• Energy Research

Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus L.), a territorial galliform species, is known to prefer mature conifer stands with canopy gaps and a vigorous understory of ericaceous species. Capercaillie is a useful umbrella species that has recently shown declining population trends and distribution changes in its southern geographic range. We aim to identify and assess the possible changes in summer capercaillie habitat selection between 2001 and 2011 in the Scanuppia Natura 2000 site (south-eastern Alps). The area is dominated by spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karsten) forests, followed by mixed forests, scrub, and open habitats. In both years, summer presence–absence of capercaillie was verified through the detection of droppings over 10 m radius circular plots located along contour lines (1500–1800 m). A set of environmental and habitat features was also surveyed. While overall population numbers remain unchanged over the surveyed period, results have shown an altitudinal shift in capercaillie distribution. Habitat variables had a stronger effect on the presence of capercaillie in 2001 than in 2011. Land cover and climate change are likely among the drivers of the shift in altitudinal distribution. This confirms the relevance of habitat restoration actions and to monitor changes in factors explaining capercaillie habitat selection.

Abstract A large number of non‐native trees (NNTs) have been introduced globally and widely planted, contributing significantly to the world's economy. Although some of these species present a limited risk of spreading beyond their planting sites, a growing number of NNTs are spreading and becoming invasive leading to diverse negative impacts on biodiversity, ecosystem functions and human well‐being. To help minimize the negative impacts and maximize the economic benefits of NNTs, Brundu et al. developed eight guidelines for the sustainable use of NNTs globally—the Global Guidelines for the Use of NNTs (GG‐NNTs). Here, we used an online survey to assess perceptions of key stakeholders towards NNTs, and explore their knowledge of and compliance with the GG‐NNTs. Our results show that stakeholders are generally aware that NNTs can provide benefits and cause negative impacts, often simultaneously and they consider that their organization complies with existing regulations and voluntary agreements concerning NNTs. However, they are not aware of or do not apply most of the eight recommendations included in the GG‐NNTs. We conclude that effectively managing invasions linked to NNTs requires both more communication efforts using an array of channels for improving stakeholder awareness and implementation of simple measures to reduce NNT impacts (e.g. via GG‐NNTs), and a deeper understanding of the barriers and reluctance of stakeholders to manage NNT invasions. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

The ongoing biodiversity crisis necessitates greater efforts to ensure the adequate conservation of critical habitat types. Even though the identification of protected areas is still required in Europe, conservation efforts are now focusing on management requirements for protected areas and habitat types. Establishing effective management approaches is important for the conservation of the natural and semi-natural habitat types that are identified under the Habitats Directive framework. In this study, we propose a methodology for determining priorities in the conservation management of habitat types based on readily available data. This method relies on four simple criteria to rank habitat types, which includes: conservation condition, biodiversity value, pressure factor, and the cover relevance of habitat types (indicating regional responsibility in terms of area covered). After ranking the habitat types based on the sum of the scores given to all of the criteria, the 25% top-ranking habitat types were prioritized. The pressure factors are analyzed using cluster analysis to better convey information regarding the management needs of groups of habitat types. This prioritization method was tested in habitat types occurring within the Italian Alpine and Continental biogeographical regions. From this analysis, forests, bogs and fens, and dry grasslands were identified as conservation priorities for the Alpine region; meanwhile, a wider variety of habitat types were identified for the Continental region. Important pressure factors were identified (e.g., roads and motorways) for these two biogeographical regions of Italy, which could be used to suggest specific conservation measures. The proposed approach represents a transparent and reliable method for outlining habitat-type priorities based on conservation, biodiversity, pressure, and cover factors, which can be applied to identifying conservation measures that can help achieve biodiversity targets.

AbstractPolicies to mitigate climate change and biodiversity loss often assume that protecting carbon‐rich forests provides co‐benefits in terms of biodiversity, due to the spatial congruence of carbon stocks and biodiversity at biogeographic scales. However, it remains unclear whether this holds at the scales relevant for management, and particularly large knowledge gaps exist for temperate forests and for taxa other than trees. We built a comprehensive dataset of Central European temperate forest structure and multi‐taxonomic diversity (beetles, birds, bryophytes, fungi, lichens, and plants) across 352 plots. We used Boosted Regression Trees (BRTs) to assess the relationship between above‐ground live carbon stocks and (a) taxon‐specific richness, (b) a unified multidiversity index. We used Threshold Indicator Taxa ANalysis to explore individual species’ responses to changing above‐ground carbon stocks and to detect change‐points in species composition along the carbon‐stock gradient. Our results reveal an overall weak and highly variable relationship between richness and carbon stock at the stand scale, both for individual taxonomic groups and for multidiversity. Similarly, the proportion of win‐win and trade‐off species (i.e., species favored or disadvantaged by increasing carbon stock, respectively) varied substantially across taxa. Win‐win species gradually replaced trade‐off species with increasing carbon, without clear thresholds along the above‐ground carbon gradient, suggesting that community‐level surrogates (e.g., richness) might fail to detect critical changes in biodiversity. Collectively, our analyses highlight that leveraging co‐benefits between carbon and biodiversity in temperate forest may require stand‐scale management that prioritizes either biodiversity or carbon in order to maximize co‐benefits at broader scales. Importantly, this contrasts with tropical forests, where climate and biodiversity objectives can be integrated at the stand scale, thus highlighting the need for context‐specificity when managing for multiple objectives. Accounting for critical change‐points of target taxa can help to deal with this specificity, by defining a safe operating space to manipulate carbon while avoiding biodiversity losses.