Advertisement

The role of protected areas in preserving habitat and functional connectivity for mobile flying vertebrates: the common noctule bat (Nyctalus noctula) in Tuscany (Italy) as a case study

  • L. Ducci
  • F. Roscioni
  • M. L. CarranzaEmail author
  • P. Agnelli
  • D. Russo
  • L. Frate
  • A. Loy
  • G. Santini
  • M. Di Febbraro
Original Paper
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

Preserving species within protected areas (PAs) does not guarantee adequate levels of protection if not coupled with conservation of functional connectivity for a target species. We propose an analytical framework to assess the effectiveness of PAs in preserving habitat and functional connectivity for mobile vertebrates. We implemented it in central Italy by using as a case study a bat species (common noctule, Nyctalus noctula) to: (i) determine suitable areas by means of Species Distribution Models (SDMs); (ii) identify potential commuting corridors through a functional connectivity analysis; (iii) develop a new tool to rank corridors according to their functional irreplaceability; (iv) implement a gap analysis on both suitable areas and functional corridors; and (v) propose management recommendations for the conservation of N. noctula. The SDM output and a set of proxies of commuting routes were used to build a resistance layer for the connectivity analysis. The resulting functional corridors were ranked according to their isolation (distance to other corridors and to suitable areas) to obtain an irreplaceability index, with isolated corridors scoring high values. The PA effectiveness assessed by overlapping the PA map with the SDM and the ranked functional corridors highlighted that PAs cover just a small portion of suitable sites (20.3%) and functional corridors for the species (20.8%). The irreplaceability index allowed us to identify those areas inside and outside the PAs that critical for persistence of the species in question require immediate protection regimes. The approach we present could be easily extended to other taxa and offers sound insight on how to promote the conservation at landscape scale.

Keywords

Bats Gap analysis Functional connectivity Protected areas Ranking corridors Species distribution models (SDM) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank NEMO s.r.l. for providing the maps of protected areas. Thanks also go to Erin Landguth for her support in the UNICOR procedures.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

  1. Abell R, Allan JD, Lehner B (2007) Unlocking the potential of protected areas for freshwaters. Biol Conserv 134(1):48–63Google Scholar
  2. Ana SL, Rodrigues H, Akçakaya R, Andelman SJ, Bakarr MI, Boitani L, Brooks TM, Chanson JS, Fishpool LDC, Da Fonseca GAB, Gaston KJ, Hoffmann M, Marquet PA, Pilgrim JD, Pressey RL, Schipper J, Sechrest W, Stuart SN, Underhill LG, Waller RW, Watts MEJ, Yan X (2004) Global gap analysis: priority regions for expanding the global protected-area network. Bioscience 54(12):1092–1100Google Scholar
  3. Bellamy C, Altringham J (2015) Predicting species distributions using record centre data: multi-scale modelling of habitat suitability for bat roosts. PLoS ONE 10(6):e0128440Google Scholar
  4. Bodin O, Saura S (2010) Ranking individual habitat patches as connectivity providers: integrating network analysis and patch removal experiments. Ecol Mod 221:2393–2405Google Scholar
  5. Bosso L, Rebelo H, Garonna AP, Russo D (2013) Modelling geographic distribution and detecting conservation gaps in Italy for the threatened beetle Rosalia alpina. J Nat Conserv 21(2):72–80Google Scholar
  6. Bosso L, Di Febbraro M, Cristinzio G, Zoina A, Russo D (2016) Shedding light on the effects of climate change on the potential distribution of Xylella fastidiosa in the Mediterranean basin. Biol Invasions 18(6):1759–1768Google Scholar
  7. Boughey KL, Lake IR, Haysom KA, Dolman PM (2011) Improving the biodiversity benefits of hedgerows: how physical characteristics and the proximity of foraging habitat affect the use of linear features by bats. Biol Conserv 144(6):1790–1798Google Scholar
  8. Butterfield BR, Csuti B, Scott JM (1994) Modeling vertebrate distributions for gap analysis. In: Miller RI (ed) Mapping the diversity of nature. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 53–68Google Scholar
  9. Camprodon and Guixé (2013) Population status, roost selection and spatial ecolgoy of the Greater noctule bat (Nyctalus lasiopterus) and the common noctule (Nyctalus noctula) in Catalonia. Barbastella 6(1):51–59Google Scholar
  10. Caracciolo F, Lombardi P (2012) A new-institutional framework to explore the trade-off between agriculture, environment and landscape. Econ Policy of Energy Environ 3:135–154Google Scholar
  11. Carranza ML, Frate L, Paura B (2012a) Structure, ecology and plant richness patterns in fragmented beech forests. Plant Ecol Divers 5(4):541–551Google Scholar
  12. Carranza ML, D’Alessandro E, Saura S, Loy A (2012b) Assessing habitat connectivity for semi- aquatic vertebrates The case of the endangered otter in Italy. Landsc Ecol. 27(2):281–290Google Scholar
  13. Chambers JM, Cleveland WS, Kleiner B, Tukey PA (1983) Graphical methods for data analysis. Wadsworth and Brooks/Cole, Pacific GroveGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen Y, Zhang J, Jiang J, Nielsen SE, He F (2017) Assessing the effectiveness of China’s protected areas to conserve current and future amphibian diversity. Divers Distrib 23(2):146–157Google Scholar
  15. Cianfrani C, Maiorano L, Loy A, Kranz A, Lehmann A, Maggini R, Guisan A (2013) There and back again? Combining habitat suitability modelling and connectivity analyses to assess a potential return of the otter to Switzerland. Anim Conserv 16(5):584–594Google Scholar
  16. Compton BW, McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Gamble LR (2007) A resistant-kernel model of connectivity for amphibians that breed in vernal pools. Conserv Biol 21(3):788–799Google Scholar
  17. Cowen RK, Paris CB, Srinivasan A (2006) Scaling of connectivity in marine populations. Science 311(5760):522–527.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1122039 Google Scholar
  18. Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) (2006) Connectivity conservation, vol 14. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Cushman SA, McKelvey KS, Hayden J, Schwartz MK (2006) Gene flow in complex landscapes: testing multiple hypotheses with causal modeling. Am Nat 168(4):486–499Google Scholar
  20. Cushman SA, McKelvey KS, Schwartz MK (2009) Use of empirically derived source-destination models to map regional conservation corridors. Conserv Biol 23(2):368–376Google Scholar
  21. Cushman SA, Lewis JS, Landguth EL (2013) Evaluating the intersection of a regional wildlife connectivity network with highways. Mov Ecol 1(1):12Google Scholar
  22. DeFries R, Hansen A, Newton AC, Hansen MC (2005) Increasing isolation of protected areas in tropical forests over the past twenty years. Ecol Appl 15(1):19–26Google Scholar
  23. DeFries R, Hansen A, Turner BL, Reid R, Liu J (2007) Land use change around protected areas: management to balance human needs and ecological function. Ecol Appl 17(4):1031–1038Google Scholar
  24. Déjeant-Pons M (2006) The European landscape convention. Landsc Res 31(4):363–384Google Scholar
  25. Di Febbraro M, Roscioni F, Frate L, Carranza ML, De Lisio L, De Rosa D, Marchetti M, Loy A (2015) Long term effect of traditional and conservation-oriented forest management on the distribution of vertebrates in Mediterranean forests: a hierarchichal hybrid modelling approach. Divers Distrib 21(10):1141–1154Google Scholar
  26. Ducci L, Agnelli P, Di Febbraro M, Frate L, Russo D, Loy A, Carranza ML, Santini G, Roscioni F (2015) Different bat guilds perceive their habitat in different ways: a multiscale landscape approach for variable selection in species distribution modelling. Landsc Ecol 30(10):2147–2159Google Scholar
  27. Ehrenbold AF, Bontadina F, Arlettaz F, Obrist MK (2013) Landscape connectivity, habitat structure and activity of bat guilds in farmland-dominated matrices. J Appl Ecol 50(1):252–261Google Scholar
  28. Elith J, Graham CH, Person RP, Dudík M, Ferrier S, Guisan A, Hijmans RJ, Huettmann F, Leathwick JR, Lehmann A, Li J, Lohmann LG, Loiselle BA, Manion G, Moritz C, Nakamura M, Nakazawa Y, Mc. Overton J, Peterson AT, Phillips SJ, Karen Richardson K, Scachetti-Pereira RR, Schapire RE, Soberón J, Williams S, Wisz MS, Zimmermann NE (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151Google Scholar
  29. Estrada A, Real R, Vargas JM (2008) Using crisp and fuzzy modelling to identify favourability hotspots useful to perform gap analysis. Biodivers Conserv 17(4):857–871Google Scholar
  30. Europe C. O. (2000). European landscape convention. In: Report and conventionGoogle Scholar
  31. Fahrig L, Pedlar JH, Pope SE, Taylor PD, Wegner JF (1995) Effect of road traffic on amphibian density. Biol Conserv 73(3):177–182Google Scholar
  32. Ficetola GF, Thuiller W, Padoa-Schioppa E (2009) From introduction to the establishment of alien species: bioclimatic differences between presence and reproduction localities in the slider turtle. Divers Distrib 15(1):108–116Google Scholar
  33. Ficetola GF, Maiorano L, Falcucci A, Dendoncker N, Boitani L, Padoa-Schioppa E, Miaud C, Thuiller W (2010) Knowing the past to predict the future: land-use change and the distribution of invasive bullfrogs. Glob Change Biol 16(2):528–537Google Scholar
  34. Foresta M, Carranza ML, Garfì V, Di Febbraro M, Marchetti M, Loy A (2016) A systematic conservation planning approach to fire risk management in Natura 2000 sites. J Environ Manag 181:574–581Google Scholar
  35. Foster D, Swanson F, Aber J, Burke I, Brokaw N, Tilman D, Knapp A (2003) The importance of land-use legacies to ecology and conservation. Bioscience 53(1):77–88Google Scholar
  36. Frate L, Acosta ATR, Cabido M, Hoyos L, Carranza ML (2015) Temporal changes in forest fragmentation contexts at multiple extents: patch, perforated, edge and interior forests in the Gran Chaco, Central Argentina. PLOS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142855 Google Scholar
  37. Geldmann J, Coad L, Barnes M, Craigie ID, Hockings M, Knights K, Leverington F, Cuadros IC, Zamora C, Woodley S, Burgess ND (2015) Changes in protected area management effectiveness over time: a global analysis. Biol Conserv 191:692–699Google Scholar
  38. Geri F, Amici V, Rocchini D (2010) Human activity impact on the heterogeneity of a Mediterranean landscape. Appl Geogr 30(3):370–379Google Scholar
  39. Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8:993–1009.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00792.x Google Scholar
  40. Hale JD, Fairbrass AJ, Matthews TJ, Sadler JP (2012) Habitat composition and connectivity predicts bat presence and activity at foraging sites in a large UK conurbation. PLoS ONE 7(3):e33300Google Scholar
  41. Hein CD, Castleberry SB, Miller KV (2009) Site-occupancy of bats in relation to forested corridors. For Ecol Manag 257(4):1200–1207Google Scholar
  42. Hirzel AH, Le Lay G, Helfer V, Randin C, Guisan A (2006) Evaluating the ability of habitat suitability models to predict species presences. Ecol Model 199(2):142–152Google Scholar
  43. Jantke K, Schleupner C, Schneider UA (2011) Gap analysis of European wetland species: priority regions for expanding the Natura 2000 network. Biodivers Conserv 20(3):581–605Google Scholar
  44. Kelm DH, Lenski J, Kelm V, Toelch U, Dziock F (2014) Seasonal bat activity in relation to distance to hedgerows in an agricultural landscape in central Europe and implications for wind energy development. Acta Chiropterol 16(1):65–73Google Scholar
  45. Kerth G, Melber M (2009) Species-specific barrier effects of a motorway on the habitat use of two threatened forest-living bat species. Biol Conserv 142(2):270–279Google Scholar
  46. Kukkala AS, Arponen A, Maiorano L, Moilanen A, Thuiller W, Toivonen T, Zupan L, Brotons L, Cabeza M (2016) Matches and mismatches between national and EU-wide priorities: examining the Natura (2000) network in vertebrate species conservation. Biol Conserv 198:193–201Google Scholar
  47. Landguth EL, Hand BK, Glassy J, Cushman SA, Sawaya MA (2012) UNICOR: a species connectivity and corridor network simulator. Ecography 35(1):9–14Google Scholar
  48. Le Saout S, Hoffmann M, Hughes A, Bernard C, Brooks TM, Bertzky B, Butchart SNT, Badman T, Rodrigues ASL (2013) Protected areas and effective biodiversity conservation. Science 342(6160):803–805.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239268 Google Scholar
  49. Lesinski G, Fuszara E, Kowalski M (2000) Foraging areas and relative density of bats (Chiroptera) in differently human transformed landscapes. Mamm Biol 65(3):129–137Google Scholar
  50. Lisón F, Sánchez-Fernández D (2017) Low effectiveness of the Natura 2000 network in preventing land-use change in bat hotspots. Biodivers Conserv 26:1989–2006Google Scholar
  51. Lisón F, Sánchez-Fernández D, Calvo JF (2015) Are species listed in the Annex II of the Habitats Directive better represented in Natura 2000 network than the remaining species? A test using Spanish bats. Biodivers Conserv 24:2459–2473Google Scholar
  52. Lisón F, Altamirano A, Field R, Jones G (2017) Conservation on the blink: deficient technical reports threaten conservation in the Natura 2000 network. Biol Conserv 209:11–16Google Scholar
  53. Lockwood M (2010) Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: a framework, principles and performance outcomes. J Environm Manage 91(3):754–766Google Scholar
  54. Luque S, Saura S, Fortin MJ (2012) Landscape connectivity analysis for conservation: insights from combining new methods with ecological and genetic data. Landsc Ecol 27(2):153–157Google Scholar
  55. Mackie IJ, Racey PA (2007) Habitat use varies with reproductive state in noctule bats (Nyctalus noctula): implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 140(1):70–77Google Scholar
  56. Maiorano L, Falcucci A, Boitani L (2006) Gap analysis of terrestrial vertebrates in Italy: priorities for conservation planning in a human dominated landscape. Biol Conserv 133(4):455–473Google Scholar
  57. Maiorano L, Falcucci A, Garton EO, Boitani L (2007) Contribution of the Natura 2000 network to biodiversity conservation in Italy. Conserv Biol 21(6):1433–1444Google Scholar
  58. Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253Google Scholar
  59. Mazaris AD, PapanikolaouAD Barbet-Massin M, Kallimanis AS, Jiguet F, Schmeller DS, Pantis JD (2013) Evaluating the connectivity of a protected areas’ network under the prism of global change: the efficiency of the European Natura 2000 Network for four birds of prey. PLoS ONE 8(3):e59640Google Scholar
  60. McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2005) The gradient concept of landscape structure. In: Wiens JA, Moss MR (eds) Issues and perspectives in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 112–119Google Scholar
  61. Medina A, Harvey CA, Merlo DS, Vílchez S, Hernández B (2007) Bat diversity and movement in an agricultural landscape in Matiguás, Nicaragua. Biotropica 39(1):120–128Google Scholar
  62. Morris AD, Miller DA, Kalcounis-Rueppell MC (2010) Use of forest edges by bats in a managed pine forest landscape. J Wildl Manage 74(1):26–34Google Scholar
  63. Muscarella R, Galante PJ, Soley-Guardia M, Boria RA, Kass JM, Uriarte M, Anderson RP (2014) ENMeval: an R package for conducting spatially independent evaluations and estimating optimal model complexity for Maxent ecological niche models. Methods Ecol Evol 5(11):1198–1205Google Scholar
  64. Oliveira U, Soares-Filho BS, Paglia AP, Brescovit AD, Carvalho CJ, Silva DP, Stehmann JR (2017) Biodiversity conservation gaps in the Brazilian protected areas. Sci Rep 7(1):9141Google Scholar
  65. Phillips SJ, Dudík M (2008) Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31(2):161–175Google Scholar
  66. Phillips SJ, Dudík M, Schapire RE (2004) A maximum entropy approach to species distribution modeling. In: Proceedings of the twenty-first international conference on Machine learning (p. 83). ACMGoogle Scholar
  67. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model 190(3):231–259Google Scholar
  68. Razgour O, Rebelo H, Puechmaille SJ, Juste J, Ibáñez C, Kiefer A, Burke T, Dawson DA, Jones G (2014) Scale-dependent effects of landscape variables on gene flow and population structure in bats. Divers Distrib 20(10):1173–1185Google Scholar
  69. Rebelo H, Jones G (2010) Ground validation of presence-only modelling with rare species: a case study on barbastelles Barbastella barbastellus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). J Appl Ecol 47:410–420Google Scholar
  70. Riitters KH, Wickham JD, O’Neill R, Jones KB, Smith ER, Coulston JW et al (2002) Fragmentation of continental United States forests. Ecosystems 5:815–822Google Scholar
  71. Rodrigues AS, Andelman SJ, Bakarr MI, Boitani L, Brooks TM, Cowling RM, Yan X (2004) Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428(6983):640–643Google Scholar
  72. Roeleke M et al (2016) Habitat use of bats in relation to wind turbines revealed by GPS tracking. Sci Rep 6:28961.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28961 Google Scholar
  73. Rogers DS, Belk MC, González MW, Coleman BL (2006) Patterns of habitat use by bats along a riparian corridor in northern Utah. Southwest Nat 51(1):52–58Google Scholar
  74. Rosati L, Marignani M, Blasi C (2008) A gap analysis comparing Natura 2000 vs national protected area network with potential natural vegetation. Community Ecol 9(2):147–154Google Scholar
  75. Roscioni F, Russo D, Di Febbraro M, Frate L, Carranza ML, Loy A (2013) Regional-scale modelling of the cumulative impact of wind farms on bats. Biodivers Conserv 22(8):1821–1835Google Scholar
  76. Roscioni F, Rebelo H, Russo D, Carranza ML, Di Febbraro M, Loy A (2014) A modelling approach to infer the effects of wind farms on landscape connectivity for bats. Landsc Ecol 29(5):891–903Google Scholar
  77. Ruczyński I, Kalko EK, Siemers BM (2007) The sensory basis of roost finding in a forest bat Nyctalus noctula. J Exp Biol 210(20):3607–3615Google Scholar
  78. Ruczyński I, Nichols B, Mac Leon CD, Racey PA (2010) Selection of roosting habitats by Nyctalus noctula and Nyctalus leisleri in Białowieża Forest—adaptive response to forest management? Forest Ecol Manage 259:1633–1641Google Scholar
  79. Russo D, Jones G (2002) Identification of twenty-two bat species (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from Italy by analysis of time-expanded recordings of echolocation calls. J Zool 258(01):91–103Google Scholar
  80. Russo D, Jones G (2003) Use of foraging habitats by bats in a Mediterranean area determined by acoustic surveys: conservation implications. Ecography 26(2):197–209Google Scholar
  81. Russo D, Jones G, Migliozzi A (2002) Habitat selection by the Mediterranean horseshoe bat, Rhinolophus euryale (Chiroptera: rhinolophidae) in a rural area of southern Italy and implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 107(1):71–81Google Scholar
  82. Saura S, Pascual-Hortal L (2007) A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landsc Urb Plan 83(2):91–103Google Scholar
  83. Saura S, Torne J (2009) Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environm Model Soft 24(1):135–139Google Scholar
  84. Saura S, Estreguil C, Mouton C, Rodríguez-Freire M (2011) Network analysis to assess landscape connectivity trends: application to European forests (1990–2000). Ecol Indic 11(2):407–416Google Scholar
  85. Saura S, Bodin Ö, Fortin MJ (2014) Stepping stones are crucial for species’ long-distance dispersal and range expansion through habitat networks. J Appl Ecol 51(1):171–182Google Scholar
  86. Sawyer SC, Epps CW, Brashares JS (2011) Placing linkages among fragmented habitats: do least-cost models reflect how animals use landscapes? J Appl Ecol 48(3):668–678Google Scholar
  87. Scott SJ, McLaren G, Jones G, Harris S (2010) The impact of riparian habitat quality on the foraging and activity of pipistrelle bats (Pipistrellus spp.). J Zool 280(4):371–378Google Scholar
  88. Smeraldo S, Di Febbraro M, Ćirović D, Bosso L, Trbojević I, Russo D (2017) Species distribution models as a tool to predict range expansion after reintroduction: a case study on Eurasian beavers (Castor fiber). J Nat Conserv 37:12–20Google Scholar
  89. Sork VL, Smouse PE (2006) Genetic analysis of landscape connectivity in tree populations. Lands Ecol 21(6):821–836Google Scholar
  90. Vandevelde JC, Bouhours A, Julien JF, Couvet D, Kerbiriou C (2014) Activity of European common bats along railway verges. Ecol Engin 64:49–56Google Scholar
  91. Wasserman TN, Cushman SA, Littell, JS, Shirk AJ, Landguth, EL (2012) Multi scale habitat relationships of Martes americana in northern Idaho, U.S.A. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-94. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, p 21Google Scholar
  92. Waters D, Jones G, Furlong M (1999) Foraging ecology of Leisler’s bat (Nyctalus leisleri) at two sites in southern Britain. J Zool 249(02):173–180Google Scholar
  93. Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics bull 1(6):80–83Google Scholar
  94. Zehetmair T, Müller J, Runkel V, Stahlschmidt P, Winter S, Zharov A, Gruppe A (2014) Poor effectiveness of Natura 2000 beech forests in protecting forest-dwelling bats. J Nat Conserv 23:53–60Google Scholar
  95. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Whiteley AR (2012) Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landsc Ecol 27(6):777–797Google Scholar
  96. Zukal J, Rehák Z (2006) Flight activity and habitat preference of bats in a karstic area, as revealed by bat detectors. Folia Zool 55(3):273Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di BiologiaUniversità degli Studi di FirenzeSesto FiorentinoItaly
  2. 2.Museo di Storia NaturaleUniversità degli Studi di FirenzeFlorenceItaly
  3. 3.Envix-Lab, Dipartimento di Bioscienze e TerritorioUniversità degli Studi del MolisePescheItaly
  4. 4.Ecomodel Società CooperativaRomeItaly
  5. 5.Wildlife Research Unit, Laboratorio di Ecologia Applicata, Dipartimento di AgrariaUniversità degli Studi di Napoli Federico IIPorticiItaly
  6. 6.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations