This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

No abstract

The breeding biology of the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus, a vulnerable bird species in the Palaearctic, has been studied for 7 years at Lake Mikri Prespa, a continental wetland and Tsoukalio lagoon, a coastal wetland within the Amvrakikos Gulf. The two colonies showed stability, with fluctuations in the number of breeding attempts each year varying by about 30% over a period of 7 years. The date of arrival at the breeding sites and the date of laying of the first egg varied between mid‐February and mid‐March. The egglaying period (including renesting) varied between 18 and 114 days between years. The annual average clutch size varied between 1.60 and 1.94 eggs per nest. The incubation period averaged 31.4 ± 1.4 days. The overall hatching success varied from 36% to 70%. Egg losses were mainly due to nest abandonment, infertile eggs and eggs rolled from the nests. The Dalmatian Pelican chicks took 11–12 weeks to fledge. Nestling mortality was very low in contrast to other species of pelican. Such a low nestling mortality explains why the breeding success each year is largely explained by the hatching success.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The Dalmatian pelican (DP) Pelecanus crispu s and the great white pelican (GWP) Pelecanus onocrotalus are listed as 'Vulnerable' and 'Least Concern', respectively, in the IUCN Red List. We present an updated estimation of the Black Sea / Mediterranean flyway population status of both species, based on data provided by experts working in all 7 countries of the region where pelicans breed and/or overwinter, who came together at the 1st Workshop on Pelican Research and Conservation in Prespa, Greece. The DP breeding population in the Black Sea and Mediterranean countries increased from 1730−2105 pairs in the years 2000−2010 to 2154−2437 pairs in 2011−2012. Approximately 40% of the Palaearctic breeding population of GWP occurred in Southeast Europe and Turkey. In 2011−2012 the GWP population in this region was estimated to be 4702−5175 pairs, and has remained more or less stable during the last decade. Although all the breeding sites for both species are in protected areas, disturbance at nesting places was considered to be the main threat. Direct persecution and electric power lines still cause occasional problems. In deltaic lagoons, erosion and inundation of nesting sites cause breeding failures in DPs, while in inland wetlands large water level fluctuations are a widespread problem. Decrease of fish stocks is a threat, especially in coastal areas. Many stop-over wetlands along GWP migration routes between Southeast Europe and Africa have been seriously degraded or have disappeared, resulting in serious implications for their populations. Conservation needs are listed, but further research is recommended for both species.

This paper contributes to the discussion regarding the effective conservation of the European natural heritage. First it is argued that there are intrinsic difficulties in defining the terms 'conservation ', 'natural heritage' and 'cultural heritage', particularly in cultural landscapes. In the second part, keeping to the common, intuitive understanding, a simple schematic diagram is used to demonstrate that it is impossible to define the natural heritage in Europe decoupled from a simultaneous reference to the cultural heritage that co-created it. Next, the tools that the EU presently uses to conserve its natural heritage are discussed. It is emphasised that mere lists of species and habitats must not be misperceived as comprising the whole natural heritage of Europe, the conservation of which cannot be achieved solely within protected areas. A critical gap is pinpointed; despite its primary role, the intangible cultural heritage of the practices of farming and forestry that have forged the European natural heritage for centuries is not systematically recorded, recognised or conserved. The Mediterranean is simply treated as the most diverse area of Europe both in terms of natural and cultural heritage. Finally, it is suggested that the effective way to support conservation of the European natural heritage is to channel through the agriculture sector, a large part of the subsidies to support such practices in farming and forestry, or their closest modern applications.