Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 309–328 | Cite as

Conserving plant diversity in Europe: outcomes, criticisms and perspectives of the Habitats Directive application in Italy

  • G. Fenu
  • G. Bacchetta
  • V. Giacanelli
  • D. Gargano
  • C. Montagnani
  • S. Orsenigo
  • D. Cogoni
  • G. Rossi
  • F. Conti
  • A. Santangelo
  • M. S. Pinna
  • F. Bartolucci
  • G. Domina
  • G. Oriolo
  • C. Blasi
  • P. Genovesi
  • T. Abeli
  • S. Ercole
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Biodiversity protection and reserves

Abstract

Habitat Directive is the core strategy of nature conservation in Europe aiming at halting biodiversity loss. In this study the results of the third Italian assessment regarding the conservation status (CS) of plants listed in the Habitat Directive (Flora of community interest—FCI) was presented. Data was collected from several sources related to plant distribution, population data, habitats and pressures. Following the official European procedure, all parameters were evaluated and combined to give the CS of each taxon in each biogeographical region of presence. A comparison between the recent Italian IUCN and Reporting assessments was performed in order to evaluate the consistency between these two assessments. The official EU checklist comprises 113 Italian plant taxa, 107 of which were examined in this study. Our results showed a critical situation with only 34% of favourable CS, while 50% were unfavourable (40% inadequate plus 10% bad) and 16% unknown, in particular in the Mediterranean bioregion, where the unfavourable assessments reach the 65%. The results of the Report were consistent with those of the IUCN assessment, in which 41.9% of plants were threatened with extinction. This report highlighted some benefits and criticisms at national level, but it may have a wider significance. Although a general advance of knowledge, a great effort is needed to reach the Habitats Directive goals. Despite the limited resources, monitoring activities needs to be improved in order to close information gaps for several plants. A positive outcome was the development of a specific national project funded by the Italian Ministry of Environment, with the ambitious target to set future monitoring activities for FCI and optimize monitoring efforts.

Keywords

Conservation status Italian flora Flora of community interest (FCI) IUCN Red List Endemic plant Science–policy interface 

Abbreviations

CS

Conservation status

HD

Habitats Directive

FCI

Flora of community interest

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the Italian botanists who provided their unpublished data, expert judgments and general support for the third Italian Report of the Habitats Directive. The authors thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments that improved the previous versions of the paper.

References

  1. Aeschimann D, Lauber K, Moser M, Theurillat JP (2004) Flora alpina, (3 voll.). Zanichelli, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  2. Aleffi M, Tacchi R, Cortini Pedrotti C (2008) Check-list of the hornworts, liverworts and mosses of Italy. Bocconea 22:5–254Google Scholar
  3. Bacchetta G, Fenu G, Mattana E (2012) A checklist of the exclusive vascular flora of Sardinia with priority rankings for conservation. An Jard Bot Madr 69:81–89. doi: 10.3989/ajbm.2289 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balmford A, Bennun L, ten Brink B et al (2005) The convention on biological diversity’s 2010 target. Science 307:212–213. doi: 10.1126/science.1106281 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellard C, Cassey P, Blackburn TM (2016) Alien species as a driver of recent extinctions. Biol Lett 12(2):20150623. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0623 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Beresford AE, Buchanan GM, Sanderson FJ, Jefferson R, Donald PF (2016) The contributions of the EU nature directives to the CBD and other multilateral environmental agreements. Conserv Lett. doi: 10.1111/conl.12259 Google Scholar
  7. Bilz M, Kell SP, Maxted N, Lansdown RV (2011) European red list of vascular plants. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  8. Bock M, Rossner G, Wissen M, Remm K, Langanke T, Lang S, Klug H, Blaschke T, Vrscaj B (2005) Spatial indicators for nature conservation from European to local scale. Ecol Indic 5:322–338. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.03.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B et al (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164–1168. doi: 10.1126/science.1187512 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Barnosky AD, García A, Pringle RM, Palmer TM (2015) Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci Adv 1:e1400253. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1400253 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Collen B, Dulvy NK, Gaston KJ et al (2016) Clarifying misconceptions of extinction risk assessment with the IUCN Red List. Biol Lett 12:20150843. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0843 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Conti F, Abbate G, Alessandrini A, Blasi C (2005) An annotated checklist of the Italian vascular flora. Palombi Editori, RomeGoogle Scholar
  13. Conti F, Conti F, Alessandrini A et al (2007) Integrazioni alla checklist della flora vascolare italiana. Nat Vicentina 10:5–74Google Scholar
  14. Downey PO, Richardson DM (2016) Alien plant invasions and native plant extinctions: a six-threshold framework. AoB plants 8:plw047. doi: 10.1093/aobpla/plw047 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. EEA, European Environment Agency (2015) State of nature in the EU: results from reporting under the nature directives 2007–2012. EEA Technical Report No 2/2015Google Scholar
  16. Epstein Y, López-Bao JV, Chapron G (2015) A legal-ecological understanding of favorable conservation status for species in Europe. Conserv Lett 9:81–88. doi: 10.1111/conl.12200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ercole S, Giacanelli V (2014) Flora. In: Genovesi P, Angelini P, Bianchi E, Dupré E, Ercole S, Giacanelli V, Ronchi F, Stoch F. (eds) Specie e habitat di interesse comunitario in Italia: distribuzione, stato di conservazione e trend. ISPRA, Serie Rapporti 194/2014.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, 1992L0043. The Council of the European Communities, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  19. European Commission (2004) Report from the Commission on the implementation of the Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. COM/2003/0845. Brussels. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52003DC0845. Accessed 25 Mar 2016
  20. European Commission (2009) Composite Report on the Conservation Status of Habitat Types and Species as required under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. COM/2009/0358 final. Brussels. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52009DC0358. Accessed 25 Mar 2016
  21. European Commission (2015) Natura 2000 Barometer European Commission, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm. Accessed 08 Mar 2016
  22. Evans D, Arvela M (2011) Assessment and reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. Explanatory Notes & Guidelines for the period 2007–2012. European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity. https://circabc.europa.eu/faces/jsp/extension/wai/navigation/container.jsp. Accessed 25 Mar 2016
  23. Falcucci A, Maiorano L, Boitani L (2007) Changes in land-use/landcover patterns in Italy and their implications for biodiversity conservation. Landsc Ecol 22:617–631. doi: 10.1007/s10980-006-9056-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fenu G, Mattana E, Bacchetta G (2011) Distribution, status and conservation of a critically endangered, extremely narrow endemic: Lamyropsis microcephala (Asteraceae) in Sardinia. Oryx 42:180–186. doi: 10.1017/S0030605310001122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fenu G, Fois M, Cañadas EM, Bacchetta G (2014) Using endemic-plant distribution, geology and geomorphology in biogeography: the case of Sardinia (Mediterranean Basin). Syst Biodivers 12:181–193. doi: 10.1080/14772000.2014.894592 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fenu G, Cogoni D, Sulis E, Bacchetta G (2015a) Ecological response to human trampling and conservation status of Helianthemum caput-felis (Cistaceae) at the eastern periphery of its range. Acta Bot Gall 162:191–201. doi: 10.1080/12538078.2015.1060898 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fenu G, Fois M, Cogon D, Porceddu M et al (2015b) The Aichi Biodiversity Target 12 at regional level: an achievable goal? Biodiversity 16:120–135. doi: 10.1080/14888386.2015.1062423 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Flather CH, Hayward GD, Beissinger SR, Stephens PA (2011) Minimum viable populations: is there a ‘magic number’ for conservation practitioners? Trends Ecol Evol 26:307–316. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.03.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Gauthier P, Debussche M, Thompson JD (2010) Regional priority setting for rare species based on a method combining three criteria. Biol Conserv 143:1501–1509. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.03.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Genovesi P, Angelini P, Bianchi E, Dupré E, Ercole S, Giacanelli V, Ronchi F, Stoch F (2014) Specie e habitat di interesse comunitario in Italia: distribuzione, stato di conservazione e trend. ISPRA, Serie Rapporti 194/2014Google Scholar
  31. Gentili R, Abeli T, Rossi G, Li M, Varotto C, Sgorbati S (2010) Population structure and genetic diversity of the threatened quillwort Isoëtes malinverniana and implication for conservation. Aquat Bot 93:147–152. doi: 10.1016/j.aquabot.2010.05.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gómez JM, González-Megías A, Lorite J, Abdelaziz M, Perfectti F (2015) The silent extinction: climate change and the potential hybridization-mediated extinction of endemic high-mountain plants. Biodivers Conserv 24:1843–1857. doi: 10.1007/s10531-015-0909-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heywood VH, Iriondo JM (2003) Plant conservation: old problems, new perspectives. Biol Conserv 113:321–335. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00121-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. IUCN (2001) IUCN Red List categories v. 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission Reintroduction Specialist Group, IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  35. IUCN (2003) IUCN red list of threatened species. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  36. Kumschick S, Gaertner M, Vilà M et al (2015) Ecological impacts of alien species: quantification, scope, caveats, and recommendations. Bioscience 65:55–63. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biu193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical Ecology, 2nd edn. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  38. Mac Sharry B (2012) User Manual for Range Tool for Article 12 (Birds Directive) & Article 17 (Habitats Directive). Version 1.2. European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity (ETC/BD)Google Scholar
  39. Maiorano L, Falcucci A, Garton EO, Boitani L (2007) Contribution of the Natura 2000 network to biodiversity conservation in Italy. Conserv Biol 21:1433–1444. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00831.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Mendoza-Fernández AJ, Mota JF (2016) Red Lists versus nature protection Acts: new analytical and numerical method to test threat trends. Biodivers Conserv 25:239–260. doi: 10.1007/s10531-015-1040-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. MATTM, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare (2008) Attuazione della Direttiva Habitat e stato di conservazione di habitat e specie in Italia. 2° Rapporto Nazionale. Palombi EditoriGoogle Scholar
  42. Moreno Saiz JC (2008) Lista roja 2008 de la flora vascular Española. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino, MadridGoogle Scholar
  43. Moser D, Ellmauer T, Evans D, Zulka KP, Adam M, Dullinger S, Essl F (2016) Weak agreement between the species conservation status assessments of the European habitats directive and red lists. Biol Conserv 198:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Novacek MJ, Cleland EE (2001) The current biodiversity extinction event: scenarios for mitigation and recovery. Proc Natl Acad Sci 98:5466–5470. doi: 10.1073/pnas.091093698 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Peruzzi L, Conti F, Bartolucci F (2014) An inventory of vascular plants endemic to Italy. Phytotaxa 168:1–75. doi: 10.11646/phytotaxa.168.1.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Peruzzi L, Domina G, Bartolucci F et al (2015) An inventory of the names of vascular plants endemic to Italy, their loci classici and types. Phytotaxa 196:1–217. doi: 10.11646/phytotaxa.196.1.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pimm SL, Russel GJ, Gittleman JL, Brooks TM (1995) The future of Biodiversity. Science 269:347–350. doi: 10.1126/science.269.5222.347 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Pullin AS, Baldi A, Can OE, Dieterich M, Kati V, Livoreil B, Lovei G, Mihók B, Nevin O, Selva N, Sousa-Pinto I (2009) Conservation focus on Europe: major conservation policy issues that need to be informed by conservation science. Conserv Biol 23:818–824. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01283.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Ravera S, Isocrono D, Nascimbene J, Giordani P, Benesperi R, Tretiach M, Montagnani C (2016) Assessment of the conservation status of the mat-forming lichens Cladonia subgenus Cladina in Italy. Plant Biosyst 150(5):1010–1022. doi: 10.1080/11263504.2014.1000422 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rodrigues ASL, Pilgrim JD, Lamoreux JL, Hoffmann M, Brooks TM (2006) The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 21:71–76. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Ros M, Mazimpaka V, Abou-Salama U et al (2013) Mosses of the Mediterranean, an annotated checklist. Cryptogam Bryol 34:99–283. doi: 10.782/cryb.v34.iss2.2013.99 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rossi G, Montagnani C, Abeli T et al (2014) Are red lists really useful for plant conservation? The new red list of the Italian flora in the perspective of national conservation policies. Plant Biosyst 148:187–190. doi: 10.1080/11263504.2013.868375 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rossi G, Orsenigo S, Montagnani C et al (2016) Is legal protection sufficient to ensure plant conservation? The Italian red list of policy species as a case study. Oryx 50(3):431–436. doi: 10.1017/S003060531500006X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scoppola A, Spampinato G. (2005) Atlante delle specie a rischio di estinzione. Versione 1.0. CD-Rom In: Scoppola A, Blasi C (eds) Stato delle conoscenze sulla flora vascolare d’Italia. Palombi Editori. RomaGoogle Scholar
  55. Sipkova Z, Balzer S, Evans D, Ssymank A (2011) Assessing the conservation status of European Union habitats–results of the Community Report with a case study of the German National Report. Ann Bot 1:19–37Google Scholar
  56. Thuiller W (2007) Biodiversity: climate change and the ecologist. Nature 448(7153):550–552. doi: 10.1038/448550a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Velázquez J, Tejera R, Hernando A, Núñez MV (2010) Environmental diagnosis: integrating biodiversity conservation in management of Natura 2000 forest spaces. J Nat Conserv 18:309–317. doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2010.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Fenu
    • 1
  • G. Bacchetta
    • 2
  • V. Giacanelli
    • 3
  • D. Gargano
    • 4
  • C. Montagnani
    • 5
  • S. Orsenigo
    • 6
  • D. Cogoni
    • 2
  • G. Rossi
    • 7
  • F. Conti
    • 8
  • A. Santangelo
    • 9
  • M. S. Pinna
    • 2
  • F. Bartolucci
    • 8
  • G. Domina
    • 10
  • G. Oriolo
    • 11
  • C. Blasi
    • 1
  • P. Genovesi
    • 12
  • T. Abeli
    • 7
  • S. Ercole
    • 3
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Biologia Ambientale‘Sapienza’ Università di RomaRomeItaly
  2. 2.Centro Conservazione Biodiversità (CCB), Dipartimento di Scienze della Vita e dell’AmbienteUniversità degli Studi di CagliariCagliariItaly
  3. 3.Dipartimento Difesa della NaturaIstituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca AmbientaleRomeItaly
  4. 4.Dipartimento di Biologia, Ecologia e Scienze della TerraUniversità della CalabriaArcavacataItaly
  5. 5.Department of Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of Milano BicoccaMilanItaly
  6. 6.Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali - Produzione, Territorio, AgroenergiaUniversità degli Studi di MilanoMilanItaly
  7. 7.Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra e dell’AmbienteUniversità degli Studi di PaviaPaviaItaly
  8. 8.Scuola di Bioscienze e Medicina VeterinariaUniversità di Camerino - Centro Ricerche Floristiche dell’AppenninoBariscianoItaly
  9. 9.Dipartimento di BiologiaUniversità degli Studi di NapoliNaplesItaly
  10. 10.Dipartimento di Scienze agrarie e forestaliUniversità degli Studi di PalermoPalermoItaly
  11. 11.TriesteItaly
  12. 12.Servizio Consulenza FaunisticaIstituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca AmbientaleRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations