130925-studie-wildlife-comeback-in-europe

Recommendations

Info

Table 3. Major reasons for change in the status of the Eurasian beaver in Europe. a nearby German wildlife park and removal is planned [2] . Rank Reason for change Description 1 Legislation – Legal protection and hunting restrictions 2 Species management –Reintroductions and translocations 3 Other – Natural recolonisation 4 Land/water protection and management –Habitat restoration and protection However, any increase in distribution or Following effective legal protection in 1899, the beaver increased in Norway from 60–120 animals to 1,000 by 1910 and 7,000 in 1919 [5] . All remnant populations received legal protection at the beginning of the 20th century [5] . Population growth resumed in Belarus after a hunting prohibition in 1996 [5] . Initially, reintroductions were motivated by the fur trade, consisted of hard releases and lacked habitat suitability assessment, but latterly the focus was more on conservation and more thorough research [5] . Reintroductions and translocations have saved remnant populations from extinction and have been key in the recolonisation of areas from which the beaver had gone extinct. Altogether, reintroductions and translocations have taken place in at least 25 European countries [5] . Viable populations have been established in all countries where reintroductions have taken place [5] . Eastern Norway was repopulated by individuals from the adjacent Swedish population [5] . The Estonian islands of Saaremaa and Hiiumaa were colonised by natural spread in the 1990s [5] . The population in Slovenia derived from releases in Croatian watersheds [2] . Beaver select the very best habitat available [5] , but will progressively relax their criteria as better sites are occupied [2] . Poor habitat believed to be limiting reproductive success in Biesbosch National Park in the Netherlands [5] . The conservation and regeneration of riparian zones around rivers for flood control has created suitable beaver habitat around Europe [5] . number also entails greater potential for conflict with humans. While public opinion towards the beaver and its reintroduction is often positive [23] , those that are more directly affected by beaver behaviour such as farmers and foresters, may display greater scepticism, although some are enthusiastic about the possibility of beaver presence [2] . Level of acceptance depends primarily on social factors [2] , and these need to be addressed to mitigate problems. However, there are also opportunities for the local economy through wildlife tourism, so early provision of interpretation and public viewing opportunities are recommended, and this will also help foster positive attitudes towards beavers [5] . There is a particularly great opportunity to promote the positive ecological effects of beaver engineering, including the increase in biodiversity resulting from beaver-induced changes in habitat, and this has been the focus of more recent research. Through the creation of ponds, the beaver increases the amount of available nutrients, which leads to algae and plant growth. As a result, invertebrate species richness and biomass are higher in beaver-influenced streams [24] and clearings [25] . In Bavaria, 38 species of dragonfly were recorded at beaver sites, with 11 profiting directly from the presence of the species [26] . However, vertebrate species also benefit: twice as many fish species occur in beaver-influenced habitat, with densities of up to 80 times higher than in non-beaver sites [26] . Greater numbers of amphibian species were present in beaver sites in the Eifel [27] and Bavaria, where half of all 12 species benefited directly from beaver activity [26] . In a Russian study, amphibian productivity was higher in beaver compared to non-beaver sites [28] . This increase in fish and amphibian prey results in greater bird variety at beaver sites, with over 50 rare species (e.g. Black stork Ciconia nigra) recorded in Bavaria [26] . There is also evidence that other mammals such as otters, which can use beaver lodges, take advantage of the increase in available food [26] . More recently, studies have demonstrated a positive effect of beaver clearings for insectivorous bats, providing new foraging sites for species such as Pipistrellus spp [29] . More generally, the beaver can support the necessary restoration of waterways undertaken in response to climate change and mitigate effects such as increased flooding at extremely low cost [26] . After a long absence from a large proportion of its range, the Eurasian beaver is now slowly reclaiming its role as an ecological engineer and keystone species in European freshwater ecosystems. The species will undoubtedly increase further in number and range over the coming decades, and as confinement to a particular stretch in a watershed is impractical in the absence of strong artificial barriers because of the species’ readiness to disperse, management will have to be implemented at the watershed scale [11] . The associated benefits of waterway restoration and potential for tourism will likely outweigh the cost of beaver-related damage; however, potential conflict will have to be managed in some countries to allow for peaceful coexistence and mutual beneficence of beaver and man. 156
References 1. Halley, D., Rosell, F. & Saveljev, A. 2013. Beaver in Europe map June 2013. 2. Halley, D. 2013. Pers. comm. 3. Large Herbivore Network Eurasian beaver – Castor fiber. Available from: http://www.lhnet. org/eurasian-beaver/. 4. IUCN 2011b. European Red List. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/initiatives/europe/ european-red-list-site. 5. Halley, D.J. & Rosell, F. 2002. The beaver’s reconquest of Eurasia: status, population development and management of a conservation success. Mammal Review, 32 (3): 153–178. 6. Halley, D.J. & Rosell, F. 2003. Population and distribution of European beavers (Castor fiber). Lutra, 46 (2): 91–101. 7. Halley, D., Jones, A.C.L., Chesworth, S., et al. 2009. The reintroduction of the Eurasian beaver Castor fiber to Wales: an ecological feasibility study. NINA Report 457. 66 pp. 8. Council of Europe 1979. Convention On The Conservation Of European Wildlife And Natural Habitats. European Treaties Series. 9. Council of Europe 1992. Council Directive 92/43/ EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. 10. IUCN 2011a. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2011.1:Available from: http://www. iucnredlist.org/. 11. Halley, D., Rosell, F. & Saveljev, A. 2012. Population and distribution of Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber). Baltic Forestry, 18 (1): 168–175. 12. Bundesamt für Umwelt (BAFU) 2013. Fragen und Antworten zum Biber-Monitoring. Available from: http://www.bafu.admin.ch/ tiere/09262/09281/09283/index.html?lang=de. 13. Berthelsen, J.P. 2012. Overvågning af bæver i Danmark 2011. Nationalt Center for Miljø og Energi, Aarhus Universitet. 14. Catusse, M. & Lombardi, A. 2011. Le castor en France: histoire d’une reconquête. Le Courrier de la Nature. 263. 20–25. 15. WWF Hungary Beaver. Available from: http:// wwf.hu/en/beaver. 16. Kurstjens, G. & Niewold, F. 2011. De verwachte ontwikkelingen van de beverpopulatie in Nederland: naar een bevermanagement. Kurstjens ecologisch adviesbureau & Niewold Wildlife Infocentre. Beek-Ubbergen & Doesburg. 17. Angst, C. 2010. Mit dem Biber leben – Bestandeserhebung 2008, Perspektiven für den Umgang mit dem Biber in der Schweiz. Bundesamt für Umwelt (BAFU) and Schweizer Zentrum für die Kartographie der Fauna. Bern and Neuenburg. 18. Scottish Natural Heritage 2012. News – Landowners encouraged to report beaver issues. Available from: http://www.snh.gov. uk/news-and-events/press-releases/press-release-details/index.jsp?id=811. 19. van den Brink, F.H. 1955. A field guide to the mammals of Britain and Europe, London, UK: Collins & Sons. 1–221, figs, pls. 20. Hartman, G. 1995. Patterns of spread of a reintroduced beaver Castor fiber population in Sweden. Wildlife Biology, 1 97–103. 21. Scottish Wildllife Trust Scottish Beaver Trial. Available from: www.scottishbeavers.org.uk. 22. Gurnell, J., Gurnell, A.M., Demeritt, D., et al. 2009. The feasibility and acceptability of reintroducing the European beaver to England. Natural England/People’s Trust for Endangered Species. Sheffield, UK. 23. Scottish Beaver Trial 2007. Trial reintroduction of the European beaver to Knapdale, Mid-Argyll. Local consultation report: 1 October – 30 November 2007. 24. Rolauffs, P., Hering, D. & Lohse, S. 2001. Composition, invertebrate community and productivity of a beaver dam in comparison to other stream habitat types. Hydrobiologia, 459 201–212. 25. Dalbeck, L. 2011. Biberlichtungen als Lebensraum für Heuschrecken in Wäldern der Eifel. Articulata, 26 (2): 97–108. 26. Meßlinger, U. 2009. Artenvielfalt im Biberrevier. Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt, Bund Naturschutz in Bayern e.V. 27. Dalbeck, L., Lüscher, B. & Ohlhoff, D. 2007. Beaver ponds as habitat of amphibian communities in a central European highland. Amphibia-Reptilia, 28 493–501. 28. Bashinskiy, I.V. 2012. The main factors of beaver’s impact on amphibians in small river valleys, in Book of abstracts – 6th International Beaver Symposium: Ivanic-Grad, Croatia. Faculty of Forestry, University of Zagreb. 29. Ciechanowski, M., Kubic, W., Rynkiewicz, A., et al. 2011. Reintroduction of beavers Castor fiber may improve habitat quality for vespertilionid bats foraging in small river valleys. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 57 737–747. Reviewer • Dr Duncan Halley 157
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:
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:
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 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Recent developments Table 3. Major
Page 98 and 99:
3.11. Grey wolf Canis lupus Summary
Page 100 and 101:
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 108 and 109: Estimate Year assessed Reference Gl
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 132 and 133: % change 1500 1200 900 600 300 0 Fi
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 154 and 155: Estimate Year assessed Reference Gl
Page 156 and 157: % change 20,000 16,000 12,000 200 1
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:
Action Description Impact Monitorin
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:
Action Description Impact Monitorin
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?