or medicinal Values
Balkan and Nationally Endemic / Red listed species Other important species
Recommended conservation actions
Type of action Detailled description (intensity, extent,continuity of action) Support of certain species based on management plan, restriction for water use, etc.
Increase of natural structures and functions (natural flooding dynamic, for example), like removing of dams ot other man made structures
Other actions / conservation measures needed at the site to maintain and improve ecosysten servises of this particular site or habitat
Representativity of site 1 = excellent, 2 = good 3 = average (slightly degraded) 4= bad, degraded, restoration impossible Structure
Function
Restoration possibilities
Typical species composition
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Overall representativity of site/habitat A: excellent B: good C: significant D: non-significant
7. Human resources
7.1. Organizing and coordinating In most European countries monitoring of species and habitats is the work of national environmental institutes or organizations that are responsible for national parks and/or other protected areas.
The first step of organizing a project is choosing the project coordinator, whose responsibilities are: I) Organizing the training of people II) Providing guidance material III) Keeping in contact with other participants IV) Timetables V) Time schedules for trapping insects, reptiles and amphibians in the field. The work is done together with rangers or other staff in the area. VI) Identification of potential Annex species and taxons that require active searching using local staff of national parks (rangers, etc.), municipalities and other administrations. VII) Providing and maintaining research equipment VIII) Help in the field, e.g. emptying different types of insect traps IX) Search and count the nesting places of raptor birds X) Take photos of the nesting raptor bird species if the birds cannot be identified in the field XI) Count the numbers of raptor birds and specified (easily recognizable) bird species such as Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax in the alpine areas.
7.2. Use of experts from universities, research institutes and NGOs Most of the experts on species and habitats are working at the University of Skopje, Makedonian Ecological Society or both. National monitoring of biodiversity is dependent on the knowledge of these experts. Some parts of the monitoring work can be done without species specific knowledge, but identification from e.g. samples or photos has to be done by the experts.
7.3. Project roles A monitoring program can concentrate and allocate resources only to a limited number of sites. In addition, there is a general need to collect data from species of community and national interest form the rest of the country. Projects that collect species or habitat data should provide these observations into a national biodiversity database. At least one project should focus on fulfilling the gaps that monitoring programs cannot cover. It could be focused on species and habitats that potentially have occurrences outside those sites that have been selected for the monitoring program. Especially small sites that maintain specific biodiversity values could be prioritized when planning separate projects with inventory possibilities.
7.4. Other resources In addition to the coordinator, monitoring programs require 1-3 workers for additional work: 1) Administrator (e.g. reports, financial tasks) 2) Secretary 3) Assistant for helping in field activities.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
8. Data management
8.1. Identification There is an urgent need to increase the number of experts capable for the identification of species and habitats in the Republic of North Macedonia. In the Annex report 3.1 “feasibility study on citizen science”, the number of experts for each taxon has been estimated. Currently there are several botanists in the country, but there is a alck of national experts that have skills to identify animals from all groups. Also expertize on plants (no bryophyte specialist exist) and fungi (including lichens) should be increased. In the monitoring program the coordinator is responsible for the identification work at a general level. Coordinator has a responsibility to co-operate with other projects, universities, NGOs and foreign experts to find additional effort for the identification needs.
8.2. Saving the data Saving the data should be based on open access – open data – open science based principles. The possibility to save data in open databases saves resources in administration. If the data is saved in the administration 2-3 experts should be hired to save the data. Also, the option to save data in open databases decreases the threshold to save data.
8.3. Databases A national biodiversity database should be established as soon as possible. All data flow should be based on the principles of open access – open data – open science! A national database is required since open databases (international on those maintained in other countries) usually do not support all national needs. A database must be user friendly and the structure must be flexible.
Requirements for the fields in the database must be planned separately for each taxon. During the development of a database discussions with experts are necessary in order to reduce later modifications to the structure of the database.
The database should also allow the option to insert large numbers of observations at the same time. Typically field observations are saved in excel files (or sometimes in an Access –database) and the database should allow the insertion of data in a way that columns are merely named and copied as they are.
One field in the data sheet is “Type of observation”. It separates the first observation of the species from the subsequent monitoring visits. If “Monitoring of known locality” is in question, the database should be able to provide a sheet that is partly pre-filled. The database must NOT overwrite or recover the old sheet but make a new sheet that can be compared to the old data from the same site. Only this way the database can become a resource of monitoring data.
The database should be able to do some automatic checking of the inserted data. Automatic checking requires tables of data sheets, including check lists of species (with most commonly used synonyms), etc.
Examples of automatic checking:
Date: The date is not in future, nor impossible (e.g. 33.1.2019). Sophisticated databases may maintain some background information from the observers and they recognize if the observation is marked to be made, for example, before the birth of the observer or after the observer has died. Group: The database should check if “Group” matches with the check list of species. However, even if some species have not been listed under a certain group, the database must allow the saving of the observation, e.g. when a new species is added.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Species: Suggested name of the species should be compared with the list of species found in the country (check lists), but there should always be an option to save the observation even if the species is not included in the check list. Area: Area should be selected from the list Municipality: Municipality should be selected from the list and the database should check if the municipality is marked to right area. Place: No need for automatic checking, Coordinates: Database should check if the coordinates match the municipality. Habitat: No need for automatic checking. Other relevant information: No need for automatic checking . Photo: If a photo is behind a link, the database should check if the link is operative. Sample: No need for automatic checking. Observer (leg.): No need for automatic checking. Identification (Det.): No need for automatic checking. Quality of data: No need for automatic checking (should be selected from the list).
8.4. Access to data The main principle should be open data. Only if open data risks the viability of a population, observations should be classified as “sensitive”.
8.5. Sensitive species In the preparatory process of the Natura 2000 database and when reporting Article 12 of the Birds Directive and Article 17 of the Habitats Directive, each member state provides a list of sensitive species. EU follows the principles of open data, but the reported data on sensitive species is not public available.
Sensitive data should be seen only by authorities that need to have access to data in their work. Usually people working in the environmental sector (ministry, national parks, environmental authorities at the municipalities and university researchers) have access to sensitive data, but the number of people having access to sensitive data is usually kept small. For example people preparing nature conservation plans, restoration and management plans or reports on the conservation status of species, require access to data on sensitive species.
If other authorities require data from an area for e.g. land use planning, there should be the possibility to provide them a map or a list where an occurrence of “endangered species” or “strictly protected” species are indicated. This information can be given without giving precise names of the endangered or strictly protected species. Coordinates can be given but only on a larger scale, if there is a risk to misuse the data.
8.6. Data flow Inventory and monitoring data should be saved in the database as soon as the samples have been identified. In large data sets there are always samples that cannot be identified quickly. However, the majority of data (e.g. the Annex species) should be saved in the database before the collection of the next field season starts (i.e. until the end of March).
9. Proposals for next steps
9.1. Organization(s) responsible for the management, inventories, monitoring, and other conservation activities should be established. Nearly all European countries have organizations that are responsible for the main activities in the protected areas. In some countries there are several organizations, but in some countries all duties have been designated for a single organization. There is a clear need to establish an institute that is responsible for the data collection and management and for managing reports on nature conservation. Coordinating monitoring
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
programs is a part of such activities. Staff for the institute must be hired according to the knowledge and skills needed in the work. In addition, the administration (and the staff) in the national parks should be part of the environment sector.
9.2. Strengthening knowledge on species: identification material (books and web- pages in local language. Identification materials (books, leaflets, web-pages) are necessary for the identification work. For the beginners, large numbers of web pages provide a starting point for the identification, but the motivation to continue can be strengthened by proper identification materials. MoEPP can establish a program that is targeted to produce identification material from national species. The main focus should be in taxonomic groups from which there is less material available.
The responsibility for maintaining check lists should be decided. This decision could be part of the national CBD work, for example. In many countries the natural history museum is responsible for maintaining national check lists of species. Updated national check lists should be available in the internet.
9.3. Strengthening knowledge on habitats Increase of habitat knowledge also requires availability of material. A national interpretation guidance of habitat types should be produced including links between the Annex I habitat types of the Habitat Directive, EUNIS classification and national classification of plant communities.
Proper identification books should be available from all plant species and habitats and this material should be available in national language.
9.4. Strengthening knowledge on inventory methods and equipment Knowledge on inventory methods and equipment is much dependent on education that university can provide. In addition NGO sector (Macedonian Ecological Society) can provide some training during the summer camps, for example. Third option is to increase knowledge in the trainings that different (EU) projects have in their programmes.
9.5. Opening national biodiversity database for public At the moment the National Biodiversity database is under preparation. This database should be opened as soon as possible and it should be made open for public to serve the needs of all national and international users.
10. References
Ajtić, R., Tomović, L., Sterijovski, B., Crnobrnja-Isailović, J., Djordjević, S., Djurakić, M., … Bonnet, X. (2013). Unexpected life history traits in a very dense population of dice snakes. Zoologischer Anzeiger - A Journal of Comparative Zoology, 252(3), 350–358.
Ballouard, J.-M., Caron, S., Lafon, T., Servant, L., Devaux, B., & Bonnet, X. (2013). Fibrocement slabs as useful tools to monitor juvenile reptiles: A study in a tortoise species. Amphibia-Reptilia, 34(1), 1–10.
Boitani, L., F. Alvarez, O. Anders, H. Andren, E. Avanzinelli, V. Balys, J. C. Blanco, U. Breitenmoser, G. Chapron, P. Ciucci, A. Dutsov, C. Groff, D. Huber, O. Ionescu, F. Knauer, I. Kojola, J. Kubala, M. Kutal, J. Linnell, A. Majic, P. Mannil, R. Manz, F. Marucco, D. Melovski, A. Molinari, H. Norberg, S. Nowak, J. Ozolins, S. Palazon, H. Potocnik, P.-Y. Quenette, I. Reinhardt, R. Rigg, N. Selva, A. Sergiel, M. Shkvyria, J. Swenson, A. Trajce, M. Von Arx, M. Wolfl, U. Wotschikowsky & D. Zlatanova. (2015). Key actions for large carnivore populations in Europe. A Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe report prepared for the European Commission (contract 070307/2013/654446/SER/B3).
Bonnet, X., Pearson, D., Ladyman, M., Lourdais, L., Bradshaw, D., 2002. Heaven” for serpents? A mark-recapture study of tiger snakes (Notechis scutatus) on Carnac Island, Western Australia. Australian Ecology 27, 442–450.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Böhm, M., B. Collena, J.E.M. Baillie, P. Bowles, J. Chanson, N. Cox, G. Hammerson, M. Hoffmann, S. R. Livingstone, M. Ram, et al. 2013. The conservation status of the world’s reptiles. Biological Conservation 157:372–385.
Buckland, S.T. (2001):Introduction to distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations, New York, Oxford University Press.
Buckland, S. T., Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P. and Laake, J. L. (1993): Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations. London: Chapman and Hall
Cagle, F.R. (1939). A system for marking turtles for future identification. Copeia 1939, 170.
Cayuela, H., Arsovski, D., Thirion, J.-M., Bonnaire, E., Pichenot, J., Boitaud, S., … Besnard, A. (2016). Demographic responses to weather fluctuations are context dependent in a long-lived amphibian. Global Change Biology, 22(8), 2676–2687.
Dodd, C. K., Jr. (ed.). 2010. Amphibian Ecology and Conservation: A Handbook of Techniques. Oxford University Press. New York. 584 pp.
Edenhamn, P. 1996 Spatial dynamics of the European tree frog (Hyla arborea) in a heterogenous landscape. Dissertation, Department of Conservation Biology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
Everitt, B. S. (2002): The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics, 2nd Edition
Godley, S.J., and P.E. Moler. 2013. Population declines of Eastern Indigo Snakes (Drymarchon couperi) over three decades in the Gulf Hammock Wildlife Management Area, Florida, USA. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 8:359−365.
Goiran, C., and R. Shine. 2013. Decline in sea snake abundance on a protected coral reef system in the New Caledonian Lagoon. Coral Reefs 32:281–284.
Hibbitts, T.J., C.W. Painter, and A.T. Holycross. 2009. Ecology of a population of the Narrow-headed Garter Snake (Thamnophis rufipunctatus) in New Mexico: catastrophic decline of a river specialist. Southwestern Naturalist 54:461–467.
Hof, C., M.B. Araújo, W. Jetz, and C. Rahbek. 2011. Additive threats from pathogens, climate and land-use change for global amphibian diversity. Nature 480:516-519.
Kenneth Dodd, C. Jr. (2010): Amphibian Ecology and Conservation. A handbook of techinques. Techinques in ecology and conservation series. Oxford university press.
Kojola, I., Heikkinen, S., & Holmala, K. (2018). Balancing costs and confidence: volunteer-provided point observations, GPS telemetry and the genetic monitoring of Finland’s wolves. Mammal Research, 63(4), 415-423.
Krebs, C. J. (2009). Ecology (6th ed.). p. 119.
Lambert, M.R.K. (2002): Amphibians and reptiles. In: Grant, I.F. & Tingle, C. C. D. (eds.) (2002) Ecological monitoring methods for the assessment of pesticide impacts in the tropics. Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK. ISBN 0859545431.
Lincoln, F. C. (1930). "Calculating Waterfowl Abundance on the Basis of Banding Returns". United States Department of Agriculture Circular. 118: 1–4.
McDiarmid et al. (2012): Reptile Biodiversity: Standard Methods for Inventory and Monitoring. University of California Press Ltd. London. 424 pp.
Methods for the Assessment of Pesticide Impact in the Tropics. Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK: pp. 213-228.
Moyle, P.B., and J.E. Williams. 1990. Biodiversity loss in the temperate zone: decline of the native fish fauna of California. Conservation Biology 4:275–284.
"IUCN Red List version 2019-1". The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). Retrieved 8 September 2016.
Perfecto, I., J. Vandermeer, P. Hanson, and V. Cartín. 1997. Arthropod biodiversity loss and the transformation of a tropical agro- ecosystem. Biodiversity and Conservation 6:935–945.
Petersen, C. G. J. (1896). "The Yearly Immigration of Young Plaice Into the Limfjord From the German Sea", Report of the Danish Biological Station (1895), 6, 5–84.
Santos, X. & Llorente, G.A.. 2009. Decline of a common reptile: Case study of the viperine snake Natrix maura in a Mediterranean wetland. Acta Herpetologica 4(2):161-169.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Speybroeck, J., Beukema, W., Bok, B., Van Der Voort, J. & Velikov, I. (2016). Field Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Britain and Europe.
Sterijovski, B., Tomović, L., & Ajtić, R. (2014). Contribution to the knowledge of the Reptile fauna and diversity in FYR of Macedonia. North- Western Journal of Zoology, 10, 83–92.
Stuart, S.N., J.S. Chanson, N.A. Cox, B.E. Young, A.S.L. Rodrigues, D.L. Fischman, and R.W. Waller. 2004. Status and Trends of Amphibian Declines and Extinctions Worldwide. Science 306:1783-1786
Stubbs, D., A. Hailey, E. Pulford, and W. Tyler. 1984. Population ecology of European tortoises: review of field techniques. Amphibia- Reptilia 5:57–68.
Reading, C.J., L.M. Luiselli, G.C. Akani, X. Bonnet, G. Amori, J.M. Ballouard, E. Filipii, G. Naulleau, D. Pearson, and L. Rugiero. 2010. Are snake populations in widespread decline? Biology Letters 6:777–780.
Wielstra, B., Sillero, N., Vörös, J., & Arntzen, J. W. (2014). The distribution of the crested and marbled newt species (Amphibia: Salamandridae: Triturus) – an addition to the New Atlas of Amphibians and Reptiles of Europe. Amphibia-Reptilia, 35(3), 376–381. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-00002960
Vogt, R.C. & Hine, R.L. 1982: Evaluation of techniques for assessment of amphibian and reptile populations in Wisconsin. In:Scott NJ Jr, editor. Wildlife Research Report 13, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,Washington DC 1982. p 201-217.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring
Fig. 33. Vultures are not doing well at the moment. Monitoring alone does not increase the status of a species but it may help to identify potential risks for a species. The main risks for vultures are poison baits that are used to poison land predators. Photo: Petri Ahlroth.
Five year program for national Biodiversity monitoring