130925-studie-wildlife-comeback-in-europe

Recommendations

Info

% change 1500 1200 900 600 300 0 Figure 2. Change in Grey seal population abundance by decade and overall change between 1977 and 2005. Please note that due to the way change was calculated, decadal change does not sum to overall change. Table 3. Major reasons for change in the status of the Grey seal in Europe. to continue. Increases have also been detected in Norway [32] , and the Baltic [42] , where the species has not yet reclaimed all of its natural area of occurrence [29] . There are, however, signs that growth is levelling off in some areas. For example in the UK, pup production has not increased in the north and west of Scotland, which is believed to be the result of a combination of reductions in the reproduction and the survival of pups, juveniles or adults [7] . New breeding colonies in the southeast of the country are, however, expanding rapidly [7] , and further research should attempt to identify the different factors that are affecting seal colonies in these areas. In addition, the species continues to be affected by a number of threats, all of which are of anthropogenic origin. For example, entanglement in nets may be a larger issue than previously thought and a considerable source of mortality in some populations [43] . Environmental contaminants, and chemical and oil spills will also continue to be problematic [4] , and seals may also experience increasing disturbance through a surge in coastal recreation activities and ecotourism, especially at haul-out and breeding sites [28] . In the Baltic Sea, for example, recolonisation of former haul-out sites has been hampered by increasing human activities [29] . Rank Reason for change Description 1 Legislation The Grey seal became protected throughout its European range in the 20th century [14] . 2 Species management – Reduced exploitation and persecution 3 Land/water protection & management – Site protection and ban of DDTs/PCBs 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000–05 1977–2005 The species is listed on the Habitats Directive Annexes II and V [19] and the Bern Convention [18] . In the UK, an early hunting ban (as early as 1914) resulted in increase in numbers [13] , which meant that the Grey seal could recolonise the North Sea [13] . There are protective measures in place to limit harvest, culls, disturbance and by-catch in many countries [3] . Many seal conservation areas have been set up throughout the species’ range, and the Grey seal is protected within these sites, e.g. in the UK in Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) [40] and Special Areas of Conservation designated under the Habitats Directive [19] . A decline in pollutant loads in the Baltic following the ban on DDTs and PCBs in the 1970s [1] led to an increase in Grey seal numbers [29] . There are also novel threats emerging for the Grey seal. For example, climate change is believed to play an important role in the future of the species. A worst-case-scenario prediction of an 80% reduction in ice cover in the Baltic Sea will negatively affect breeding conditions and reproductive output of the seal population [4, 29] . But climatic changes also have more immediate consequences, as pup mortality rates are likely to be affected by extreme weather events. For example, pupping cave systems collapsed during the pupping season in Cornwall in the UK in 2011, and storm surges on pupping beaches and ledges have washed large numbers of pups out to sea in the Farne Islands [28] . In addition, the species may be increasingly driven from sites through developments in marine renewables such as coastal and off-shore wind farms, as has been observed at Scroby Sands in the UK [44] . Across Europe, an increasing number of seals are found with corkscrew lacerations, i.e. single cuts spiralling down the body from the head, and often detaching skin and blubber from the underlying tissue [7, 45] . These are caused by being drawn through a new type of ducted propeller, and although the level of mortality is negligible in large populations, it may well exacerbate declines in smaller colonies [7, 45] . Despite the current and future threats described above, the European population of Grey seal is likely to grow further, especially as legislation is strengthened. This will undoubtedly lead to greater conflicts with fisheries, as many fishermen continue to regard seals as the single biggest threat to their livelihood [4] . The species is often killed because of its reputation for feeding on commercially important fish, damaging nets and traps, and acting as vectors for parasites that can impact fisheries [1] . In Finland, the majority of fishermen consider the seal population too large, arguing that the species is harmful to their livelihoods [4] . Despite this animosity, many do recognise its importance as an indicator species for the Baltic and an important component of biodiversity [4] . Indeed, there is little scientific or direct evidence of seals damaging nets [28] , and the spatial overlap between fisheries and seals is not as great as once thought [46] . As a top marine predator, the seal may, in fact, play a key role in the maintenance of healthy ecosystems and thus commercially viable fish stocks [47] . If the seal is to continue its recolonisation of the European continent, these on-going conflicts will need to be mitigated by the further development of seal-proof fishing gear (which may also reduce by-catch mortality), as well as the continued protection of the species and its sites. In a landmark case in Scotland, the first custodial sentence of 80 days for killing 21 seals was issued in 2009 to a local fisherman [48] . 130
References 1. IUCN 2011a. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2011.1:Available from: http://www. iucnredlist.org/. 2. Kovacs, K.M. 1987. Maternal behaviour and early behavioural ontogeny of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) on the Isle of May, UK. Journal of Zoology, 213 697–715. 3. Bonner, W.N. 1981. Grey seal Halichoerus grypus Fabricius, 1791, in Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 2: Seals, S.H. Ridgway and R. Harrison, Editors., 111–144. 4. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2007. Management Plan for the Finnish Seal Populations in the Baltic Sea. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 5. McConnell, B.J., Fedak, M.A., Lovell, P., et al. 1999. Movements and foraging areas of greys seals in the North Sea. Journal of Applied Ecology, 36 573–590. 6. Thompson, D., Hammond, P.S., Nicholas, K.S., et al. 1991. Movements, diving and foraging behaviour of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus). Journal of Zoology, 224 223–232. 7. Special Committee on Seals (SCOS) 2011. Scientific Advice on Matters Related to the Management of Seal Populations: 2011. 8. Hammond, P.S., Hall, A.J. & Prime, J.H. 1994. The diet of grey seals around Orkney and other island and mainland sites in north-eastern Scotland. Journal of Applied Ecology, 31 340–350. 9. Aulagnier, S. 2009. Mammals of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, London: A & C Black. 10. McConnell, B.J., Fedak, M.A. & Hammond, P.S. 1999. Movements and foraging areas of grey seals in the North Sea. Journal of Applied Ecology, 36 573–590. 11. Duck, C. 2013. Pers. comm. 12. Davies, J. 2001. Guidance for establishing monitoring programmes for some Annex II species. Marine Monitoring Handbook March 2001. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). 13. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency National management plan for grey seal stock in the Baltic Sea. 14. Harkönen, T., Brasseur, S., Teilmann, J., et al. 2007. Status of grey seals along mainland Europe from the southwestern Baltic to France. NAMMCO Scientific Publications, 6 57–68. 15. Boskovic, R., Kovacs, K.M., Hammill, M.O., et al. 1996. Geographic distribution of mitochondrial DNA haplotypes in grey seals (Halichoerus grypus). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 74 (10): 1787–1796. 16. Graves, J.A., Heylar, A., Biuw, M., et al. 2009. Microsatellite and mtDNA analysis of the population structure of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) from three breeding areas in the Baltic Sea. Conservation Genetics, 10 (1): 59–68. 17. Macdonald, D.W. & Barrett, P. 1993. Mammals of Britain and Europe, London: Collins. 18. Council of Europe 1979. Convention On The Conservation Of European Wildlife And Natural Habitats. European Treaties Series. 19. Council of Europe 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. 20. Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) 2009. Appendices I and II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). 21. Scottish Government 1914. The Grey Seal (Protection) Act, 1914. United Kingdom. 22. Ó Cadhla, O., Strong, D., O’Keeffe, C., et al. 2007. An assessment of the breeding population of grey seals in the Republic of Ireland, 2005. Irish Wildlife Manuals Nr. 34. National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Dublin, Ireland. 23. UK Government 1970. Conservation of Seals Act 1970. United Kingdom. 24. Trilateral Seal Expert Group 2011. Aerial surveys of grey seals in the Wadden Sea in the season of 2010–2011. 25. IUCN 2011b. European Red List. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/initiatives/europe/european-red-list-site. 26. IUCN/Zoological Society of London National Red List. Available from: http:// www.nationalredlist.org/. 27. Boedeker, D. & Dinter, W. 2008. Halichoerus grypus, Grey Seal (Phocidae). Available from: http://www.helcom.fi/environment2/ biodiv/endangered/Mammals/en_GB/ Halichoerus_grypus/. 28. Sayer, S. 2013. Pers. comm. 29. Helcom 2009. Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea: an integrated thematic assessment on biodiversity and nature conservation in the Baltic Sea. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings, 116B 1–188. 30. Vincent, C., Blaize, C., Deniau, A., et al. 2010. Le « Réseau Phoques », site thématique de Sextant (Ifremer): Synthèse et représentation cartographique du suivi des colonies de phoques en France de 2007 à 2010. Rapport méthodologique pour le “Réseau Phoques” sous Sextant (Ifremer). Université de La Rochelle. 31. Hauksson, E. 1987. The status of the Icelandic seal populations. Oslo, Norway. 32. Øigård, T.A., Frie, A.K., Nilssen, K.T., et al. 2012. Modelling the abundance of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) along the Norwegian coast. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 69 (8): 1436–1447. 33. The Icelandic Seal Center 2009. Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus). Available from: http:// www.selasetur.is/index.php/en/seals-iniceland/12. 34. Reijnders, P.J.H., van Dijk, J. & Kuiper, D. 1995. Recolonisation of the Dutch Wadden Sea by the grey seal Halichoerus grypus. Biological Conservation, 71 231–235. 35. Scheibel, W. & Weidel, H. 1988. Zum Vorkommen von Kegelrobben (Halichoerus grypus Fabricius, 1791, Phocidae, Pinnipedia) in Schleswig-Holstein. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 220 65–70. 36. van den Brink, F.H. 1955. A field guide to the mammals of Britain and Europe, London, UK: Collins & Sons. 1–221, figs, pls. 37. Soikkeli, M. & Stenman, O. 1999. Grey seal numbers in Finland in the 1990’s, in International conference on Baltic seals, 18–21 November. Pärnu, Estonia. 38. Karlsson, O. & Helander, B. 2004. Baltic grey seals – numbers and trends, Swedish Museum of Natural History. 39. Bergman, A., Bergstrand, A. & Bignert, A. 2001. Renal lesions in Baltic grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) and ringed seals (Phoca hispida botnica). Ambio, 30 (7): 397–409. 40. Natural England 2013. Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Available from: http://www. sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/Special/sssi/ index.cfm. 41. UNESCO World Heritage List. Available from: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/. 42. Svensson, C. 2012. Seal dynamics on the Swedish west coast: Scenarios of competition as Baltic grey seal intrude on harbour seal territory. Journal of Sea Research, 71: 9–12. 43. Allen, R., HJarvis, D., Sayer, S., et al. 2012. Entanglement of grey seals Halichoerus grypus at a haul out site in Cornwall, UK. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64: 2815–2819. 44. Skeate, E.R., Perrow, M.R. & Gilroy, J.J. 2012. Likely effects of construction of Scroby Sands offshore wind farm on a mixed population of harbour Phoca vitulina and grey Halichoerus grypus seals. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64: 872–881. 45. Thompson, D., Bexton, S., Brownlow, A., et al. 2010. Report on recent seal mortalities in UK waters caused by extensive lacerations. Sea Mammal Research Unit, University of St Andrews. St Andrews, Scotland. 46. Cronin, M., Gerritsen, H.D. & Reid, D.G. 2012. Evidence of low spatial overlap between grey seals and a specific fishery off the west coast of Ireland. Biological Conservation, 150: 136–142. 47. Estes, J.A., Terborgh, J., Brashares, J.S., et al. 2011. Trophic downgrading of Planet Earth. Science, 333: 301–306. 48. BBC News 2009. Man who clubbed seal pups jailed. Available from: http://news.bbc. co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/7961442. stm. Reviewers • Dr Sue Sayer • Callan Duck 131
Page 1 and 2:
Stefanie Deinet Christina Ieronymid
Page 3 and 4:
Wildlife comeback in Europe The rec
Page 5 and 6:
Table of contents Foreword . . . .
Page 7:
Foreword Shifting baselines In Euro
Page 10 and 11:
The Adriatic coastline of the Veleb
Page 12 and 13:
96 year old olive farmer with his d
Page 14 and 15:
12
Page 16 and 17:
Limitations of population trend dat
Page 18 and 19:
Constructing historical distributio
Page 20 and 21:
Red deer at the Oostvaardersplassen
Page 22 and 23:
Table 2. Definitions of classificat
Page 24 and 25:
22
Page 26 and 27:
3.1. European bison Bison bonasus S
Page 28 and 29:
Table 2. Latest population estimate
Page 30 and 31:
Figure 1c. Map highlighting areas o
Page 32 and 33:
Rank Reason for change Description
Page 34 and 35:
3.2. Alpine ibex Capra ibex Summary
Page 36 and 37:
Figure 1a. Distribution of Alpine i
Page 38 and 39:
% change 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Fig
Page 40 and 41:
3.3. Iberian ibex Capra pyrenaica S
Page 42 and 43:
Figure 1a. Distribution of Iberian
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
3.4. Southern chamois Rupicapra pyr
Page 48 and 49:
Figure 1a. Distribution of Southern
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
3.5. Northern chamois Rupicapra rup
Page 54 and 55:
Scale Status Population trend Justi
Page 56 and 57:
% change 80 60 40 20 0 and Italy [2
Page 58 and 59:
Subspecies balcanica Exploitation B
Page 60 and 61:
3.6. Eurasian elk Alces alces Summa
Page 62 and 63:
Figure 1a. Distribution of Eurasian
Page 64 and 65:
Poland [10] and Estonia [28] . It i
Page 66 and 67:
References 1. Geist, V. 1998. Deer
Page 68 and 69:
3.7. Roe deer Capreolus capreolus S
Page 70 and 71:
Estimate Year assessed Reference Gl
Page 72 and 73:
Figure 2. Change in Roe deer popula
Page 74 and 75:
Recent developments As discussed ab
Page 76 and 77:
3.8. Red deer Cervus elaphus Summar
Page 78 and 79:
Estimate Year assessed Reference Gl
Page 80 and 81:
% change 750 600 450 300 150 0 Figu
Page 82 and 83: lineages for the local area and min
Page 84 and 85: 3.9. Wild boar Sus scrofa Summary T
Page 86 and 87: Estimate Year assessed Reference Gl
Page 88 and 89: Abundance and distribution: changes
Page 90 and 91: References 1. IUCN 2011a. The IUCN
Page 92 and 93: 3.10. Golden jackal Canis aureus Su
Page 96 and 97: Recent developments Table 3. Major
Page 98 and 99: 3.11. Grey wolf Canis lupus Summary
Page 102 and 103: Drivers of recovery Figure 2. Distr
Page 104 and 105: References 1. Mech, L.D. & Boitani,
Page 106 and 107: 3.12. Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx Summa
Page 110 and 111: % change 750 600 450 300 150 0 Figu
Page 112 and 113: Figure 3. Map of recent development
Page 114 and 115: 3.13. Iberian lynx Lynx pardinus Su
Page 116 and 117: Figure 1a. Distribution of the Iber
Page 118 and 119: Table 3. Major reasons for positive
Page 120 and 121: 18. IUCN 2011b. European Red List.
Page 122 and 123: 3.14. Wolverine Gulo gulo Summary T
Page 124 and 125: Figure 1a. Distribution of Wolverin
Page 126 and 127: Rank Reason for change Description
Page 128 and 129: 3.15. Grey seal Halichoerus grypus
Page 130 and 131: Estimate assessed Reference Global
Page 134 and 135: 3.16. Harbour seal Phoca vitulina S
Page 136 and 137: east coast, the distribution is res
Page 138 and 139: % change 200 150 100 50 0 populatio
Page 140 and 141: Figure 3. Map of recent development
Page 142 and 143: 3.17. Brown bear Ursus arctos Summa
Page 144 and 145: Table 2. Latest population estimate
Page 146 and 147: 144
Page 148 and 149: Recent developments % change 200 15
Page 150 and 151: mation, e.g. between Slovenia and C
Page 152 and 153: 3.18. Eurasian beaver Castor fiber
Page 156 and 157: % change 20,000 16,000 12,000 200 1
Page 158 and 159: Table 3. Major reasons for change i
Page 160 and 161: 158
Page 162 and 163: 4.1. Pink-footed goose Anser brachy
Page 164 and 165: Table 2. Major threats that drove P
Page 166 and 167: 4.2. Barnacle goose Branta leucopsi
Page 168 and 169: Figure 2. Current breeding and wint
Page 170 and 171: Table 3. Conservation actions in pl
Page 172 and 173: 4.3. Whooper swan Cygnus cygnus Sum
Page 174 and 175: Threat Description Impact Hunting a
Page 176 and 177: 4.4. White-headed duck Oxyura leuco
Page 178 and 179: No. of individuals 5000 4500 4000 3
Page 180 and 181: educing the population in the count
Page 182 and 183:
4.5. White stork Ciconia ciconia Su
Page 184 and 185:
Country No. of breeding pairs Trend
Page 186 and 187:
Action Description Impact Monitorin
Page 188 and 189:
4.6. Eurasian spoonbill Platalea le
Page 190 and 191:
Country No. of breeding pairs No. o
Page 192 and 193:
Threat Description Impact Residenti
Page 194 and 195:
4.7. Dalmatian pelican Pelecanus cr
Page 196 and 197:
194
Page 198 and 199:
Table 3 Major threats that drove th
Page 200 and 201:
4.8. Lesser kestrel Falco naumanni
Page 202 and 203:
Figure 2. Current distribution of L
Page 204 and 205:
Action Description Impact Livelihoo
Page 206 and 207:
4.9. Saker falcon Falco cherrug Sum
Page 208 and 209:
Table 2. Latest Saker falcon popula
Page 210 and 211:
Action Description Impact Planning
Page 212 and 213:
4.10. Peregrine falcon Falco peregr
Page 214 and 215:
No. of breeding pairs 1,600 1,200 8
Page 216 and 217:
Action Description Impact Legislati
Page 218 and 219:
4.11. Red kite Milvus milvus Summar
Page 220 and 221:
Country No. of breeding pairs Trend
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
4.12. White-tailed eagle Haliaeetus
Page 226 and 227:
Country No. of breeding pairs Year
Page 228 and 229:
References 1. Bijleveld, M. 1974 Bi
Page 230 and 231:
4.13. Bearded vulture Gypaetus barb
Page 232 and 233:
Figure 2. Current distribution of B
Page 234 and 235:
4.14. Griffon vulture Gyps fulvus S
Page 236 and 237:
Figure 2. Current distribution of G
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
4.15. Cinereous vulture Aegypius mo
Page 242 and 243:
Figure 2. Current distribution of C
Page 244 and 245:
4.16. Spanish imperial eagle Aquila
Page 246 and 247:
Threat Description Impact Transport
Page 248 and 249:
Drivers of recovery The spectacular
Page 250 and 251:
4.17. Eastern imperial eagle Aquila
Page 252 and 253:
Figure 2. Current distribution of E
Page 254 and 255:
252
Page 256 and 257:
4.18. Common crane Grus grus Summar
Page 258 and 259:
Figure 2. Current breeding and wint
Page 260 and 261:
Action Monitoring and planning Site
Page 262 and 263:
4.19. Roseate tern Sterna dougallii
Page 264 and 265:
Threat Description Impact Human int
Page 266 and 267:
264
Page 268 and 269:
337,539 2,000 20,000 >163,750 % abu
Page 270 and 271:
1950s 1980s Present 50km grid Speci
Page 272 and 273:
No. of species 1 2 3 4 5 6 > 6 No.
Page 274 and 275:
272
Page 276 and 277:
A Range change B Range change C Ran
Page 278 and 279:
Reason for positive change Species
Page 280 and 281:
Dalmatian pelicans at the Kerkini L
Page 282 and 283:
280
Page 284 and 285:
The comeback of large and charismat
Page 286 and 287:
A safari group in the Velebit mount
Page 288 and 289:
The view from a bear watching hide
Page 290 and 291:
species [44] [45] and if animals be
Page 292 and 293:
One of the challenges around increa
Page 294 and 295:
Box 1. Return and urbanization of w
Page 296 and 297:
Table 1. Livestock damage by mammal
Page 298 and 299:
key tool for wildlife population in
Page 300 and 301:
Some of the over 500,000 visitors a
Page 302 and 303:
Box 2. The native versus alien spec
Page 304 and 305:
References 1. Navarro, L.M. and H.M
Page 306 and 307:
113. Potena, G., et al., Brown Bear
Page 308 and 309:
Appendix 1. Sources of distribution
Page 310:
Acknowledgements This study on wild
show all

130925-studie-wildlife-comeback-in-europe

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?