Shedding light on typical species: implications for habitat monitoring

Gianmaria Bonari,Gabriella Buffa,Leonardo Filesi,Luigi Cao Pinna,Marco Pittarello,Marta Gaia Sperandii,Edy Fantinato,Barbara Valle,Matteo Barcella,Chiara Minuzzo,Alicia Teresa Rosario Acosta,Maurizio Cutini,Mariacristina Villani,Leopoldo De Simone,Simonetta Bagella,Silvia Assini,Bruno Foggi,Andrea Bertacchi,Federica Bonini,Marina Allegrezza,Francesca Napoleone,Claudia Angiolini,Paola Fortini,Adriano Stinca,Giacomo Santini,Simona Sarmati,Giovanni Spampinato,Luciano Di Martino,Giulio Tesei,Emanuela Carli,Safiya Praleskouskaya,Mauro Casti,Michele Dalle Fratte,Gabriele Gheza,Silvia Cascone,Giovanni Rivieccio,Carla Micheli,Ginevra Nota,Francesco Pio Tozzi,Michele Lonati,Maria Carmela Caria,Roberto Venanzoni,Lorenzo Lazzaro,Silvia Cannucci,Giuseppe Bazan,Michele Mugnai,Valter Di Cecco,Alessandro Bricca,Daniele Viciani,Daniela Gigante,Marco Malavasi,Roberto Gennaio,Emilio Badalamenti,Giulia Albani Rocchetti,Davide Barberis,Romeo Di Pietro,Marco Caccianiga,Rossano Bolpagni,Francesco Rota,Corrado Marcenò,M Zanzottera ,R Copiz ,Bruno E L Cerabolini ,I Pozzi ,Giampaolo Piga ,K Zanatta ,Anna Rita Frattaroli ,A De Toma ,Mario Calbi ,Carmelo M Musarella ,A Mainetti ,A Selvaggi

doi:10.3897/pls2020581/08

Abstract

Habitat monitoring in Europe is regulated by Article 17 of the Habitats Directive, which suggests the use of typical species to habitat conservation status. Yet, the Directive uses the term “typical” species but does not provide a definition, either for its use in reporting or for its use in impact assessments. To address the issue, an online workshop was organized by the Italian Society for Vegetation Science (SISV) to shed light on the diversity of perspectives regarding the different concepts of typical species, and to discuss the possible implications for habitat monitoring. To this aim, we inquired 73 people with a very different degree of expertise in the field of vegetation science by means of a tailored survey composed of six questions. We analysed the data using Pearson's Chi-squared test to verify that the answers diverged from a random distribution and checked the effect of the degree of experience of the surveyees on the results. We found that most of the surveyees agreed on the use of the phytosociological method for habitat monitoring and of the diagnostic and characteristic species to evaluate the structural and functional conservation status of habitats. With this contribution, we shed light on the meaning of “typical” species in the context of habitat monitoring.

Highlights

In the Anthropocene, many ecosystems are increasingly at risk due to the concurrent action of a set of drivers such as habitat loss, fragmentation, invasive species and pollution, that are altering ecosystem structure and functioning, while threatening their long-term persistence and capability to provide essential ecosystem services (IPBES 2019)
Q1 aimed at a self-evaluation of experience degree, and Q2 asked whether the surveyee had previously used the phytosociological method in habitat monitoring; Q3 investigated the opportunity of using the phytosociological method to perform habitat monitoring
About 71% of the surveyees had already used the phytosociological method to perform habitat monitoring (Fig. 1B)

Summary

Introduction

In the Anthropocene, many ecosystems are increasingly at risk due to the concurrent action of a set of drivers such as habitat loss, fragmentation, invasive species and pollution, that are altering ecosystem structure and functioning, while threatening their long-term persistence and capability to provide essential ecosystem services (IPBES 2019). The Habitats Directive requires the Member States to report, every six years, on the conservation status of natural and semi-natural habitats listed in Annex I (European Commission 1992), to verify the effectiveness of EU policies in terms of biodiversity conservation (Evans and Arvela 2011; DG Environment 2017). According to this Directive (European Commission 1992), largely considered as the cornerstone of Europe's nature conservation, the status of a habitat type is defined based on four criteria: area, range, structure and functions, future prospects.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion