130925-studie-wildlife-comeback-in-europe

Recommendations

Info

1950s 1980s Present 50km grid Species Family Year Area (km 2 ) Year Area (km 2 ) Range change (%) Trend Area (km 2 ) Range change (%) from 1950s Trend from 1950s Range change (%) from 1980s Trend from 1980s Range change (%) from 1950s Range change (%) from 1980s Trend from 1980s Anser brachyrhynchus Anatidae 1950s 52,853 1980s 100,480 90.11 + 81,700 54.58 + -18.69 – 137.98 25.18 + Branta leucopsis Anatidae 1980s 74,360 153,361 106.24 + 308.44 + Cygnus cygnus Anatidae 1950s 218,871 1980s 948,483 333.35 + 956,566 337.05 + 0.85 + 457.13 28.56 + Oxyura leucocephala Anatidae 1977 69,468 114,243 64.45 + 109.47 + Ciconia ciconia Ciconiidae 1949 3,419,388 1980s 2,970,754 -13.12 – 3,002,274 -12.20 – 1.06 + 0.00 15.10 + Falco naumanni Accipitridae 1950s 1,996,843 1980s 962,421 -51.80 – 549,089 -72.50 – -42.95 – -63.44 -24.14 – Falco cherrug Accipitridae 1980s 329,142 393,284 19.49 + 68.79 + Falco peregrinus Accipitridae 1950s 5,368,092 1980s 2,319,207 -56.80 – 3,018,237 -43.77 – 30.14 + -33.61 53.67 + Milvus milvus Accipitridae 1950s 3,217,313 1980s 1,782,714 -44.59 – 1,436,825 -55.34 – -19.40 – -40.69 7.04 + Haliaeetus albicilla Accipitridae 1950s 1,436,518 1980s 1,346,599 -6.26 – 2,097,030 45.98 + 55.73 + 81.79 93.93 + Gypaetus barbatus Accipitridae 1950s 489,342 1980s 99,765 -79.61 – 214,749 -56.11 – 115.25 + -34.26 222.46 + Gyps fulvus Accipitridae 1950s 1,102,886 1980s 516,483 -53.17 – 378,054 -65.72 – -26.80 – -36.31 35.99 + Aegypius monachus Accipitridae 1950s 798,355 1980s 154,999 -80.59 – 124,357 -84.42 – -19.77 – -66.46 72.76 + Aquila adalberti Accipitridae 1974 110,960 89,408 -19.42 – 63.93 + Aquila heliaca Accipitridae 1950s 727,382 1980s 287,564 -60.47 – 220,119 -69.74 – -23.45 – -52.88 19.18 + Grus grus Gruidae 1950s 1,745,498 1980s 1,963,302 12.48 + 2,020,788 15.77 + 2.93 + 31.01 16.48 + Table 1b. Historical (1950s and 1980s) and present (c. 2012) areas of breeding distribution of each bird species, except colonial nesting species, including range changes and trend between each time period. Range change was also calculated on the basis of a 50km x 50km grid for comparability with 1980s Atlas data. The quality of species distribution data in Russia is poor, due to low coverage, and therefore Russia was not included in this analysis. Figure 5. Change in population abundance by region in Europe for the 18 mammal species considered in this study. Bars are median abundance change values, whiskers depict range of values excluding outliers. the year at which the population size of each species was at its lowest point (Figure 4). Raptors tended to show a lower yearly growth rate than waterbirds (4.7% and 5.9% per year on average, respectively) and variability tended to be higher among waterbirds than among raptors. White-headed duck showed the largest rate of increase (13% per year) and Red kite showed the lowest (
Historical Past Present Species Family Year Area (km 2 ) Year Area (km 2 ) Range change (%) Trend Year Area (km 2 ) Range change (%) to historical Trend to historical Range change (%) to past Trend to past Bison bonasus Bovidae 1890 42,074 1971 45,276 7.6 + 2011 14,080 -66.5 – -68.9 – Capra ibex Bovidae 1800 208 1967 36,033 17,223 + 2008 15,602 7,401 + -56.7 – Capra pyrenaica Bovidae 1900 325,672 1967 25,507 -92.2 – 2008 57,538 -82.3 – 125.6 + Rupicapra pyrenaica Bovidae 1955 38,891 2008 15,130 -61.1 – Rupicapra rupicapra Bovidae 1955 362,556 2008 206,755 -43.0 – Alces alces Cervidae 1810 1,602,791 1955 4,051,444 152.8 + 2008 4,454,951 177.9 + 10.0 + Capreolus capreolus Cervidae 1900 2,274,768 1967 4,803,807 76.3 + 2008 6,097,612 123.8 + 26.9 + Cervus elaphus Cervidae 1955 1,279,674 2008 3,671,669 186.9 + Sus scrofa Suidae 1890 4,838,067 1955 4,531,092 -6.3 – 2008 5,339,537 10.4 + 17.8 + Castor fiber Castoridae 1955 256,573 2013 1,668,697 550.4 + Canis aureus Canidae 1955 417,164 2011 198,042 -52.5 – Canis lupus Canidae 1800 5,426,047 1960 2,657,659 -51.0 – 2008 2,685,531 -50.5 – 1.0 + Lynx lynx Felidae 1800 6,853,110 1960 3,553,494 -48.2 – 2010 4,392,088 -35.9 – 23.6 + Lynx pardinus Felidae pre-1900 106,233 1960 61,048 -42.5 – 2008 1,265 -98.8 – -97.9 – Gulo gulo Mustelidae 1850 5,210,522 1955 1,977,446 -62.0 – 2012 1,937,527 -62.8 – -2.0 – Halichoerus grypus Phocidae 1955 1,901,193 2008 1,682,976 -11.5 – Phoca vitulina Phocidae 1599 1,938,999 1956 1,800,407 -7.1 – 2008 2,071,955 6.9 + 15.1 + Ursus arctos Ursidae 1700 9,467,438 1955 3,443,725 -63.6 – 2008 3,892,423 -58.9 – 13.0 + taken from various publications, thus spatial resolution varied between species and time period. There was no grid-based atlas data available as was the case for birds. As a result, it is likely that some of the spatial range change patterns observed arise from issues with the resolution of range data. Specifically, past and historical range data are likely to be less spatially detailed, and it is more likely that species ranging over larger areas are depicted to have a continuous distribution across space, compared to species with smaller ranges for which it is easier to depict discontinuities in range. More recent mapping is also likely to depict more spatial detail: present species maps are often based on habitat suitability modelling, which gives rise to greater spatial detail and introduces discontinuities into species range. It is important that we find techniques to reconcile these spatial resolution issues in order to derive a robust metric of wildlife comeback. At present, abundance change data appears to provide us with a much more robust measure of mammal comeback. However, keeping these caveats in mind, we believe that some broadscale patterns can be derived from our analyses, particularly with regard to some of the more widespread species whose range size pattern is likely to be less affected by spatial resolution. Despite these caveats, consideration of spatial distribution data can provide us with broad-scale clues as to why there is such marked variation in abundance. A comparison of past (1950s/60s for mammals, 1980s for birds) and present distributions Table 1b. Historical, past and present distribution areas for 18 mammal species, including range changes. Historical: pre-1900; Past: 1955–71; Present: 2008–2013. 250 200 % range change 150 100 50 -100 100 300 500 700 900 1100 -50 -100 % abundance change Figure 6. Percentage range change of mammal species versus % abundance change between past and present day, excluding extreme outliers European bison and Eurasian beaver. 269
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:
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:
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:
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: 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 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?